John Mitchell Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Just wondering, in what instances are you checking the new "Sell for editorial only" button in the new Manage Images? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I will use it for those events where accreditation only permits me to use my pictures for editorial purposes e.g. pro sports, cultural events. Typically events where the participants manage their image rights very closely. I will also take a view for other news events on a case by case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 I will use it for those events where accreditation only permits me to use my pictures for editorial purposes e.g. pro sports, cultural events. Typically events where the participants manage their image rights very closely. I will also take a view for other news events on a case by case basis. Yes, I have some images like those that I plan to check the button for, also for murals, paintings, and other artwork. How about logos, storefronts and the like, though? Do they warrant a click of the box? Or will this limit other legit sales opportunities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Does not having a MR or a needed PR not automatically mean "editorial only" anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Does not having a MR or a needed PR not automatically mean "editorial only" anymore? That's how I've always worked and it allows the buyer to seek their own MR or PR if they so wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Does not having a MR or a needed PR not automatically mean "editorial only" anymore? No. Not yet. (polite Asian answer) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 Does not having a MR or a needed PR not automatically mean "editorial only" anymore? Apparently not. I've had non-editorial sales of non-released images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Does not having a MR or a needed PR not automatically mean "editorial only" anymore? That is certainly the big question. From the AIM instruction manual (as you probably also indirectly refer to): quote 2. For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab) Tip: For more information on license types, please see our online guide unquote I don't think I would risk not to mark as editorial. At least if the images are RF. If RM and you tick people and property and no releases, I don't think it would be necessary, but I don't know. I think the answer is blowing in the wind right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 and the online guide referred to kind of says that you cannot choose RF unless you have the required releases (I won't believe is hasn't been duly updated): http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/understanding-stock-image-licensing/?section=6 This is the most clear piece of information that should have been in the AIM instruction PDF file also. The rule for RM images, used by many / most contributors including myself up to now, has been to click the correct boxes about content of people, property and releases, and the restriction to editorial was not necessary - as the buyer should obtain releases if necessary and was informed about this in a text box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 Does not having a MR or a needed PR not automatically mean "editorial only" anymore? That is certainly the big question. From the AIM instruction manual (as you probably also indirectly refer to): quote 2. For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab) Tip: For more information on license types, please see our online guide unquote I don't think I would risk not to mark as editorial. At least if the images are RF. If RM and you tick people and property and no releases, I don't think it would be necessary, but I don't know. I think the answer is blowing in the wind right now. So... #2 above means that we should go back and check the "Sell for editorial only" box for every single RM image that we've indicated needs releases (model and/or property) that we don't have? How about adding a feature that automatically checks the 'editorial only' box when the contributors have indicated that releases are needed and they don't have them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Does not having a MR or a needed PR not automatically mean "editorial only" anymore? That is certainly the big question. From the AIM instruction manual (as you probably also indirectly refer to): quote 2. For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab) Tip: For more information on license types, please see our online guide unquote I don't think I would risk not to mark as editorial. At least if the images are RF. If RM and you tick people and property and no releases, I don't think it would be necessary, but I don't know. I think the answer is blowing in the wind right now. So... #2 above means that we should go back and check the "Sell for editorial only" box for every single RM image that we've indicated needs releases (model and/or property) that we don't have? I hope not. But we sure need some kind of clarificaton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 Does not having a MR or a needed PR not automatically mean "editorial only" anymore? That is certainly the big question. From the AIM instruction manual (as you probably also indirectly refer to): quote 2. For images that contain unreleased property or people please select ‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab) Tip: For more information on license types, please see our online guide unquote I don't think I would risk not to mark as editorial. At least if the images are RF. If RM and you tick people and property and no releases, I don't think it would be necessary, but I don't know. I think the answer is blowing in the wind right now. So... #2 above means that we should go back and check the "Sell for editorial only" box for every single RM image that we've indicated needs releases (model and/or property) that we don't have? I hope not. But we sure need some kind of clarificaton. I'll drink to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Thank you so much for your input, Niels -- welcome and enlightening as usual. Yes, a round of icy cold Allborg is called for, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Thank you so much for your input, Niels -- welcome and enlightening as usual. Yes, a round of icy cold Allborg is called for, John. Thanks, Ed. Or perhaps a "Gammel Dansk" instead of the red Aalborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 Frankly, half the time that I check the property release needed box, I'm not really sure that it's really necessary to do so. This further complicates matters when it comes to deciding whether or not to check the new "Sell for editorial only" box. Second round for me, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Frankly, half the time that I check the property release needed box, I'm not really sure that it's really necessary to do so. This further complicates matters when it comes to deciding whether or not to check the new "Sell for editorial only" box. Second round for me, please. Then don't. I have decided not to take any decisions yet - as we really don't seem to know. As long as the textbox telling customers to find out whether they need releases for commercial use ( at least for RM and correctly ticked boxes) we should be on the safe side, I think, with a very few exceptions - sometimes informed or done by Alamy. We will probably know a lot more very soon. How did you earn the title "Part of the forum furniture"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 Frankly, half the time that I check the property release needed box, I'm not really sure that it's really necessary to do so. This further complicates matters when it comes to deciding whether or not to check the new "Sell for editorial only" box. Second round for me, please. Then don't. I have decided not to take any decisions yet - as we really don't seem to know. As long as the textbox telling customers to find out whether they need releases for commercial use ( at least for RM and correctly ticked boxes) we should be on the safe side, I think, with a very few exceptions - sometimes informed or done by Alamy. We will probably know a lot more very soon. How did you earn the title "Part of the forum furniture"? I'm adopting a similar 'wait and see' attitude. I have absolutely no idea how I became a piece of furniture. It's a dubious distinction for sure. Perhaps I should sell myself to the highest bidder on eBay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Frankly, half the time that I check the property release needed box, I'm not really sure that it's really necessary to do so. This further complicates matters when it comes to deciding whether or not to check the new "Sell for editorial only" box. Second round for me, please. Then don't. I have decided not to take any decisions yet - as we really don't seem to know. As long as the textbox telling customers to find out whether they need releases for commercial use ( at least for RM and correctly ticked boxes) we should be on the safe side, I think, with a very few exceptions - sometimes informed or done by Alamy. We will probably know a lot more very soon. How did you earn the title "Part of the forum furniture"? I'm adopting a similar 'wait and see' attitude. I have absolutely no idea how I became a piece of furniture. It's a dubious distinction for sure. Perhaps I should sell myself to the highest bidder on eBay. Piece of furniture=comment in most threads. I'm aiming to become a nice easy chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 Frankly, half the time that I check the property release needed box, I'm not really sure that it's really necessary to do so. This further complicates matters when it comes to deciding whether or not to check the new "Sell for editorial only" box. Second round for me, please. Then don't. I have decided not to take any decisions yet - as we really don't seem to know. As long as the textbox telling customers to find out whether they need releases for commercial use ( at least for RM and correctly ticked boxes) we should be on the safe side, I think, with a very few exceptions - sometimes informed or done by Alamy. We will probably know a lot more very soon. How did you earn the title "Part of the forum furniture"? I'm adopting a similar 'wait and see' attitude. I have absolutely no idea how I became a piece of furniture. It's a dubious distinction for sure. Perhaps I should sell myself to the highest bidder on eBay. Piece of furniture=comment in most threads.I'm aiming to become a nice easy chair. I wish that others would hurry and catch up with me. The forum needs some new furniture. I'm starting to feel like an antique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Frankly, half the time that I check the property release needed box, I'm not really sure that it's really necessary to do so. This further complicates matters when it comes to deciding whether or not to check the new "Sell for editorial only" box. Second round for me, please. Then don't. I have decided not to take any decisions yet - as we really don't seem to know. As long as the textbox telling customers to find out whether they need releases for commercial use ( at least for RM and correctly ticked boxes) we should be on the safe side, I think, with a very few exceptions - sometimes informed or done by Alamy. We will probably know a lot more very soon. How did you earn the title "Part of the forum furniture"? I'm adopting a similar 'wait and see' attitude. I have absolutely no idea how I became a piece of furniture. It's a dubious distinction for sure. Perhaps I should sell myself to the highest bidder on eBay. Piece of furniture=comment in most threads.I'm aiming to become a nice easy chair. I wish that others would hurry and catch up with me. The forum needs some new furniture. I'm starting to feel like an antique. I'm trying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 Frankly, half the time that I check the property release needed box, I'm not really sure that it's really necessary to do so. This further complicates matters when it comes to deciding whether or not to check the new "Sell for editorial only" box. Second round for me, please. Then don't. I have decided not to take any decisions yet - as we really don't seem to know. As long as the textbox telling customers to find out whether they need releases for commercial use ( at least for RM and correctly ticked boxes) we should be on the safe side, I think, with a very few exceptions - sometimes informed or done by Alamy. We will probably know a lot more very soon. How did you earn the title "Part of the forum furniture"? I'm adopting a similar 'wait and see' attitude. I have absolutely no idea how I became a piece of furniture. It's a dubious distinction for sure. Perhaps I should sell myself to the highest bidder on eBay. Piece of furniture=comment in most threads.I'm aiming to become a nice easy chair. I wish that others would hurry and catch up with me. The forum needs some new furniture. I'm starting to feel like an antique. I'm trying! Good. It gets lonely out here in left field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 These changes are a bit unclear to me (I know I'm not alone!). So if I need releases and don't have them, I should check the "Editorial Only" box, correct? But now I can have these unreleased images them as RF, not just RM which was the only option in the previous system? Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 These changes are a bit unclear to me (I know I'm not alone!). So if I need releases and don't have them, I should check the "Editorial Only" box, correct? But now I can have these unreleased images them as RF, not just RM which was the only option in the previous system? Is that correct? That does seem to be the case. I guess Alamy is now leaving all the decision-making to us. Hopefully there will be some clarification... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 If you can start switching licenses around now I'm wondering then if you still have to follow the rule that images must have the same type of license everywhere they are sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 27, 2017 Author Share Posted January 27, 2017 If you can start switching licenses around now I'm wondering then if you still have to follow the rule that images must have the same type of license everywhere they are sold. Good point. I would think so. Definitely something to remember when fiddling around with licenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.