pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Unreleased Copyrighted Material No Longer Accepted.  (Read 18139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

traveler1116

« on: October 13, 2011, 13:17 »
0
"We can no longer license imagery for Editorial Use Only, which includes unreleased copyrighted material as the main focus. Items such as statues, sculptures, paintings, engravings, artwork and magazine covers cannot play an important role in the composition. We will, however continue to accept and license files where copyrighted items are not the main focus of an image.

We will be reviewing our content an removing files that longer meet our guidelines."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=335567&page=1


traveler1116

« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2011, 13:19 »
0
Thought everyone contributing editorial should see this since it's not posted very prominently on the IS forums.

« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2011, 13:21 »
0
I was expecting the rule change. I am not suprised.

« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2011, 13:24 »
0
So does that mean those isolated iPhone shots will have to go?

KB

« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2011, 13:33 »
0
I was expecting the rule change. I am not suprised.
Why?

Seems idiotic to me. These are supposed to be EDITORIAL images, used for non-commercial purposes. 

The next step is probably going to be they won't accept unreleased people in editorial images.

« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2011, 14:02 »
0
I don't really feel comfortable selling editorial photos on a microstock site.  I'll stick with alamy for those.  Perhaps they were right not to bother with editorial all those years?

« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2011, 14:07 »
0
Id rather be safe then sorry.

They must have a good reason for these changes and it is better to avoid images that might lead you into court case trouble. The legal risk is not worth the microstock price.

« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2011, 14:24 »
0
I don't really feel comfortable selling editorial photos on a microstock site.  I'll stick with alamy for those.  Perhaps they were right not to bother with editorial all those years?

What does Alamy do differently which makes you comfortable selling editorial images via them rather than via RF microstock ?

« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2011, 14:48 »
0
I don't really feel comfortable selling editorial photos on a microstock site.  I'll stick with alamy for those.  Perhaps they were right not to bother with editorial all those years?

What does Alamy do differently which makes you comfortable selling editorial images via them rather than via RF microstock ?
Editorial has lower sales volume.  I usually get a higher commission with alamy RM than I would with microstock editorial RF.  I get some information about what the photo is being used for.  The buyers usually pay a lot more for a specific use.  I don't like the idea of low sales volume and low commissions and not knowing anything about what the photo is being used for.

« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2011, 14:59 »
0
I don't really feel comfortable selling editorial photos on a microstock site.  I'll stick with alamy for those.  Perhaps they were right not to bother with editorial all those years?

What does Alamy do differently which makes you comfortable selling editorial images via them rather than via RF microstock ?

Because Alamy negotiate the price and sell editorial RM for a specific use they will be able to advise end users on whether their usage is within the terms of the agreement.

An RF editorial sale from a micro is quite likely to sit in a designer's folder for years and might get pulled up for use later on, after the buyer has forgotten the restrictions. That is a very big difference between single use RM and unlimited use RF.

 The micros rely on the buyer being sophisticated enough to understand editorial usage, even though micros are where the least sophisticated buyers hang out.

« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2011, 15:03 »
0
I don't really feel comfortable selling editorial photos on a microstock site.  I'll stick with alamy for those.  Perhaps they were right not to bother with editorial all those years?

What does Alamy do differently which makes you comfortable selling editorial images via them rather than via RF microstock ?
Editorial has lower sales volume.  I usually get a higher commission with alamy RM than I would with microstock editorial RF.  I get some information about what the photo is being used for.  The buyers usually pay a lot more for a specific use.  I don't like the idea of low sales volume and low commissions and not knowing anything about what the photo is being used for.

Okay. Thanks for the quick answer. I was misunderstanding your use of the word comfortable :) I thought that you meant that you had an ethical issue related to the use of the images.

Otherwise it is only down to price and where the image is most likely to find a customer.

From an ethical perspective I am most comfortable with a relatively tight and restrictive licensing model. I like and respect Alamy but am still slightly nervous of the site in some ways - because it sometimes seems rather like a free for all.

ETA: @BaldricksTrousers - I am not completely convinced that an RM image is any more or less likely than an RF image to "sit in a designer's folder for years" ... etc

« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2011, 15:05 »
0
I wonder if this type of editorial photos will be accepted as editorial????

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-carl-gauss-image20464951

traveler1116

« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2011, 15:07 »
0
I don't really feel comfortable selling editorial photos on a microstock site.  I'll stick with alamy for those.  Perhaps they were right not to bother with editorial all those years?

What does Alamy do differently which makes you comfortable selling editorial images via them rather than via RF microstock ?
Editorial has lower sales volume.  I usually get a higher commission with alamy RM than I would with microstock editorial RF.  I get some information about what the photo is being used for.  The buyers usually pay a lot more for a specific use.  I don't like the idea of low sales volume and low commissions and not knowing anything about what the photo is being used for.

