Quote from: lisafx on June 09, 2011, 14:31

A fairly exhaustive Google search hasn't turned up a concise set of definitions.  

It seems, according to someone I know in the publishing industry, that my (and Sean's and Balderick's) understanding is essentially correct.  Editorial usages don't require releases.  Individual agency requirements are something else entirely.  

My personal opinion -  having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial.  If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.  

Getty's restrictive rules, over and above what is legally required for editorial, strike me more as an attempt to shut istock/microstock photographers out of a lucrative niche.  It reeks of protectionism.  The same kind of elitism that pushed most of us toward microstock in the first place.  But that's JMHO.

Exactly.

After you asked the question, I did a google search and found a couple of articles relating to shooting editorial and they basically said the same as you. They weren't written by any "authority", but I'm not sure there is any such animal. I also looked in my GAG Pricing Handbook and Guidelines, but nothing appeared there.

I have submitted a few editorial images to two sites that included the faces of people. The only restriction for me uploading was getting the dates, subjects, locations, etc. all absolutely correct and in the format the site required. Other than that, I understand it as you do.

^ sorry, but this is just ridiculous. and FWIW, I just googled it too and found plenty of lists and sites describing journalistic photos and captions including information about the subjects, including permission in regards to celebrity photographs or the consequences of NOT having these permissions for example camping out in front of a private residence to capture a lewd shot. Invasion of privacy laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

before you ask me for a link, does it really matter if I post ten links? your assumptions must be correct. good luck with that approach to editorial.

before you ask me for a link, does it really matter if I post ten links? your assumptions must be correct. good luck with that approach to editorial.

It matters to me.  Since this appears to be a very gray area, I would like to have as much credible information as possible, rather than all of us just trading opinions. 

I have been giving a lot of thought to doing editorial lately, but in order to know if I want to get involved with it, I would like to have all the relevant facts.  I imagine a lot of other people would benefit from knowing this too. 

Quote from: SNP on June 09, 2011, 14:56

before you ask me for a link, does it really matter if I post ten links? your assumptions must be correct. good luck with that approach to editorial.

It matters to me.  Since this appears to be a very gray area, I would like to have as much credible information as possible, rather than all of us just trading opinions.  

I have been giving a lot of thought to doing editorial lately, but in order to know if I want to get involved with it, I would like to have all the relevant facts.  I imagine a lot of other people would benefit from knowing this too.  

unfortunately there isn't a hard and fast rule. and since our work is being represented by agents, we are bound by their requirements unless you supply editorial directly, and even then publications like photographers to belong to them, or to be reputable freelance shooters who they work with regularly. in which case, you're bound by their requirements if something happens surrounding the image you've supplied. SO, stating that, it's good to have information. that doesn't mean a release per se. in many cases, most cases, you don't have releases. but if you can have a release, why not have it? or a name, or some back story. even for microstock editorial images. at the same time, all of that happens for me after I shoot the image(s). I don't approach any editorial subject before. it's important to me not to influence the image in any way. even though by default people are often aware of a camera pointed at them.

Yes, of course the picture desk needs a proper caption or caption/story, whatever the source of the picture. I've done quite a bit of photo-journalism in my time and most of it involved arranging a meeting at a particular place, conducting an interview and shooting the subject in the environment relating to the story (posed pictures - oh dear!). Once or twice the person has refused to be in the photo and obviously you don't argue with that. But if you are snapping a government minister trying to sneak out of the back of a court after being convicted of corruption, then permission doesn't come into it (but do you know the UK rules about photography within "court precincts" and how those can be interpreted by a stroppy judge?)

lol, yes, and a good example. and France was used as an example too as their photography laws are infamously strict and they are apparently notoriously litigious. it really depends on jurisdiction. you're right that obviously much of what is shot as a photojournalist is not released. but the story should be clear and supported with as much documentation as possible IMO.

My personal opinion -  having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial.  If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.  

Yes, but there's a world of difference between, "I don't mind (and in fact I don't really have any option in many circumstances) my image being used in a guide book, or text book or newspaper article" and "I'm happy for my image to be used to promote any product or service".
That said, I've never seen a proper 'editorial release'; even the necessary 'parental permission', strangely, has not been produced by iStock, for no valid reason. So you could draft a simple permission release and find they wouldn't accept it.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 09, 2011, 15:48

Quote from: lisafx on June 09, 2011, 14:31

My personal opinion -  having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial.  If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.  

Yes, but there's a world of difference between, "I don't mind (and in fact I don't really have any option in many circumstances) my image being used in a guide book, or text book or newspaper article" and "I'm happy for my image to be used to promote any product or service".
That said, I've never seen a proper 'editorial release'; even the necessary 'parental permission', strangely, has not been produced by iStock, for no valid reason. So you could draft a simple permission release and find they wouldn't accept it.

actually, they might accept it. in a similar situation, I took images at a fashion week event that was open to commercial photography (not to mention I had actually applied for and received a media pass). I did not have a a property release (no one did), however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event.

Interesting. I had an editorial photo rejected a few weeks back needing evidence of 'permission to attend'. Other photos from the same event were accepted. The rejected one was a few weeks 'pending executive' before being rejected, and I've been told I can't Scout it. But it was a totally free to enter festival in a totally free to enter public park with no possible requirement for a permit. (Someone brought up exactly the same point on the iStock editorial forum at about the same time, maybe an over-cautious inspector?) The only regulation in the park is 'no tripod'. Should I have got a stranger to photograph me 'not using a tripod'?

