Use of "Editorial"

[KFisher]

On 24/08/2019 at 16:26, Shergar said:

https://www.alamy.com/blog/releases-alamy-says-relax

 

 

 

Without a release, you are free to upload your images to license editorially. All you need to do is;

• Make sure you are not breaking any laws by taking the photo in the first place (like whilst trespassing)
• Annotate that your images contain people and/or property
• Mark that you don’t have any releases
• Sit back and relax and let our sales team do the rest

If you have annotated the images per the above, customers are notified with the following; “If you want to use the image commercially, you might also need permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand”. This puts the onus on them to ensure that should they wish to use an image commercially, they will need to seek releases themselves.

There may be occasions where they risk using and unreleased image commercially e.g. crowd shots of unrecognizable people, but so long as you have correctly annotated your image, it isn’t your responsibility.

So, what is the take away from all of this…

You don’t need a release to upload and license your images for editorial uses.

 

Thank you for posting. I was more interested in why some people don't mark "editorial" when the photo clearly has people/property and no release. The answers were "interesting" so I inquired at Alamy, since of course I'd like to expose my photos to the largest group of buyers as possible, and Alamy (Ellie) responded:

 

If the image has property (or recognizable people) in and you don’t have a release – then the image should be marked as editorial use only.

If the customer wants to use it commercially it would be the customers responsibility to gain permission for commercial use of any property in the image. But the image needs to be annotated correctly.

 

So, I'm going to keep marking "editorial" as I have been on "no release" photos with property (though I'm a little fuzzy on what is and isn't property) and definitely on photos with recognizable faces, but I appreciate all the other responses with differing opinions and views.

[spacecadet]

5 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

 

 

If the image has property (or recognizable people) in and you don’t have a release – then the image should be marked as editorial use only.

If the customer wants to use it commercially it would be the customers responsibility to gain permission for commercial use of any property in the image. But the image needs to be annotated correctly.

 

That's new advice- the old image manager didn't have a mechanism for that- and I don't carre to go through nearly 10,000 images doing something I consider unnecessary when I already mark as "no releases".

The tick-box is on the "optional" page so I consider that my images are "correctly annotated".

[KFisher]

4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

That's new advice- the old image manager didn't have a mechanism for that- and I don't carre to go through nearly 10,000 images doing something I consider unnecessary when I already mark as "no releases".

The tick-box is on the "optional" page so I consider that my images are "correctly annotated".

 

I've been uploading to Alamy for about 2 years and they've always had the "editorial" button, so you must have been here quite a while.

 

I can almost see how you consider marking how and in what situation the image can be used to be "unnecessary", but on other stock sites, that's their main focus - specifying how the author shares the photo and directing to the buyers what they can use the image for. Because this is potentially a very important piece of information I also dug a little deeper on legal pages and confirmed that though the chance of a legal issue is unlikely, you are 100% covered more if you mark it as "editorial" and not leave the choice to the buyer who may or may not follow the rules. We (and Alamy) are the experts - we are the ones getting paid and this is our profession - not the buyer of the photo. They still can be held liable if a situation arises, but our chances as the author are much better if the buyer does something they shouldn't and tries to use an image with property or faces in an incorrect manner (not that a buyer who has no knowledge of how stock photography works and the legality behind the terms would ever make such an error...)

 

I'm surprised the tick box is on the "optional" page - actually I'm surprised they have an optional page, or at least call it that. 

 

Anyway - not out to change anyone's method of submitting or correct anyone - I was just genuinely curious and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on something. Thanks again for all the answers. Hope everyone has a successful day and sells a lot of photos.

[spacecadet]

11 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

I've been uploading to Alamy for about 2 years and they've always had the "editorial" button, so you must have been here quite a while.

 

 

A while, yes. Your joining date is underneath your avatar.

Joined Alamy:19 Oct 2006

I think the new non-Flash AIM is only about 3 years old.

[geogphotos]

10 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

I've been uploading to Alamy for about 2 years and they've always had the "editorial" button, so you must have been here quite a while.

 

I can almost see how you consider marking how and in what situation the image can be used to be "unnecessary", but on other stock sites, that's their main focus - specifying how the author shares the photo and directing to the buyers what they can use the image for. Because this is potentially a very important piece of information I also dug a little deeper on legal pages and confirmed that though the chance of a legal issue is unlikely, you are 100% covered more if you mark it as "editorial" and not leave the choice to the buyer who may or may not follow the rules. We (and Alamy) are the experts - we are the ones getting paid and this is our profession - not the buyer of the photo. They still can be held liable if a situation arises, but our chances as the author are much better if the buyer does something they shouldn't and tries to use an image with property or faces in an incorrect manner (not that a buyer who has no knowledge of how stock photography works and the legality behind the terms would ever make such an error...)

