Many of the stock agencies, including istock, alamy, and shutterstock, are completely wrong about what it means to be 'editorial'.

Copyright law (in the US) has something called "Fair Use". it is in the actual copyright code. there are 4 types of fair use, one of which is "commentary".

What stock agencies call 'editorial' according to copyright law is actually 'commentary'.

Examples of 'commentary' are news outlets, blogs, etc. Non-advertising. Using images and talking about what is in the image, or using the image to support a news story or other commentary. They are not advertising products or services, they are discussing something.

Fair Use / Commentary / Editorial is based on usage, not on sales. That means whether something is Fair Use or editorial is 100% dependent on the person using it in presentation to the general public (such as in advertising or in a news story or blog post). Selling on a stock agency web site is not 'use' of the image to the general public.

Stock agencies cannot legally make a determination if something is "Fair Use" (editorial) or not. Only a court of law, such as the US Supreme Court, can make that determination.

News media outlets always do commentary or editorial (with exception of their advertising, which is separate). any use by news media outlets is Fair Use / editorial. to a news media outlet, or a blog poster, or a documentary, all stock images and videos are 'editorial'. they don't need release forms according to US copyright law, although they often ask for them when they can. but they don't need to.

Advertisers don't always need release forms. they can blur content that they do not have release forms for, for example, and legally use any image in advertising. they can use content with logos as long as they are not claiming to be the company with the logo. remember the pepsi / coke commercials where they show a coke machine next to a pepsi machine, do you think they gave each other permission to use their logos in a competitors ads? they didn't because it is not necessary to have permission to use someone else's logo unless you claim to be that company. upheld by Daniel Moore vs U of Alabama.

Stock agencies should have done the following:
- put all images online without categorizing them as 'editorial' or 'non editorial'
- with each image, list whether or not release forms are provided for models, property, etc
- allow the buyer / user to decide if he needs the release forms

again, copyrights can only be infringed by usage (presenting to the general public). selling on stock agency sites is not usage to the general public (even if the general public can see it).

stock agencies are 100% wrong when they claim that an image is to be for editorial use only or otherwise. they are not legally permitted to make that determination because they have no idea how the content is going to be used by the buyer. that is why each company has different policies, because they are wrong, and they copy from each other and perpetuate incorrect beliefs.

Here's someone on Dreamstime who got into trouble for uploading photos of a monastery as commercial.

https://www.dreamstime.com/thread_45949

Yeah! Missed you. They are still "legally permitted" to sell licenses as "editorial only" on their own sites if they want. Nothing has changed since the last time you posted the same thing. Although at least you've toned down on saying they are violating your freedom/ rights or whatever.

Quote from: dragonblade on April 07, 2017, 20:56

Here's someone on Dreamstime who got into trouble for uploading photos of a monastery as commercial.

https://www.dreamstime.com/thread_45949

That thread shows that it is no use saying "US law says this, therefore that's all that matters". Different places have different laws and no international stock business can make rules that will fit every possible jurisdiction.

I wonder what the outcome was? I would like to think in the end the photographer took down the image and maybe paid a small amount. But you can understand agencies being very risk averse and unwilling to go to legal bodies such as the "US supreme court" to plead the justice of their cause!

Buyers, especially new first time buyers which was the huge market that micro tapped, are generally not knowledgeable about the ins and outs of fair use, copyright, etc.  it's a way of providing a first line of defense for their protection.

Buyers, especially new first time buyers which was the huge market that micro tapped, are generally not knowledgeable about the ins and outs of fair use, copyright, etc.  it's a way of providing a first line of defense for their protection.

And the agencies can make any rules they want for their own protection regardless of any nations laws. It's not law it's agency determination of what they allow. Therefore agencies are not wrong about editorial only. They are setting their agency guidelines for what they choose to allow or not.

It's really not complicated or legal, it's policy.