Author Topic: (Stupid) Questions about Editorial Licence (Read 4861 times)

Beppe Grillo · « **on:** March 13, 2013, 02:12 »

Questions about Editorial Licence

There are some things that I have not understood well about Editorial License

1) Can I have the same images on different stocks?
2) Can I have the same image as RF on one (or more) stock(s) and as Editorial on another?
3) If the answer to point 1 and/or 2 is yes: when an image has been sold as editorial must I withdraw it from other sites?
4) In term of sales: does an Editorial image generally sell better, not better, as good as a RF one?
5) General earning: Better than RF? (I understand that it depends of the sales, but…)
6) Can be the same Editorial image used for different publication at the same time?
7) If who buy the image as Editorial has the exclusive right on it, how much time longs this right?

And tell me more if there is something more to say.
Thanks in advance for your answers.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2013, 02:57 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 02:12

Questions about Editorial Licence

There are some things that I have not understood well about Editorial License

1) Can I have the same images on different stocks?
2) Can I have the same image as RF on one (or more) stock(s) and as Editorial on another?
3) If the answer to point 1 and/or 2 is yes: when an image has been sold as editorial must I withdraw it from other sites?
4) In term of sales: does an Editorial image generally sell better, not better, as good as a RF one?
5) General earning: Better than RF? (I understand that it depends of the sales, but…)
6) Can be the same Editorial image used for different publication at the same time?
7) If who buy the image as Editorial has the exclusive right on it, how much time longs this right?

And tell me more if there is something more to say.
Thanks in advance for your answers.

1) Can I have the same images on different stocks?

Yes. You can't have Alamy editorial images on microstock as Alamy editorial is RM and microstock is RF.

2) 3) Can I have the same image as RF on one (or more) stock(s) and as Editorial on another?

Editorial is royalty free also, just that they can't be used commercially, various products, posters, cards etc. So if u have the same image that falls under editorial usage on one site and it sells, and somehow you have that image to be available as a commercial image on another site, I don't think u have to withdraw the image. My images are either RF editorial or RF commercial, I don't know how the same images can be both.

4) 5) In term of sales: does an Editorial image generally sell better, not better, as good as a RF one?

From my experience most editorial images don't sell as well as commercial images, but some of them do quite well.

6) Can be the same Editorial image used for different publication at the same time?

Yes. Maybe some RM purchases can't.

7) If who buy the image as Editorial has the exclusive right on it, how much time longs this right?

Well that depends on the agreement.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2013, 05:55 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 02:12

4) In term of sales: does an Editorial image generally sell better, not better, as good as a RF one?

You're confusing RF/RM with commercial/editorial.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2013, 06:43 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 13, 2013, 05:55

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 02:12
4) In term of sales: does an Editorial image generally sell better, not better, as good as a RF one?

You're confusing RF/RM with commercial/editorial.

So explain me…

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2013, 06:55 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 06:43

Quote from: sjlocke on March 13, 2013, 05:55
Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 02:12
4) In term of sales: does an Editorial image generally sell better, not better, as good as a RF one?

You're confusing RF/RM with commercial/editorial.

So explain me…

http://seanlockephotography.com/2008/09/12/rm-vs-rf/
http://www.keyimagery.com/community/articles/article/236/whats-a-commercial-license-vs-an-editorial-license

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2013, 07:16 »

^
Thanks a lot sjlocke.
The second link is very clear but it says no more than what I already know about the differences.

But My question was: "does an Editorial image generally sells better, not better, as good as a RF one"
Not "what is the difference between RF and Editorial"

Probably my poor english don't allow me to formulate the questions in a very understandable way, and probably the question is really the most stupid of the ones that I have asked.
But in the title of the topic I have specified that my questions could be "stupid"

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2013, 07:32 »

Editorial images can be sold as RF or RM, depending on the agency.
On the micros, they can only be sold as RF (maybe some smaller micros are different (?)). On Alamy, unreleased files can only be sold as RM. On some other sites, e.g. Getty, editorial can be either RF or RM.
Any files may be used in certain secondary editorial contexts.