 

I'm surprised the tick box is on the "optional" page - actually I'm surprised they have an optional page, or at least call it that. 

 

Anyway - not out to change anyone's method of submitting or correct anyone - I was just genuinely curious and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on something. Thanks again for all the answers. Hope everyone has a successful day and sells a lot of photos.

 

 

The irony of this is that for many years many contributors asked over and over again for an 'Editorial Use' button and Alamy did not provide one. 

[BidC]

Confused.com - I will have to read through carefully. I pretty much mark all mine RM and editorial, as there seems to be very little that I believe would be suitable for commercial (except for the lovely cake, made by two teenage boys. I had to put that editorial as the householder said 'yes' I could upload it, when now I believe she really meant 'no'. Damage done now, so no point taking it down).

[Cryptoprocta]

2 hours ago, KFisher said:

I can almost see how you consider marking how and in what situation the image can be used to be "unnecessary", but on other stock sites, that's their main focus - specifying how the author shares the photo and directing to the buyers what they can use the image for. Because this is potentially a very important piece of information I also dug a little deeper on legal pages and confirmed that though the chance of a legal issue is unlikely, you are 100% covered more if you mark it as "editorial" and not leave the choice to the buyer who may or may not follow the rules.

In fact, I've never found (so far) an Alamy buyer use a file inappropriately, though there are some mysterious sales which are 'marketing, not commerical' or some apparent paradox like that. Yes, they have been stolen after the fact and even used non-editorially.

Ironically, I have had editorial  files used commercially by buyers via one of the other sites, which check every dot for possible IP infringement and indicated editoral use only in red letters. (On that site I had a file rejected for IP. The inspector kindly indicated the offending tiny dot. I looked at the 'dot' and couldn't work it out, but as it happened, the photo was taken on one of my regular local walks, so I checked it out, and it literally was where a poster had been stuck to a lamp-post (which was a tiny incidental part the image) and when it was removed, the sellotape had pulled off the top layer of paint, revealing the colour of the paint beneath it. Still, by Alamy's standards, the (generic) lamp-post would need a release, so I'd indicate it as 'no release'.

There is no harm at all in ticking the editorial box.

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by Cryptoprocta

[Harry Harrison]

When I asked a broadly similar question I was also given the advice that since the 'Editorial only' button is relatively new then the bulk of images uploaded prior to that would not be retrospectively edited to comply with any new advice suggesting that for RM with no model or property release that check-box should be checked. This still seems to hold true which really makes it hard to see any real difference between those images with or without that box checked. The 'Alamy says relax' blog just says that images can still be sold for editorial if they don't have a release, no mention of the check-box.

 

A buyer can choose to exclude RF Editorial in the main search, if the same was possible for RM editorial then perhaps there would be some enthusiasm for registering RM images as Editorial only when they have no model or property release.

 

18 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

There is no harm at all in ticking the editorial box.

Well if that's true then maybe that is the way to go for RM when there are no releases, can anyone see a disadvantage to doing this - or advantages?

[Keith Douglas]

My recollection is that the Editorial tick box was introduced at the time that the RF option became available (about the same time as the new Image Manager perhaps?). Before that you could only arrive at RF if you said that you had no property or models in the image OR you said that you had but you uploaded releases for any property or models. Otherwise you would end up with an RM image. It was understood that RM images were Editorial only.

 

So, are there now three cases:

 

1. RF where there are no releases required OR all releases are available. Customer can use these images Commercially (but subject to the context and the content of the Releases).

 

2. RM, which are for Editorial Only anyway. Ticking Editorial box has no additional effect. Single use of image.

 

3. RF Editorial, which means that the Customer can use them for Editorial purposes only but as many times  as they wish for a single fee.

 

As others have said though the photographer has no control of where and how the image is used. All the photographer can do is to provide accurate information about whether releases are available. It is up to the publisher to decide whether a particular image needs additional consents. I can , for example, envisage situations where the use of an RF image might be outside the scope of the releases that are available.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Keith Douglas

[Shergar]

2 hours ago, KFisher said:

We (and Alamy) are the experts - we are the ones getting paid and this is our profession - not the buyer of the photo.

