Editing photo marked editorial

[dkhowe]

For privacy reasons, is it okay to remove items like license plate numbers, addresses on houses, names on boats and name tags on people in a photo marked editorial?

[IanDavidson]

In my view it depends very much on what the photo is for.  As a news photographer I would not remove or hide any details, that would be be against the general practice of photojournalism   It also depends on what country you are in.  Different countries have vastly different rules of privacy.  In the UK there is no automatic right to privacy unless you are in a private place (although if the photographer is in a public place the issue is more complex), a court order is in place (that can be difficult), if the individual or place is covered under legislation relating to the Official Secrets or Anti terrorism laws, or ,  if the individual has a legitimate  expectation of privacy.  So, photographing through a bedroom window is a no no.  But, it someone is in a public place then they do not have, currently, a right to privacy.  As to car registrations, it is not easy to find the owner of a car from a car registration so there is no particular privacy issue.  There are some issues under GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) however, I would argue, and some contributors would disagree, that GDPR has only limited application to news and editorial photography and in any case the regulations do not stop you taking photographs.  I am unaware of any enforcement action under the GDPR in relation to photography.  

 

Common law and judges decisions attempt to strike a balance between privacy and the "freedom of the press".  The pendulum appears, recently, to have swung a little way towards privacy, particularly if you are rich, and against freedom of the press.  So again, it depends what usage you are making of the word "editorial".  Freedom of the press protections, in general, only applies to news photographs.    

 

Someone not wanting their photograph to be taken does not make it illegal.  There is the Editors Code on taking photos and most professional photojournalists I know have their own ethics on this issue as I do.  

 

It is really up to you and the relevant regulations in the country in which your are shooting.  Purely from an artistic view any removal of detail should be undertaken carefully so as not to affect the attractiveness of the photograph .

[Kostiantyn Ablazov]

dkhowe, allow me, please, to ask a question in your topic? Question also about editorial photo. Hope you find this helpful too. 

If I want to publish a photo that partially contains graffiti, will I have any problems later from the author of these graffiti, whom I do not know? Is it enough to just tag this photo as editorial? Houses, streets, cafes, restaurants, metro stations, street life - is all editorial? 

Thanks in advance

Edited March 9, 2021 by Kostiantyn Ablazov

[dkhowe]

  “So again, it depends what usage you are making of the word "editorial.” My question in regards to this is—if I’m submitting to Alamy the choices are commercial or editorial. I’m not submitting for news. Here is an example of when I would like to edit a photo but still submit it for editorial. In a wide shot that includes a marina with boats and a bay in the background. On a couple of the boats that are in close, the names of the boats are large and I would like to edit them out. But still there are lots of products names that require the photo to be editorial.

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by dkhowe

[spacecadet]

16 minutes ago, dkhowe said:

I would like to edit them out.

Assuming they were taken from a public place, I would not. It makes no sense for a boat not to have a name, so for me, this fails Ian's attractiveness test. In any case I would definitely want the name included in case it ever became well-known for some reason. It happens.

I have only ever altered studio still-life images to remove personal information.

Edited March 9, 2021 by spacecadet

[dkhowe]

1 minute ago, David Pimborough said:

 

In that case you are wasting your time.  The only reason you might want to expend time cloning out names labels etc is to be able to

submit it as commercial.

 

There's no halfway house,  either leave it as is and submit as editorial or go the whole hog for commercial (after removing brands logos what have you).

 

Remeber merely cloning out names might not be sufficient as designs are still copyright

As far as copyright designs, you are right, releases from boat designers would be required which is why a marina filled with boats is out of the question for commercial.

 

[Kostiantyn Ablazov]

David Pimborough, thank you very much

[Steve F]

35 minutes ago, dkhowe said:

... I’m not submitting for news. .

..I would like to edit them out.

 

 

I don't submit for news. I don't edit out people or boat names or anything else for editorial photos. Look what gets published - these pictures all have recognisable names and number plates, people etc. in them. Don't worry about it.

 

Whether you want to be photographing your immediate neighbours is another question!!

[dkhowe]

 

I guess my problem is, I’m shooting in my own community and I don’t want to be seen as a threat to my neighbors. Do you shoot in your own neighborhood?

[MizBrown]

10 minutes ago, dkhowe said:

 

 

I guess my problem is, I’m shooting in my own community and I don’t want to be seen as a threat to my neighbors. Do you shoot in your own neighborhood?

