Search the Community

Hi I’ve been wrestling with this editorial/commercial question for some time and wonder if anyone here can clarify. I’m aware this may show some fundamental mis-understandings of editorial/commercial licensing on my part – but I’ve asked around and done my googling, and still don’t feel I know the answer… Say, for example, a commercial company is producing a brochure that is being distributed for free / is for educational or public information purposes only. Could they use ‘editorial only’ images within that particular brochure, or – even though the brochure itself is not commercial (in fact is being produced at cost to the company), as the company is commercial by nature – would they still need a commercial license for images, and couldn’t use editorial licensing/ ‘editorial only’ images? Or is it that, even though the brochure is being distributed free, it could still be argued, is still in some ways promotion for a commercial company… so images shouldn’t be ‘editorial only’ and a commercial license would be needed? Or… (bear with me!) have I understood it completely wrong… and it’s nothing to do with whether the company using the image is itself a profit-making company, but is solely down to the particular context of how an image is being used? EG, an article within their brochure about ‘benches’ could feature an ‘editorial only’ generic picture of a random bench – but if the article was about a particular bench – and required a picture of that one particular, exact bench – then the image no longer becomes editorial, and a commercial license would have to be bought? Thanks in advance! And over to you…

Does anyone else find that a lot of their images sold for "Personal use, Personal prints, cards and gifts, or reference for artists" are purchased and then refunded a few weeks later ? I find it hard to believe that these very high resolution photos are regularly downloaded for small amounts of money, refunded and then never used. What are other member's experiences ?

Probably a daft question, but can 2 images created from the same RAW file origin but given different post processing be licenced differently, i.e. one RM and one RF? I've "redone" some of my images, some which have already been sold, so I don't want to delete the old versions off Alamy, but I may want to post the new versions as a different licence type. I know it is technically possible to select a different licence, but is it ethical?