MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Paulo M. F. Pires on February 28, 2012, 11:31
-
A) There is any "common law/guideline" regarding "RF Editorial License"?
I'm asking because, there's agencies that still not accepting Editorial ( commercial decision or "legal" decision ? ), and those who accept it, have different criteria over content:
- Some accept it without any exception.
- Some refuse if image shown any brand name/plate. Yeah, I know that some agencies change their policy, but how it's possible same agency refuse many images because brand when , for example, the car only have a sequential number plate visible, without any pub over it ( which means that brand name reefers to car brand ) and accept others with.. a Ferrari?
My concerns are more about future legal issues, not regarding rejections.
B) Editorial on Alamy: Can I have same image as RF Editorial on several agencies and at same time as RM with "restricitons" to permit "Editorial Only"?
So far I've read different opinions about RF vs RM ( non-exclusive )... but still applies to Editorial content.
Thanks in advance.
-
B) Editorial on Alamy: Can I have same image as RF Editorial on several agencies and at same time as RM with "restricitons" to permit "Editorial Only"?
No. Alamy don't want images RM which are on other agencies RF.
-
B) Editorial on Alamy: Can I have same image as RF Editorial on several agencies and at same time as RM with "restricitons" to permit "Editorial Only"?
No. Alamy don't want images RM which are on other agencies RF.
Sorry, I haven't see your reply!
Some hours after contact them, they confirm that too. Even for RF Editorial ( my doubt ).
But still curious why some agencies still not accepting Editorial... 8|
-
But still curious why some agencies still not accepting Editorial... 8|
Too much risk maybe for the micros.
I've found some of my editorials being used in a commercial context, and have had to contact CR for each of them. It seems to be more hassle than you'd think to get them taken down: I've had a couple outstanding since last year, and they're still 'up'. Others have needed me to get back to CR to get them to contact the offenders again. I guess that's quite costly in staff time vs micro income.
-
Last I checked Alamy doesn't do RF editorial... if you don't have model releases, the images must be RM.
-
Last I checked Alamy doesn't do RF editorial... if you don't have model releases, the images must be RM.
exactly, if they need property or model release they can only be RM, no other option
-
But still curious why some agencies still not accepting Editorial... 8|
Too much risk maybe for the micros.
I've found some of my editorials being used in a commercial context, and have had to contact CR for each of them. It seems to be more hassle than you'd think to get them taken down: I've had a couple outstanding since last year, and they're still 'up'. Others have needed me to get back to CR to get them to contact the offenders again. I guess that's quite costly in staff time vs micro income.
When You talk about risk is about "legal issues" against us or a question of "fair" earnings?
I ask because, as "green guy on stock" business, my worries are with "legal use" first. For example, at least on EL over one of my editorial images as been used in commercial context. In that specific case should I do something? They have at least one "brand" ( no recognizable persons ) that could be seen as "brand/copyright" infringement ( on commercial context ), but so far as i know, when someone buy an Editorial image, is their responsibility over use and future authorization requests, right?
By other side we have earnings issue, but as far I understand they cost the same, at least more common uses.
Last I checked Alamy doesn't do RF editorial... if you don't have model releases, the images must be RM.
exactly, if they need property or model release they can only be RM, no other option
After CR explanations, some readiness and Your help, I understand that.. if i want sell my images of sports events, etc on Alamy , must be as RM with some exclusions. And i cant have it as RF ( Commercial or Editorial ) in any other micro/macro agency. This include a "local" sports events agency ( direct sale ).
Probably I will choose the best ones in some National events and keep those to send they as RM to Alamy ( and probably exclusive? ).. and the rest of the set goes to micros
Thanks
-
But still curious why some agencies still not accepting Editorial... 8|
Too much risk maybe for the micros.
I've found some of my editorials being used in a commercial context, and have had to contact CR for each of them. It seems to be more hassle than you'd think to get them taken down: I've had a couple outstanding since last year, and they're still 'up'. Others have needed me to get back to CR to get them to contact the offenders again. I guess that's quite costly in staff time vs micro income.
When You talk about risk is about "legal issues" against us or a question of "fair" earnings?
