Editorial use box in new MI

[DDoug]

This is a semi-idle question, since I don't yet have the new Manage Images...

 

If "editorial only" is a restriction, does it preclude distributor sales? Does it preclude personal use, as that is not editorial?

[Niels Quist]

This is a semi-idle question, since I don't yet have the new Manage Images...

 

If "editorial only" is a restriction, does it preclude distributor sales? Does it preclude personal use, as that is not editorial?

And if you tick Editorial what will happen to the number of sales for these common uses where the buyer determine that the image can be used:

 

"Usage: Marketing package - Small business, Use in marketing materials, worldwide for 5 years (excludes advertising)".

 

 

 

BTW - choosing RM and ticking the correct boxes will still show this text box: "If you want to use the image commercially , you might also need permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand. More information". (More information links to this page: http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx )

 

So I will definitely continue doing it this way - and only tick editorial when a logo, brand, etc. is the main subject.

 

And to answer your last question about precluding personal use: if you tick Editorial - you will have this textbox to the right of your image when ticking editorial: Available for editorial and personal use only. Get in touch for commercial uses".

[Ed Rooney]

 

This is a semi-idle question, since I don't yet have the new Manage Images...

 

If "editorial only" is a restriction, does it preclude distributor sales? Does it preclude personal use, as that is not editorial?

And if you tick Editorial what will happen to the number of sales for these common uses where the buyer determine that the image can be used:

 

"Usage: Marketing package - Small business, Use in marketing materials, worldwide for 5 years (excludes advertising)".

 

 

 

BTW - choosing RM and ticking the correct boxes will still show this text box: "If you want to use the image commercially , you might also need permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand. More information". (More information links to this page: http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx )

 

So I will definitely continue doing it this way - and only tick editorial when a logo, brand, etc. is the main subject.

 

And to answer your last question about precluding personal use: if you tick Editorial - you will have this textbox to the right of your image when ticking editorial: Available for editorial and personal use only. Get in touch for commercial uses".

 

 

 

And what does that etc cover, Niels??? 

 

The first thought I uttered about making adjustments in the new system was that I will sit on my hands for awhile and see what happen. I wish I'd taken my own advice. 

[Niels Quist]

 

 

This is a semi-idle question, since I don't yet have the new Manage Images...

 

If "editorial only" is a restriction, does it preclude distributor sales? Does it preclude personal use, as that is not editorial?

And if you tick Editorial what will happen to the number of sales for these common uses where the buyer determine that the image can be used:

 

"Usage: Marketing package - Small business, Use in marketing materials, worldwide for 5 years (excludes advertising)".

 

 

 

BTW - choosing RM and ticking the correct boxes will still show this text box: "If you want to use the image commercially , you might also need permission from the model, artist, owner, estate, trademark or brand. More information". (More information links to this page: http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model-release-property-release.aspx )

 

So I will definitely continue doing it this way - and only tick editorial when a logo, brand, etc. is the main subject.

 

And to answer your last question about precluding personal use: if you tick Editorial - you will have this textbox to the right of your image when ticking editorial: Available for editorial and personal use only. Get in touch for commercial uses".

 

 

 

And what does that etc cover, Niels??? 

 

The first thought I uttered about making adjustments in the new system was that I will sit on my hands for awhile and see what happen. I wish I'd taken my own advice. 

 

 

Yes, a lot better to wait until the mud has settled and the water is clear. I feel at  ease with my decision to continue the way I have always used. Especially after seeing the same text box advice/warning to buyers on  my most recent images that buyers should check up on whether a release is necessary for the particular use.

 

Actually I don't know exactly what the etc. will cover.    But could be images I was uncertain about and there have also  been instances where Alamy has made certain images editorial or asked contributors to do it.

[John Mitchell]

 

This is a semi-idle question, since I don't yet have the new Manage Images...

 

If "editorial only" is a restriction, does it preclude distributor sales? Does it preclude personal use, as that is not editorial?

And if you tick Editorial what will happen to the number of sales for these common uses where the buyer determine that the image can be used:

 

"Usage: Marketing package - Small business, Use in marketing materials, worldwide for 5 years (excludes advertising)".

 

 

 

Good question. This is one of my concerns as well, which is why I'm following a "go easy on the button" policy until we (hopefully) get more clarification. I've had quite a few of the 'marketing packages' sales that you allude to and would hate to see them dry up.

 

Personally. I still think that ultimately the onus should be on the buyer to decide what an image can or can't be used for, not us.

[digi2ap]

I've ticked the editorial box for some of my recent uploads and notice that the image on sale now says - Available for editorial and personal use only. Get in touch for commercial uses .

[Joseph Clemson]

I'm still wrestling with this vexed question of ticking the editorial box or not when I have unreleased people and property in the image, not wishing to limit legitimate sales by doing so, but neither wishing to store up future legal problems for myself. As this type of image represents nearly my entire portfolio at Alamy, I'm keen to get it right.

 

The thing which puzzles me with unreleased images  is that if the 'editorial only' box is left unticked, the image details page gives options for licensing as part of a marketing package (and has always done so, as far as I know). What are the legitimate situations where a purchaser could use an image in their marketing materials when the image contains unreleased people and property or brands belonging to others? I know it is up to the purchaser to obtain the right releases, but are there some particular circumstances where such images may properly be used for marketing in their unreleased form?

[Joseph Clemson]

Can I just give a little bump to my supplementary question on John Mitchell's original post? I'm sure there will be someone out there who can shed a little more light here on unreleased people/property and images licenced for marketing purposes. 

[Jansos]

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.

Thanks Niels - that's clearing this conundrum up a little. No need to click 'Editorial' if the other boxes have been checked but then you go on to say "up to now' - does that mean you now have to do click editorial as well?

[Inchiquin]

I'm slightly surprised at the confusion because really nothing has changed. Previously we could set editorial only by excluding everything else. now we can just do it with one tick. But the end result is the same. So whatever criteria we applied to the decision before are still relevant now.

 

Alan

[John Mitchell]

I'm slightly surprised at the confusion because really nothing has changed. Previously we could set editorial only by excluding everything else. now we can just do it with one tick. But the end result is the same. So whatever criteria we applied to the decision before are still relevant now.

 

Alan

 

However, Alamy now seems to want us to do this for all images that contain unreleased property/people, not just ones that we're especially concerned about.

 

From the new IM instruction manual:

 

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select

‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)"

[M.Chapman]

 

I'm slightly surprised at the confusion because really nothing has changed. Previously we could set editorial only by excluding everything else. now we can just do it with one tick. But the end result is the same. So whatever criteria we applied to the decision before are still relevant now.

 

Alan

 

However, Alamy now seems to want us to do this for all images that contain unreleased property/people, not just ones that we're especially concerned about.

 

From the new IM instruction manual:

 

"For images that contain unreleased property or people please select

‘Sell for editorial only’ (found under the ‘Optional’ tab)"

 

 

If Alamy were that concerned about this issue, why did they move all the questions about people, property and releases to an "optional" tab and allow images to go on sale without any of that information? The previous MI forced RM or RF based on compulsory questions about people property and releases. The new MI seems much more "relaxed". I suspect many photos will get posted without any of the optional info being completed. 

[John Mitchell]

Can I just give a little bump to my supplementary question on John Mitchell's original post? I'm sure there will be someone out there who can shed a little more light here on unreleased people/property and images licenced for marketing purposes. 

 

I can't shed any further light, but I do occasionally get RM sales like the one below. If I check the 'editorial use only' box, will they still happen? I don't know. The terms do exclude advertising, but isn't this a non-editorial use?

 

Country: Worldwide

Usage: iQ sale: Travel client. Marketing Package Use. Any size, Any placement, Excludes advertising. Repeat use within the terms of the license.

Industry sector: Travel & tourism

[Niels Quist]

 

Can I just give a little bump to my supplementary question on John Mitchell's original post? I'm sure there will be someone out there who can shed a little more light here on unreleased people/property and images licenced for marketing purposes.

I can't shed any further light, but I do occasionally get RM sales like the one below. If I check the 'editorial use only' box, will they still happen? I don't know. The terms do exclude advertising, but isn't this a non-editorial use?

 

Country: Worldwide

Usage: iQ sale: Travel client. Marketing Package Use. Any size, Any placement, Excludes advertising. Repeat use within the terms of the license.

Industry sector: Travel & tourism

Yes, but I still really like the idea that he buyer knows there is unreleased content in the image so it has to be up to buyer's judgment whether the image can be used for the purpose. I still see it as a valid standpoint as a photographer, and wouldn't like it to be changed. But, yes, a clarification is needed.

 

The "please tick the editorial box" could also be about the other other licence opportunities and not be blocking the most common way to treat RM images till now.