Use of "Editorial"

[KFisher]

8 hours 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.

 

Not so sure you're right about that, at least how it relates to this particular thread.  

 

 http://fotographicimages.co.uk/about-us/privacy-policy/

 

This is actually a better link which includes: 

 

"In the UK you do not have to get the permission from people you photograph whilst they are in a public place. Using and selling images of people in a public place is usually acceptable if undertaken with a view to being used for any journalistic or artistic material.

However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important."

 

The key word is "recommended" I suppose. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by KFisher

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, KFisher said:

 

Not so sure you're right about that, at least how it relates to this particular thread.  https://photographylife.com/know-your-rights-as-a-photographer

 

It's a pretty basic principle - you can't sell photos with people (recognizable) or property without a release form/consent for commercial reasons. Whether you select editorial or you don't select editorial in the hopes of getting more sales, is your choice. 

 

If alamy didn't have an editorial button in the past I don't blame you for not wanting to go back and click the box for thousands of photos. Sounds like a pain.

That's a US site. Our laws are different.

Your "basic principle" doesn't apply to the UK.

[KFisher]

6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

That's a US site. Our laws are different.

Your "basic principle" doesn't apply to the UK.

 

Damn - I used the wrong link from my post. This is the correct link. http://fotographicimages.co.uk/about-us/privacy-policy/

 

This is actually a better link which includes: 

 

"In the UK you do not have to get the permission from people you photograph whilst they are in a public place. Using and selling images of people in a public place is usually acceptable if undertaken with a view to being used for any journalistic or artistic material.

However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important."

 

The key word is "recommended" I suppose. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by KFisher

[spacecadet]

2 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

Damn - I used the wrong link from my post. This is the correct link. http://fotographicimages.co.uk/about-us/privacy-policy/

I can't see that says much about right of publicity.

[KFisher]

2 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I can't see that says much about right of publicity.

That's because I was a goof and put the wrong link in. I've corrected the above post. Sorry about that.

[John Mitchell]

FWIW, I've occasionally had Alamy contact me asking if I would waive the "editorial use only" restriction on particular images because a client is interested in using the image. I usually comply because I trust that Alamy knows what they are doing. These days I click the "editorial use only" button for artwork (e.g. street murals in context) and for images where I have an agreement with an institution that the images will be used solely for editorial purposes.

[M.Chapman]

5 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

Damn - I used the wrong link from my post. This is the correct link. http://fotographicimages.co.uk/about-us/privacy-policy/

 

Which seems to largely support what spacecadet is saying.... Or did I miss something?

 

Mark

[KFisher]

Just now, M.Chapman said:

 

Which seems to largely support what spacecadet is saying.... Or did I miss something?

 

Mark

 

Yes, I screwed up and posted the incorrect link. I've edited the post. Sorry about that.

 

Damn - I used the wrong link from my post. This is the correct link. http://fotographicimages.co.uk/about-us/privacy-policy/

 

This is actually a better link which includes: 

 

"In the UK you do not have to get the permission from people you photograph whilst they are in a public place. Using and selling images of people in a public place is usually acceptable if undertaken with a view to being used for any journalistic or artistic material.

However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important."

 

The key word is "recommended" I suppose. 

[spacecadet]

6 minutes ago, KFisher said:

That's because I was a goof and put the wrong link in. I've corrected the above post. Sorry about that.

I was referring to the new link.

[KFisher]

7 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I was referring to the new link.

 

OK. Your original post said this in response to my question:

 

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.>>>>

 

 

I posted this, which seems to directly address your post. If you still think it's irrelevant then I don't know what to say. We'll just agree to disagree on that:

 

This is actually a better link which includes: 

 

"In the UK you do not have to get the permission from people you photograph whilst they are in a public place. Using and selling images of people in a public place is usually acceptable if undertaken with a view to being used for any journalistic or artistic material.

However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important."

Edited August 28, 2019 by KFisher

[M.Chapman]

23 minutes ago, KFisher said:

However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important."

 

But it's up to the publisher to determine if a release is required for their application and whether one is available or not. Even if a release is available, the publisher still has to check the terms of the release against their application.

 

It's good advice to get a release if you can as it will increase sales opportunities. Not having a release may limit sales, but not as much as ticking Editorial only.

 

Mark

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by M.Chapman

[spacecadet]

5 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

OK. Your original post said this in response to my question:

 

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.>>>>

 

 

I posted this, which seems to directly address your post. If you still think it's irrelevant then I don't know what to say. We'll just agree to disagree on that:

 

This is actually a better link which includes: 

 

"In the UK you do not have to get the permission from people you photograph whilst they are in a public place. Using and selling images of people in a public place is usually acceptable if undertaken with a view to being used for any journalistic or artistic material.

However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important."

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. It's another photographer's opinion, just as mine is. But there is no right of publicity in the UK and your agreeing to disagree won't change that.

[KFisher]

A very lively and interesting discussion and unfortunately one I wish I hadn't started.

 

I will continue to select editorial as alamy requests if my image has recognizable faces or property. Thanks to the way alamy is set up, you aren't forced to do that which is great for you. Every other stock site, at least that I'm on, removes this whole discussion by making the decision for you. Probably, because they know many photographers won't check the box even if it applies. I appreciate alamy for that because other sites go way too far in forcing editorial on a photo.

 

 

 

[KFisher]

34 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

FWIW, I've occasionally had Alamy contact me asking if I would waive the "editorial use only" restriction on particular images because a client is interested in using the image. I usually comply because I trust that Alamy knows what they are doing. 

 

I had that happen, too. Surprised me a little, but I also complied since there were no people in it, just graffiti and a few logos.

[John Mitchell]

51 minutes ago, KFisher said:

 

I had that happen, too. Surprised me a little, but I also complied since there were no people in it, just graffiti and a few logos.

 

It's a confusing situation alright. I've decided to take an "In Alamy We Trust" (as they might say down your way) attitude rather than risk losing sales.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, KFisher said:

 

 

I will continue to select editorial as alamy requests if my image has recognizable faces or property. Thanks to the way alamy is set up, you aren't forced to do that which is great for you. Every other stock site, at least that I'm on, removes this whole discussion by making the decision for you. Probably, because they know many photographers won't check the box even if it applies. I appreciate alamy for that because other sites go way too far in forcing editorial on a photo.

 

 

 

 

 

but they don't really.  You can get property and people accepted as non editorial easily at other site (eg. remove number on door, don't say it's a zoo, hide face) and that will provide you no protection.  Alamy puts the responsibility with the purchaser, which as a contributor is a relief 

[KFisher]

4 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

but they don't really.  You can get property and people accepted as non editorial easily at other site (eg. remove number on door, don't say it's a zoo, hide face) and that will provide you no protection.  Alamy puts the responsibility with the purchaser, which as a contributor is a relief 

 

I agree that it's a great option. I do it all the time so I can submit as commercial, including here at alamy, but then they're not recognizable faces, places or logos anymore so they cease to be editorial. That saves me some stress in the long run not having to worry about any potential issues down the road. Probably better for alamy too to be submitted as commercial without the logos, faces, etc.

[Cryptoprocta]

12 hours ago, spacecadet said:

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

I didn't quote that.

[meanderingemu]

9 hours ago, KFisher said:

 

I agree that it's a great option. I do it all the time so I can submit as commercial, including here at alamy, but then they're not recognizable faces, places or logos anymore so they cease to be editorial. That saves me some stress in the long run not having to worry about any potential issues down the road. Probably better for alamy too to be submitted as commercial without the logos, faces, etc.

 

 

but that is a false protection.  It actually does not protect you from  " any potential issues down the road."   Most countries do not have a law that says if you don't photograph the face it's fare game, or remove the door number it's ok to commercialize.  They have actually increased potential issues by giving a form of expertise that has no legal standing making contributors push the submission to fit under these acceptance rules.  

 

I do not submit anything at Alamy for commercial basis.  I submit and tell the buyer if there is someone in the picture, and if there is property.  They then decide what use is appropriate. 

[geogphotos]

An Alamy competitor recently posted an image 'want' for a modern car less that 7 years old with no logos and which was unrecognisable. This was for creative/commercial use. Basically impossible, or at least risky, 

 

One of the great things about Alamy is that it cuts through all this subjective nonsense and simply presents the client with an image that either has a release or doesn't. 

 

If you want to remove the prospect of an image being used commercially there is the option to restrict to 'Editorial Use Only'.

[KFisher]

11 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

 

but that is a false protection.  It actually does not protect you from  " any potential issues down the road."   Most countries do not have a law that says if you don't photograph the face it's fare game, or remove the door number it's ok to commercialize.  They have actually increased potential issues by giving a form of expertise that has no legal standing making contributors push the submission to fit under these acceptance rules.  

 

I do not submit anything at Alamy for commercial basis.  I submit and tell the buyer if there is someone in the picture, and if there is property.  They then decide what use is appropriate. 

 

Unfortunately, you are probably right.

 

I just looked through your port and you seem to mark them the same way I do regarding editorial-non-editorial so we are on the same page as far as that is concerned.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, KFisher said:

 

Unfortunately, you are probably right.

 

I just looked through your port and you seem to mark them the same way I do regarding editorial-non-editorial so we are on the same page as far as that is concerned.

Pretty much. 

 

I also have a tendency to get protective of people i liked through the capture process, and for those tend to restrict the use (and would not upload at other MS where i don't trust their control of the clients.)  It's also country dependent, for country where the use of people's picture is way more restricted, I will restrict usage and again MS i upload to) 

[MizBrown]

This may be useful:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law