'For editorial use only'

[Cryptoprocta]

I happened to come upon a series of images by another contributor which are marked 'for editorial use only'.

I ca't find this on any of my images without releasews, including those I uploaded via the news feed.

Could somone please tell me what I've missed, presumably hiding in plain sight?

TIA

[Niels Quist]

No, you have not missed anything. Must have been added by the photographer or from some sort of restriction, as I see it (there is one called "Editorial").

 

But you only need to tick the boxes correctly, persons and/or property in the picture that requires a release - but you haven't got the release, everything will be fine. It will be sold as RM and marked: "Model release : No

Property release: No" and a link with the text: "Always check if you need a release".

[John Mitchell]

I sometimes put "Editorial Use Only" in the description field if I'm extra paranoid about an image being used commercially without a release.

 

No doubt, other contributors do this as well.

[Cryptoprocta]

Thanks, I do what both of you, Niels and John have said, but this red 'note' seems to be generated from within Alamy:

[John Mitchell]

Interesting

 

Thanks, I do what both of you, Niels and John have said, but this red 'note' seems to be generated from within Alamy:

 

Interesting. I'll have to check that out. Perhaps this phrase shows up if you set all the necessary restrictions for making images editorial use only. I don't do that any longer. Or perhaps Alamy can explain...

[Carolyn Jenkins]

Was it by any chance an image relating to the Olympics? I had an email from Alamy in May (because I have images with Olympics in the keywords) advising the IOC (International Olympic Committee) had been in touch with them to make sure all content taken of or in Olympic venues or events on Alamy is supplied by accredited photographers and are also only available for editorial licenses.

Alamy advised they had searched the term 'Olympics' and were in the process of adding editorial only restrictions to all images they find while they investigate.

 

If you search for Olympics UK stadium I see some are flagged in red 'Editorial use only'.

 

Maybe this is the reason?   

 

Carolyn 

[spacecadet]

Haha! Not likely to happen to me. River Lea navigation, opposite the park, 2012.

[John Mitchell]

Nasty, but I can understand the sentiment.

[Cryptoprocta]

Which image is it? It may be from an agency which has some kind of arrangement.

Ah, that could be it.

It's credited to WENN Ltd. which is apparently a "Celebrity and Entertainment News Agency".

That's also interesting, Carolyn.

There must be some 'more desirable' suppliers who make that a condition of supply.

[vpics]

I had one set where Alamy applied the "Editorial Use Only" setting.

 

I hope it's in the pipeline so we can all do it. 

 

I had previously ticked everything else - including Commercial Electronic - which results into sellers being told that web use is not available AT ALL. They can still licence images for editorial web use, but if they are told that they cannot, well would you investigate. Check out image DRY74R.

[John Mitchell]

"I hope it's in the pipeline so we can all do it."

 

Yes, would love to see that much-discussed "editorial use only" button.

[Cryptoprocta]

I had one set where Alamy applied the "Editorial Use Only" setting.

 

I hope it's in the pipeline so we can all do it. 

 

I had previously ticked everything else - including Commercial Electronic - which results into sellers being told that web use is not available AT ALL. They can still licence images for editorial web use, but if they are told that they cannot, well would you investigate. Check out image DRY74R.

That's not an 'editorial use only' settig - it's what happens when you tick what appear to be the most logical restrictions, you can't sell at all.

There is a workaround, but I just say Yes/No if appropriate or even if doubtful.

I do see some uses coming through which might be considered non-editorial, but I guess the buyer is willing to take the risk.

[vpics]

Just to clarify, I never knowingly ticked "Commercial Electronic". 

 

A while ago I was told to tick everything and what would remain was "editorial". Obviously not. 

[ann]

Which image is it? It may be from an agency which has some kind of arrangement.

Funkyworm beat me to it.

If a partner agency is mainly a news wire service, for example, it would likely require Editorial Use Only restriction on its images.

[wiskerke]

13.2 MB?

No wonder new contributors get confused.

 

wim

[spacecadet]

Nasty, but I can understand the sentiment.

I should have made more of those pix at the time but living 3 miles away I was too busy ignoring the O******s.

[Malcolm Park]

Most of the images I’ve uploaded to Alamy in the last few years are editorial only with strict restrictions on their use (particularly press accredited art gallery images which often have strict usage rules). I’m also confused about the use of the ‘Editorial use only’ statement which seems to have appeared on some of my work (eg: EG46H9) but not others although I applied the same restrictions. I would prefer this statement appeared on all images I deem to be editorial only. Perhaps Alamy might clarify?

[Marianne]

It will be so good when they finally give us an "Editorial Use Only" restriction to tick instead of going through that long list. We've been waiting a long time - hope it happens. 

[dustydingo]

I can't for the life of me understand why some folk are desperate to identify their images as Editorial only and thereby possibly restrict the sales potential of those images.

 

That is a restriction that I'm certainly not going to add to my images. I don't tell the buyer what he/she can do with my images, all I do is honestly state whether or not I have releases--the choice of use is theirs.

 

dd

[Martin P Wilson]

I can't for the life of me understand why some folk are desperate to identify their images as Editorial only and thereby possibly restrict the sales potential of those images.

 

That is a restriction that I'm certainly not going to add to my images. I don't tell the buyer what he/she can do with my images, all I do is honestly state whether or not I have releases--the choice of use is theirs.

 

dd

 

 

Often it is because accreditation to many events, sporting, celebrity and otherwise, require it as a condition of entry. There can be serious implications for the photographer if photos are used outside the terms of the accreditation, it is a contract after all. Note that IOC are pursuing non-permitted use of photos from the Olympics.

[dustydingo]

 

I can't for the life of me understand why some folk are desperate to identify their images as Editorial only and thereby possibly restrict the sales potential of those images.

 

That is a restriction that I'm certainly not going to add to my images. I don't tell the buyer what he/she can do with my images, all I do is honestly state whether or not I have releases--the choice of use is theirs.

 

dd

 

 

Often it is because accreditation to many events, sporting, celebrity and otherwise, require it as a condition of entry. There can be serious implications for the photographer if photos are used outside the terms of the accreditation, it is a contract after all. Note that IOC are pursuing non-permitted use of photos from the Olympics.

 

 

Martin, yes, I'm aware of the contractually-bound material some upload, but your mention of it is the first I've seen in a long time (comfortable about being proved wrong on that of course ). In every other thread on this subject, almost all are wanting the ability to mark their images "editorial only" to cover the lack of releases--it is this practise I simply cannot understand, prefering, as above, to leave that decision to the buyer.

 

EDIT: if I was uploading this sort of contractually-restricted material, forget about annotating images "editorial only", I'd want an iron-clad written agreement with Alamy that those images would only be editorial.

 

dd

[Phil Crean]

I can't for the life of me understand why some folk are desperate to identify their images as Editorial only and thereby possibly restrict the sales potential of those images.

 

That is a restriction that I'm certainly not going to add to my images. I don't tell the buyer what he/she can do with my images, all I do is honestly state whether or not I have releases--the choice of use is theirs.

 

dd

+1000

[Martin P Wilson]

 

 

I can't for the life of me understand why some folk are desperate to identify their images as Editorial only and thereby possibly restrict the sales potential of those images.

 

That is a restriction that I'm certainly not going to add to my images. I don't tell the buyer what he/she can do with my images, all I do is honestly state whether or not I have releases--the choice of use is theirs.

 

dd

 

 

Often it is because accreditation to many events, sporting, celebrity and otherwise, require it as a condition of entry. There can be serious implications for the photographer if photos are used outside the terms of the accreditation, it is a contract after all. Note that IOC are pursuing non-permitted use of photos from the Olympics.

 

 

Martin, yes, I'm aware of the contractually-bound material some upload, but your mention of it is the first I've seen in a long time (comfortable about being proved wrong on that of course ). In every other thread on this subject, almost all are wanting the ability to mark their images "editorial only" to cover the lack of releases--it is this practise I simply cannot understand, prefering, as above, to leave that decision to the buyer.

 

EDIT: if I was uploading this sort of contractually-restricted material, forget about annotating images "editorial only", I'd want an iron-clad written agreement with Alamy that those images would only be editorial.

 

dd

 

 

For non-contractual material; i.e. general stock I too cannot understand the need to mark it as editorial only simply because there are no releases. I have always worked on the basis that it is the end users responsibility to determine whether they need a release or not, I can only say whether I have a release or not. I cannot say that it can be used for a particular purpose (with or without a release). I have considerable difficulty with Alamy's questions that ask if the images "NEED" releases, the only person who can know that answer is the end user.

[Martin P Wilson]

 

 

 

I can't for the life of me understand why some folk are desperate to identify their images as Editorial only and thereby possibly restrict the sales potential of those images.

 

That is a restriction that I'm certainly not going to add to my images. I don't tell the buyer what he/she can do with my images, all I do is honestly state whether or not I have releases--the choice of use is theirs.

 

dd

 

 

Often it is because accreditation to many events, sporting, celebrity and otherwise, require it as a condition of entry. There can be serious implications for the photographer if photos are used outside the terms of the accreditation, it is a contract after all. Note that IOC are pursuing non-permitted use of photos from the Olympics.

 

 

Martin, yes, I'm aware of the contractually-bound material some upload, but your mention of it is the first I've seen in a long time (comfortable about being proved wrong on that of course ). In every other thread on this subject, almost all are wanting the ability to mark their images "editorial only" to cover the lack of releases--it is this practise I simply cannot understand, prefering, as above, to leave that decision to the buyer.

 

EDIT: if I was uploading this sort of contractually-restricted material, forget about annotating images "editorial only", I'd want an iron-clad written agreement with Alamy that those images would only be editorial.

 

dd

 

 

For non-contractual material; i.e. general stock I too cannot understand the need to mark it as editorial only simply because there are no releases. I have always worked on the basis that it is the end users responsibility to determine whether they need a release or not, I can only say whether I have a release or not. I cannot say that it can be used for a particular purpose (with or without a release). I have considerable difficulty with Alamy's questions that ask if the images "NEED" releases, the only person who can know that answer is the end user.

 

I agree with your last point, Alamy admits it may not honour restrictions. I have not submitted such work to Alamy for a long time now.

 

[Cryptoprocta]

Can someone please point out the difference in what is shown on a file page between no releases needed and needs releases - no releases.

All I can see on mine is Model Release - No (even if there's no-one in the image) and property release - no (even if no actionable property is in the image and I haven't ticked 'needs PR').

I can't see any difference in what's shown; viz. I can't see how the buyer is indicated whether one might be needed, or that none is needed.