Editorial footage would be great. For me it seems like editorial has bigger share in the video world than in photos.

does it apply to footage or only photo?

thanxx mat..

Quote from: Visualab on October 03, 2019, 16:33

does it apply to footage or only photo?

Photos only for now.

-Mat

I should clarify this..."Images only for now." Vectors and Illustrations are welcome in addition to photographs.

Thanks,

Mat

One question to clarify me illustrative editorial content: a building with property rights (for example any modern architecture building) but without signs, is illustrative editorial?

what means exactly illustrative editorial?
for example an hotel of a touristic location is illustrative editorial?

I have this same question too.

Mat, can you give us a clear definition of "illustrative editorial"?

Thanks!

ILLUSTRATIVE EDITORIAL
It was described in other posts, here is a adobe link:

Quote from: MatHayward on September 05, 2019, 11:58

More details can be read here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html

OK, that helps! Thanks.

Quote from: derby on October 04, 2019, 10:09

ILLUSTRATIVE EDITORIAL
It was described in other posts, here is a adobe link:

Quote from: MatHayward on September 05, 2019, 11:58

More details can be read here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html

Thank you, I had already read it, and I know what it means in general terms: brands, signs, without recognizable people, ... but I still have doubts about buildings with property rights, for example: Empire Estate Building or any Norman Foster buildings,  could they be Illustrative Editorial?

Thanks

Yes, that kind of clarification would definitely help.

I'm not ever going to do the kinds of set-up (still life) photos shown on AS's info page (the link).

However, I have on occasion photographed places with recognizable buildings. It would be useful to know that those are acceptable within the category of Illustrative Editorial.

The thing that confuses contributors is it that you use the term 'Illustrative Editorial" to mean something different than how, the first micro site (SS) to use the term, defines "Illustrative Editorial".

Products are "Illustrative Editorial' and identifiable buildings are just editorial on SS.
Frankly I don't understand the need for the distinction but that's the way they do it.

Adobe Stock on the other hand is lumping all editorial images (without people) into "illustrative Editorial".

As for what is acceptable at AS in regards to buildings as Commercial vs Editorial and what SS considers Commercial or Editorial can be quite different and somewhat vague, not only to contributors but to reviewers as well. Rejections are all over the place.

My advice to anyone is upload it and let AS figure it out.

There isn't a 'one-size-fits-all' answer to this question. It's going to depend on the image and the building. You want to avoid uploading as Illustrative Editorial as a method of escaping rejection. If an image can be licensed for commercial use, that's how it should be submitted. To be acceptable, Illustrative Editorial content must clearly depict a brand. If it's an unmarked building that's protected, it's unlikely a buyer would be looking for that for editorial purposes.

-Mat

Not to belabor a point that you possibly can't clarify further�     

But�

A. Would a photo of a city skyline that included one iconic, recognizable building among many nondescript others pass muster for Commercial use?

B. Or does that one recognizable structure keep the whole thing from being acceptable either as Commercial or Illustrative Editorial?

C. If the answer to B is Yes�   What if there's a large sign on that recognizable structure showing a specific brand name (say, Trump Tower ), would it then be acceptable for Illustrative Editorial but not Commercial?

This isn't entirely an academic exercise for me, Mat, given that I travel a lot and often wonder if urban images are worth bothering with, rather than just the natural critters and landscapes that I usually focus on.

Thanks for your patience. 

Quote from: marthamarks on October 04, 2019, 14:17

Quote from: MatHayward on October 04, 2019, 11:55

There isn't a 'one-size-fits-all' answer to this question. It's going to depend on the image and the building. You want to avoid uploading as Illustrative Editorial as a method of escaping rejection. If an image can be licensed for commercial use, that's how it should be submitted. To be acceptable, Illustrative Editorial content must clearly depict a brand. If it's an unmarked building that's protected, it's unlikely a buyer would be looking for that for editorial purposes.

-Mat

Not to belabor a point that you possibly can't clarify further�     

But�

A. Would a photo of a city skyline that included one iconic, recognizable building among many nondescript others pass muster for Commercial use?

B. Or does that one recognizable structure keep the whole thing from being acceptable either as Commercial or Illustrative Editorial?

C. If the answer to B is Yes�   What if there's a large sign on that recognizable structure showing a specific brand name (say, Trump Tower ), would it then be acceptable for Illustrative Editorial but not Commercial?

This isn't entirely an academic exercise for me, Mat, given that I travel a lot and often wonder if urban images are worth bothering with, rather than just the natural critters and landscapes that I usually focus on.

Thanks for your patience. 

It would depend on the image. I can't answer a hypothetical with a definite yay or nay. If the shot was of the sign then probably yes but a cityscape that happens to have the sign in it incidentally, probably no.

-Mat

Okay, and that's fine. Appreciate your input, as always!

Great!

Thanks!

My I ask for an improvment? Please import both  the "description" and "title" IPTC tags  from the uploaded file and let me chose between them.  Most often the best description is not in the title tag.

Best regards

T.G

Great news. I knew that it would be available for Silver sooner than I would have reached Gold :-)