Author Topic: Why is this photo only for editorial use? (Read 3016 times)

sweetgirll · « **on:** July 23, 2017, 13:54 »

A friend of mine was asking, why can't this be used for commercial purposes, and I wasn't sure...

My guess is because of property release? Something about these buildings?
Is there any photo of a similar street that could be used commercialy?

https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-brownstones-upper-west-side-image22255082

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2017, 14:00 »

Two people and writing on the red canopy, maybe?

sweetgirll · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2017, 14:13 »

I'm not sure..is maybe a landmark? For instance adobe requires a release for famous landmarks, historic locations, and modern architecture.
Maybe this is modern architecture...
but the problem is that on dreamstime it doesn't say if the photographer got a property release, like they do on Shutterstock...

Why would this NY Brownstone be royalty free:
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-new-york-brownstone-townhouses-turtle-bay-neighborhood-midtown-manhattan-image85365626

and this "Brownstone homes" be Editorial?
https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-brownstone-homes-brooklyn-heights-new-york-city-image17791910

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2017, 14:39 »

The editorial one has a plaque.

Note that the editorial one is also being sold as Royalty Free. Royalty-free is a licence type, nothing to do with whether an image is editorial or commerical.

sweetgirll · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2017, 15:02 »

Right...I think I'm getting it now.
The editorial cannot be used for commercial purposes, maybe they didn't have a property release.

So is it safe to say that if the other image which is not marked as editorial is okay to use for commercial purposes because the photographer probably has a property release or took the photo in a way that shows a generic view of the houses?

Quote from: ShadySue on July 23, 2017, 14:39

The editorial one has a plaque.
Note that the editorial one is also being sold as Royalty Free. Royalty-free is a license type, nothing to do with whether an image is editorial or commerical.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2017, 15:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 23, 2017, 14:39

The editorial one has a plaque.
Note that the editorial one is also being sold as Royalty Free. Royalty-free is a license type, nothing to do with whether an image is editorial or commerical.

Quote from: sweetgirll on July 23, 2017, 15:02

Right...I think I'm getting it now.
The editorial cannot be used for commercial purposes, maybe they didn't have a property release.

So is it safe to say that if the other image which is not marked as editorial is okay to use for commercial purposes because the photographer probably has a property release or took the photo in a way that shows a generic view of the houses?

That might be a reasonable assumption. I don't know how strict DT is about these things.

I had a pic of my own house exterior on iS for a few years, then they deactivated it and asked for a PR. But as they didn't specify whether it was my signature they needed, or that of the architect/builder, I didn't bother. (Not special, tens of thousands like it in the UK.)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Why is this photo only for editorial use? (Read 3016 times)

sweetgirll

ShadySue

sweetgirll

ShadySue

sweetgirll

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors