I don't know where dreamstime states its editorial rules, but I can tell you I have had high school, college, and pro sports images accepted as well as a few marching band parade images.

Just lookk for mcdonalds, rubic, disney etc etc - they're all there in not "newsworthy" circumstances

honestly, on DT you will never know.. similar that aren�t similar, not what we are looking for that are nice pics selling other places, editorial...

DT is upload and pray

Here's the original thread started by Achilles when they introduced the editorial category in February 2008 - http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_9156
And here are the terms - http://www.dreamstime.com/terms#editorial

They don't really keep their info up-to-date and editorial has evolved since 2008 to include identifiable products. They pretty much take anything that doesn't fall into the RF area. Review seems to be less picky on these images especially if they don't have a glut of the same things.

Thanks for the links. That, plus the images already approved give me a general idea.

Much of the problem is IS, and their definitions and rules, not the rest.

You can virtually offer anything without a release as editorial only. The terms are Editorial and News, not that the images must be newsworthy to be editorial. The same was Micro has distorted and changed model releases and property releases and limited some things that are perfectly legal, Micro has created the "newsworthy" statement, which doesn't apply. It's like playing with little children who when they want, change the rules of the game, based on their personal wishes.

I don't know what DT takes or refuses, I dropped them because of the flip flop on some of my shots. Low sales, my material wasn't suitable for their market, (this doesn't sell well = rejections) same for FT by the way. But the point is, IS has one set of rules, SS has another, they both seem to rely heavily on that information, date, location, caption to cover their butts.

Where the agencies are apparently drawing the line is anything with people in the image. The person's right in the use of his image must be evaluated in light of constitutional interests. "Newsworthiness" is a First Amendment, freedom of the press, interest and is broadly construed.

However if Editorial is viewed as education and non-commercial use, the rest of the subjects (not people pictures in other words) are useful. Newsworthy, education or public interest.

Keep this in mind, which all agencies should but may not do: Editorial Ethically and legally must

1    be essentially unaltered - no cloning or deceptive alterations, removal of objects, including major color alterations from the original
2    not be staged or posed

The two new ones from Micro which in real life, and law, don't exist!

3    must be captioned with location, date and an accurate description
4    must include accurate EXIF data from the camera

Read here for a short chapter on photojournalism ethics. Which means NEWS photos! Which are editorial which are non-commercial and should be free to use for anyone. Except of course some weenie attorney at some microstock agency. 

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter6.html

As a machine, the camera faithfully and unemotionally records a moment in time. But a machine is only as truthful as the hands that guide it.

And from the national press photographers association:

http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/credibility.html

Because you see, the press is the news part of the images which Micro seems to ignore.

Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography

Last one on this soap box. 

This from Reuters who got slapped by publishing manipulated images, more than once. The more famous is the rocket trails in an attack, which someone cloned in extras to make it look more menacing. Also set up shots in the war zones. And some serious alterations of other news photos. They finally had to take the hard line, which is good news. Yes, people were fired and heads rolled. This is Editorial!

    No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image. (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image)
    No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image. (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image)
    No excessive colour manipulation. (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image)

Gee does that look anything like the rules for the Microstock Playground?

http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards,_Photoshop_and_Captions#Photoshop

Rather than repeat all the negatives, how about, what IS allowed?

    Cropping
    Adjustment of Levels to histogram limits
    Minor colour correction
    Sharpening at 300%, 0.3, 0
    Careful use of lasso tool
    Subtle use of burn tool
    Adjustment of highlights and shadows
    Eye dropper to check/set gray

That's it. If it's not there, you can't do it! So do the MS agencies have these rules of integrity and ethics for "News and Editorial" images. I don't see them. I just see, location, date and an accurate description and sometimes, EXIF data. There you go, MS vs the real world, one more time.