Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Hi Gang

 

This was brought up in another thread - but I thought it might warrant its own discussion.....

 

When should the "Sell for Editorial Only" Flag be used?

 

I am correctly labelling whether the image has a model or property release.

 

 

I understand that without a release images are fine for use Editorially.

 

I understand that for "Commercial Use" described as the following:-

"Commercial use of an image covers images that are being used to sell, promote or endorse a product or service, or raise money for a cause. This includes advertising, marketing materials, promotions, publication covers and consumer or merchandising products."

the image would require a release.

 

So that leaves a grey area of Personal Use, and maybe use by a company for internal presentations - where do these sit?

 

Reading some of the blogs doesn't help a great deal!

This one says 

 

"Don’t worry, if you don’t have a release, we can still sell your images for editorial uses. If you’re sure the image can only be used editorially, you can select the ‘sell for editorial only’ button in the optional tab while annotating your images in Alamy Image Manager. "

https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7

 

So - if your not sure, can you leave it unchecked?

 

This Blog for Buyers, explains when releases are required - seems to be clear that its up to the buyer/publisher to check that the correct releases are available

https://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx

 

 

I'm reading it that you would only check "sell for editorial only" if you had a specific reason why that image was only suitable for editorial, and not any other use.

 

How do you use this flag?

 

Cheers

Jools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never checked ‘sell for editorial only’

If I state what releases I have/don’t have it is up to the buyer to decide if our image fits their usage.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use it mainly it for artwork (e.g. street murals), a number editorial images that I've made RF, and for some RM images that I've promised institutions to offer for editorial use only. Otherwise, I follow the same philosophy of Thyrsis above. I agree that personal use is a grey area. However, Alamy decided to offer the PU option, so I assume that they know more about such matters than I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as above. If I have an image of a baby but no release, and I would like to sell as RF, I would mark it editorial only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Almost all my photos are marked "sell for editorial only". I mostly take pictures of artworks and buildings and, also when they do not include people, in many countries you must have a property release to sell pictures of architecture and art. Moreover, it's not always easy to understand what type of release  you exactly need in each country and whether the subject is copyrighted or not; in Italy, for example, it depends on how many years have passed since the death of the artist or architect who created the work you are depicting while in the USA you don't need a release in order to take and sell pictures of a building from a public place; therefore, I deem better to always check the "editorial only" box. Furthermore, I am not interested in selling my pictures for commercial use and/or advertising.

Edited by riccarbi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I rarely, if ever, seek to obtain releases. By default all my pictures are RM for editorial only. That way there is no doubt about how the images are intended to be used and I am covered. On a couple of occasions Alamy have emailed me to say that a buyer has asked whether I will remove/change restrictions. I can decide depending on the intended use. Some may say I am over cautious but that's the way it is and I won't be changing anything. Bear in mind that one cock-up has the potential to be very expensive.

I opted out of PU.

 

Edited by Dave Richards
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used 'for editorial only' a few times, mostly of buildings even though i've marked them has having no release.

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I use it for extra security in a few occasions, e.g.  where the rules talk about 'no commercial photography', then go into all the details about if you want to shoot commercially you need to organise in advance, select a location, then they'll give you an assistant and a time slot, and clearly they mean a big shoot with models, lighting rigs etc., and not someone shooting for editorial stock.  Also when one or two people are dominant in the image.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have covered events that needed media accreditation, where the photos could only be used for editorial purposes.  These photos are the only ones that I list as For Editorial Only.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh.... so, I have been following the model, if it's got (any) people and no release (I only have those for myself), mark it as editorial only...

 

If there is recognisable property - like a city shot of London - mark it as editorial only.

 

Am I going overboard? Am I limiting the appeal of images unnecessarily? I thought I understood all this, but from the way some approach this, I may have been being too conservative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked a similar question and I'm sure you'll find that opinions vary regarding the specific difference between RM (no releases) and RM (editorial only). One helpful fact that I was told is that apparently the Editorial Only check-box is relatively recent and that it is unlikely that contributors with large collections will have gone back and retrospectively tagged their archive accordingly. It would be interesting to know if there had been any recorded instances on this forum of any inappropriate use having been 'expensive' for a photographer through not tagging an image as Editorial only.

 

I suppose looking at it the other way you could ask whether you are doing your sales any damage by marking those images as Editorial only. Maybe it wouldn't make any difference anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, chris_rabe said:

Huh.... so, I have been following the model, if it's got (any) people and no release (I only have those for myself), mark it as editorial only...

 

If there is recognisable property - like a city shot of London - mark it as editorial only.

 

Am I going overboard? Am I limiting the appeal of images unnecessarily? I thought I understood all this, but from the way some approach this, I may have been being too conservative?

 

My vote is that you are being way too conservative :)

 

It is my firm belief that, except for the situation John describes above, where you have made an undertaking to someone that you will not release a certain image for commercial use, the responsibility for how your images is used,  regardless of what country has what restrictions, is NOT yours. Think about it, you have no idea of where your Alamy image may be licensed, for what purpose, and by whom, so how are you even the slightest bit responsible -- AS LONG AS you are scrupulously honest about the image's release status. . . which meants, to me, and again with the exception highlighted by John, there is no need to mark an image as editorial only, AS LONG AS  you have honestly described the image's status as far as releases.

 

And yes, in several cases concerning images of mine (residing exclusively elsewhere), some US$xxxx sales would simply not have occured had the image been marked 'editorial only'. I have a penchant for four-figure US Dollar sales as a result 😊, as rare as they may be.

 

Of course, it goes without saying that YEMV, but I"ve yet to read such reported in this forum over the past decade or so.

 

DD

Edited by dustydingo
grammar stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so will post a couple examples, and get some feedback if nobody minds

 

Would you mark these as ed only?

 

Two mature couples enjoying some shade on  a sunny summer afternoon along the Thames in Twickenham, UK Stock Photo

 

Cyclist moving through Richmond Park during the Beast from the East, UK - Stock Image

 
Farmer ploughing crops in bedforshire, near Flitwick - Stock Image
 
 
couple walking through richmond park near dusk, in West London - Stock Image
Man feeding birds in bushy park - Stock Image
Red arrows doing flyby over Twickenham Stadium for Rugby World Cup - Stock Image
A yacht sailing the bay near perto vallarta,Mexico - Stock Image
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No.

 

The jets reminded me of something relevant at least as far as an example of what other contributors do . . . look up USS Missouri. It's a US military base. See how many non-editorial images come up. Not proof of anything I know, but indicative of an approach a tad less conservative 😊

 

DD

Edited by dustydingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask a supplementary but related question in that case.

 

I can see the logic of needing to use 'Editorial only' very sparingly for RM images and I'm quite relieved if that is true. That means we fall back on the model and property release questions. Model releases are easy, you know whether you've got one or not., always not in my case. I do sometimes struggle with the 'Is there property in the image?' question and am almost certainly guilty of saying 'yes there is' and 'no I haven't' when I needn't do so just to be safe. 

 

So in these examples would the Red Arrows be 'Property''? How about those houses on the other side of the river. The others even I wouldn't tag as having property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, actually I suppose the yacht might be? Could it be classed as recognisable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Harry Harrison said:

Can I ask a supplementary but related question in that case.

 

I can see the logic of needing to use 'Editorial only' very sparingly for RM images and I'm quite relieved if that is true. That means we fall back on the model and property release questions. Model releases are easy, you know whether you've got one or not., always not in my case. I do sometimes struggle with the 'Is there property in the image?' question and am almost certainly guilty of saying 'yes there is' and 'no I haven't' when I needn't do so just to be safe. 

 

So in these examples would the Red Arrows be 'Property''? How about those houses on the other side of the river. The others even I wouldn't tag as having property.

 

Harry, my standard here and elsewhere would make me mark the Red Arrows as YES (property), and the houses too . . . and I'd consider the boat too, but maybe not. I have no hesitation marking YES to property and NO to having a PR. As far as giving the buyer the necessary information, even if you don't say YES to property you have still clearly indicated you do not have  a property release, and I believe the fact you do not have a release is much more important than you (or me) giving our opinion on whether one is needed.

 

DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, dustydingo said:

I believe the fact you do not have a release is much more important than you (or me) giving our opinion on whether one is needed.

 

Thanks you for that advice, and it seems very good advice to me. As I'm retrospectively going though my pictures doing the Yes/No business on the Property questions I do wonder whether it's worth it because as you say the default is No for property releases anyway and I suppose what might class as 'Property' could be different in each country. I was going to say that at least a landscape can't be Property, but maybe the NT have other ideas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just one more unexplained 'thing'.

(Like what does that licence for 'marketing, excludes advertising' mean?)

If we don't say we have a property release, it shows as no property release on the file page, even if we have indicated 'no property'.

What difference does ticking the box 'property' actually make, if we don't have a release?

I tend to err on the side of caution, and just tick property, no release, even if I'm pretty certain it doesn't need a release, e.g. something which is well out of copyright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.