pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Editorial... the "new" big thing?  (Read 3896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 21, 2011, 11:43 »
0
I don't do editorial (couple shots here and there) but since DT and IS started offering it, I see tons and tons the iPhones, iPads, Coca Cola and other world brands isolated over white.

Is it such a huge money maker or is it a big fluke?

Is it a big secret as those contributors make millions off of those shots?

And what about the legal aspect when the actual brand is main concept of the shot? Wasn't editorial kind of "just don't remove logos" kind of thing or having no model releases.

Any comments?


« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2011, 11:52 »
0
Actually, editorial is not so "new"...only new to istock. I uploaded some editorial images to SS, BigStock and DT in 2009.

They have sold, but not big moneymakers for me personally. I think the fact that they are somewhat dated means their useful life won't be too long. References back to the events will always happen, but I don't think on a large scale. Just my take on it...

SK

« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2011, 12:04 »
0
I have 165 Editorial images on iStock for the last 3 or 4 weeks. So far, the sales are not worth the effort.

« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2011, 12:05 »
0
What I meant with "new" was the "new" product shots.

SS had editorial forever but I've never seen such a wave of clean product shots. Editorial used to be somewhat news related, now it's just shooting anything there is.

« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2011, 12:24 »
0

« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2011, 12:29 »
0
What I meant with "new" was the "new" product shots.

Shutterstock had editorial forever but I've never seen such a wave of clean product shots. Editorial used to be somewhat news related, now it's just shooting anything there is.

Ah, got ya. I didn't realize it had turned into a free-for-all submitting non-newsworthy events.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2011, 12:41 »
0
iStock have particularly said they don't want hard news. More like 'secondary editorial', maybe for textbooks, magazines editorial articles, guide books etc. No big name celebrities, no sport.
I haven't heard where they're marketing the new editorial images, and although they're insisting on editorial standards, a buyer can't filter out other images which they can't be sure were unaltered. We have no ability to indicate any images in the main collection which are unaltered.
Also, they seem to be sticking to their usual "lighting standards".

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2011, 20:00 »
0
I don't do editorial (couple shots here and there) but since Dreamstime and IS started offering it, I see tons and tons the iPhones, iPads, Coca Cola and other world brands isolated over white.

Is it such a huge money maker or is it a big fluke?

Is it a big secret as those contributors make millions off of those shots?

And what about the legal aspect when the actual brand is main concept of the shot? Wasn't editorial kind of "just don't remove logos" kind of thing or having no model releases.

Any comments?

I'm still not willing to sell real Editorial News shots for a buck and they don't have the high repeat sale potential for volume sales that many other RF images do.

The mock Editorial is interesting on SS and I'm willing to send some to IS for picture that they removed or refused due to possible copyright claims. Things like pictures of cars? :D

I have one in now to see if they will take it. I see a bunch of new images that would have never been accepted before this. There's some room for good shots and the buyer will be responsible for the final use, which is the way it should have been from the start! Not making the agency the copyright police and the artists liable, in theory, as a result.

The buyer is the end user and is responsible for how an image is used.
 

« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2011, 20:41 »
0
Well it's a tough call.  I understand the "news-worthy" argument.  However there are also articles and blogs to be written on the latest iPhone.  The blogger cannot legally use a company owned photo of the iPhone, so I do think it is necessary to have editorial use images for these needs.

It is an opportunity for stock agencies to provide images for articles on real products, so I see very little down side to this.

« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2011, 14:18 »
0
the problem is SS specifically says that editorial is more than just newsworthy - so ANY rejection as 'not newsworthy' is therefore nonsense - there must be some other reason - vreviewers who use that reason must be ignorant or lazy

« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2011, 03:08 »
0

It is an opportunity for stock agencies to provide images for articles on real products, so I see very little down side to this.

The downside is that it was Alamy's territory.

« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2011, 03:20 »
0
I only send editorial type photos to alamy.  Editorial generally sells less and I like making a reasonable amount of money when they do sell.  It's also nice building a portfolio that's not on all the micro sites.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
8715 Views
Last post September 07, 2010, 19:24
by RacePhoto
111 Replies
22064 Views
Last post December 18, 2010, 07:05
by ShadySue
2 Replies
3039 Views
Last post March 21, 2011, 10:38
by click_click
5 Replies
5168 Views
Last post April 18, 2012, 15:55
by Paulo M. F. Pires
40 Replies
8912 Views
Last post May 25, 2013, 03:57
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle