VECTOR: portrait rejected

Posted By pixelfit:
And maybe it looks too much to Angelina Jolie, from my point of view, it's she!

Posted By puchan:
I drew a portrait of a woman helping the various photos from the Internet. Has been rejected. It is clear that I have no ownership rights to the help in drawing images and models. Some idea to accept the file?

 

Posted By lucato: 
As tombie said, you must own the copyright on the source (reference) images as well. You cannot take any photo from Internet or even part of it and draw over it and make it as your art and copyright, just because you drew it. 
Read the illustrator Manual. Check this section:

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/illustration/quality-standards-derivative-artworks-and-autotraces

Posted By sjlocke:






I don't see any vectors at all in your portfolio, so I'd imagine they might think you just used a computer program to vectorize an image.

Posted By sjlocke:
My point being, if you are so very good at creating photorealistic vectors, you would have some already in your portfolio, creating a history of doing it successfully, from memory or your own photos. Without said history, and possibly the inspector checked, it could be that you just grabbed an image off the internet (also, I see no similar portraits in your portfolio) and vectorized it.

How many hours you put into it has nothing to do with my point.

Anyways, for something so photoreal, you need to use your own source. For a cartoon tiger, not so much.

Posted By kelvinjay:
I looked at it and just thought, that's Angelina Jolie. Maybe next time you can keep your reference drawings or photos or maybe not try to upload a shot of one of the most famous actresses in the world.

Posted By donald_gruener:
The problem is, regardless of what you do to it, the Inspectors are REQUIRED to see source material for this sort of illustration, and the source material MUST be yours, but you cannot meet either of those standards.

Added to that is the fact that any realistic likeness will require a model release, even if it's an illustration. The Inspector has no way to know for sure that a photorealistic illustration is purely fiction (which, in any case, is not even true for yours).

Here's just one possible scenario to help you understand why we must be extremely careful: Imagine if the original illustration had been accepted as-is, looking, for all intents and purposes, like Angelina Jolie. Now imagine, say, Coca-Cola licenses the image to use in a worldwide advertising campaign, which our royalty-free license permits. But imagine Ms. Jolie has an exclusive endorsement contract with Pepsi. Pepsi sees the ads and sues Ms. Jolie for breaching her exclusive endorsement deal. Ms. Jolie then sues Coca-Cola, who technically did nothing wrong. Coca-Cola sues iStock, and you, for licensing an image you had no right to provide... Possibly far-fetched, but entirely possible. And certainly very plausible on a smaller scale, even if it's the likeness of some random person and not a movie star.

Posted By TheRealDarla:
There's a flaw in the eyebrow in that crop you posted.