MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Thinking about exclusive but have some EDITORIAL images at other sites...  (Read 6021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 01, 2010, 15:10 »
0
Just to make it simple. Apparently I am able to keep everything that is not RF images on the other agencies. Does anyone has experience this?

Anyway, the guys who became exclusive with IS in the last months, do you really see a worthwhile difference? Do you recommend the jump ???

Thank you.


« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2010, 15:11 »
0
"editorial" does not mean you are not offering the content as RF.  You are not allowed to offer any content RF elsewhere, assuming you are talking about iStock.

« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2010, 15:24 »
0
Mmmmmm.....? I am puzzled, editorial license are not considered RF license for the agencies (my images have tons of logos). They are sold under the editorial license, and you said they sell as RF? No comprendo.

« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2010, 15:30 »
0
editorial vs. commercial
RF vs. RM

example: SS sells "editorial" under an RF license.

« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2010, 15:32 »
0
editorial can be sold as rights managed (RM) also

« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2010, 15:49 »
0
And bottom line of all of that: I can't become exclusive with IS and keep the so-called editorial images on other agencies, correct?

« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2010, 15:50 »
0
And bottom line of all of that: I can't become exclusive with IS and keep the so-called editorial images on other agencies, correct?

No, the bottom line is that you can't become exclusive while selling RF at other sites.  Since we don't know where you are licensing your "so-called editorial images", we can't comment on your choice.

« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2010, 15:53 »
0
Well, I am not selling them to my local newspaper, but to other agencies equivalent to IS (DT, SS)... I wouldn't bother asking if there were not the direct IS competition.

« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2010, 15:54 »
0
I give up.

KB

« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2010, 15:58 »
0
I give up.
The question is, Sean, why do you even bother?  ;D

hroe, it's really simple: You can't have any images for sale at any micro agency, because (AFAIK) all micro agencies sell is RF. It doesn't matter if they are editorial or not, it matters simply whether they are RF or not.

If you sell RM (editorials or otherwise) at Alamy, for example, that's fine. Just no RF, anywhere.

I really wish that IS would sell editorial images, but I don't think that will ever happen.

« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2010, 16:00 »
0
The question is, Sean, why do you even bother?  ;D

It's my court ordered societal contribution ;) .

ap

« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2010, 16:01 »
0
Well, I am not selling them to my local newspaper, but to other agencies equivalent to IS (DT, SS)... I wouldn't bother asking if there were not the direct IS competition.

both ss and dt are selling editorial images with a rf licence, meaning they're sold without registering who the buyers are. so, you wouldn't be able to go exclusive with is in this case. however, if you were to sell these same editorial images at alamy with a rm licence (registering every single buyer along the way), then you're gold. by the way, alamy only sell editorials with rm licence, no ifs or buts. that's one of the differences between microstock and macrostock.

« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2010, 16:03 »
0
Gracias amigo!

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2010, 16:03 »
0

hroe, it's really simple: You can't have any images for sale at any micro agency, because (AFAIK) all micro agencies sell is RF. It doesn't matter if they are editorial or not, it matters simply whether they are RF or not.

If you sell RM (editorials or otherwise) at Alamy, for example, that's fine. Just no RF, anywhere.


^^ Well said.  That should clear up any confusion :)

Dook

« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2010, 16:04 »
0
I am getting puzzled, too. If I sell newspaper worthy editorial pictures through Reuters, what then (about IS exclusivity)?

ap

« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2010, 16:06 »
0
I am getting puzzled, too. If I sell newspaper worthy editorial pictures through Reuters, what then (about IS exclusivity)?

again, is reuters selling your editorial image with a rf or rm licence? that's your assignment for the day.

Dook

« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2010, 16:12 »
0
I am getting puzzled, too. If I sell newspaper worthy editorial pictures through Reuters, what then (about IS exclusivity)?

again, is reuters selling your editorial image with a rf or rm licence? that's your assignment for the day.
To be honest, I do not know. But, I can not believe that IS will ask me to give up my photojournalism career to become exclusice stock photographer. I'll better ask support.

« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2010, 16:16 »
0
To be honest, I do not know. But, I can not believe that IS will ask me to give up my photojournalism career to become exclusice stock photographer. I'll better ask support.

Your photojournalism career is irrelevant to not selling RF anywhere else if you are interested in being an iStock exclusive.

Does anyone read the details of how they are licensing their content?

ap

« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2010, 16:21 »
0


To be honest, I do not know. But, I can not believe that IS will ask me to give up my photojournalism career to become exclusice stock photographer. I'll better ask support.

ok, i'm pretty sure reuters is doing rm licensing since they're a major macro news supplier. you really need to find out from who you're selling your photos to how they are licensing their sales. if they don't know, neither will is.

« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2010, 16:28 »
0
Quote
I give up.

 :) I know just how you feel.

« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2010, 16:43 »
0
Well, sorry, I wasn't getting the point. English is not my first language and I am new to stock also... Anyway thanks for all your informative answers!

« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2010, 16:56 »
0
The question is, Sean, why do you even bother?  ;D

It's my court ordered societal contribution ;) .

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

love it.  ;D

Dook

« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2010, 16:57 »
0


To be honest, I do not know. But, I can not believe that IS will ask me to give up my photojournalism career to become exclusice stock photographer. I'll better ask support.

ok, i'm pretty sure reuters is doing rm licensing since they're a major macro news supplier. you really need to find out from who you're selling your photos to how they are licensing their sales. if they don't know, neither will is.
It is RM, I checked. Sorry for a little bit of panic from my side.

ap

« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2010, 17:21 »
0

It is RM, I checked. Sorry for a little bit of panic from my side.

you're good to go then.  :) from what country are you submitting to reuters?

Dook

« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2010, 17:28 »
0
I am freelancing from Balkans countries.

ShadySue

« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2010, 17:46 »
0
The OP is OK, as their editorial content is RF.
However, the Exculsive agreement is very, very confusing.
I've asked this at least four times on the iStock forums and have never got an answer.
Section 2 'Provision of Exclusive Content" says (I've cut a lot to try to avoid other issues):
In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, either or both of: (i) Still and Flash Content, and (ii) Motion Content; ....... but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" ....... (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", ...........
So: exclusive content is Still and flash and/or Motion,
 not including (1) 'Work for hire"
 not including (3) Rights managed images (such as the OP has)
And not including (2): "Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement,"
Can someone explain to me for sure, not speculatively, what on earth that means.
I.e.: in what way is the 'content that is produced for editorial purposes' different from RM Editorial. (It must be different, else it would just come under Rights Managed in clause 3.
What does "except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights..." actually mean???

« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2010, 18:39 »
0
The OP is OK, as their editorial content is RF.

No, that would not be ok.  Maybe you mistyped?

ShadySue

« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2010, 19:06 »
0
The OP is OK, as their editorial content is RF.

No, that would not be ok.  Maybe you mistyped?

I did, sorry.
But there's still the apparent exception in 2.2 which says 'exclusive content shall not include ... content that is produced for editiorial purposes'.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3910 Views
Last post April 12, 2008, 21:03
by ann
8 Replies
4764 Views
Last post July 18, 2008, 17:05
by HermanM
3 Replies
2136 Views
Last post October 13, 2008, 00:45
by graficallyminded
10 Replies
4531 Views
Last post March 06, 2009, 20:22
by epixx
10 Replies
1675 Views
Last post June 29, 2013, 09:14
by grsphoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results