Inchiquin Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Selling prints, greetings cards, postcards with people in shot (not main subject). Commercial use or not? I say not, but is there an official line? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Selling prints, greetings cards, postcards with people in shot (not main subject). Commercial use or not? I say not, but is there an official line? Alan Strictly speaking, perhaps too strictly speaking, I would say yes, I am quite sure, however, that many postcards are sold with unreleased people on them. Sometimes you distinguish a commercial image in a magazine from an editorial by whether it is on the front page and kind of advertising for the mag in a rack - or placed inside the magazine and thus being a true editorial image. I would say the postcards are advertising for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Endicott Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 No - "commercial" => endorsing a product or service Prints and postcards and such fall under the realm of "art" which does not require a release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdCoffee Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I am pretty sure these usages are considered commercial use. Editorial is when the photo is used as an illustration to an article, story, news, etc. If it is used for advertising products, or sold as the main product (such as prints) it is my understanding that you need model and property releases (whatever is applicable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 The Alamy calculator has greeting cards listed under both "Editorial" and "Consumer Goods." So I guess they could go either way. Sounds a bit schizoid, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dov makabaw Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 My understanding is that pix used for greetings cards, postcards etc are not classed as commercial. If the pix are used to promote or sell something then that crosses the line from editorial to commercial. Either way if they have people or property without release then they should be RM. I have every confidence that someone will correct me if I have got it wrong - thanks in advance! dov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Jenkins Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I am pretty sure these usages are considered commercial use. Editorial is when the photo is used as an illustration to an article, story, news, etc. If it is used for advertising products, or sold as the main product (such as prints) it is my understanding that you need model and property releases (whatever is applicable). I would be prepared to bet that the vast majority of postcards in the UK with people have NOT hat PR or Mr signed by anyone in them. (in fact, I know this). nj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted September 2, 2013 Author Share Posted September 2, 2013 My understanding is that pix used for greetings cards, postcards etc are not classed as commercial. If the pix are used to promote or sell something then that crosses the line from editorial to commercial. Either way if they have people or property without release then they should be RM. That's how I read the situation. However, while licensing an image through Alamy for, say, postcard use would give some protection via Alamy's terms provided the pic is annotated correctly, if I sell a print on my website I'm on my own. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 That's how I read the situation. However, while licensing an image through Alamy for, say, postcard use would give some protection via Alamy's terms provided the pic is annotated correctly, if I sell a print on my website I'm on my own. Why only "some protection" - we are many more or less leaning on this being our protection. You could make the same statements on your own site, which perhaps would give you some protection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted September 2, 2013 Author Share Posted September 2, 2013 That's how I read the situation. However, while licensing an image through Alamy for, say, postcard use would give some protection via Alamy's terms provided the pic is annotated correctly, if I sell a print on my website I'm on my own. Why only "some protection" - we are many more or less leaning on this being our protection. You could make the same statements on your own site, which perhaps would give you some protection Well, I used the term "some" because although I believe that marking an image as RM without releases protects me from legal action, I don't believe this has ever been tested in court, has it? The difference between Alamy's terms and any statement that I put on my own site is that if I am selling the prints, I am the publisher. Alamy can say effectively to its customer "If you publish this image you are responsible for any issues arising from its use". Saying that to myself isn't going to give me the same reassurance! Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunmaglasPhoto Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 I am starting to think that the "Editorial" label is a little misleading and I think "non-commercial" might be a better label to apply. For instance other stock sites will only accept images as editorial if they are "newsworthy" and require date and location captioning like you would put on a press release. As for the original question I think it would fall into the category of "non-commercial" but purely from a personal perspective I'd feel a little uncomfortable (from an etiquette point of view) selling pictures as art with identifiable people. Of course another way to look at it is - as photographers and agencies - we are selling "editorial" images which is still in itself a commercial activity (and if you need to shoot inside a publicly accessible building it will be probably be deemed by its managers to be commercial activity with respect to gaining permission). If we sell a picture of a famous person to a newspaper to accompany a news article we are doing so to make money and pictures of Royals, President Obama or Nelson Mandela for example are in frequent demand and are a good earner for those who take them. So I do think this is something that, as an industry, we need to establish greater clarity on. Of course it doesn't help that through e-commerce we are selling globally and different jurisdictions have different rules. As an example the Eiffel Tower can be use commercially shot in daylight without a property release but not with the lights at night - this is a matter of French law and I'm not sure if the restriction also applies to art photography or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavideV Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Hello everyone, I'm new in the stock photography market and some things are still a little obscure. Plus, taking pictures it's an hobby. I'd like to take some automotive photography but I imagine that I need property release from a Car Company for putting a photograph here with their car pictured (immediately recogniziable, with its emblem), don't I? Thanks in advance, Davide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveC1 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Hi, how do you submit your'e picture as an editorial picture, i havn't seen an option this? Is it automatically assigned if you say you don't have a property release for property that needs it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.