Okay. Thanks for the quick answer. I was misunderstanding your use of the word comfortable :) I thought that you meant that you had an ethical issue related to the use of the images.

Otherwise it is only down to price and where the image is most likely to find a customer.

From an ethical perspective I am most comfortable with a relatively tight and restrictive licensing model. I like and respect Alamy but am still slightly nervous of the site in some ways - because it sometimes seems rather like a free for all.

ETA: @BaldricksTrousers - I am not completely convinced that an RM image is any more or less likely than an RF image to "sit in a designer's folder for years" ... etc
I'm not sure why it matters where the image sits or for how long.  The buyer agreed to use the image in a certain way and if he doesn't use it correctly then he is liable for damages not IS or the contributor.  Am I missing something?

traveler1116

« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2011, 15:11 »
0
I wonder if this type of editorial photos will be accepted as editorial????

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-carl-gauss-image20464951

Doubt it.  If it's old enough it's in the public domain and doesn't need to be editorial.  If it's not old enough to be in the public domain, it is copyright protected artwork which appears as though it will not be allowed. 

« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2011, 15:12 »
0
huh.  Sjlocke termed "editorial light" now it's "editorial lighter"

Wasn't one of the things they wanted was unreleased shots of copywrited consumer products. Or is it limited to artworks and statues.
  
Something must have happened to prompt this but isn't this the point of editorial. For instance  I want to run a news story about some famous artist that died and I want to put a photo of one of his works in the story.  

I thought there'd be heaps more problems with editorial use of people images.

« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2011, 15:20 »
0
I don't really feel comfortable selling editorial photos on a microstock site.  I'll stick with alamy for those.  Perhaps they were right not to bother with editorial all those years?

What does Alamy do differently which makes you comfortable selling editorial images via them rather than via RF microstock ?
Editorial has lower sales volume.  I usually get a higher commission with alamy RM than I would with microstock editorial RF.  I get some information about what the photo is being used for.  The buyers usually pay a lot more for a specific use.  I don't like the idea of low sales volume and low commissions and not knowing anything about what the photo is being used for.

Okay. Thanks for the quick answer. I was misunderstanding your use of the word comfortable :) I thought that you meant that you had an ethical issue related to the use of the images.

Otherwise it is only down to price and where the image is most likely to find a customer.

From an ethical perspective I am most comfortable with a relatively tight and restrictive licensing model. I like and respect Alamy but am still slightly nervous of the site in some ways - because it sometimes seems rather like a free for all.

ETA: @BaldricksTrousers - I am not completely convinced that an RM image is any more or less likely than an RF image to "sit in a designer's folder for years" ... etc
I'm not sure why it matters where the image sits or for how long.  The buyer agreed to use the image in a certain way and if he doesn't use it correctly then he is liable for damages not IS or the contributor.  Am I missing something?

I don't know if the point was meant to be someone paying $200 for an image may be more likely to read and comply with the license conditions than somebody who is a casual or once off buyer who buys a picture of Tom Cruise to put on their small business website selling second hand landmines.

There is also the case where you can make 1 sale or 100 sales and end up with the same money in your pocket but because there are 100 people using your image there is more chance it will be misused.

There is nothing to say that the RM buyer won't use it the wrong way but there may be less risk than selling via microstock.

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2011, 15:22 »
0
I wonder if this type of editorial photos will be accepted as editorial????

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-carl-gauss-image20464951


It looks like an old lithograph, Public Domain if created before 1923 and probably never needed to be Editorial in the first place, but that's another problem with the various agency rules to start with. Making things editorial that aren't. They have made a mess and it's the lawyers advising them that have created the problems because they are making their own rules, regardless of actual law. Repeating from the other thread (this morning) discussing the same announcement, don't confuse agency policy with law. The agencies make up their own rules, to serve their own purposes.

We will be reviewing our content an removing files that longer meet our guidelines.

Also, say an image is licensed as a download as Editorial and it doesn't need to be. The buyer can use it any way they want, within the license terms. The agency can't force something to be Editorial Only! The Editorial designation is an advisory and says there's no release, nothing else.

« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2011, 15:23 »
0
I wonder if this type of editorial photos will be accepted as editorial????

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-carl-gauss-image20464951

Doubt it.  If it's old enough it's in the public domain and doesn't need to be editorial.  If it's not old enough to be in the public domain, it is copyright protected artwork which appears as though it will not be allowed.  


the drawings are from an over 100 years old books (1905 - 1909) but they are present even in earlier versions of the enciclopedia books (1890 series)

« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2011, 15:37 »
0
It looks like an old lithograph, Public Domain if created before 1923

depends on the jurisdiction. Countries have different copyright laws - and it may also depend, in different juridictions for example, on whether copyright has been renewed. There is no single rule which applies which is why the best thing is get legal documentation, provenance etc.

« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2011, 15:44 »
0
maybe they are just clearing out a bit more "unsustainable" competition for edstock.

RacePhoto

« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2011, 15:53 »
0
It looks like an old lithograph, Public Domain if created before 1923

depends on the jurisdiction. Countries have different copyright laws - and it may also depend, in different juridictions for example, on whether copyright has been renewed. There is no single rule which applies which is why the best thing is get legal documentation, provenance etc.

As always I speak from where I am, and in the US, EVERYTHING before 1923, photos, records, books, art... is public domain now, whether renewed or not.

The Gauss image should have been verified when it was uploaded. The Editorial designation is a lazy way for the agencies to license things, without worrying about the actual copyright detals or the facts of law.

That etching was probably made in the late 1800s and if it is, it's PD everywhere that I can think of on this planet.  ;D  Start thinking Berne Convention which in many instances is more open and lenient than the US laws!

Which laws govern Dreamstine, I don't know for sure.

Dreamstime LLC
1616 Westgate Circle
Brentwood, TN 37027
United States

maybe they are just clearing out a bit more "unsustainable" competition for edstock.

Came to mind right off that they have some other collection that they own, which they want to get exclusive and collect 100% of the commissions.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 15:58 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2011, 15:59 »
0
"The buyer agreed to use the image in a certain way and if he doesn't use it correctly then he is liable for damages not IS or the contributor.  Am I missing something?"

You are missing the hassle and great cost of legal trouble.

Maybe at the end of the day you will win in court - but do you really have the time, experience and money to defend yourself if someone sues you?

And what if the court case is in a country far away from you? How will you follow it or defend yourself then?

There are many cases were people go bankrupt although they eventually win the court case, or would have won if they had been able to continue...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2011, 16:12 »
0
Why hadn't they done their homework/research before opening the Editorial program?
It doesn't inspire confidence in the whole way the site is run these days.
But since I'm always swithering over Alamy or iStock for editorial images, this makes the decision much easier - who knows what they'll deactivate in the future, and not all editorial is something I can shoot again.
And yes, as noted above, an RM buyer at Alamy has actually to specify exactly what use they are going to make of the image, so that's one more layer of reponsibility which falls onto the buyer rather than the seller.

« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2011, 16:13 »
0
As always I speak from where I am, and in the US, EVERYTHING before 1923, photos, records, books, art... is public domain now, whether renewed or not

Eg some places it is 75 years after the death of the artist. I have no idea whether the person who once reproduced on old image in a book would be considered the artist, in this context. My guess is - yes in some places. These issues are best handled by lawyers IMO.

And even if there are potentially no copyright issues - well that needs to be documented presumably. And there would still potentially be property rights issues. You have to be able to show that you had the right to photogrph the piece of property. Many places restrict this - galleries containing famous art for example. Even art which is hundreds of years old is effectively protected as property.

So, as I said - in the end it always comes back to legal documentation.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 16:15 by bhr »

traveler1116

« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2011, 16:22 »
0
It looks like an old lithograph, Public Domain if created before 1923


depends on the jurisdiction. Countries have different copyright laws - and it may also depend, in different juridictions for example, on whether copyright has been renewed. There is no single rule which applies which is why the best thing is get legal documentation, provenance etc.


As always I speak from where I am, and in the US, EVERYTHING before 1923, photos, records, books, art... is public domain now, whether renewed or not.

The Gauss image should have been verified when it was uploaded. The Editorial designation is a lazy way for the agencies to license things, without worrying about the actual copyright detals or the facts of law.

That etching was probably made in the late 1800s and if it is, it's PD everywhere that I can think of on this planet.  ;D  Start thinking Berne Convention which in many instances is more open and lenient than the US laws!

Which laws govern Dreamstine, I don't know for sure.

Dreamstime LLC
1616 Westgate Circle
Brentwood, TN 37027
United States

I think it's 70 years after the artist's death in the US.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.pdf
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 16:27 by traveler1116 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4275 Views
Last post May 06, 2009, 09:30
by dnavarrojr
81 Replies
17162 Views
Last post January 04, 2014, 20:47
by ShadySue
11 Replies
4025 Views
Last post October 21, 2016, 14:27
by suwanneeredhead
8 Replies
7202 Views
Last post June 16, 2021, 14:39
by angelacat
4 Replies
3510 Views
Last post November 13, 2018, 06:59
by mamacita1001

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors