EDITORIAL box: should it be checked?

[AlexG]

Hi fellow Alamy sellers.

I am still unclear whether I should check the Editorial Only box on certain photos.

 

1. If a photo clearly has a person, property or art without the proper release, does Alamy automatically apply an editorial use license? Or do I need to check the box?

2. How does checking the Editorial box affect license types RM and RF? Does it matter at all what license is chosen if you plan on checking the editorial use only?

3. Does specifying Editorial Only help with sales for those particular types of images?

4. Finally, based on above, if I must choose whether to check the box or not, what if I am not sure whether something should be editorial? Should I just leave it blank and other settings like not having releases will be taken into consideration by the buyers themselves?

 

Thanks everyone for any tips.

 

Alex g.

[John Mitchell]

Clicking the editorial box can limit sales. Consequently, I do so only for images that I definitely don't want licensed for commercial use -- e.g. artwork and images that I have agreed (usually with an institution like a museum) to use for editorial purposes only.

Edited June 29, 2020 by John Mitchell

[Colblimp]

All my pics are RM and I never check the editorial box.  I leave that side of things to Alamy.

[AlexG]

Thank you both! Seems like I am generally okay then, as I hardly have checked the box either. There a few shots with my kids in them that I have specifically checked as editorial.

Edited June 29, 2020 by AlexG

[Joseph Clemson]

I posted this answer to the OP's question  on a previous occasion, but as it lays out ALamy's position in some detail, it is probably worth repeating.

 

 I raised this with Alamy contributor support some time ago. This is the reply I received.

 

If you're licensing your images as RF then we recommend you do tick the 'sell for editorial only box' but as you are licensing the images as RM then you don’t necessarily need to have these restrictions.

This will however open up the option to customers to purchase commercial licenses but as long as you have annotated the images correctly by saying they contain unreleased people and/or property then 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.

We've written a blog that might help: http://bit.ly/2UdRb75

 

I then further queried why RM and RF images were treated differently as far as the editorial only tick box is concerned. The reply was thus...

 

With RM, the customer has to declare details of the use before a license is issued i.e. what the use is, what size they need, how long the image will be used for etc. With RF the customer simply has to pick a size they want, and they can use that however, wherever and whenever.

 

Both license types can be used for editorial or commercial, but RF is often more associated with commercial as they are usually released images, and the customer doesn’t have to declare all the details of the use. This is why we have always advised that images that contain unreleased people and property should be RM, as this reduces the risk of the image being used commercially. When we introduced RF-Editorial, you could have annotated the unreleased images as RM or RF-Ed.

 

So long as you have annotated that the image contains people/property, and that there are no releases, the onus will be on the customer to clear the image for commercial use if that was what they wanted to use it for.

 

We don’t want to encourage or discourage you from restricting your images, but as I mentioned above, the most important thing is that they are annotated correctly. We have found that customers sometimes get scared off by restricted images, which is why we have sent emails to contributors with restricted images, as there may be restrictions that have been added unnecessarily.

 

In summary, just make sure that your images are correctly annotated, and if they are unreleased, they should be RM or RF-Ed

 

I am also aware that in some cases Alamy ask us to tick the editorial only box even on RM images. I can't give an exhaustive list of subjects this applies to, but I seem to remember that the Network Rail owned railway stations come into this category. Others may be able to add to this....

 

[AlexG]

53 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Clicking the editorial box can limit sales. Consequently, I do so only for images that I definitely don't want licensed for commercial use -- e.g. artwork and images that I have agreed (usually with an institution like a museum) to use for editorial purposes only.

 

28 minutes ago, Colblimp said:

All my pics are RM and I never check the editorial box.  I leave that side of things to Alamy.

 

Thank you both! Seems like I am generally okay then, as I hardly have checked the box either. There a few shots with my kids in them that I have specifically checked as editorial.

[AlexG]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

 

 

Thanks a lot for providing the detailed info. I have almost everything as RM, with the info on releases provided (I rarely have releases).

It's a whole different story whether RF license instead would boost sales. I've seen threads on this before.

[dunstun365]

On 29/06/2020 at 19:09, Colblimp said:

All my pics are RM and I never check the editorial box.  I leave that side of things to Alamy.

that's good about here because just about every other stock site makes you tick editorial or else they reject the image - as if you're supposed to know. And some sites don't accept images with intellectual property in which is also hard to judge.

