Lots of rants about random stuff (was: More Getty content on iStock)

[RacePhoto]

Very quick additional point. The right to take photos should not be confused with the right to sell them. You can take pictures of almost anything, but what you try to do with it afterwards is where all the legal knots and chains start getting tossed at us.

No Stacy you don't need a release and none exists for News Photos.

Also correct and one more right answer:

It is the buyer's responsibility to use content appropriately, assuming you didn't generally violate rules of privacy.  Lots of people would prefer not to be photographed.  That doesn't make them off limits within the US.  My understanding is along the lines of Lisa's, at least in the US.  If you can shoot it without violating rights of privacy, you should be good to go for editorial.

Which highlights one more point that Microstcok agencies just don't get!

It is the buyer's responsibility to use content appropriately,

[SNP]

I stated about ten posts ago that there are two issues here. That you can take whatever photos you want, but selling them is entirely different.

Secondly, we're talking about general editorial and not just 'news'. I never stated that you need a release for news photos. I presume you need one for race cars. 

[traveler1116]

At the London 'lypse we were told that France has some very strict laws about shooting and things that would be considered ok for editorial in most of the world are not ok there.  From what I remember the example they gave is that if you were to shoot an image and a store name appeared in it they could sue you, even shot as editorial.   I think they said genuine news events are ok but we can't shoot those for istock.

[SNP]

Lisa - you asked for some of the links to information about releases. I haven't done much more than skim read any of them, but they all had some mention of the issue of releases concerning editorial images. as you can see, there are no hard and fast rules and anyone who tells you otherwise is foolish IMO. 'Editorial' is a grey area...period. one of the links goes to a discussion in Alamy about property releases, potentially for editorial shots.

Hope some of these are helpful to someone. My main point in this thread is that as photographers, we're ultimately responsible for the editorial content we produce and I think it's important to protect yourself as a photographer, and to know the rules of the agency/publication you're working with/for, regardless of what you 'believe' your rights are. you don't have to release editorial use only images....in general this is true. but that has nothing to do with what agencies and publications may require us to do to protect themselves from liability.

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/04/when-editorial-uses-of-photos-require.html

http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-editorial.html

http://www.simslaw.com/model/model_releases.htm

http://www.photosandthelaw.com/tag/editorial-photography/

http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1563

http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources/6-05_LegalNews-%20right_publicity.pdf

http://www.pixiq.com/article/cant-fake-editorial-use

[BaldricksTrousers]

Secondly, we're talking about general editorial and not just 'news'. I never stated that you need a release for news photos. I presume you need one for race cars. 

You started confusing things with the statement "anytime you take an editorial shot, it's best to get as much released as possible to avoid future issues", which clearly says "released". Now you're confusing things again by making a false distinction between news and features, sports or opinion columns.

And while I've been typing this you've done it once more posting a list of supposedly relevant links, with advice such as "putting someone's image on Nescafe jars isn't covered by editorial protection". Wow! The only relevant one in that list is Dan Heller's which deals with invasion of privacy that we've already agreed is a special area (and even there I can think of likely exceptions - such as if the groom murders the bride on their honeymoon, then I doubt if the groom could claim violation of privacy if the wedding tog sold the pictures to the newspapers).

Posting a link that rehashes what the micros say about their editorial restrictions to prove that what they say is right is nonsense. so is linking to uninformed comments in the Alamy, while the Texas law school article - which might be interesting - doesn't appear to deal with editorial usage at all, it just provides advice about commercial usages.

Editorial usage is editorial usage, period. Only one set of laws applies to it in any given jurisdiction. The law makes no distinction at all between hard news and any other editorial usage, as you appear to be trying to do.

Any difference between the way the two are obtained is a matter of personal preference and practicalities for the photographer, nothing to do with legalities.

There is no legal, nor even ethical, requirement for an image to be unaltered. Look at the use of blacked-out faces or photo-montages. There is a practical need for editors to know that the image they start with has not been altered, especially as some alterations could be libellous.

