Image licensed as editorial but has advertising embedded in and around the photo

[Craig Eisenberg]

I recently noticed an image of mine DH83W1 licensed for 3 months as editorial in 2017 for $28.48 is still being shown online. It also has advertisements embedded around and on the image!!!  This does not qualify as editorial if ads are on the actual photo. There are ads for United Airlines, New York Life and Kaiser Permanente that show up on the image when viewed from a mobile phone or other devices. Clicking on the photo plays a video advertisement or takes you to another page. Doesn't this qualify as advertising use?

 

The image of the uncooked wagyu beef rib roast is about half way down the page.

Here is the link: https://www.countrylife.co.uk/food-drink/british-beef-deserves-just-much-acclaim-kobe-beef-149880

 

Regarding editorial and advertising: https://www.stockphotosecrets.com/questions-answers/licensing/what-are-editorial-images-licences.html

An editorial image can only be used in ways where this is no personal benefit or commercial gain.

An editorial licensed image can not be used for the following:

1. Any commercial purposes including advertising or promotions
2. To receive any fees from a third party sponsor or endorsement

[spacecadet]

I'd call that editorial. It's not being used to advertise a product.

AFAIK all editorial uses have archival use included in the licence. Usually it says 5 years or some such. 3 months is just the life of the edition.

Someone else's opinion about what editorial is doesn't tell you anything about Alamy's actual contractual terms.

[Joseph Clemson]

When I view the web page on my monitor (1920 x 1080) the image displays simply as an inline illustrative image related to the text - it is not clickable. The clickable advertisement is further down, after the next paragraph.It may be that the display shows up differently on other devices and the clickable ad is in some way confused with your image. On the face of it though, your image is being used correctly.

 

ETA.  Actually, I tell a lie. While your image isn't clickable and doesn't lead to an advert, it looks like a advertisement frame occupies part or the whole of the same space when the page first loads or when it is refreshed, and your image is hidden wholly or partly behind it. I can see why a casual visitor might think that your editorial image is linked to the advert. I suspect that any attempt to say this was a breach of licence may not get very far, but it would be interesting to hear if Alamy had any comment to make.

[losdemas]

Yeah, I'd think that it's simply a result of  poor design. Viewing the page on my Android phone, the image displays in context as a part of the article. No problem whatsoever. There may be issues on other platforms or devices at varying resolutions, but I wouldn't regard this as deliberate, certainly not something to be concerned about.