 

I shoot in my own neighborhood and I'm a foreigner in it.   It's going to depend on the culture and on individuals.  I mostly explain what I'm doing, and mostly ask permission. 

[dkhowe]

2 hours ago, MizBrown said:

 

I shoot in my own neighborhood and I'm a foreigner in it.   It's going to depend on the culture and on individuals.  I mostly explain what I'm doing, and mostly ask permission. 

Yes, asking permission would solve my dilemma. If people are around when I’m shooting, I ask permission. If I shoot the photo when a boat owner isn’t around, I’m hesitant to ask them after the fact. So as I talk this through, I can see I need to adjust what I’m shooting so it will coincide with what I’m comfortable publishing.

Edited March 9, 2021 by dkhowe

[Jose Decio Molaro]

Some image bank do not accept that you make any changes to the photo (image) even if it is to improve it, it must be the way you photographed it. here in Brazil this law is being discussed a lot (General Data Protection Regulations), it will be more difficult to photograph events, people ...

[dkhowe]

15 minutes ago, Jose Decio Molaro said:

Some image bank do not accept that you make any changes to the photo (image) even if it is to improve it, it must be the way you photographed it. here in Brazil this law is being discussed a lot (General Data Protection Regulations), it will be more difficult to photograph events, people ...

I’ve shot a lot of events and have suffered the wrath more than one person who wasn’t happy having a camera in the room. It didn’t matter that I had a media pass or was hired by the people putting on the event. I always do my best to accommodate those who don’t want to be in a photo.

Edited March 9, 2021 by dkhowe

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Kostiantyn Ablazov said:

dkhowe, allow me, please, to ask a question in your topic? Question also about editorial photo. Hope you find this helpful too. 

If I want to publish a photo that partially contains graffiti, will I have any problems later from the author of these graffiti, whom I do not know? Is it enough to just tag this photo as editorial? Houses, streets, cafes, restaurants, metro stations, street life - is all editorial? 

Thanks in advance

 

 

i will add, it also depends what you define as "problems".   You were likely in the right to publish that image.  I would, and have.  However i am perfectly conscious that this would not stop someone to claim i wasn't allowed, which would likely involve time defend myself, and address the issue.  If this is a problem to you, you do need to understand it.  

 

We had an extreme case a couple years ago of artwork in an image that was misused by a client.  Yes the photographer was likely in the right, still didn't stop for his names to have been targeted in social medias and medias, and him having to spend energy to defend his name.  So it depends what You value.  

Note i would have no problem uploading the same image the person had, it's part of my comfort zone. 

[meanderingemu]

That said, except for News, Alamy does not really restrict editing on "Editorial" images, but i think most of use would use that leeway to remove image distractions, eg. piece of trash, electrical wires, than for privacy concerns. 

 

 

If you were to modify something major, You would be well to at least put a comment in the "additional info" part of the other info in AIM. (eg. "Phone number was removed from sign for privacy reason"

[dkhowe]

Thanks for all of your responses. 

[Kostiantyn Ablazov]

Meanderingemu, thanks for the clarification.

I understand that none of us have a crystal ball to see the future. But could you take a look at my last two graffiti pictures? Maybe I need to choose a different license or restrict the use of these photos? Or maybe they are not for Alami at all? I am just starting to work with Alami, so I want to know about future problems from the very beginning and not be wrong.
(I do not speak English, and I really hope that the automatic translator translated everything correctly).

Thanks in advance.

[meanderingemu]

4 minutes ago, Kostiantyn Ablazov said:

Meanderingemu, thanks for the clarification.

I understand that none of us have a crystal ball to see the future. But could you take a look at my last two graffiti pictures? Maybe I need to choose a different license or restrict the use of these photos? Or maybe they are not for Alami at all? I am just starting to work with Alami, so I want to know about future problems from the very beginning and not be wrong.
(I do not speak English, and I really hope that the automatic translator translated everything correctly).

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Clearly these images include Art work, in 2D so they for sure need to be marked as "For Editorial Only".  I would make them Rights Managed.  They appear to be in bigger context.  So from Alamy rules you appear fine.  

 

The only small concern is the art on the Rue des Lavandières image, where nothing interferes with the whole work (nobody passing by, no fence, straight on photo), so someone could easily crop it out.  But risk is minimal, though i don't no much the level of protectionism in France for such work. 

 

note that I would have uploaded these two images myself, as i think risk for me is acceptable. 

[Kostiantyn Ablazov]

Meanderingemu, thank you very much. I fixed everything.

[Chuck Nacke]

On 09/03/2021 at 08:18, IanDavidson said:

In my view it depends very much on what the photo is for.  As a news photographer I would not remove or hide any details, that would be be against the general practice of photojournalism   It also depends on what country you are in.  Different countries have vastly different rules of privacy.  In the UK there is no automatic right to privacy unless you are in a private place (although if the photographer is in a public place the issue is more complex), a court order is in place (that can be difficult), if the individual or place is covered under legislation relating to the Official Secrets or Anti terrorism laws, or ,  if the individual has a legitimate  expectation of privacy.  So, photographing through a bedroom window is a no no.  But, it someone is in a public place then they do not have, currently, a right to privacy.  As to car registrations, it is not easy to find the owner of a car from a car registration so there is no particular privacy issue.  There are some issues under GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) however, I would argue, and some contributors would disagree, that GDPR has only limited application to news and editorial photography and in any case the regulations do not stop you taking photographs.  I am unaware of any enforcement action under the GDPR in relation to photography.  

 

Common law and judges decisions attempt to strike a balance between privacy and the "freedom of the press".  The pendulum appears, recently, to have swung a little way towards privacy, particularly if you are rich, and against freedom of the press.  So again, it depends what usage you are making of the word "editorial".  Freedom of the press protections, in general, only applies to news photographs.    

 

Someone not wanting their photograph to be taken does not make it illegal.  There is the Editors Code on taking photos and most professional photojournalists I know have their own ethics on this issue as I do.  

 

It is really up to you and the relevant regulations in the country in which your are shooting.  Purely from an artistic view any removal of detail should be undertaken carefully so as not to affect the attractiveness of the photograph .

Well said Ian,

 

Chuck

[Ed Rooney]

Interesting question. I don't do Live News for Alamy. If I did, I would shoot high-quality jpegs and make no changes. I do clean up many of my editorial stock images, and this post has me reconsidering that. Hmmm.

 

This is the card that was given to me by the NHS after my first vaccination. So it's me and the NHS. I changed my name. Maybe I shouldn't have and maybe I shouldn't have uploaded this image? Double hmmm. 

 

 

And on this one. . . .

 

 

I shot this last week and it sold yesterday. I have been thinking of editorial pictures as illustrations, not news. In this, I cleaned up the litter from the street, something I often do. I want to do away with unimportant things that draw a viewer's eye away from what is important. 

Hmmm, hmmm, and hmmm.

[GeoffK]

Edo,

 

I agree with what you are doing, making editorial i.e. it will be used in an editorial setting photos is not the same as hard news (Editorial with a capital E if you wish).  Cloning out bits and pieces to make the image more saleable is fine and IME, worth the effort.  There are a lot of commercial images used in editorial settings....the classic 'posed by models' images in magazines etc. All you are doing is tipping your hat to what commercial stock would do.

 

 

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

Cleaning up litter in Photoshop is a lot better than doing it in real life.

[wiskerke]

5 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Interesting question. I don't do Live News for Alamy. If I did, I would shoot high-quality jpegs and make no changes. I do clean up many of my editorial stock images, and this post has me reconsidering that. Hmmm.

 

This is the card that was given to me by the NHS after my first vaccination. So it's me and the NHS. I changed my name. Maybe I shouldn't have and maybe I shouldn't have uploaded this image? Double hmmm. 

 

 

I shot this last week and it sold yesterday. I have been thinking of editorial pictures as illustrations, not news. In this, I cleaned up the litter from the street, something I often do. I want to do away with unimportant things that draw a viewer's eye away from what is important. 

Hmmm, hmmm, and hmmm.

 

I think that's an easy decision: altering names and numbers will actually make some editors feel a lot more at ease, so I always make sure I declare this in the Additional info panel.

Stuff that will probably blow away in a moment or two and wasn't there a little while ago: fair game. Unless it's actual news of course. Then again: declare it, maybe even in the caption.

 

wim

 

[Jill Morgan]

22 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Interesting question. I don't do Live News for Alamy. If I did, I would shoot high-quality jpegs and make no changes. I do clean up many of my editorial stock images, and this post has me reconsidering that. Hmmm.

 

This is the card that was given to me by the NHS after my first vaccination. So it's me and the NHS. I changed my name. Maybe I shouldn't have and maybe I shouldn't have uploaded this image? Double hmmm. 

 

 

There is probably an Edward Roon out there wanting to know how you got a picture of his NHS card.

 

Jill

[Ed Rooney]

Edwardo 😉