This is ridiculous!

Can you believe that this submission needs a model release!


 


Full size image here http://www.scfc.co.uk/kitesurf.jpg


 

there is a new policy regarding MR, so is not unbelievable.

read carefully the latest contributor newsletter and the posts in the istock forum 

(Edited on 2007-05-17 10:08:03 by abalcazar)

It also needs some contrast work, and a levels tweak. If you submit it to Scout about the release, I'd do that first.

Actually, when viewed at full size, I can make out the face. If it was me, I would recognize myself.

I believe it, apparently his parachute has a unique enough design, that someone could connect the dots and identify the boarder.


ETA:  Oops, I missed the full-size link, of course the boarder is recognizable.  I wouldn't bother Scout with this one.

(Edited on 2007-05-17 10:23:50 by JSABBOTT)

Wwhy do you think you don't need MR for this?

Word. Also, I want to give a shout out to those artifacts. I see ya'll in there. Keepin it real. Distortin' stuff. Yeah.

Maybe if you have more artifacts, you won't need a model release?  

Aaah well - you lose some, you lose some.

tirc83, dont forget istock policy is based on american/canadian privacy laws and knowing that their citizens are known for frivolous privacy cases and lawsuits, they are being extra careful....in the uk, if truth be known, this guy would have been flattered and if he decides to file a case for breach of privacy, it would have cost him more for the solicitors and other costs than what the judge would award him for damages if proven.  in the uk, privacy issues relevant to photographic shots is mostly limited to private residence and walled gardens unless if one is on jury service or being tried in court. even michael douglas and catherine zeta jones cannot get anything more than the cost of proceedings from unauthorised wedding photos.

Was that one shot in JPG? Is what you show going to be what you upload?

 Well, sort of. Catherine Zeta Jones is A) a public figure and B) that's done in an editorial / news context. There's a totally different rule book for stock/commercial photography. If this were shot for a newspaper in a story on beaches, the shot would be fine. But as stock this image could be used to promote, oh anything, and for that you need to get a model's permission. For me it's a moral issue before it's a legal one.


 

no disrespect to metro's opinion, but my argument subsumes the original statement of tirc83 regarding the incredulous need for model release for such image where the face of the supposed model can hardly be identified at 100% view...however, on the issue that in cases where the photo maybe used to promote anything, i take the argument that this type of photo does not really represent a negative portrayal of anybody (ii,e, this photo may be used to promote a place for this type of sports --tourism -- or the sports itself) and therefore any case of moral misprepresentation for the model will not stand in court unless if this sport will be seen to be unethical e.g. it damages the enviroment and that this person, if he can identify himself indeed and another witness can second his personal view,  would like to remain anonymous for that matter, he has the redress to do so in court.  but i doubt  if this moral predicament as bases for a legal case will ever prosper in a british court unless if as a result the said model's identity is maligned and had caused personal property damage, loss of earnings, or provable embarassment to personal relations. but again, a case against an istock stockphoto will have to be tried in a canadian court that might take a different view; where vague moral issues might be acceptable in order to effect compensation claims. HOWEVER, a direct claim on the earnings as a result of this image can also be made but i doubt a 100 downloads plus an extended license will ever cover costs for claims made in court or a tribunal. Given all this discussions, just follow what they want....if u can't get a model release, it's just one of these photos you can't sell but you can certainly keep it in ur personal collection.

Whoa. Thats a lot of detail.

I think it's good manners to let people you shoot have input on how their image is used. The legal issues are complex (see above), but the ethical issue is pretty simple.

 Redmark said:


"On the issue that in cases where the photo maybe used to promote anything, i take the argument that this type of photo does not really represent a negative portrayal of anybody (ii,e, this photo may be used to promote a place for this type of sports --tourism -- or the sports itself) and therefore any case of moral misprepresentation for the model will not stand in court"
[snip]





There's also the question of what a designer might do with this image, not just the actual photo.

(Edited on 2007-05-17 13:39:01 by SoopySue)

I think it is Robbie Williams the singer in the picture!

"Can I have your autograph?" [hands over release form]

(Edited on 2007-05-17 14:00:39 by metrometro)

Hey, it looks like me! 

Does AJ need a release for BP's avatar? :P

No, I'm Spartacus.

No... I'm Spartacus.