Personally, I think that the agencies are well aware that it is up to the end user to be sure of the legalities, rather than the it being the photographers' responsibility. What's more, I think they are happily selling into markets knowing full well that "fair use" protection doesn't necessarily cover the usage.

There are a lot of grey areas. Italy claims that travel guide books are purely commercial ventures and so should pay licensing fees to reproduce state-owned art works. Newspaper "Advertorial" or "Special Features" linked to advertising are decidedly dodgy, since they only exist to lure in advertisements (and the text is often approved by the advertisers). According to what a Central Banker told me, the Economist's "Special One Country Reports" that look like pure investigative financial journalism cost the "one country" in them (which at least sometimes writes the whole thing) the better part of $250,000 - maybe more - and are pure advertising, but they are disguised as editorial and use editorial imaging. I know my editorial photos have appeared in articles in a glossy magazine produced by a leading travel agency purely to promote sales of airline tickets = is it travel journalism or pure advertising? Who knows? The publisher seems satisfied that there won't be any problem.

[RT]

FWIW, I doubt Henk is knowingly lying.  But knowing Richard, I would put money on his knowing more about the subject than most Istock admins.  

That's the thing that is confusing.  It sounds as if Getty are passing off their own requirements as "legal requirements", where they are apparently based on other criteria.    

I don't know Henk and I've never seen the photo in question but one thing I can tell you is that the photo most likely has got a release, there's nothing wrong with an editorial photo having a release and there are many times they do, I've got some released photos myself that are only available for editorial usage.

@RT: I didn't say it constituted a release, I said that as it pertained to the agency I was speaking to-as far as their requirements are concerned-it was sufficient evidence of my right to photograph the event. As far as giving advice, you clearly seem to know what you're talking about, and yet you're defending some obviously incorrect statements here. I've said many times now that documentation or backstory does not mean releases. And sorry, but for that matter I have been asked for releases in some editorial work.

 I didn't say that you said you had a property release, I highlighted the part of your comment ("however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event. ") in which you said your photo of a sign allowing commercial photography at the event was acceptable proof that the location was property released, it's nothing of the sort and as I pointed out its just a photo of a sign it doesn't prove the location is released at all.

I stand by what I said, I'm sorry to be so blunt but I really don't think you should be giving advice to anyone as it's clear you're confused by the whole thing, you don't seem to be able to understand what you yourself have written! and to be honest the reason agencies are asking for this information when submitting images is because of people like you, they're well aware you don't understand the legalities and therefore want to cover their own backsides when they take on your images.

The microstock industry is full of misinformation about what is and isn't legally required and posts by people like yourself do more damage than good, what makes things even worse is that agencies then make blanket policies that makes the admin process harder when submitting images for those of us that do know what they're doing.

[BaldricksTrousers]

I don't know Henk and I've never seen the photo in question but one thing I can tell you is that the photo most likely has got a release, there's nothing wrong with an editorial photo having a release and there are many times they do, I've got some released photos myself that are only available for editorial usage.

Yes, that could well be the case, as the caption says the picture was posed. But I very much doubt that iSTock's officials have a clue about whether images from the Getty feed have releases or not. They're probably just told that every Getty image has the necessary releases and meets the required technical standards. As they are cheerfully approving images that fail the iStock caption rules, the posing rules and the most basic technical quality rules, it seems that they have no say at all over any aspect of the incoming content. In these circumstances, would Getty allow them to reject an image over model release rules? Would Getty even let them see any releases?

[ShadySue]

actually, they might accept it. in a similar situation, I took images at a fashion week event that was open to commercial photography (not to mention I had actually applied for and received a media pass). I did not have a a property release (no one did), however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event.

"Commercial photography" is not the same as "earning money from editorial photography" and an agency which knew what they were doing with editorial would not require that. But then, we're dealing here with an agency which rejects editorial shots for poor (naturally 'flat') light and allows resubmissions ...