[Sally]

I think it is more relevant if you have gained access to a particular place or people that isn’t necessarily open to the public. Eg if I go in and ask a shop owner if I can take photos and agree it’s only for editorial use, or as I was advised to do so when taking photos of authors at a book festival. 

[Cal]

On 29/06/2020 at 19:38, Joseph Clemson said:

I posted this answer to the OP's question  on a previous occasion, but as it lays out ALamy's position in some detail, it is probably worth repeating.

 

 I raised this with Alamy contributor support some time ago. This is the reply I received.

 

If you're licensing your images as RF then we recommend you do tick the 'sell for editorial only box' but as you are licensing the images as RM then you don’t necessarily need to have these restrictions.

This will however open up the option to customers to purchase commercial licenses but as long as you have annotated the images correctly by saying they contain unreleased people and/or property then 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.

We've written a blog that might help: http://bit.ly/2UdRb75

 

I then further queried why RM and RF images were treated differently as far as the editorial only tick box is concerned. The reply was thus...

 

With RM, the customer has to declare details of the use before a license is issued i.e. what the use is, what size they need, how long the image will be used for etc. With RF the customer simply has to pick a size they want, and they can use that however, wherever and whenever.

 

Both license types can be used for editorial or commercial, but RF is often more associated with commercial as they are usually released images, and the customer doesn’t have to declare all the details of the use. This is why we have always advised that images that contain unreleased people and property should be RM, as this reduces the risk of the image being used commercially. When we introduced RF-Editorial, you could have annotated the unreleased images as RM or RF-Ed.

 

So long as you have annotated that the image contains people/property, and that there are no releases, the onus will be on the customer to clear the image for commercial use if that was what they wanted to use it for.

 

We don’t want to encourage or discourage you from restricting your images, but as I mentioned above, the most important thing is that they are annotated correctly. We have found that customers sometimes get scared off by restricted images, which is why we have sent emails to contributors with restricted images, as there may be restrictions that have been added unnecessarily.

 

In summary, just make sure that your images are correctly annotated, and if they are unreleased, they should be RM or RF-Ed

 

I am also aware that in some cases Alamy ask us to tick the editorial only box even on RM images. I can't give an exhaustive list of subjects this applies to, but I seem to remember that the Network Rail owned railway stations come into this category. Others may be able to add to this....

 

 

Good information, useful to know.

 

I would like to know where this "This is why we have always advised that images that contain unreleased people and property should be RM" is written under the contributor guidelines though. I looked for this when having a similar discussion recently and couldn't see it. I could see references to correct annotation/licence type of certain images, but nothing as specific as the quote. I'm either looking in the wrong place or the guidelines are more vague than they should be, which I feel is especially pertinent as the licencing type RF is being pushed by default. That said, I do get the impression from the image manager layout and what's been said above that things are generally geared towards helping the contributor stay out of legal hot water by omission/accident.

[M.Chapman]

12 hours ago, Cal said:

Alamy quote from above

 

With RM, the customer has to declare details of the use before a license is issued i.e. what the use is, what size they need, how long the image will be used for etc. With RF the customer simply has to pick a size they want, and they can use that however, wherever and whenever.

 

I think the terms however or wherever merit clarification. The customer is bound by the terms and conditions of their Alamy License Agreement (“LA”)  In Sections 3.1 and 7.1 (which apply to all licence types) it states the following;

 

3. Grant of Rights and restrictions

3.1 For all licences

3.1.12 Not all of Alamy Limited’s Image(s)/Footage have Releases. It is your responsibility to check that all necessary Releases have been secured (see clause 7.3 below).

 

7.3 You must satisfy yourself that all Releases as may be required for Reproduction of the Image(s)/Footage have been secured and are appropriate for your intended use. You are solely responsible for obtaining all such Releases and the Licence is conditional in each case on your obtaining them. If you are unsure as to whether any Releases are needed for your Image(s)/Footage usage, then it is your responsibility to consult with relevant parties. You shall not rely upon any representation or warranty given by Alamy employees or representatives save as set out in this Agreement.

 

There are also other restrictions in Section 3.1

 

So RF isn't however and wherever...

 

Mark

Edited July 8, 2020 by M.Chapman