Hmm, so far every one of Edstock's uploads would have failed editorial inspection immediately: they are missing the year in the caption date.  As we know, for iStock photographers the location/date has to strictly meet the published standards to the letter.

My personal opinion -  having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial.  If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.  

Lisa your personal opinion is correct as is Seans, Baldricks and nearly everyone elses!, Getty only have two releases, one for models and one for property and both are for commercial usage, there is no such thing as an editorial release and Getty do not require any form of release for editorial images. In fact they even specify in their legal resources that releases are only required for "celebrity" shots if they're to be used for commercial purposes. They do however like every other single agency in the world want assurance that no actual laws (civil or criminal) have been broken in obtaining the image, but that's nothing to do with releases.

Quote from: RT on June 09, 2011, 17:06

They do however like every other single agency in the world want assurance that no actual laws (civil or criminal) have been broken in obtaining the image, but that's nothing to do with releases.

this is the issue...define this 'assurance'...that's precisely what we've all been discussing.

besides pressganging the stranger next to you, and giving them your camera set on Program, and asking them to shoot you clearly being in a public place with the celebrity or event in progress, I can't really see what else you can do. And if you did that, you're wasting your own shooting time, and then you'd probably have to waste more time explaining why you wanted them to do it, and when they found out you were shooting for stock (and explained what that is), they'd likely want paid ...
The trouble must the different laws in different countries. If the 'tog was acting illegally, that would be their responsibility, and the agencies' contracts are all clearly written to shift the blame onto the photographer, in iStock's case, they abnegate all legal responsibility to help a 'tog, even when an image has been used contrary to the terms and conditions.
In the UK, it would be up to the prosecutor to prove that the 'tog was taking photos from an illegal place, as we are 'innocent until proven guilty'. It's not up to us to prove we were on a public place. I guess it's up to us to know the relevant laws in any country we're shooting in, which in some cases can be difficult to find out.
(In the case of France, I don't know how it works out for news. I've seen 'crowd scenes' from France in UK newspapers and TV progs, so that was shooting people in the street, and no way they all gave permission.

Quote from: lisafx on June 09, 2011, 14:31

My personal opinion -  having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial.  If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.  

Lisa your personal opinion is correct as is Seans, Baldricks and nearly everyone elses!, Getty only have two releases, one for models and one for property and both are for commercial usage, there is no such thing as an editorial release and Getty do not require any form of release for editorial images. In fact they even specify in their legal resources that releases are only required for "celebrity" shots if they're to be used for commercial purposes.

But over on iStock admin Subman assures us that the Getty editorial picture of a child in India "had been released by it's guardian or parent". Which means Getty must accept editorial releases. You and Subman can't both be right so someone is not telling the truth ... I'll see if I can guess who....

But over on iStock admin Subman assures us that the Getty editorial picture of a child in India "had been released by it's guardian or parent". Which means Getty must accept editorial releases. You and Subman can't both be right so someone is not telling the truth ... I'll see if I can guess who....

FWIW, I doubt Henk is knowingly lying.  But knowing Richard, I would put money on his knowing more about the subject than most Istock admins. 

That's the thing that is confusing.  It sounds as if Getty are passing off their own requirements as "legal requirements", where they are apparently based on other criteria.   

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 09, 2011, 17:41

But over on iStock admin Subman assures us that the Getty editorial picture of a child in India "had been released by it's guardian or parent". Which means Getty must accept editorial releases. You and Subman can't both be right so someone is not telling the truth ... I'll see if I can guess who....

FWIW, I doubt Henk is knowingly lying.  But knowing Richard, I would put money on his knowing more about the subject than most Istock admins.  

That's the thing that is confusing.  It sounds as if Getty are passing off their own requirements as "legal requirements", where they are apparently based on other criteria.    

RT is right, you are right, and people from Canada who are making it up from their opinion and guessing, shouldn't give advise.  

Legally RT covered the whole thing, there is no release for Editorial. Cut and dried, end of story. He did add that this assumes you didn't obtain the photo through illegal means, which would include trespassing or invasion of privacy or all kinds of other possibilities.

You are right in that iStock/Getty has invented some regulations claiming they are law, which they are not. None of us should assume that just because some agency lawyer comes up with some CYA policy, it's actually law or correct or that doing something else, isn't perfectly legal.

Last of all and I didn't wade through all the messages. Editorial has strict ethical and responsibility on the part of the photographer to not alter the image in such a manner to make it misrepresent the actual situation, lighting or event. Yes, you can do white balance, contrast and sharpening. Minimal alterations, assume this doesn't change the contents. But you can't clone in or out a foot, tree, bush or telephone pole. (for some easy examples) You can't make a blue sky orange or add a setting Sun, or the Moon. That's not Editorial/News!

What the microstock agencies have done is pervert the meaning and use the editorial content to get around selling images of trademarks, patented and copyrighted subjects. They are accepting highly edited and altered images as Editorial. Maybe that's one area, but News Images cannot be altered to that extent. So their practice of just calling everything Editorial with a news caption, date and location, is also risky business.

Requiring us to provide proof that we were allowed to photograph something is interesting but almost ludicrous. Yes, we might add a statement that we broke no laws in taking these images, and then quote the first amendment?   That only works for me in the US, other places have different laws and regulations. Perfect limit, no release needed for news or public figures or for shooting people in public places. There is no expectation of privacy in those situations, so shoot away. If the agency wants to be an ostrich, that's their choice. But It's NOT the law!