[bunhill]

iStockphoto is probably going to work less well for as a point of entry for content where there may need to be more of a conversation around the provenance of an image or a series. IMO that is likely to involve a more personal relationship of trust between the photographer and the bureau. Some work probably shouldn't just show up in the queue. iStockphoto have stressed that the opportunity exists to start a conversation via them about getting other content online - if that content is perhaps not immediately suitable for the queue. That seems like a good offer.

There are some good and often seemingly contradictory points raised in this conversation which serves to illustrate that there are sometimes complicated and very layered issues with respect to best practice, ethics, business relationships and even the law. Whilst a publisher is ultimately often most responsible for how an image is used, an agency or bureau also has a responsibility to its customers and to its own reputation. Doing stuff a particular way is not only about the law. SNP makes a great point about gathering as much information as possible - even down to photographing the sign which says that photography is allowed, for example.

I've got the first of some archival editorial images in the film queue which are part of something I have been working out how to approach for ages. People at iStockphoto have been friendly and enthusiastic about helping me work out some of my issues and questions about how to best approach this. Thing to do is to contact them if you've got a sensible question. Also - the whole model is still evolving IMO ... everything is still being worked out and there are inevitably going to be contradictions and things which are not always clear. Sometimes there are not definite answers at once.

[RT]

Yes, that could well be the case, as the caption says the picture was posed. But I very much doubt that iSTock's officials have a clue about whether images from the Getty feed have releases or not. They're probably just told that every Getty image has the necessary releases and meets the required technical standards. As they are cheerfully approving images that fail the iStock caption rules, the posing rules and the most basic technical quality rules, it seems that they have no say at all over any aspect of the incoming content. In these circumstances, would Getty allow them to reject an image over model release rules? Would Getty even let them see any releases?

Are iStock inspectors having to approve the editorial images from Getty then?

[ShadySue]

Yes, that could well be the case, as the caption says the picture was posed. But I very much doubt that iSTock's officials have a clue about whether images from the Getty feed have releases or not. They're probably just told that every Getty image has the necessary releases and meets the required technical standards. As they are cheerfully approving images that fail the iStock caption rules, the posing rules and the most basic technical quality rules, it seems that they have no say at all over any aspect of the incoming content. In these circumstances, would Getty allow them to reject an image over model release rules? Would Getty even let them see any releases?

Are iStock inspectors having to approve the editorial images from Getty then?

Allegedly, but it seems not to the same standards we are required to meet.

[SNP]

@RT: it was my mistake trying to provide information to people who asked me to, even though it will simply be used against me in a plssing contest about who knows more. I posted those links because Lisa asked me to, even though I knew what would happen if I posted them. I don't endorse them or suggest they contain accurate information. but the assertion was made by Lisa and Cathy that Google turned up 'nothing' about editorial use only and releases whereas I found it turned up a lot about releases in editorial images.

I know who you are, but as you're anonymous here, you say whatever you please--I've read through your posts over the years and you're a serial 'no one's opinions matter except my own' type of person. you might actually know a lot, I'm sure you do. but your attitude sucks. this is a discussion, not a courtroom.

I didn't start in microstock. I was involved in journalism and the publishing industry decades before microstock. and while I'm reluctant to be so defensive because it just makes me look stupid, you've trashed me (unfairly) in three posts now under the guise of what you know and you're wrong on much of what you're stating. as for my initial use of the word 'released', I do apologize on that count and see why it confused the issue. I used it as a blanket term, it was simply a poor choice of word as someone had used it over on iStock's forum, which I immediately corrected in my next post. I couldn't care less how you work. all I care about is that I do my job well.

[RT]

@SNP The majority of people know who I am, I'm not trying to be anonymous, as for " you've trashed me (unfairly) in three posts now under the guise of what you know and you're wrong on much of what you're stating" , when it comes to the legal side of photography I definitely know what I'm talking about as those that know me and what I did before photography are well aware of, however please by all means feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

And likewise I certainly couldn't care about you and I'm not interested in your past experience, I actually had you on ignore until I saw someone I think well of was confused by some of your posts, as always what I do care about is people giving out misinformation and if you've read my posts over the years you will see there's a trend of that's where I step in.

I'll put you back on ignore now.

[nruboc]

@RT: it was my mistake trying to provide information to people who asked me to, even though it will simply be used against me in a plssing contest about who knows more. I posted those links because Lisa asked me to, even though I knew what would happen if I posted them. I don't endorse them or suggest they contain accurate information. but the assertion was made by Lisa and Cathy that Google turned up 'nothing' about editorial use only and releases whereas I found it turned up a lot about releases in editorial images.

I know who you are, but as you're anonymous here, you say whatever you please--I've read through your posts over the years and you're a serial 'no one's opinions matter except my own' type of person. you might actually know a lot, I'm sure you do. but your attitude sucks. this is a discussion, not a courtroom. I didn't start in microstock. I was involved in journalism and the publishing industry decades before microstock. and while I'm reluctant to be so defensive because it just makes me look stupid, you've trashed me (unfairly) in three posts now under the guise of what you know and you're wrong on much of what you're stating. as for my initial use of the word 'released', I do apologize on that count and see why it confused the issue. I used it as a blanket term, it was simply a poor choice of word as someone had used it over on iStock's forum, which I immediately corrected in my next post. I couldn't care less how you work. all I care about is that I do my job well.

Wow.. never has the term "Pot Calling the Kettle Black" applied more.

[lisafx]

@RT: it was my mistake trying to provide information to people who asked me to, even though it will simply be used against me in a plssing contest about who knows more. I posted those links because Lisa asked me to, even though I knew what would happen if I posted them. I don't endorse them or suggest they contain accurate information. but the assertion was made by Lisa and Cathy that Google turned up 'nothing' about editorial use only and releases whereas I found it turned up a lot about releases in editorial images.

I appreciate the links, and will explore them at greater length this afternoon when I get a chance.  Sorry if it seemed that I was saying a google search turned up "nothing".  What I meant to say was that it didn't turn up anything that definitively settled the issue.  It is still murky.

But thanks to all the participants in this conversation, it is becoming less murky.  If we are going to be broadening our microstock offerings, it is best to have as much clear information as possible.  

@RT - believe me, I am glad you have jumped in, and Balderick too.  Both of your expertise and experience in this area are very valuable. Thanks so much for helping to separate the wheat from the chaff!  

@SNP, I am glad you raised the issues that you have.  It gives us all an opportunity to explore this issue and come to a clearer understanding.  

[SNP]

@SNP The majority of people know who I am, I'm not trying to be anonymous, as for " you've trashed me (unfairly) in three posts now under the guise of what you know and you're wrong on much of what you're stating" , when it comes to the legal side of photography I definitely know what I'm talking about as those that know me and what I did before photography are well aware of, however please by all means feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

And likewise I certainly couldn't care about you and I'm not interested in your past experience, I actually had you on ignore until I saw someone I think well of was confused by some of your posts, as always what I do care about is people giving out misinformation and if you've read my posts over the years you will see there's a trend of that's where I step in.

I'll put you back on ignore now.

you've paraphrased like a champion in this thread...how can I possibly respond to what you're saying...and why would I...sigh.

the ingestion of competitive editorial Getty files on iStock right now is worrying enough without getting into further arguments over here. bottom line--I think less-experienced or new-to-editorial photographers are wise to understand what is expected of them when SELLING their editorial images, no matter which agency or publication they are dealing with. if I've confused that in this discussion, that clearly was not my intention. I was truly just trying to be helpful. there's a whole interweb where what's been said here can be verified. or not.

[Pixart]

Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point? 

