Author Topic: Shutterstock's own model release rejected (Read 4371 times)

jamiehooper · « **on:** November 07, 2019, 11:02 »

I just had an entire shoot rejected for "invalid model release".
I've had problems before, (using my own form that has been accepted for years) so now I download and use their own release.

- As stated, I used their own release.
- JPG of the release was correct resolution and sharp.
- All lines were filled out completely.
- All writing was legible.

Yes, I'm pissed, but I want to correct any problem.
Have any of you experienced this? Any suggestions or ideas for what I might have missed? Is there any way I might be able to get feedback from Shutterstock. (HA! Well, I had to ask.)

noodle · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2019, 11:29 »

This should be under “Shutterstock reviewers are idiots” thread

disorderly · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2019, 12:59 »

First thing I'd check is date format. I've had releases rejected for dates in month/day/year order instead of day/month/year as specified on the release.

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2019, 13:26 »

Are model, photographer and witness all signed with the same date. I've been caught on that one before.

m · « **Reply #4 on:** November 07, 2019, 14:40 »

I agree with leaf. Make sure all the dates matchup.

m · « **Reply #5 on:** November 07, 2019, 14:44 »

Quote from: noodle on November 07, 2019, 11:29

This should be under “Shutterstock reviewers are idiots” thread

Maybe reviewers feel the same about some contributors?

Alex M · « **Reply #6 on:** November 07, 2019, 15:52 »

My friends had the same problem a few days ago. They contacted support and received an answer and I quote: "Reviewers now want to be able to read the signature so they know it is the same as the printed name. [...] in some countries it is acceptable for signatures to be mainly initials but reviewers need to see American style signatures which look like the printed name."
I hope this helps.

cascoly · « **Reply #7 on:** November 07, 2019, 19:33 »

Quote from: Alex M on November 07, 2019, 15:52

My friends had the same problem a few days ago. They contacted support and received an answer and I quote: "Reviewers now want to be able to read the signature so they know it is the same as the printed name. [...] in some countries it is acceptable for signatures to be mainly initials but reviewers need to see American style signatures which look like the printed name."
I hope this helps.

another absurdity

my signature has never been legible, and i'm hardly alone - there's no 'American style' that requires it. for voting records, they just have to be able to match your scribble w the one on file

charged · « **Reply #8 on:** November 07, 2019, 20:33 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 07, 2019, 19:33

Quote from: Alex M on November 07, 2019, 15:52
My friends had the same problem a few days ago. They contacted support and received an answer and I quote: "Reviewers now want to be able to read the signature so they know it is the same as the printed name. [...] in some countries it is acceptable for signatures to be mainly initials but reviewers need to see American style signatures which look like the printed name."
I hope this helps.
another absurdity

my signature has never been legible, and i'm hardly alone - there's no 'American style' that requires it. for voting records, they just have to be able to match your scribble w the one on file

It might be due to the fact that inspectors have no way of knowing if it is a signature or an initial. Thus it might just be a case of - when in doubt, reject.

jamiehooper · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2019, 10:35 »

MYSTERY SOLVED!

To their credit, I was able to get an answer from SS. I began with the "contact" at the bottom of the page and picked my area of concern, "releases". Support did not look at the forms, but sent a reply back with possible things to look for and link to their page of release information ("why was it not accepted"). I had fulfilled all those areas but was able to answer that "no, my problem was not solved"
Next I got a response from a longtime SS contributor (designated to that task by SS). Excellent reply, including some things I did not know about (good for future information), but were not present on my form. I then had two choices: again, either the response solved my problem OR still not solved. I naturally selected the NOT SOLVED button which let me know that it would now be looked at by someone with more authority. (BTW, the volunteer contributor did inform me that, since he was not part of SS, he was not allowed to view my form).

And this morning I got my answer!!

They were suspicious that one of the dates on one of the forms had been altered, and so could not be used as a legal document. Everything was signed at the same time, and looking at the form it appeared that the pen had technical problems and so the model had to write over it again because it was skipped/faint the first time.

All the responses above were excellent (and mentioned by support)
I've attached that part of the form so you can all see it and judge for yourself.

jamiehooper · « **Reply #10 on:** November 08, 2019, 16:29 »

And just one more thing...

After reflecting on this, it appears that the Shutterstock rep that suggested I have the model make out a new release was giving me 2 options.
1. Lie on the form and say that they signed the new one a week ago, or
2. Put the real date in and be rejected again because the signed date did not match the witness.

Either way, this is clearly just a workaround, since doing either one would be, in essence, SS simply accepting it the way it is.

I think shooting stock was a lot easier when I began 6 years ago.

Hoodie Ninja · « **Reply #11 on:** November 08, 2019, 17:58 »

Quote from: noodle on November 07, 2019, 11:29

This should be under “Shutterstock reviewers are idiots” thread

lol....I had to laugh a little too hard on that one. Probably because I had a pic refused recently due to focus and also noise. The focus was spot on and the pic was shot at 100 ISO in daylight, so, no noise. All the other sites took the pic no problem. I chalked it up to the reviewer either being a.) stupid or b.) exceptionally stupid