I think your question was nothing to do with RF. I think you were wondering how well editorial sells compared with commercial.
How long is a piece of string? It depends on the agency. Some macro agencies sell only RM true editorial so obviously they will sell well there, depending on the photo.
The micros aren't particularly geared up for editorial, and they all have varying rules as to what sort of editorial they will accept. And they don't go out of their way (AFAIK) to target editorial buyers.

Taking iS (you can look at the others yourself) you will clearly see that all of the huge sellers on the site are set-up studio or quasi-studio shots. That can partly be explained by many of them having been up for many years, acquiring sales, long before they accepted editorial, but also that they traditionally marketed to commercial buyers, making a big thing about the files having MRs and PRs.

It's not an answerable question. I have editorials with sales and main collection files that have languised with 0 dls and vice versa.

tickstock · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2013, 07:42 »

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2013, 07:50 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 07:16

But My question was: "does an Editorial image generally sells better, not better, as good as a RF one"

An editorial usage image can be licensed RF or RM, which is why I'm trying to point you in the direction of having the right terms to discuss this.

What you meant was, "Which sells better? An editorial usage image or a commercial usage image?"

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2013, 08:01 »

Many thanks to all for your answers!
It helps me a lot.

sjlocke. Yes you are right:
1) I did not understood that Editorial could be RF or RM
2) I have been not clear here too. So, imagine that I have an image with people on it. As I don't know the people on the photo I cannot ask them a release. So I have two options: a) propose it, like it is, as Editorial; b) photoshop it to remove the people and propose it as RF. I this case, will the released image sell better than the editorial one or not. (And I have understood that there is no answer, no rule: it depends!)

--
The images that I want to propose as Editorial are not politic or event images, but generally landscapes (cityscapes) with people that I cannot remove (e.g. an old trolley with people in it, people walking or running along the river…)

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2013, 08:19 »

You have still not understood the difference between:
commercial and Editorial use.
RF and RM licences.
You need to read the link Sean provided above to be clear. [1]
Commercial images can be sold RF or RM.
Editorial images can be sold RF or RM.
I some cases, it depends on the agency; in others it's your choice whether to licence your editorial and/or commercial images RF or RM.
[1] I do appreciate English not being your first language. Why not look up Rights Managed and Royalty Free in your own language?

But you really need to understand the difference between RF and RM before you submit to any libraries. You need to be clear on what your files can/can't be used for, and whether you're happy with that.

We have had newbies on here occasionally complaining about usages of their files which were perfectly legitimate under an RF licence, but they hadn't acquainted themselves with the facts.
Do your research now and save heartache along the road.

As to your question for that specific image: again, 'it depends'. I have plenty of iStock photos where I've cloned out people to put them into the main collection. For one it was either 13 or 16 people, but it was so long ago I can't remember.

You need to consider whether your image is more likely to appeal to a commercial user or a secondary editorial user. In my case, it was a famous beach with random sunbathers and swimmers, so far better without the people. (glam models with outdoor lights and set up poses would be a totally different proposition, of course).
In other cases, the more uses might be secondary editorial, in which case depending on the photo, the people would be better left in.
Or you could send one version to one/some agencies and the other version to other/s. (Then you'll never know whether they'd have sold better vice versa, but that'll be the same whether you decide to clone out or not to clone out. You neve know - and you never know what's right around the corner with the agencies anyway.)

dirkr · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2013, 08:41 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 08:01

So, imagine that I have an image with people on it. As I don't know the people on the photo I cannot ask them a release. So I have two options: a) propose it, like it is, as Editorial; b) photoshop it to remove the people and propose it as RF. I this case, will the released image sell better than the editorial one or not. (And I have understood that there is no answer, no rule: it depends!)

--
The images that I want to propose as Editorial are not politic or event images, but generally landscapes (cityscapes) with people that I cannot remove (e.g. an old trolley with people in it, people walking or running along the river…)

If you're willing to spend the effort of cloning out people anyway, why not do both? Offer one version with people cloned out as comercial licence and the original as editorial. You can even do that at the same agency for those who accept editorial (maybe you get a "too many similars" rejection at DT, but you can try at least...).

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2013, 08:43 »

Quote from: dirkr on March 13, 2013, 08:41

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 08:01
So, imagine that I have an image with people on it. As I don't know the people on the photo I cannot ask them a release. So I have two options: a) propose it, like it is, as Editorial; b) photoshop it to remove the people and propose it as RF. I this case, will the released image sell better than the editorial one or not. (And I have understood that there is no answer, no rule: it depends!)

--
The images that I want to propose as Editorial are not politic or event images, but generally landscapes (cityscapes) with people that I cannot remove (e.g. an old trolley with people in it, people walking or running along the river…)

If you're willing to spend the effort of cloning out people anyway, why not do both? Offer one version with people cloned out as comercial licence and the original as editorial. You can even do that at the same agency for those who accept editorial (maybe you get a "too many similars" rejection at DT, but you can try at least...).

Also iS don't like contruibutors to submit both.

dirkr · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2013, 08:45 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2013, 08:43

Quote from: dirkr on March 13, 2013, 08:41
Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 08:01
So, imagine that I have an image with people on it. As I don't know the people on the photo I cannot ask them a release. So I have two options: a) propose it, like it is, as Editorial; b) photoshop it to remove the people and propose it as RF. I this case, will the released image sell better than the editorial one or not. (And I have understood that there is no answer, no rule: it depends!)

--
The images that I want to propose as Editorial are not politic or event images, but generally landscapes (cityscapes) with people that I cannot remove (e.g. an old trolley with people in it, people walking or running along the river…)

If you're willing to spend the effort of cloning out people anyway, why not do both? Offer one version with people cloned out as comercial licence and the original as editorial. You can even do that at the same agency for those who accept editorial (maybe you get a "too many similars" rejection at DT, but you can try at least...).

Also iS don't like contruibutors to submit both.

Didn't know that...

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2013, 09:44 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2013, 08:43

Quote from: dirkr on March 13, 2013, 08:41
Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 08:01
So, imagine that I have an image with people on it. As I don't know the people on the photo I cannot ask them a release. So I have two options: a) propose it, like it is, as Editorial; b) photoshop it to remove the people and propose it as RF. I this case, will the released image sell better than the editorial one or not. (And I have understood that there is no answer, no rule: it depends!)

--
The images that I want to propose as Editorial are not politic or event images, but generally landscapes (cityscapes) with people that I cannot remove (e.g. an old trolley with people in it, people walking or running along the river…)

If you're willing to spend the effort of cloning out people anyway, why not do both? Offer one version with people cloned out as comercial licence and the original as editorial. You can even do that at the same agency for those who accept editorial (maybe you get a "too many similars" rejection at DT, but you can try at least...).

Also iS don't like contruibutors to submit both.

As I have understood reading this forum iS don't like contributors at all……

Thanks again ShadySue!
(And dirkr too)

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2013, 09:49 »

Quote from: dirkr on March 13, 2013, 08:45

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2013, 08:43
Quote from: dirkr on March 13, 2013, 08:41
Quote from: Beppe Grillo on March 13, 2013, 08:01
So, imagine that I have an image with people on it. As I don't know the people on the photo I cannot ask them a release. So I have two options: a) propose it, like it is, as Editorial; b) photoshop it to remove the people and propose it as RF. I this case, will the released image sell better than the editorial one or not. (And I have understood that there is no answer, no rule: it depends!)

--
The images that I want to propose as Editorial are not politic or event images, but generally landscapes (cityscapes) with people that I cannot remove (e.g. an old trolley with people in it, people walking or running along the river…)

If you're willing to spend the effort of cloning out people anyway, why not do both? Offer one version with people cloned out as comercial licence and the original as editorial. You can even do that at the same agency for those who accept editorial (maybe you get a "too many similars" rejection at DT, but you can try at least...).

Also iS don't like contruibutors to submit both.

Didn't know that...

It's somewhere in the Editorial forum, in a reply by an admin, back near the beginning of Editorial, but I don't know if it's in their current official guidelines.
Again, a problem with posting what might be official instructions deep in a forum thread.
Also, official admin statements within threads often get contradicted by other admins, or don't always bear any relationship to what happens at inspection ...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: (Stupid) Questions about Editorial Licence (Read 4861 times)

Beppe Grillo

Microstock Posts

Sean Locke Photography

Beppe Grillo

Sean Locke Photography

Beppe Grillo

ShadySue

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

Beppe Grillo

ShadySue

dirkr

ShadySue

dirkr

Beppe Grillo

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors