MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Isn't that editorial?  (Read 4657 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 04, 2010, 09:35 »
0
I was reading Science online and saw this beautiful image credited to IS/TS - but shouldn't the photographer be credited as well?

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-the-brilliant-wings-.html


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2010, 10:42 »
0
I was reading Science online and saw this beautiful image credited to IS/TS - but shouldn't the photographer be credited as well?

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-the-brilliant-wings-.html

Probably, but here's the strange thing.
TinEye shows that image as being on both iStock and Getty, which I thought was absolutely verboten.
<checks>Actually, it's showing as 'no longer available' on Getty, so maybe someone else found it before me!

« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2010, 11:06 »
0
Actually, it's showing as 'no longer available' on Getty, so maybe someone else found it before me!

Nah, it's just that database bug where tineye seems to think TS stuff is on getty.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2010, 11:35 »
0
I was reading Science online and saw this beautiful image credited to IS/TS - but shouldn't the photographer be credited as well?

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-the-brilliant-wings-.html


I clicked on "More Science Shots" to see what they were using.  In those images, it credits the photographer.  Some of them are very 'stocky' looking. 

« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2010, 11:58 »
0
I have noticed in magazines that sometimes they give credit to the agency AND photographer and sometimes only the agency. I was curious which way it was headed. Or why sometimes one way, and sometimes the other, within the same magazine.

« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2010, 12:56 »
0
Isn't what editorial? The shots are not for editorial usage only. As far as I know buyers don't have to credit the agency or the photographer.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2010, 13:21 »
0
Isn't what editorial? The shots are not for editorial usage only. As far as I know buyers don't have to credit the agency or the photographer.
If from iStock, the terms and conditions state that if an image is used for editorial, both must be credited.

"4. Standard License Prohibitions
(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are Prohibited Uses and you may not:
[snip 1-12]
13. use the Content for editorial purposes without including the following credit adjacent to the Content: iStockphoto.com/Artists Member Name]"

If from Thinkstock:
License Information
5. Credit and Intellectual Property.
[snip 5.1 - 5.2]
5.3 Photo Credit. All Licensed Material used in an editorial context, must include the following credit line adjacent to the Licensed Material: "[Photographer's Name]/[Collection Name]/Thinkstock" or as otherwise shown on the Thinkstock website. If Licensee omits the credit, an additional fee in an amount up to one hundred percent (100%) of the License Fee may be payable by Licensee, at Thinkstocks sole discretion. The foregoing fee shall be in addition to any other rights or remedies that Thinkstock may have at law or in equity.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2010, 13:25 by ShadySue »

« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2010, 21:09 »
0
I have the impression most, if not all, big agencies require the credits to both agency and photographer for editorial use, therefore my question.  And an online magazine is editorial too, right?

« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2010, 21:37 »
0
I have the impression most, if not all, big agencies require the credits to both agency and photographer for editorial use, therefore my question.  And an online magazine is editorial too, right?
I had always thought images which were classified as editorial, not any image which was used in an editorial publication. Seems I'm wrong though.

KB

« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2010, 22:53 »
0
I had always thought images which were classified as editorial, not any image which was used in an editorial publication. Seems I'm wrong though.

There are editorial images which can be used for editorial purposes only (no adverts).

Then there are non-editorial images (the only kind iStock accepts), which can safely be used commercially. But just because they are ok to use in adverts doesn't mean they can't be used editorially.

Any image used editorially must be credited, according to the license agreements of many micro sites. But has already been said, just because the license states it doesn't mean the buyer knows (or cares). Many do; some don't.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Editorial on SS

Started by RacePhoto Shutterstock.com

3 Replies
4194 Views
Last post May 06, 2008, 22:55
by Jor43
4 Replies
4790 Views
Last post July 08, 2008, 16:05
by oboy
2 Replies
3163 Views
Last post March 07, 2009, 11:54
by vonkara
6 Replies
4194 Views
Last post June 28, 2009, 17:23
by cascoly
1 Replies
3208 Views
Last post July 01, 2009, 09:22
by willie

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors