I've had some stupid reviews from iStock before, including several that told me off for using an on-camera flash, when the shots were actually taken with studio lights.  But this one's extra special.  I will quote it in full:

We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled Brunette ( http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/11540140/2/istockphoto_11540140-brunette.jpg) for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons:

++Letter on finger++
This file contains legible information such as names, signatures, license plates, phone numbers, identification numbers, etc. Due to concerns relating to privacy and related property rights, we cannot accept this file unless this information is removed, or a property release is obtained.

A property release.  For a tattoo on the model's finger.  What in the world am I to make of that?

I've sent a query to Scout, which will take a month or two and probably leave me just as confused.  It's times like this that I'm glad of my independence.

As noted above, artwork and identifying numbers/letters have to go. Don't get a property release,just clone it out and resubmit (if you want it accepted without the tattoo).

The property release, if you want to go that route, will have to come from the coyrightholder of the artwork, not the person on whose finger it is tattooed.

well, for this time, i am totally with IS on this call.
i shoot glamour and model ports as a regular sideline, and whenever i find a good model to use for my stock photography, i always turn away those with piercings and tattoos. not because i am against defacing your own body. but as the others already pointed out, you need an IP release.
sounds absurd? well, if you need to erase off a car brand or logo of a building , whether it be uncle chow chow or bank of america, or anything identifiable,
why not tattoo? even if it's on a little pinkie?

you don't think it's significant. but if i am the creator of this tattoo, it would be as large as the whole building to me, to bring IS or any site that accepts my work.

would you not sue someone if they even put a thumbnail of your photograph without your permission and put their name as photographer?
size is irrelevant, it's still a property.

As the tattoo is secondary and not the primary subject I would say that no property release is required, if the image was of the tattoo then the artist would have a case and a property release would be required.

The artist may be able to identify the work because of the model, but is there enough of the tattoo in shot and is it that unique that the artist would be know by the style of work.

David

Except... with the huge image backlog I have at iStock, it's not worth trying to resubmit.  By the way, the tattoo in this case is tiny, taking up the ring position on the model's ring finger.  Here's the 100% view of the offending area.

Quote from: disorderly on January 07, 2010, 14:12

Except... with the huge image backlog I have at iStock, it's not worth trying to resubmit.  By the way, the tattoo in this case is tiny, taking up the ring position on the model's ring finger.  Here's the 100% view of the offending area.

i am not a regular with IS, but if i recall, if they say MAY RESUBMIT it takes approval much faster when you CORRECT THE REJECTION REASON. at least it happened to me a couple of times.

I had a resubmit for possible trademark reasons (it wasn't but it was easily removed) accepted today, jumping some of my other in-queue pics by a few days.

Does no one read?  My reason for not resubmitting is to not waste a second upload slot on the same image when I have so many others waiting to upload.  With only twenty upload slots a week, I'd rather move on to another image from another shoot.  It's not about where it would end up in the queue, but about how many I can have there.  And resubmits do take up those precious slots.

People do read. They're probably just as confused as I am about why you'd use one upload slot to begin with, but not a second one to make a quick fix to an already completed image and get it online in less time than a new submission by using the "resubmit" function. Or why you wouldn't resubmit an image that you obviously felt strongly enough about to start a forum thread discussing the rejection.   

Maybe you should re-read the rejection: It was NOT about a tattoo in general, it was about identifiable letters and numbers. As far as I know, tattoos in general are acceptable as long as they are not trademarked items.

My opinion is based on a statement made by one of the admins in this thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=82978

You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you, don't you, don't you?

 

I have been doing some weird stock with weird models and it was fun. But by now I learned my lesson. No tattoos, no nailbiters, no digital dental work required. A "businessman" with even a small tattoo or a hole for an earring won't sell.

How strangely conservative microstock buyers must be.

It's not that they are strangely conservative. Advertising has to be geared to every single person your product might possibly reach. A company can't afford to alienate what is likely the largest group of buyers (mainstream society). I think a better word would be safe or generic.

Quote

How strangely conservative microstock buyers must be.

It's not that they are strangely conservative. Advertising has to be geared to every single person your product might possibly reach. A company can't afford to alienate what is likely the largest group of buyers (mainstream society). I think a better word would be safe or generic.

I agree...the older generation would be pushed away from a tattoo whereas the younger generation would be drawn to it and if the product is suppose to be geared at all generations they need to be some what generic.

I don't know if anyone's interested, but here's the end of the story.  I submitted the rejection to Scout for review, and he (or she) agreed that it was in error; the tattoo in question did not require a property release.  However, and there's always a however, he decided that there were some hot pixels in the image and re-rejected it for that reason.  So I was right about the original issue, at least according to Scout, but the victory doesn't get me anywhere.

look on the bright side,

 you can still reshoot, this time avoiding the tattoo, and making sure you get your exposure spot on so you don't need to post process much, this will give you a cleaner image and one without the about  hot pixels that got you the 2nd rejection.

as always, faster to reshoot then try to rescue an image.