 

You and Alamy might be the experts but I'm not.  I have no idea what so ever what the copyright laws are in half the countries  my photo's are used in . I would think that would be down to the buyer he knows where and what  they are going to be used for not me!  Lets face it Alamy don't even tell us where they are used so how can that be my fault. All I can tell them is if the image contains people and or property the rest is up to those guys to figure out.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Shergar

[KFisher]

1 minute ago, Shergar said:

 

You and Alamy might be the experts but I'm not.  I have no idea what so ever what the copyright laws are in half the countries  my photo's are used in . I would think that would be down to the buyer he knows where they are going to be used not me!  Lets face it Alamy don't even tell us where they are used so how can that be my fault. All I can tell them is if the image contains people and or property the rest is up to those guys to figure out.

 

I agree with you - I have no clue what laws are out there in different countries - Greece for instance has very restrictive, almost Draconian rules regarding images with people in them, including editorial. If I were smarter or motivated, I would definitely learn those laws since they effect me directly as a photographer selling stock photos.

 

Under the law is what I'm referring to when I say we (and alamy) are the "experts". A lawyer, arbitrator or anyone in the position to weigh in on a legal issue involving professional photographers (and we all are) being sued by someone who sees their image, will assume we know enough to restrict images without releases as editorial. I select "editorial" as an added protection in the event something goes wrong between my image being sold and how the image is used.

 

[geogphotos]

If you restrict your images to editorial use only then you are removing the possibility of commercial sales in territories where the image could be used commercially. 

 

I only use that option when I definitely want to restrict usage to editorial.

[Shergar]

Just now, geogphotos said:

If you restrict your images to editorial use only then you are removing the possibility of commercial sales in territories where the image could be used commercially. 

 

I only use that option when I definitely want to restrict usage to editorial.

Not surprisingly Im with you 100% 

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, KFisher said:

Thank you for posting. I was more interested in why some people don't mark "editorial" when the photo clearly has people/property and no release. The answers were "interesting" so I inquired at Alamy, since of course I'd like to expose my photos to the largest group of buyers as possible, and Alamy (Ellie) responded:

 

If the image has property (or recognizable people) in and you don’t have a release – then the image should be marked as editorial use only.

If the customer wants to use it commercially it would be the customers responsibility to gain permission for commercial use of any property in the image. But the image needs to be annotated correctly.

 

Are Alamy getting themselves confused... again...  (A bit like the advice to upload aRGB that persisted for ages, when they are actually converting everything to sRGB on receipt.)

 

If it's important that our images are annotated that way then:-

 

1) Why is the "Editorial use only" tick box on the optional tab?

2) Why didn't Alamy carry forward the functionality of the old AIM (which forced RM if releases were missing) to force Editorial use if there are no releases in the new AIM

3) Also this advice reintroduces the question of recognisable people, which contradicts the simple principle that any portion of a person, even unrecognisable, should now be counted as a person.

 

Mmmm...

 

Mark

Edited August 27, 2019 by M.Chapman

[KFisher]

11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

If you restrict your images to editorial use only then you are removing the possibility of commercial sales in territories where the image could be used commercially. 

 

I only use that option when I definitely want to restrict usage to editorial.

 

Are there countries or territories where a professional photographer is allowed to sell an image of a person without a release for commercial reasons? And depending on where the buyer uses the photo, you will still be subjected to the laws of where it is published. Glad you're comfortable with that, but I'm not. You are all much braver than I.

[geogphotos]

6 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

Are there countries or territories where a professional photographer is allowed to sell an image of a person without a release for commercial reasons? And depending on where the buyer uses the photo, you will still be subjected to the laws of where it is published. Glad you're comfortable with that, but I'm not. You are all much braver than I.

 

I have been trying to answer your question.

 

I honestly don't mind what you decide to do.  I am not trying to persuade you to do anything.

 

 

[KFisher]

2 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

I have been trying to answer your question.

 

I honestly don't mind what you decide to do.  I am not trying to persuade you to do anything.

 

 

 

I read and understand your answer, though I disagree with it, and am definitely not trying to persuade or argue with you. My initial question was why aren't people marking editorial and I have my answers whether I think they make sense or not. Have a wonderful day.

 

[meanderingemu]

7 hours ago, Shergar said:

 

You and Alamy might be the experts but I'm not.  I have no idea what so ever what the copyright laws are in half the countries  my photo's are used in . I would think that would be down to the buyer he knows where and what  they are going to be used for not me!  Lets face it Alamy don't even tell us where they are used so how can that be my fault. All I can tell them is if the image contains people and or property the rest is up to those guys to figure out.

 

 

now i'm confused...  shouldn't the law of where the picture was taken prevail?

[M.Chapman]

9 hours ago, Shergar said:

We (and Alamy) are the experts - we are the ones getting paid and this is our profession - not the buyer of the photo.

 

You've omitted the publisher (which, if we're talking about being sued, is probably the type of buyer we should focus on). The publisher is likely getting paid more than Alamy or us.... It's the publisher that decides which images they publish, for what purpose, in which territories, and with which accompanying text. Providing the Photographer and Alamy haven't misrepresented the image being sold (e.g. saying it has a release when it doesn't, or incorrectly captioning the image) then the publisher is the one taking the responsibility and who needs to be the mindful about the laws in their territory. I'm based in the UK and am comfortable that I only tick "editorial only" in specific circumstances when I feel I need additional protection. Most of my images containing people or property are simply marked as having no no releases.

 

Mark

[spacecadet]

11 hours ago, KFisher said:

 

Are there countries or territories where a professional photographer is allowed to sell an image of a person without a release for commercial reasons?

Yes- the UK, for a start, if the image is taken where there's no expectation of privacy, especially of a public figure, and no implied endorsement of a product. Ryanair does it from time to time. There's no right of publicity here.

Edited August 28, 2019 by spacecadet

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Yes- the UK, for a start, if the image is taken where there's no expectation of privacy, especially of a public figure, and no implied endorsement of a product. Ryanair does it from time to time. There's no right of publicity here.

I think you meant 'right of privacy' - but in fact there is something about places where we should have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy', but I'm just rushing out and can't look it up ATM.

 

However, that's not the issue. Ian said, "If you restrict your images to editorial use only then you are removing the possibility of commercial sales in territories where the image could be used commercially. "

I inferred from that that that there are countries which permit commercial use of unreleased images.

He has chosen so far not to elaborate, and I'm hoping he will do so.

[spacecadet]

21 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I think you meant 'right of privacy' - but in fact there is something about places where we should have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy', but I'm just rushing out and can't look it up ATM.

 

However, that's not the issue. Ian said, "If you restrict your images to editorial use only then you are removing the possibility of commercial sales in territories where the image could be used commercially. "

I inferred from that that that there are countries which permit commercial use of unreleased images.

He has chosen so far not to elaborate, and I'm hoping he will do so.

I mean what I said. Right of publicity is a legal principle of a personal right to control one's image in some countries- I think France and Germany at least- and some US states, but we don't have it.

There are indeed "countries which permit commercial use of unreleased images"- as I said, and as you quote, the UK is one of them.

Edited August 28, 2019 by spacecadet

[dustydingo]

In a similar discussion many, many, many moons ago, I vaguelly recall someone asking for a single example of a photographer being successfully sued because another party published one of the photographer's images, where the photographer had made clear to the agency that licensed the image that there were no releases available.

 

I think I remember the gist of the answers. Of course, that was a long time ago . . . and yet . . .

 

I also recall what I thought was the only truly compelling argument for an "editorial only" button was where photographers had a formal legal agreement with another party that certain images could be taken and licensed but only if used strictly as editorial only. Beyond that particular situation, I still see no need to do more than honestly state the release status of an image, explaining perhaps why the "editorial only" button is, and only needs to be, optional.

 

DD

Edited August 28, 2019 by dustydingo
changed "one of" to 'what I thought was the only"

[Harry Harrison]

Yes, so the Alamy guidance quoted above in an email to KFisher seems to be new, namely:

 

If the image has property (or recognizable people) in and you don’t have a release – then the image should be marked as editorial use only.

If the customer wants to use it commercially it would be the customers responsibility to gain permission for commercial use of any property in the image. But the image needs to be annotated correctly.

 

As far as I can see this 'guidance' isn't on any of the information pages provided by Alamy to either buyers or contributors, I can't help wondering why it isn't if that is their requirement now.

 

I suppose the only reason not to use it from now for any image with models and/or property but no releases would be if in doing so you were limiting your sales in any way and that's certainly something I don't have enough experience of. That and the fact that millions of images uploaded before the check-box existed won't comply.

 

I'd like to think that Alamy gave guidelines on how to use that check-box when it was introduced but I wasn't on here then and I haven't found it.

 

Another related thread here where I see that at least one post suggests that they would have lost sales if certain images had been marked as Editorial only.

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/8759-does-it-have-to-be-editorial/

 

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[geogphotos]

It would be a bit tough for Alamy to insist on compliance with this new rule because we were all assured when it was introduced that the new system would not involve any retro work, and that some of the information fields would be optional. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by geogphotos