Quote from: Karimala on June 06, 2007, 12:20

Remember the classic National Geographic photo of an Afgan woman with the stunningly haunting green eyes? 

The English-speaking photographer got her name (he probably had a translator with him).  Years later when National Geographic tried to find her for an update on how she was doing, they couldn't locate her and wrote a story about it. 

They did find her in 2002:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl/

Same here. Assume they are swamped.

Okay...let me be try to be more specific.  I was a newspaper reporter and news editor some years back, so I sort of know how the editorial photo game works.

Let's say you're at a concert and a gorgeous woman suddenly takes her top off (or at a political rally for a Democrat candidate and you see two men in the crowd just sitting there observing without getting into the celebration).  You take a close-up shot.  This photo, although shot at an event where you have access with a press pass, can be used in the newspaper ONLY if you obtain her/their consent.  In stock terms, that would be obtained through a model release.  Newspapers require what's called proof of consent, which can be obtained by asking for the person's name and contact information.

But then let's say you're at the concert and you take a shot of the crowd and there just happens to be a topless woman (or a political rally for a Democrat candidate where there just happens to be two men sitting in the crowd without getting into the spirit).  You shoot the photo in a big-picture way where she/they isn't the main subject.  This shot shows the event to be newsworthy and is thus editorial.  No need for releases, because releases are impossible to obtain from events and crowds.

The need for obtaining the consent of the topless woman is obvious.  But what about the close-up of the two men just sitting in the crowd at a political rally?  Without actually speaking to them, you don't know who they are or why they are in the crowd.  They could be Secret Service agents.  They could be grumpy men having a bad day.  They could be members of the Republican opponent's campaign team.  Whoever they are, you need to find out and obtain their consent, press pass or no press pass.       

There's just a lot of contributors who don't understand these simple rules or implications, and will try to pass off the close-up people shots as editorial without acquiring consent.  The basic rules taught in Photojournalism 101 is to obtain consent from people whom you have shot as a primary subject, and to always always always obtain parental consent on any photos depicting children. 

In the end, it doesn't matter about what kind of editorial shots various sites accept or don't accept.  What matters is how you conduct yourself as a photojournalist.  If you have permission to photograph an event and have a press pass, just remember that the same rules for general stock with models apply when it comes to close-up shots of people in the crowd.  Performers, celebrities, athletes, politicians...they expect their photos to be taken by the press and published in non-commercial publications, and the press pass grants you permission to photograph them.  But take care with the close-up shots of people in the crowd and obtain permission when possible (war and riots or major disasters and other dangerous situations excluded). 

If you can't obtain permission, just save the photo for your personal collection.  It will save you a lot of headaches in the long run, and give you a lot of great stories to tell your grandchilden.