MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: POND5 Editorial Content Not Indicated as Such?  (Read 7845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wds

« on: January 30, 2016, 22:33 »
+1
Just took a look at some POND5 content. There's a lot that would be considered "editorial" (e.g. unreleased people, logos etc.) however, I didn't see anywhere on their pages where it says "for editorial use only etc etc..." What's up with that? Did I miss something?


« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2016, 23:34 »
+2
I never submit editorial content to P5. They don't seem to be set up for it.

« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2016, 09:52 »
0
There is a lot of editorial on P5 but I think it is mainly up to the contributor to put a note in each file to the curator.  At the bottom of each file while in edit mode is a text field to put in "NOTES TO CURATOR". It is important to note that the file is editorial.  Once the file is approved it magically has an editorial use only visible to the buyer.

 But you're right about the system not having user controlled fields to mark as such. Seems like that could be an easy fix for P5.

wds

« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2016, 10:19 »
+1
I am surprised they are so "loosey goosey" about it.

« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2016, 10:36 »
0
I am surprised they are so "loosey goosey" about it.
I am not surprised.
That's the style they had from day 1.
They were pure lucky not to get into some huge lawsuit on them over licensing issues etc ....(hence low sales!).

Maybe new CEOs will bring different attitude...but that's the long way to go ... Until then...
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 10:57 by KnowYourOnions »

« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2016, 11:03 »
+1
There is a lot of editorial on P5 but I think it is mainly up to the contributor to put a note in each file to the curator.  At the bottom of each file while in edit mode is a text field to put in "NOTES TO CURATOR". It is important to note that the file is editorial.  Once the file is approved it magically has an editorial use only visible to the buyer.

 But you're right about the system not having user controlled fields to mark as such. Seems like that could be an easy fix for P5.

I also add a note to the review when I upload editorial content.  Sometimes the reviewers forget to add the disclaimer - so it's good to check.  When they forget I write contributor support and they fix it quickly.  The video upload interface has a "does this material contain... people, trademarks, etc..." box.  I wish the photo upload interface had that box too. 
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 11:31 by trek »

« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2016, 02:15 »
+2
There is a lot of editorial on P5 but I think it is mainly up to the contributor to put a note in each file to the curator.  At the bottom of each file while in edit mode is a text field to put in "NOTES TO CURATOR". It is important to note that the file is editorial.  Once the file is approved it magically has an editorial use only visible to the buyer.

 But you're right about the system not having user controlled fields to mark as such. Seems like that could be an easy fix for P5.

I never used that, you have only to check "yes" or "No" besides "Contains recognizable people, trademarks, or copyrighted works" in the options, if "yes" they marked it as editorial, if "No" it's commercial. They should make it more clear for users

« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2016, 13:59 »
+1
I am surprised they are so "loosey goosey" about it.
I am not surprised.
That's the style they had from day 1.
They were pure lucky not to get into some huge lawsuit on them over licensing issues etc ....(hence low sales!).

Maybe new CEOs will bring different attitude...but that's the long way to go ... Until then...

I've just found this post because I could not see how to mark P5 video as editorial either. Then I read your comments here which intrigued me. I take it the laws around this kind of thing must differ a lot? I don't think this kind of litigation would work in my country.

I'm entitled as a photographer or videographer to shoot editorial events. I'm also entitled to sell the rights to use that photograph or video to whomsoever I choose. I'm entitled further to allow someone else to sell these rights on my behalf, such as an agency.

What I have no control over is how that photograph or video is used once those rights of usage have been sold. No infringement of any sort has been created when I sell the rights to another party either as I am entitled to do so. Neither has the agency done anything wrong by selling the image on my behalf.

But if the image buyer works for say, Nike and uses my picture in one of their ads and it clearly has a runner wearing a pair of Adidas running shoes, then (maybe) Adidas will take offence and want to sue someone.

The correct legal entity to sue in this case would surely be Nike?

Neither the agency that sold the picture to Nike nor myself had any control over what the buyer would do with the purchased content. Do I really need to tell Nike what their legal obligations are? Am I, as a photographer, in any position to offer any kind of legal advice of any sort?

Is the agency that sold the image now supposed to be specialists in copyright law too? Are we really obliged to tell others when and where and how such an image should be used?

No, we surely are not. Well, I'm pretty sure that's how it would work in my country. Maybe not in yours. Is there a legal precedent anywhere for this?

