Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

PHOTO : Head Injury

Displaying 1 to 9 of 9 matches.
DarrenMower
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 4:32PM
This image was rejected with the following confusing addition.


Upon initial inspection, we have determined that your file Head Injury requires a model or property release for it to be considered for inclusion in the iStockphoto library.  The following note was supplied by an administrator.


++ please upload two releases for this file


 


What possible two releases are there?  I uploaded a model release for the boy in the picture (my son).  Thanks for any thoughts on the rejection.

(Edited on 2012-10-02 16:33:45 by DarrenMower)
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveForum Moderator
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 5:44PM
First of all...ouch. I'm not sure what I'm looking at there, but it doesn't look like fun for the patient.

OK. Clearly, this image does not require two model releases. The Inspector undoubtedly intended to request 2 releases for a different image in their batch but snagged yours by mistake.

Unfortunately it's impossible to reverse a release request; the act of requesting the release flushes the first one from the file's record, so you'll have to use the link in the email to upload the release again. But that will pop your image back to the front of the queue and it should get inspected fairly quickly.

Apologies for the error.
DarrenMower
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 6:33PM
Thanks Donald, Re-uploaded the release.
erniedecker
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 7:39PM
I have a question related to this image. If Darren had never sent in a release in the first place, would it have needed one? It looks to me like it would be no dofferent than showing someones hand doing something, it's just a body part is it not?  Or is there something I don't understand? Thanks.
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveForum Moderator
Posted Wed Oct 3, 2012 12:33PM
It being a genuine medical context and a minor, we'd usually look for a release on this sort of thing.
RussellJWatkinsCLOSED
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Oct 4, 2012 2:12AM
Out of interest, in an image such as this, would the MR also have to specifically stipulate that the model (or in this case, the responsible adult) is willing for their medical confidentiality to be breached?
jentakespictures
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Oct 4, 2012 8:06AM
Posted By Russell J Watkins:
Out of interest, in an image such as this, would the MR also have to specifically stipulate that the model (or in this case, the responsible adult) is willing for their medical confidentiality to be breached?

I assume that would be covered by the shoot description field on the MR.
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveForum Moderator
Posted Thu Oct 4, 2012 12:10PM
Jen is right. This is why we require a shoot description which specifically and accurately describes the content of the image(s). We have to see that the model acknowledges what images they are releasing.
RussellJWatkinsCLOSED
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Oct 4, 2012 1:53PM
Thanks for the responses.

(Edited on 2012-10-04 13:54:05 by Russell J Watkins)
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 9 of 9 matches.
Not a member?Join