I have just had a photo rejected because it has not got a Model Release.
I can handle rejection OK but I don't understand why this photo would need an MR. Please look at it at this Flickr link ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/andre-bogaert/4662936001/ ) and I would appreciate some explanation.
I suspect it's because it's a recognisable building containing someone else's original artwork. But the Mods will be able to tell you for sure.
I'm not an approver, but I would suggest the artwork is the issue.
I would call the graphics "Graffiti" and there is a lot of that on offer at RGB without any MR's. So I am still unsure why the photo was rejected. No appovers have commented so far.....maybe they don't read this part of the forum.
Thanks anyway for your comments....both of you.....
I had a similar rejection some weeks ago. Because of the (hand-made) artwork it was not a model release, but a "property release" which was required.
Andre, I have no doubt that approvers will be keeping an eye on what happens here.
I feel its not always easy for the approvers to reply to rejected photo queries succinctly & publicly, as, the moment they clarify that 'such&such' can be or can't be accepted there is often a flurry of indignant responses each of us claiming that their 'such&such', whilst fulfilling stated requirements wasn't approved, and that there are many already online that don't conform etc...
I would agree with Dez @3. I think the reason is they feel the designer of the mural (which I would not say was graffiti) owns sole copyright of the work (or whatever the legal jargon is).
However, it would be worth an approver responding, even if privately by e-mail to Andre.
Dan,Michael & Christa thanks for your comments. I'm not "on a mission" here, the rejection is in itself no big deal. I'm just a little confused, some would say no change there.... as to the reasoning. I don't want to repeat the error and block up the approving with other inappropriate photos. I think I'll just let it go now and upload other photos. I think my photos are not so useful as stock compared to other contributors but what the hell, I like putting stuff here at RGB.
I understand your frustration - I have had a fair share of rejections, finding it sometimes difficult to comprehend the reasons given. I also see that it is necessary to actually get the feedback so as not to repeat similar uploads. I just wanted to point out possible problems on the approvers side.
I do think it always best to just move on from a rejection if you can. I try to do this without another thought about it. Use the photo outside rgb - upload it elsewhere etc
I disagree with you about the usefulness of your stock - you have some fabulous images, a fascinating & varied gallery & you are 51st at present in all time downloads. Good stuff.
Nevertheless, I do agree it's good to upload & have a presence here at rgb. Good luck.
I'm sure someone will reply. Sometimes the approvers just come in to approve and flit out on their exciting glamorous lives, and don't read the forums. I agree that it's good to understand what is going on, as it saves you wasting your own time uploading pics that might not be accepted. But I'll bet a dollar that the mural is the problem.
And you have an excellent gallery. Arty and stockworthy.
Nice shot - as always - but unfortunately that wall art is someone's copyrighted work and you need a property release for it. Not sure how it got rejected for no model release but I would imagine the admin who evaluated the image checked the wrong release required box accidentally.
Hope this clears up the mystery. :)
Hi Lynne, OK I now understand where the issue is/was. I will try to remember for future uploads.