If we are accountable as producers for the actions of others, then gun manufacturers are equally accountable almost every time someone uses one of their products to kill someone. Or at least one car dealership liable for every fatal accident caused by a drunk driver.

As far as I understand it, the agencies do all they can to protect their buyers from their own stupidity. That is why they mark the files as editorial and try their best to let the buyer know what they can and what they cannot do with the content they have purchased. The agencies are generally doing everything they can to limit the possibility of litigation.

But they are not obliged to do so.

What is clear is that it would be bad for business if one of their customers is an idiot and uses an editorial image in an ad that results in them getting sued. Imagine the bitching and whining that would take place online about how the agency sold them an image and they used it in good faith . . . blah blah blah.

So I see why the agencies do it. But I don't think it's an actual requirement for them to do so.

Then again, an attorney once explained to me that anyone can sue anyone regardless of the merits. It would appear to me that everyone from us photographers to the agencies we supply are doing everything we can to avoid getting sued.

Because basically even when you win the case, you have still lost.

« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2016, 15:47 »
0
I am surprised they are so "loosey goosey" about it.
I am not surprised.
That's the style they had from day 1.
They were pure lucky not to get into some huge lawsuit on them over licensing issues etc ....(hence low sales!).

Maybe new CEOs will bring different attitude...but that's the long way to go ... Until then...

I've just found this post because I could not see how to mark P5 video as editorial either. Then I read your comments here which intrigued me. I take it the laws around this kind of thing must differ a lot? I don't think this kind of litigation would work in my country.

I'm entitled as a photographer or videographer to shoot editorial events. I'm also entitled to sell the rights to use that photograph or video to whomsoever I choose. I'm entitled further to allow someone else to sell these rights on my behalf, such as an agency.

What I have no control over is how that photograph or video is used once those rights of usage have been sold. No infringement of any sort has been created when I sell the rights to another party either as I am entitled to do so. Neither has the agency done anything wrong by selling the image on my behalf.

But if the image buyer works for say, Nike and uses my picture in one of their ads and it clearly has a runner wearing a pair of Adidas running shoes, then (maybe) Adidas will take offence and want to sue someone.

The correct legal entity to sue in this case would surely be Nike?

Neither the agency that sold the picture to Nike nor myself had any control over what the buyer would do with the purchased content. Do I really need to tell Nike what their legal obligations are? Am I, as a photographer, in any position to offer any kind of legal advice of any sort?

Is the agency that sold the image now supposed to be specialists in copyright law too? Are we really obliged to tell others when and where and how such an image should be used?

No, we surely are not. Well, I'm pretty sure that's how it would work in my country. Maybe not in yours. Is there a legal precedent anywhere for this?

If we are accountable as producers for the actions of others, then gun manufacturers are equally accountable almost every time someone uses one of their products to kill someone. Or at least one car dealership liable for every fatal accident caused by a drunk driver.

As far as I understand it, the agencies do all they can to protect their buyers from their own stupidity. That is why they mark the files as editorial and try their best to let the buyer know what they can and what they cannot do with the content they have purchased. The agencies are generally doing everything they can to limit the possibility of litigation.

But they are not obliged to do so.

What is clear is that it would be bad for business if one of their customers is an idiot and uses an editorial image in an ad that results in them getting sued. Imagine the bitching and whining that would take place online about how the agency sold them an image and they used it in good faith . . . blah blah blah.

So I see why the agencies do it. But I don't think it's an actual requirement for them to do so.

Then again, an attorney once explained to me that anyone can sue anyone regardless of the merits. It would appear to me that everyone from us photographers to the agencies we supply are doing everything we can to avoid getting sued.

Because basically even when you win the case, you have still lost.

Some agencies doing more than others.

For further read I suggest you check out this thread as an example on what buyers are actually going trough when buying from P5 ... https://help.pond5.com/hc/en-us/articles/200944303-Is-My-Usage-Covered-by-Your-License-Agreement-?page=2#comments

Then compare Shutterstock and Pond5 license agreement and try to notice the difference. (focus on liability terms).

All buyers want is protection when they purchase media. Who gives them bigger one, they won't look further.  8)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5142 Views
Last post September 13, 2015, 14:12
by Newsfocus1
3 Replies
3503 Views
Last post February 04, 2016, 15:01
by Stroke Footage
0 Replies
2106 Views
Last post October 08, 2016, 09:52
by wds
63 Replies
19919 Views
Last post June 17, 2017, 17:04
by ShadySue
19 Replies
3452 Views
Last post June 02, 2019, 02:12
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle