About three weeks ago, I had a sale, obviously by the same buyer, of both of these editorial images I have at iStock.

A few days later, I found the image being used in a composite to illustrate a story.

Apart from the appalling compositing skills, is this type of alteration acceptable according to iStock's rules (apart from fact that it is credited to Getty rather than iStock/Liz Leyden as per iStock's t&c for crediting editorial images).

Now, according to this page, http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1192, there is no actual forbidding of this sort of use of an editorial image:

"What are editorial images?
Editorial images are unaltered shots of specific brands, people, places, events and products. You'll find relevant imagery from Brad Pitt to the latest Apple product to world events and more.

How can I use editorial images?
iStock's editorial images provide specific context for your newspaper or magazine article, blog posts, websites and non-commercial presentations. The only thing that makes them different from the rest of our collection is that they can only be used this way. So as long as you're not using them for advertising, marketing, promotional or commercial purposes, they're safe to use. "

In this article also,there isno forbidding about that sort of use:


So, does that mean that any elements in an editorial photo can be taken out, digitally altered and composited into a totally different context, so long as it isn't a commercial use?

Of course, I tried to get some sort of ruling from CR about this.
On 24th September (> 2 weeks ago) I wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
My editorial photo: [as above]
Heavily altered photo composite:
[as above]
Are iStock's editorial photos allowed to be used that way? I can not imagine that they can be.
Slainte
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I added further info, first to the source of the composite (I found it first on a copying site), than another that the photo was around the 26th or 27th to be found on over 20 websites.

I have had no reply to this support ticket and it has fallen off my open tickets list (but an outstanding Scout ticket from 8th Sept is still showing there).

So, is this a legitimate use of an editorial file? What if the person had been cut out of the photo, altered and composited into a totally different context?
This is a really important principle, IMO.
Liz      

It's clearly not being presented as an actual photograph -so to me it seems quite acceptable. British newspapers (The Guardian especially)  have been doing these kind of montages of editorial images for years. I once had a picture of an oast house in Kent jazzed up to illustrate a Russian missile base (though that was the Sunday Sport)Obviously, this is quite different to disorting an actual news image -like adding in explosions to a picture of a war zone (to use a famous example) and trying to pass it off as genuine.
BTW -who is that celeb in the ice cream van? Looks familiar but can't quite place him. Pop star? Regards, David.
 

^^ Thanks Liz! That was going to bother me. Apologies for taking it off topic. Regards, David.

The Chris Brown part of the composite must have come from Getty. I doubt that the photographers/agencies who provided the rest of image are likely to get traceable credit exposure, alas.

You got quite some exposure through TMZdotCOM. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Not traceable unless someone did a GIS, which doesn't lead back to iStock or Getty.
So no possible benefit.

I'm more interested in the image theft issues (can a composite legitimately be copied with no redress by the original photographers because it's a composite?) and much more interested in the principle of an editorial photo being used this way. Not so much for this particular photo, but the principle that a person could legitimately be cut from an editorial photo and put into a different context or manipulated.

I understand that you might say why would anyone bother when there are so many released photos of people on white, and you are right; but if it's allowed in theory, it's something I didn't realise. Originally when iStock launched editorial, there was a guide to editorial for buyers which clearly said that a file could not even be cropped to change context, but I now can't find that whole article when searching articles on 'editorial'.

An attorney would help you determine that.

I'm sure that even if I could find a Scottish lawyer who specialised in American IP legislation, they'd cost an arm and a leg for each five minutes' consulation.

I was innocently hoping that, as an exclusive, iStock would help me to determine that. That should come out of their 70%, as per the exclusive ASA: "Exclusivity makes it easier for us to protect our contributors. We can better enforce compliance issues when we know an image came from us and must follow our licensing agreement." Yeah, I know by now that the agreement is only binding on us.

You'd think at least I should get more than an auto-reply to my ticket, rather than have it disappear without trace.

OK not about this photo, but what about someone from an editorial photo, e.g. a crowd scene, being composited into another scene, possibly causing awkwardness or embarrassment to them?
Or they could be photoshopped nastily etc?