Editorial or unreleased?

[Zigzagmtart]

As others have reported anything I have tagged with 'mural' has been flagged and marked as editorial by Alamy.  I asked Alamy what the difference between 'editorial' and 'unreleased' was and the reply was:

Quote

"the restriction just reinforces that [unreleased property or people] , and could reduce your liability should any potential issues arise if an image were to be used incorrectly."

So it seems 'editorial' and 'unreleased' are essentially the same but perhaps 'editorial' is a little more emphatic?

Anyway, curious how others mark their images with unreleased people or property?  Should we go back and add 'editorial' to them all?  Or am I overthinking this?

[MandyD]

I lean towards caution and put most in editorial, but that's just me. I read liability and indemnity clauses for a living. I am overly cautious.

[Martin B]

If the primary subject or subjects in your image consists of property and you do not have a release for that property, it should always be marked as editorial. If there is property in your image, but it is incidental, you may be able to get by marking it "no release" and let the end user decide if they need a release under the given circumstances. If you photograph someone's house, and do not have a release, it is always editorial. If you photograph a landscape, and there are one or multiple houses in the distance, they still constitute unreleased property, but are not the main subject of the image, and a release may not be needed by the person using the image. The same principle applies to people without model releases.