Is this an editorial licence?

[andremichel]

 

Hello,

 

This image of mine is marked as 'Sell for editorial only' : HN7W20

Restrictions 

1. Don't sell for advertising and promotion
2. Don't sell for consumer goods

 

I also have it marked as 

 

Is there any property in the image? 

Yes

Do you have a signed release for the property? 

No

 

Today I received a sales report that it was licenced as: 

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Standard License for 1 user only. Allowed usage: across websites, social media, short-form video on video sharing sites, digital publishing, digital marketing, and print runs up to 100,000.

Duration: In perpetuity

$7-40 gross

 

The image clearly shows a company's name so I expect it is only suitable for editorial use, i.e. not commercial. 

 

I am concerned by the words "digital marketing" as it sounds like advertising to me. 

 

Can anyone explain why there is nothing for me to be concerned about and why this licence fits within editorial?

 

Thanks

 

Andy

[imageplotter]

I had similar issues recently with a pic of Liz Truss, taken on private property at a London hustings, marked editorial only etc by me, sold by Alamy with the following license:

 

Country: United Kingdom
Usage: Advertising and promotion, For use on online and print marketing, includes social media digital advertising (Does not include any other Advertising)
Media: Promotional brochures/ leaflets/inserts
Start: 14 February 2024
Duration: Unlimited

 

The Alamy response to my query was that the client had assured them they had used it as editorial. Why then not sell it with an editorial license? Why sell it as "advertising and promotion" with specifically allowing brochures and leaflets? 

 

  

[andremichel]

This is the response I received from member services. I'm no legal expert, but it sounds to me like Alamy are asking for trouble by granting licences that say one thing e.g. marketing, then expecting the customer to abide by the rules photographers stipulate for their images, that may say something else, e.g. editorial only. 

 

We’ve introduced a simpler way our e-commerce customers can license images from the Alamy site. We need to streamline our licensing and pricing options for a user-friendly, intuitive and scalable e-commerce experience that is competitive and reflects the current market in the stock photo industry. This is not something you can opt out of.

 

This strategic simplification can eliminate confusion, boost conversions, and consequently, enhance revenue.

 

These licenses are for our e-commerce customers while our account-managed customers will still mainly be licensing images for specific projects as they have always done, and we will still be offering custom licenses for those who want it. The new license does not affect where images can be used, s­­o if you have marked your images for ‘editorial use only’ the customer will still be bound by the terms of using the images for editorial use only.

[geogphotos]

But I bet that Alamy will still not allow RM images to be sold elsewhere as 'RF editorial' - which is exactly what these new licences are.

[DDoug]

I find this thread disturbing. When I left Alamy a while back, it was not so much due to the changes in compensation as to the changes in liability. Rather than publishers and other customers being responsible for model and property release issues, now suddenly we photographers are (unless I’m reading it wrong*), The fact is, I can’t afford to fight a lawsuit properly, let alone lose one. If Alamy can’t abide by the “editorial only” designation, then I’ll simply have to remove all but the bug and flower photos and equally innocuous fare. If it's down to that, I'll have to decide if any of it is worth the bother.

 

*5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content or Metadata infringes any third party’s copyright or any other intellectual property right (ii) any breach of your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

[Steve F]

1 hour ago, DDoug said:

I find this thread disturbing. When I left Alamy a while back, it was not so much due to the changes in compensation as to the changes in liability. Rather than publishers and other customers being responsible for model and property release issues, now suddenly we photographers are (unless I’m reading it wrong*), The fact is, I can’t afford to fight a lawsuit properly, let alone lose one. If Alamy can’t abide by the “editorial only” designation, then I’ll simply have to remove all but the bug and flower photos and equally innocuous fare. If it's down to that, I'll have to decide if any of it is worth the bother.

 

*5.1. You will indemnify, defend (at the request of Alamy) and hold Alamy and its affiliates, Customers, Distributors, sub-licensees and assigns (the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal expenses) which any of the Indemnified Parties incur arising from or in in relation to: (i) any claim that the Content or Metadata infringes any third party’s copyright or any other intellectual property right (ii) any breach of your representations, obligations and warranties under this Contract or the System. This clause will remain in force after the termination of this Contract.

 

Took a while to find it. Think Alamy covered it here:

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/14386-contract-change-2021-official-thread/?do=findComment&comment=291450

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/14386-contract-change-2021-official-thread/?do=findComment&comment=291480

 

[Mark Scheuern]

I realize I'm probably being very dumb, here, but what is an "e-commerce customer" vs. an "account-managed customer"? 

[spacecadet]

7 minutes ago, Mark Scheuern said:

I realize I'm probably being very dumb, here, but what is an "e-commerce customer" vs. an "account-managed customer"? 

I assume the former is paying in advance on a credit card. The latter buys on account.

[Mark Scheuern]

Ah, thanks. I was thinking "aren't they all e-commerce?"

[John Mitchell]

Perhaps there should also be an "Editorial Standard License" option that doesn't include "digital marketing" (whatever that is).

 

[DDoug]

A few years ago I had an image which was marked “editorial only” which a commercial client wanted to license. An Alamy salesperson contacted me by email and asked if I’d be willing to remove the restriction. I did so and the subsequent license for two successive years netted an amount in the low four figures for me. I guess we just have to shrug and say that was the old Alamy.