Probably a lot of the agencies don't care much whether our earnings are fair.
I'm talking about legal issues.
I ask because, as "green guy on stock" business, my worries are with "legal use" first. For example, at least on EL over one of my editorial images as been used in commercial context. In that specific case should I do something? They have at least one "brand" ( no recognizable persons ) that could be seen as "brand/copyright" infringement ( on commercial context ), but so far as i know, when someone buy an Editorial image, is their responsibility over use and future authorization requests, right?
By other side we have earnings issue, but as far I understand they cost the same, at least more common uses.
I don't know which agency your misused image was used from, so I don't know their t&c. Alamy certainly clearly puts the onus on the buyer. Other agencies, not so obviously so. However, iStock's CR person assured me that so long as I hadn't been in contact with the buyer, I would not be held responsible for a misuse.
However, from the point of view of an agency, I guess the possiblity of an expensive lawsuit, even one they would probably win, is not attractive.
As for earnings, you need to decide whether a particular image would do better as RM or RF-editorial. I can't possibly claim any degree of expertise on that. Photos that I think may have very limited interest/use I send RM, as hopefully the price per dl will offset the few dls. But what do I know?
-
Actually two simple points:
The person publishing the image is responsible for the final use. If the artist has the license right and the agency has it right and the "buyer" does something illegal. We aren't liable. (doesn't mean some nitwit won't take us or the agency to court, just that legally we aren't liable)
Law and Agency rules are not to be assumed to be the same thing. Laws are still the law, agencies make up their own rules. The agencies don't go against the law, but they create restrictions where there are none. Agencies also seem to create moving targets and random regulations on a whim. The laws on the other hand are getting more alike in the major countries of the world, which should end some confusion, but it won't. ::)
Laws are on planet Earth. Agency regulations may be from Mars or Pluto, I can never figure it out.
-
In my case is a bit more complicated... That image is for sale on almost agencies... as RF Commercial and RF Editorial. Some time ago I contact several agencies about that "tiny detail", and I got the same answer from all: If client buy it on agency A as RF Editorial must use it as Editorial... If buy it somewhere else as "commercial" must use it as "commercial".
Is an f16 without any plate or flag...
But anyway, in future I will be more careful , no matter they say ( Agency's CR's). If no model release and newsworthy: goes as RF Editorial everywhere. For Alamy I need more time and "numbers" ( mean regular sales and trends ), and based on that choose which images worth send as RM or "RM - Editorial likely". That RM images will go exclusive for Alamy.
But stills... knowing the legal issues that an agency can get for a misused license.. why still not "attractive" for some ( FT for instance ).
Thank to both
-
In my case is a bit more complicated... That image is for sale on almost agencies... as RF Commercial and RF Editorial. Some time ago I contact several agencies about that "tiny detail", and I got the same answer from all: If client buy it on agency A as RF Editorial must use it as Editorial... If buy it somewhere else as "commercial" must use it as "commercial".
That's half rubbish.
If an image is sold and bought as editorial, it must be used as editorial, correct.
If an image is not restricted to editorial, it can be used commercially or editorially, (but the buyer has no indication that the file is genuine, or that it is or is not altered; for certain purposes these considerations are important).
-
Actually two simple points:
The person publishing the image is responsible for the final use. If the artist has the license right and the agency has it right and the "buyer" does something illegal. We aren't liable. (doesn't mean some nitwit won't take us or the agency to court, just that legally we aren't liable)
Law and Agency rules are not to be assumed to be the same thing. Laws are still the law, agencies make up their own rules. The agencies don't go against the law, but they create restrictions where there are none. Agencies also seem to create moving targets and random regulations on a whim. The laws on the other hand are getting more alike in the major countries of the world, which should end some confusion, but it won't. ::)
Laws are on planet Earth. Agency regulations may be from Mars or Pluto, I can never figure it out.
That is true but only to a point. If you read the terms of service at every micro agency you contribute to, you have agreed to indemnify the agency against legal action for your images. Say you do a photo shoot for a local boutique that designs clothes. They "copyright" the design of the clothes (Nike Swoosh, three Adidas stripes, etc.) and you aren't aware of it. Suddenly that image appears in an ad and the boutique sues. They can name the user of the image, the agency, and you in the lawsuit. You must defend the agency per the TOS.
