Editorial restrictions ?

[Kumar]

Scratching my head over this ... restrictions over EDITORIAL usage, that too worldwide ? Wonder how does that work in favour of the contributor ??

 

[Matt Limb]

Simple, an image that has already sold to use, say, in a book and part of the sale agreement is that it cannot be used in another for book for an agreed period of time.

 

Restrictions like this are normally associated with a larger income.

[Kumar]

Simple, an image that has already sold to use, say, in a book and part of the sale agreement is that it cannot be used in another for book for an agreed period of time.

 

Restrictions like this are normally associated with a larger income.

Thanks Matt Limb, I would have thought as much, but the message for the clients here is : " ... because only a LIMITED number of this photographer's images may be REUSED in a specific book project". I just couldn't decipher this emphasis on REUSE here. May be 'am missing something utterly simple here !

[spacecadet]

Alamy is not an exclusive agency. So availability elsewhere may restrict what a photographer can offer here.

[Kumar]

Alamy is not an exclusive agency. So availability elsewhere may restrict what a photographer can offer here.

True, but individually some images may still be placed with Alamy on 'exclusive' basis.

[Jonny Nicholson]

Scratching my head over this ... restrictions over EDITORIAL usage, that too worldwide ? Wonder how does that work in favour of the contributor ??

Reuters usually put restrictions on images, like: "Editorial use only. Not to be used in political campaigns."

 

Take the image used on Nigel Farage's "Breaking Point" (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/sayeeda-warsi-quits-leave-campaign-over-hateful-xenophobic-tactics) campaign poster. Its from Getty Images, apparently. Getty complained about the use of the image being used on that poster. Using a Reuters-style restriction stops that happening in the first place.

 

I know one photographer who puts a "This image is not to be distributed or syndicated" restriction on images. Personally, I'm of the "If you don't want it distributed or syndicated, don't upload it" school (old-fashioned, I know). Still, there are sensitivities which is why you can put a Reuters or a "Not to be edited" (like 'do not crop' 'not to be altered' (replacing a 4 with a 5, for argument's sake) or 'do not add cartoon impressions' (devil horns or angel wings etc)) type restriction. Its one way to make sure the image is used with responsibility or that you have the image used in line with your personal values.

 

If, say, a publication used one of my images to illustrate bare-faced lies about someone/something/an organisation I've photographed then I would put a restriction in the box which would hopefully stop that same publication from using that, or another, photograph of mine. However, in all likelihood, a publication like that would probably ignore the restriction. Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that the restriction is up to you and can be about anything you'd like it to be. I'm just not sure about the restriction's legal force.

 

However, the restriction box gives you that option of, like I say, making sure you have sales in line with your values. You can make sure a publication/organisation/campaign will not be associated with using your work. I would say this, though, that if you're worried about the potential fall out of an image, its best to play it safe and not upload in the first place as images can also be shared on social media. They can be used to denigrate someone, with them having to be written about.

 

How people use my images is not really something that worries me. My defence is "I was honest about who I am, what I'm doing, who for and, more to the point, I wasn't involved with the article or share you disagree with." I take the view that photo agencies record, newspapers edit.

 

As Matt Limb said, its probably an exclusivity deal thing.