MicrostockGroup

"We can no longer license imagery for Editorial Use Only, which includes unreleased copyrighted material as the main focus. Items such as statues, sculptures, paintings, engravings, artwork and magazine covers cannot play an important role in the composition. We will, however continue to accept and license files where copyrighted items are not the main focus of an image.

We will be reviewing our content an removing files that longer meet our guidelines."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=335567&page=1

I was expecting the rule change. I am not suprised.

Why?

Seems idiotic to me. These are supposed to be EDITORIAL images, used for non-commercial purposes. 

The next step is probably going to be they won't accept unreleased people in editorial images.

I´d rather be safe then sorry.

They must have a good reason for these changes and it is better to avoid images that might lead you into court case trouble. The legal risk is not worth the microstock price.

Editorial has lower sales volume.  I usually get a higher commission with alamy RM than I would with microstock editorial RF.  I get some information about what the photo is being used for.  The buyers usually pay a lot more for a specific use.  I don't like the idea of low sales volume and low commissions and not knowing anything about what the photo is being used for.

Okay. Thanks for the quick answer. I was misunderstanding your use of the word comfortable I thought that you meant that you had an ethical issue related to the use of the images.

Otherwise it is only down to price and where the image is most likely to find a customer.

From an ethical perspective I am most comfortable with a relatively tight and restrictive licensing model. I like and respect Alamy but am still slightly nervous of the site in some ways - because it sometimes seems rather like a free for all.

ETA: @BaldricksTrousers - I am not completely convinced that an RM image is any more or less likely than an RF image to "sit in a designer's folder for years" ... etc

I'm not sure why it matters where the image sits or for how long.  The buyer agreed to use the image in a certain way and if he doesn't use it correctly then he is liable for damages not IS or the contributor.  Am I missing something?

huh.  Sjlocke termed "editorial light" now it's "editorial lighter"

Wasn't one of the things they wanted was unreleased shots of copywrited consumer products. Or is it limited to artworks and statues.
  
Something must have happened to prompt this but isn't this the point of editorial. For instance  I want to run a news story about some famous artist that died and I want to put a photo of one of his works in the story.  

I thought there'd be heaps more problems with editorial use of people images.

It looks like an old lithograph, Public Domain if created before 1923 and probably never needed to be Editorial in the first place, but that's another problem with the various agency rules to start with. Making things editorial that aren't. They have made a mess and it's the lawyers advising them that have created the problems because they are making their own rules, regardless of actual law. Repeating from the other thread (this morning) discussing the same announcement, don't confuse agency policy with law. The agencies make up their own rules, to serve their own purposes.

We will be reviewing our content an removing files that longer meet our guidelines.

Also, say an image is licensed as a download as Editorial and it doesn't need to be. The buyer can use it any way they want, within the license terms. The agency can't force something to be Editorial Only! The Editorial designation is an advisory and says there's no release, nothing else.

depends on the jurisdiction. Countries have different copyright laws - and it may also depend, in different juridictions for example, on whether copyright has been renewed. There is no single rule which applies which is why the best thing is get legal documentation, provenance etc.

As always I speak from where I am, and in the US, EVERYTHING before 1923, photos, records, books, art... is public domain now, whether renewed or not.

The Gauss image should have been verified when it was uploaded. The Editorial designation is a lazy way for the agencies to license things, without worrying about the actual copyright detals or the facts of law.

That etching was probably made in the late 1800s and if it is, it's PD everywhere that I can think of on this planet.    Start thinking Berne Convention which in many instances is more open and lenient than the US laws!

Which laws govern Dreamstine, I don't know for sure.

Dreamstime LLC
1616 Westgate Circle
Brentwood, TN 37027
United States


Came to mind right off that they have some other collection that they own, which they want to get exclusive and collect 100% of the commissions.

Why hadn't they done their homework/research before opening the Editorial program?
It doesn't inspire confidence in the whole way the site is run these days.
But since I'm always swithering over Alamy or iStock for editorial images, this makes the decision much easier - who knows what they'll deactivate in the future, and not all editorial is something I can shoot again.
And yes, as noted above, an RM buyer at Alamy has actually to specify exactly what use they are going to make of the image, so that's one more layer of reponsibility which falls onto the buyer rather than the seller.

I think it's 70 years after the artist's death in the US.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.pdf