Editorial images

[Killer Pacman]

Hi there,

I'm trying to undestand how to submit editorial images: should I upload my pics as usual or should I follow another procedure? Where can I specify that those specific images are for editorial use only?

Thank you for your help

 

[Bizair]

If you don't have Model or Property releases my understanding is that editorial is all that they can be used for. Just follow the Alamy guidelines applicable once the images have passed QC and you should be fine.

 

Ken

[ann]

To specify image is for editorial use only:

 

In Manage Images, click on image, and you'll see TABS for info input: 

-- select Restrictions

 

In Restrictions, you'll see several types

-- select Usage

 

In Usage, you'll see several types

--  EDITORIAL is the one type you will definitely NOT choose.

 

Now that you've seen a bit of what's in Restrictions section:

 

Start by selecting a Territory (for example Worldwide), and choose what uses you do NOT want to allow.

You individually have to choose and Add each type of usage you want to restrict.

 

(There have been requests to have option to choose that you DO want EDITORIAL use only, instead of having to individually select all the Usages you do NOT want. Perhaps that will happen at some point.)

 

----------------------

 

To enter restrictions for a BATCH of images:

 

In Manage Images, select the images and drag them down to the section at bottom, which has this written in it:

"Drag images here to edit them as a batch" - and then select the restrictions, one by one, as above.

 

- ann

Edited May 4, 2013 by ann

[DavidC]

I just include the words "EDITORIAL USE ONLY" in both the image title/caption and description fields - if that does not put you in the clear I don't know what would !

[dustydingo]

I take a different approach:

 

I'm totally honest about the release status of my images, and I leave the end use up to the buyer.

 

As a result, I've had images with clearly identifiable people (no release, and clearly labeled as such) used in commercial promotional material, for very nice returns . . . luckily I hadn't marked them "editorial only".

 

dd

[DavidC]

Sorry DD I meant that I am totally honest as well about the status of property and people releases - it is just that putting EDITORIAL USE ONLY puts me in the clear if the item is at all contentious - I am sure that you would be able to put the responsibility onto the end user eventually but that small tag clears me in one move without any hassle or risk. Whatever works for you.......

[Killer Pacman]

To specify image is for editorial use only:

 

In Manage Images, click on image, and you'll see TABS for info input: 

-- select Restrictions

 

In Restrictions, you'll see several types

-- select Usage

 

In Usage, you'll see several types

--  EDITORIAL is the one type you will definitely NOT choose.

 

Now that you've seen a bit of what's in Restrictions section:

 

Start by selecting a Territory (for example Worldwide), and choose what uses you do NOT want to allow.

You individually have to choose and Add each type of usage you want to restrict.

 

(There have been requests to have option to choose that you DO want EDITORIAL use only, instead of having to individually select all the Usages you do NOT want. Perhaps that will happen at some point.)

 

----------------------

 

To enter restrictions for a BATCH of images:

 

In Manage Images, select the images and drag them down to the section at bottom, which has this written in it:

"Drag images here to edit them as a batch" - and then select the restrictions, one by one, as above.

 

- ann

Thanks so much Ann, you've been really helpful.

[Killer Pacman]

Sorry DD I meant that I am totally honest as well about the status of property and people releases - it is just that putting EDITORIAL USE ONLY puts me in the clear if the item is at all contentious - I am sure that you would be able to put the responsibility onto the end user eventually but that small tag clears me in one move without any hassle or risk. Whatever works for you.......

In addition to what Ann says I'll also do that, good idea.

[Killer Pacman]

Thanks a lot everybody for your help

[dustydingo]

Sorry DD I meant that I am totally honest as well about the status of property and people releases - it is just that putting EDITORIAL USE ONLY puts me in the clear if the item is at all contentious - I am sure that you would be able to put the responsibility onto the end user eventually but that small tag clears me in one move without any hassle or risk. Whatever works for you.......

 

David, I wasn't implying any misgivings about your honesty, I was just describing my process/thoughts in isolation

 

Back OT, my view is: why place restrictions that a publisher may have otherwise chosen to ignore? As you say, whatever works for you (me), but I'm looking to increase my chances of selling images, not restricting them.

