"editorial" does not mean you are not offering the content as RF.  You are not allowed to offer any content RF elsewhere, assuming you are talking about iStock.

editorial vs. commercial
RF vs. RM

example: SS sells "editorial" under an RF license.

And bottom line of all of that: I can't become exclusive with IS and keep the so-called editorial images on other agencies, correct?

Well, I am not selling them to my local newspaper, but to other agencies equivalent to IS (DT, SS)... I wouldn't bother asking if there were not the direct IS competition.

I give up.

The question is, Sean, why do you even bother? 

hroe, it's really simple: You can't have any images for sale at any micro agency, because (AFAIK) all micro agencies sell is RF. It doesn't matter if they are editorial or not, it matters simply whether they are RF or not.

If you sell RM (editorials or otherwise) at Alamy, for example, that's fine. Just no RF, anywhere.

I really wish that IS would sell editorial images, but I don't think that will ever happen.

Well, I am not selling them to my local newspaper, but to other agencies equivalent to IS (DT, SS)... I wouldn't bother asking if there were not the direct IS competition.

both ss and dt are selling editorial images with a rf licence, meaning they're sold without registering who the buyers are. so, you wouldn't be able to go exclusive with is in this case. however, if you were to sell these same editorial images at alamy with a rm licence (registering every single buyer along the way), then you're gold. by the way, alamy only sell editorials with rm licence, no ifs or buts. that's one of the differences between microstock and macrostock.

hroe, it's really simple: You can't have any images for sale at any micro agency, because (AFAIK) all micro agencies sell is RF. It doesn't matter if they are editorial or not, it matters simply whether they are RF or not.

If you sell RM (editorials or otherwise) at Alamy, for example, that's fine. Just no RF, anywhere.

^^ Well said.  That should clear up any confusion

I am getting puzzled, too. If I sell newspaper worthy editorial pictures through Reuters, what then (about IS exclusivity)?

again, is reuters selling your editorial image with a rf or rm licence? that's your assignment for the day.

To be honest, I do not know. But, I can not believe that IS will ask me to give up my photojournalism career to become exclusice stock photographer. I'll better ask support.

Your photojournalism career is irrelevant to not selling RF anywhere else if you are interested in being an iStock exclusive.

Does anyone read the details of how they are licensing their content?

I give up.

  I know just how you feel.

Quote from: KB on March 01, 2010, 15:58

The question is, Sean, why do you even bother? 

It's my court ordered societal contribution .

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

love it. 

It is RM, I checked. Sorry for a little bit of panic from my side.

you're good to go then.  from what country are you submitting to reuters?

The OP is OK, as their editorial content is RF.
However, the Exculsive agreement is very, very confusing.
I've asked this at least four times on the iStock forums and have never got an answer.
Section 2 'Provision of Exclusive Content" says (I've cut a lot to try to avoid other issues):
In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, either or both of: (i) Still and Flash Content, and (ii) Motion Content; ....... but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" ....... (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", ...........
So: exclusive content is Still and flash and/or Motion,
 not including (1) 'Work for hire"
 not including (3) Rights managed images (such as the OP has)
And not including (2): "Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement,"
Can someone explain to me for sure, not speculatively, what on earth that means.
I.e.: in what way is the 'content that is produced for editorial purposes' different from RM Editorial. (It must be different, else it would just come under Rights Managed in clause 3.
What does "except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights..." actually mean???

Quote from: ShadySue on March 01, 2010, 17:46

The OP is OK, as their editorial content is RF.

No, that would not be ok.  Maybe you mistyped?

I did, sorry.
But there's still the apparent exception in 2.2 which says 'exclusive content shall not include ... content that is produced for editiorial purposes'.