MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: madelaide on July 04, 2010, 09:35
-
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 (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-the-brilliant-wings-.html)
-
I was reading Science online and saw this beautiful image credited to IS/TS - but shouldn't the photographer be credited as well?
[url]http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-the-brilliant-wings-.html[/url] ([url]http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-the-brilliant-wings-.html[/url])
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!
-
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.
-
I was reading Science online and saw this beautiful image credited to IS/TS - but shouldn't the photographer be credited as well?
[url]http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-the-brilliant-wings-.html[/url] ([url]http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/scienceshot-the-brilliant-wings-.html[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/Artist’s 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 Thinkstock’s sole discretion. The foregoing fee shall be in addition to any other rights or remedies that Thinkstock may have at law or in equity.
-
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 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.
-
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.