site policy says that images of children and conceivably contentious images of adults require release statements, yet practice is otherwise, particularly and repetitively as this applies to images of minors. This needs clarification.
Managing the taking and use of images of children is a big thing for me personally and in my work, hence my persistence. Upload rules ('model relase') say that "RGB stock will accept certain images... involving children, etc, only if you state that you have a model release from the persons or guardians involved. Tick the box on the upload page to indicate this." Yet images are accepted regularly featuring children and the 'tick a box' is never ticked. By email Cris, yes, thanks I received a reply, but it's really not a language / translation issue. The site almost focuses on the issue in upload rules - 'ONLY IF" , as I believe it should, then appears to ditch the 'rule' when it comes to the actual upload and acceptance and use on site bit. You can't cut cloth both ways.
Two months and I seem to be the only one pushing this barrow. I am shocked.
As perhaps I am the one with most images of recognizable people and children, I could explain my view on this subject. On my images you can see my daughter and her friends, my husband, my sister, my friends children... All of them know that their photos will be uploaded on a free stock site, appear on Internet, books, posters... and are very proud when they see themselves there (my daughter laughed heartily when a photo of her appeared in an article about promiscuous teenagers, and even more when the theme was anorexy cause she has a pound or two too much). So, it all depends on one's attitude. Anyone who looks at my images can see that my "models" know that they are being photographed and that I haven't taken the photos against their wish or knowledge.
I personally always have a positive opinion of people in general. I don't presume immediately that someone will misuse my images, and as far as I know, in all this years that has not happened. On Internet, and not only on free stock sites, you can find millions of images of people and children that anyone can download and misuse. On the other hand, I am aware that many designers, bloggers, religious and other different communities need images of people but don't have money to buy them on paystock sites. As the main reason of free stock sites is to offer free images to these people, the ones that do not want to use images without knowing if they are allowed to use them, I will continue to upload images of all kinds.
What kind of life would it be if we would always see and fear the possible negative consequences, and not the nice effects of our actions!
PS1 : sorry for such a long explanation
PS 2: The model release is something that can be forged, so at the end it all goes to the conscience of the photographer. So, if you need images of people, be free to use mine, because nobody will ever sue you :)
Stephen, it's hardly much of a barrow to push, as there are few, if any, images of children open to abuse. Many images here were on another site and loaded straight from there, and look at the number of photos. Would you like the task of trawling through them all to discard a very few? We are all volunteers, and no-one is making a buck out of this.
If the approvers overlook some things, then remember that they are human beings, too, and have lives.
Ultimately, the responsibility for the use of images is upon the ones who download them and use them.
Lastly, while there are things we try to adhere to, life is not a rigid game where you stay within the boundaries or the sky falls. No images of nudity or suggestive content is accepted here, and that includes children, even if the boxes aren't ticked.
Lusi, I have no problem whatsoever with you posting images of your children - of course not! - although I would expect you to simply click the model release box. And I agree that the conscience of the photographer is front and centre.
What concerns me is that rgb policy states very clearly that images of children will not be accepted unless there are model releases and yet arbitrarily doesn't do this. I guess, Lusi, that someone at rgb knows you are up-loading images of your family members. But how does an approver know I am up-loading images of mine? They don't.
Are images of sub-Saharan children, by way of example, taken by tourists, ok to put on the site? Would it be ok if I took images of your children and did just that? Don't we all know that there is a good deal of 1st world power in taking images of others?
Dez, you are very right about the rigidity of rules and I certainly wouldn't expect suggestive images to be on the site - that's a given, surely. But I don't in any way accept that because the site is managed by volunteers who 'don't make a buck' the policy that the site itself puts up is just sort of ignored when images are approved.
Elsewhere you and others express your frustration that your images are stolen by various let's say 'eastern block' sites for use as wallpaper. You are right, I agree with you entirely. For the gains I give to people who use my images for a great range of positive community issues I guess I accept that - reluctantly - but then I don't seek to upload a lot of wallpaper.
Yet when I bring to the attention of rgb my concerns about children's model releases I get treated like a hyper-fixated pain.
A quick look at the commercial site now promoted through rgb and you will find very clear model release management.
So, if it's time or language issues that are the problem here, I volunteer my time to contact every photographer who has loaded images that can be found through a 'child' or 'children' search - and there aren't even that many - to advise them that since they haven't ticked the model release box their images will be removed from the site. And I'll do my best to do that in the up-loaders language. I would then ask that rgb approvers don't accept images of children unless model release boxes are ticked, and that rgb advises uploaders that occasional spot checks of this are undertaken.