Maybe their true strategy is divide and conquer.

[cathyslife]

I appreciate the links, and will explore them at greater length this afternoon when I get a chance.  Sorry if it seemed that I was saying a google search turned up "nothing".  What I meant to say was that it didn't turn up anything that definitively settled the issue.  It is still murky.

But thanks to all the participants in this conversation, it is becoming less murky.  If we are going to be broadening our microstock offerings, it is best to have as much clear information as possible.  

@RT - believe me, I am glad you have jumped in, and Balderick too.  Both of your expertise and experience in this area are very valuable. Thanks so much for helping to separate the wheat from the chaff!  

@SNP, I am glad you raised the issues that you have.  It gives us all an opportunity to explore this issue and come to a clearer understanding.  

I had the same experience as you. My earlier post stated that I had googled it, but there wasn't anything posted by "authority" figures...meaning there wasn't a definitive discussion by a trade organization or such. Most of the articles I skimmed through were other photographers, blogs, etc. Their take on it was the same as ours, but as you have said, nothing definitive.

by pixart

Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?

Maybe their true strategy is divide and conquer.

Answer to your question: because it's human nature. My personal opinion is that Getty long ago decided they were going to divide and conquer...they are culling out the low performers and keeping the top performers. Their financial greed and decisions have NOTHING to do the squabbling that goes on between contributors. They could care less. All they care about is performance and the amount of money they are making from that.

[bunhill]

they are culling out the low performers and keeping the top performers. Their financial greed and decisions have NOTHING to do the squabbling that goes on between contributors.

I don't feel culled. More money every year, so far, since they became involved and an opening up of possibilities. And yet I am definitely a low (lazy) performer. There can't be many other investments which have performed so well over the past few years. Though as Lagereek charmingly reminded me lately, I need to work on my portfolio !

Most of what happens seem to follow a fairly predictable / inevitable trend. In some ways it seems to almost pre-empt the inevitable. For better or worse I think they have a good nose for where the market will go.

On the downside, I think there has been a loss of confidence amongst the community such that every decision or nuance is now viewed with suspicion. That's where the arguments come from IMO. It all ends up being a bit them and us. Which is daft if you step back from it. There should be a truce.

[ShadySue]

Most of what happens seem to follow a fairly predictable / inevitable trend. In some ways it seems to almost pre-empt the inevitable. For better or worse I think they have a good nose for where the market will go.

In which case it might be wise for them to share this with the contributors.

[bunhill]

I doubt many companies would discuss strategy too far ahead. That said I think they already give out lots of clues about where they see the trends going.

When I say "inevitable" - I'm not trying to pretend to be clever or bright. Sometimes it only becomes inevitable with hindsight.

[lisafx]

It all ends up being a bit them and us. Which is daft if you step back from it. There should be a truce.

I would certainly welcome a truce.  But while the other side continues to lob such grenades (to continue with your analogy) as increased RC targets in the face of declining sales, and flooding the site with yet more Getty images that bury those of Istock contributors, a truce is unlikely. 

[Jo Ann Snover]

On the downside, I think there has been a loss of confidence amongst the community such that every decision or nuance is now viewed with suspicion. That's where the arguments come from IMO. It all ends up being a bit them and us. Which is daft if you step back from it. There should be a truce.

I'm not going to rant about the specifics, but you make it sound as though there isn't any reason for the loss of confidence. There's an old saying that you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you. I think the actions at iStock since September 7th last year are the reason for the loss of confidence on the part of the community, particularly contributors.

If your ox hasn't been gored by any of their actions, perhaps you can at least see how those whose ox has, have some basis for their suspicion.

[adamkaz]

I'll put you back on ignore now.

On an unrelated note... I never noticed this nifty little feature, which is so desperately needed particularly in this forum. Thanks!

[PaulieWalnuts]

Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point? 

Maybe because photographers, in general, seem to be a negative and pessimistic bunch of people.