Forget any people shots without MR

Aside from my 'Robbie Williams' kite surfing photo (posted yesterday in Critique), this morning I had this rejected for lack of model release.


 


I am forming the opinion that it is now impossible to upload any image of a person that doesn't have an MR irrespective of whether they could be recognised or not.

If the forum search worked I could give you a link to where this exact topic was discussed after the notice came out in the Contact that IS would no longer allow images (front, back or otherwise) of people without MR's. Particularly images where the person could ID themselves based on surroundings and/or clothing.

... and where the person is the primary subject of the photo, and not just an element of the surroundings.

Also, you may want to straighten the horizon in that image and work on your highlights and shadows.

AzureLaRoux - I thought that was for people on the beach where they might object to not being fully clothed.


Sjlocke - thanks for the advice.

I think the inconsistent policy implementation is pretty ridiculous. iStock seem happy enough to have tons of photos of BMWs etc on the site & raking in cash when they shouldn't be here but won't allow shots such as this. I'm sure that the cleaner's lawyers would be far less litigious.

/
/kelvinjay - I am more or less resigned to not uploading any more photos with people in (apart from where I have a MR) but I agree this policy does seem inconsistent as I have had some pics not too dissimilar to the above accepted earlier this week!


For example:


 


and


 

(Edited on 2007-05-18 05:38:14 by tirc83)

 

 

That image was rejected for lighting underexposed with a resubmit.

subman - I had two very similar shots up and may be getting confused. One was rejected for lighting and the other for MR - unless I'm hallucinating. Sods law that I've deleted my emails

tirc83, you can see why any image was rejected by going to "My Uploads" and showing the rejected files. Click on any image to see why it was rejected.

Go to your uploads page and view the rejected images to see the rejection reasons for each image.

So, does that mean this thread is a waste of time?

sylvan - it may be but it's worth discussing the new policy and how subjective it can be.


What specifically happened was I got the image rejected for lighting but resubmitted a shot taken seconds afterwards - that was then rejected for MR. Only one pic (not the two) show up in my rejection history.


Apologies if it was a waste of people's time.

A request for a model release is not a rejection. It's just the inspector telling you that some more documentation is required for this image. Upload that supporting documentation and the inspection can continue. If you don't have or cannot get that documentation, you can upload a blank jpeg as a model release. That'll put the image status back to "pending", at which point you should be able to cancel as usual.

Sure, we were just doing that a week ago.

The point of recognizability has always been subjective.

I'm psychic. I can see the future:


THIS THREAD IS LOCKED

I'm just happy to see that some images (those two of yours shown above) were accepted without an MR. So, I guess that means there's still hope of getting some through.

Sieve! Sieve! Sieve! Go Sens...

I'm not sure since it seemed to me that 'policy' was being community-formed by semi-mass-thread-hysteria perhaps caused by a little delay in specifics instead of iStock's own clear forthcoming statement, but it appears to me 1) There's way too many assumptions being made on what the 'new rules' are that are FAR from what was explained and 2) All people shots with unrecognizable faces are now being defined by the said-hysteria/self-policy makers as 'grab shots' when that wasn't what was told us.

In the earlier thread Rob linked to above JJRD chimed in with some specifics and even a pictorial example of photographers in the act of taking the aforementioned banned grab shots which were guys on a cliff perched high above a nude beach in San Diego County (Black's Beach near Torrey Pines golf course in case your curious).

Words that stood out to me in his statement were "going TOO (emphasis mine) far"; "extreme examples"; "again, ''bathing suits'' are a very good example." He further noted that there's "no need to worry about how far this will take us and how much it will change the way we work." The relevant portions are below.

I think we need to relax, it's not as BAD as the threads that started to self-policy itself instead of waiting for the legal gobbledegoop to be processed in Calgary (if that was/is ever needed). If I'm wrong in thinking this way I'd like to know but not as defined from our pooled ignorance (no offense directed to anyone honest!) but from official iStock policy changes that may be forthcoming.

Posted By JJRD: (from original thread with link above from Rob)

"The newsletter tip was offered as an invitation to respect, regarding ''going too far'' and uploading images including people without model releases being the central element of a composition.


The beach example is, I do think, the one that is the most understandable. We are not talking about fifty people on a beach here... we are talking about two girls enjoying a martini, in bathing suits... being shot with a 200mm lens without their consent and then included in a royalty-free stock collection.


I realize that ''a need for a policy'' is a legitimate claim... but I am asking you to understand that, like visual arts, the law works in mysterious ways and inspecting an image (as a contributor or as an inspector) is a case by case adventure.


I sincerely believe that there is no need to worry about how far this will take us and how much it will change the way we work... soon, we will simply be taking a step towards respecting the privacy of certain people in certain contexts.


We are talking about extreme examples here... and again, ''bathing suits'' are a very good example. "

Funny, I uploaded an image recently with my daughter in it - about 10 pixels high, in the far distance. I ULd a model release
for her just to be certain.

(Edited on 2007-05-18 12:19:31 by nojustice)

Very good info Ethan!  I never knew about uploading a blank
piece of paper to put the image back to pending so you can cancel
it.   

This is the second bit of very useful info I've read from you today - Thanks!

You don't have to upload a piece of paper. Any size empty jpeg works.