At Alamy, it is up to the buyer...a little different TOS than the micros. Editorial images can also be used for internal corporate documents as well as for editorial use. As long as it isn't used in advertising, you should be OK. In other words, if you have a pic of Lance Armstrong at the Tour de France, that image could be sold to magazines, newspapers, textbooks in an editorial manner AND that image can be used for internal corporate presentations and motivational seminars as a symbol of perseverance and strength or they could use it for a poster in their lunch room. Both uses are legal. A company would NOT however be able to use that image legally to endorse their line of bicycles.
At Alamy, if you restrict your images to Editorial use only, you will potentially lose out on "personal use" type sales as I describe above.
-
I'll use this topic to report something.. funny ( or not ).
Strangely, after write about different criteria between agencies , receive a email from PM, about several Editorial shoots, including approved ones:
"we saw that you have many photos of cars on race tracks for which we need property releases. If you don’t have permissions, we have to decline your photos and this might affect your acceptance rate in a negative way. So please delete those photos until the 19th of March, that is Monday next week."
I tried explain that yes, I have authorization ( how . i could get the photos inside track without permission... pfff ), and images were supposed to be Editorial and never pass over my mind that I could need a PR.
They replied ( fast by the way ) that IF I was authorized to photograph the event, more easily I would get the PR signed... Oh yes, I'm seeing the movie:
"Ah, remember me? I was taking photos to "Agency X" last month.. can You sign me this document because i work with Micro Stock too and ONE agency need all type of authorizations, blah blah..."
I delete all photos with any vehicle with wheels over tarmac.
My big question: Why they have Editorial? No sense, since they want Mr and PR for everything.
Anyway, some of 2012 events I will do on same race track and will get PR for each event ( and probably from some pilots ) just in case ( not for PM sure )
-
Actually two simple points:
The person publishing the image is responsible for the final use. If the artist has the license right and the agency has it right and the "buyer" does something illegal. We aren't liable. (doesn't mean some nitwit won't take us or the agency to court, just that legally we aren't liable)
Law and Agency rules are not to be assumed to be the same thing. Laws are still the law, agencies make up their own rules. The agencies don't go against the law, but they create restrictions where there are none. Agencies also seem to create moving targets and random regulations on a whim. The laws on the other hand are getting more alike in the major countries of the world, which should end some confusion, but it won't. ::)
Laws are on planet Earth. Agency regulations may be from Mars or Pluto, I can never figure it out.
That is true but only to a point. If you read the terms of service at every micro agency you contribute to, you have agreed to indemnify the agency against legal action for your images. Say you do a photo shoot for a local boutique that designs clothes. They "copyright" the design of the clothes (Nike Swoosh, three Adidas stripes, etc.) and you aren't aware of it. Suddenly that image appears in an ad and the boutique sues. They can name the user of the image, the agency, and you in the lawsuit. You must defend the agency per the TOS.
At Alamy, it is up to the buyer...a little different TOS than the micros. Editorial images can also be used for internal corporate documents as well as for editorial use. As long as it isn't used in advertising, you should be OK. In other words, if you have a pic of Lance Armstrong at the Tour de France, that image could be sold to magazines, newspapers, textbooks in an editorial manner AND that image can be used for internal corporate presentations and motivational seminars as a symbol of perseverance and strength or they could use it for a poster in their lunch room. Both uses are legal. A company would NOT however be able to use that image legally to endorse their line of bicycles.
At Alamy, if you restrict your images to Editorial use only, you will potentially lose out on "personal use" type sales as I describe above.
Ah did you miss this part?
"If the artist has the license right and the agency has it right..." if it's copyrighted, the license is not right? Whether by error or omission, it's wrong.
Yes to the Editorial on Alamy part. It's pretty simple and they don't play around with nuances and questions. That could change but Editorial / News is protected free speech, end of debate.
I'll PM you CoisaX I have to know which agency to make sure I'm legal or never to upload racing shots to. Not that I do much on Micro, but I have a few. Thanks for the heads up.