 

dd

[Charles Stirling]

DavidC mentions "EDITORIAL USE ONLY puts me in the clear if the item is at all contentious". If it is contentious, sometimes even when not, and used editorially it can still bring reprocusions and one just has to put up with it. I had one used editorially in a way the subject decided she didn't like and even with a model release she demanded all images of here were to be removed from Alamy.

[Jansos]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the consensus would seem to be don't use 'editorial only' because it restricts sales and there are other easier ways of making it abundantly clear that you don't have model or property releases. So my question is when is it necessary to state editorial only? I am still not sure why you would want to do this if you indicated that you do not have model or property releases. Perhaps photos of works of art would be one instance where it was necessary?

[Jill Morgan]

This thread is almost 4 years old.  With the new AIM, if you are selling RF without releases you have to tick the "editorial only" box.  If you are selling RM, then you can either tick the box or simply fill in the release info and leave it at that.

 

Jill

[Hellonearth]

I believe that if you you state either property or people and you do not tick the editorial box, Alamy will eventually do it for you and notify you. That is assuming you have no releases

Edited April 7, 2017 by Hellonearth

[Parafull]

Hellonearth, Alamy didn't do it for me so after few days I have ticked the Editorial box on my own on some images. I don't know if I made the right choice. For some images I still have no idea if I need property release, so I left them as commercial RF.

[Parafull]

LawrensonPhoto, thank you for your answer.

Everything is clear to me with this Sun image. But 3 men... I had no idea the wetsuit might be the point of attention regarding property problem.

I marked that image "Sell for editorial only", but left it as RF. I did it with all the images containing recognizable people. Hope it is good enough for anyone concerned.
Edit: I don't know when and how it will be displayed (editorial) in my portfolio, maybe it needs some time after marking.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Parafull

[Joseph Clemson]

The need to mark images as editorial only goes beyond recognizable people. Even if people are not recognizable you should mark the image as having people with no releases and editorial only.

 

You also need to be aware of the need for property releases. Images taken in places which are privately owned (even if the public is allowed in) are often subject to restrictions on the sale of images for commercial use . For example, you may need to check on the restrictions in force at the airshow you photographed. The green arches look like they may be in a formal garden of a stately home or similar and they often have restrictions on using photos commercially.

 

My own approach is to mark all images I submit as editorial only unless I am very, very sure there is no property or model release issues which might later come back to cause a problem. 

[Parafull]

Thank you, Mr. Clemson.

Also just marked car race, as well as airshow. A lot to learn.

[dunstun365]

OH so as long as they have passed QC you then choose which ones would be editorial? because at the minute I cannot find an editorial ckick box on alamy

Edited December 26, 2019 by dunstun365

[Avpics]

1 hour ago, dunstun365 said:

OH so as long as they have passed QC you then choose which ones would be editorial? because at the minute I cannot find an editorial ckick box on alamy

It's under the 'optional' tab for each image.

[dunstun365]

On 26/12/2019 at 22:41, Avpics said:

It's under the 'optional' tab for each image.

found it

thanks

 

[Tami Ruble]

If I have an image marked as "sell as editorial only" because it is a photo of a business owner (no mr) conducting their business (no property release), and then they want to buy the photo, can they use it commercially to advertise for their own business? 

[spacecadet]

On 14/03/2020 at 22:39, Tami Ruble said:

If I have an image marked as "sell as editorial only" because it is a photo of a business owner (no mr) conducting their business (no property release), and then they want to buy the photo, can they use it commercially to advertise for their own business? 

Of course.

[Avpics]

On 14/03/2020 at 22:39, Tami Ruble said:

If I have an image marked as "sell as editorial only" because it is a photo of a business owner (no mr) conducting their business (no property release), and then they want to buy the photo, can they use it commercially to advertise for their own business? 

What licence would they buy though? Would they buy a PU then use it commercially? That doesn't seem very fair. 

[meanderingemu]

On 14/03/2020 at 18:39, Tami Ruble said:

If I have an image marked as "sell as editorial only" because it is a photo of a business owner (no mr) conducting their business (no property release), and then they want to buy the photo, can they use it commercially to advertise for their own business? 

 

 

they would likely have to approach Alamy, who then would ask you if you were fine with removing the exclusion.  If you said "sell as editorial only" without your permission they are not (should not) be allowed to use your image commercially.