I don't know how much enthusiasm you'll get for this thread right now....but my highest dollars sale was an EL for $90. though with a few more Agency files, I'm hoping for some good L/XL sale income. or an EL on an Agency would be cool.

@RT: it was my mistake trying to provide information to people who asked me to, even though it will simply be used against me in a plssing contest about who knows more. I posted those links because Lisa asked me to, even though I knew what would happen if I posted them. I don't endorse them or suggest they contain accurate information. but the assertion was made by Lisa and Cathy that Google turned up 'nothing' about editorial use only and releases whereas I found it turned up a lot about releases in editorial images.

I know who you are, but as you're anonymous here, you say whatever you please--I've read through your posts over the years and you're a serial 'no one's opinions matter except my own' type of person. you might actually know a lot, I'm sure you do. but your attitude sucks. this is a discussion, not a courtroom.

I didn't start in microstock. I was involved in journalism and the publishing industry decades before microstock. and while I'm reluctant to be so defensive because it just makes me look stupid, you've trashed me (unfairly) in three posts now under the guise of what you know and you're wrong on much of what you're stating. as for my initial use of the word 'released', I do apologize on that count and see why it confused the issue. I used it as a blanket term, it was simply a poor choice of word as someone had used it over on iStock's forum, which I immediately corrected in my next post. I couldn't care less how you work. all I care about is that I do my job well.

I stated about ten posts ago that there are two issues here. That you can take whatever photos you want, but selling them is entirely different.

Secondly, we're talking about general editorial and not just 'news'. I never stated that you need a release for news photos. I presume you need one for race cars. 

They do however like every other single agency in the world want assurance that no actual laws (civil or criminal) have been broken in obtaining the image, but that's nothing to do with releases.

this is the issue...define this 'assurance'...that's precisely what we've all been discussing.

Quote from: lisafx on June 09, 2011, 14:31

My personal opinion -  having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial.  If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.  

Yes, but there's a world of difference between, "I don't mind (and in fact I don't really have any option in many circumstances) my image being used in a guide book, or text book or newspaper article" and "I'm happy for my image to be used to promote any product or service".
That said, I've never seen a proper 'editorial release'; even the necessary 'parental permission', strangely, has not been produced by iStock, for no valid reason. So you could draft a simple permission release and find they wouldn't accept it.

actually, they (the AGENCY) might accept it. in a similar situation, I took images at a fashion week event that was open to commercial photography (not to mention I had actually applied for and received a media pass). I did not have a a property release (no one did), however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event.

Quote from: SNP on June 09, 2011, 14:56

before you ask me for a link, does it really matter if I post ten links? your assumptions must be correct. good luck with that approach to editorial.

It matters to me.  Since this appears to be a very gray area, I would like to have as much credible information as possible, rather than all of us just trading opinions.  

I have been giving a lot of thought to doing editorial lately, but in order to know if I want to get involved with it, I would like to have all the relevant facts.  I imagine a lot of other people would benefit from knowing this too.  

unfortunately there isn't a hard and fast rule. and since our work is being represented by agents, we are bound by their requirements unless you supply editorial directly, and even then publications like photographers to belong to them, or to be reputable freelance shooters who they work with regularly. in which case, you're bound by their requirements if something happens surrounding the image you've supplied. SO, stating that, it's good to have information. that doesn't mean a release per se. in many cases, most cases, you don't have releases. but if you can have a release, why not have it? or a name, or some back story. even for microstock editorial images. at the same time, all of that happens for me after I shoot the image(s). I don't approach any editorial subject before. it's important to me not to influence the image in any way. even though by default people are often aware of a camera pointed at them.

Quote from: lisafx on June 09, 2011, 14:31

A fairly exhaustive Google search hasn't turned up a concise set of definitions.  

It seems, according to someone I know in the publishing industry, that my (and Sean's and Balderick's) understanding is essentially correct.  Editorial usages don't require releases.  Individual agency requirements are something else entirely.  

My personal opinion -  having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial.  If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.  

Getty's restrictive rules, over and above what is legally required for editorial, strike me more as an attempt to shut istock/microstock photographers out of a lucrative niche.  It reeks of protectionism.  The same kind of elitism that pushed most of us toward microstock in the first place.  But that's JMHO.

Exactly.

After you asked the question, I did a google search and found a couple of articles relating to shooting editorial and they basically said the same as you. They weren't written by any "authority", but I'm not sure there is any such animal. I also looked in my GAG Pricing Handbook and Guidelines, but nothing appeared there.

I have submitted a few editorial images to two sites that included the faces of people. The only restriction for me uploading was getting the dates, subjects, locations, etc. all absolutely correct and in the format the site required. Other than that, I understand it as you do.

^ sorry, but this is just ridiculous. and FWIW, I just googled it too and found plenty of lists and sites describing journalistic photos and captions including information about the subjects, including permission in regards to celebrity photographs or the consequences of NOT having these permissions for example camping out in front of a private residence to capture a lewd shot. Invasion of privacy laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

before you ask me for a link, does it really matter if I post ten links? your assumptions must be correct. good luck with that approach to editorial.

and Baldrick, ref: your example about the Vietnamese girl. the girl's family was interviewed in fact, Ut (the photographer) was staying nearby the village where it was shot during the napalm drop. in fact I believe it was he who after the shot took the girl to the military hospital for treatment, along with other children. I'd say that's getting involved and understanding your story.

Quote from: caspixel on June 09, 2011, 09:04

And people are again surprised that some of the Getty content is in direct competition to iStock contributor content. I seriously don't know why people believe anything they tell them anymore. Every time iStock opens their mouth another lie comes out. How many times do people have to be lied to before they stop believing the iStock spin?

Truly shocking that anyone could continue to believe anything Getty/Istock tells them.  

On the subject of editorial permissions, seems there is conflicting information here in this thread.  I don't shoot it so haven't investigated it.  Can someone link to any credible outside resource, other than Getty, which explains what, if any, permissions are required?

FWIW, my recollection from my youth, when my family owned, edited, and published a local newspaper, was that photographers would need press passes to get into certain events and venues.  Without press passes they wouldn't have ACCESS to these situations.  But my understanding is that there is no restriction, in the US, on what can be PUBLISHED, for editorial purposes, regardless of the access or permissions the photog had at the time when they took the picture.  So if Joe Blow is a guest at the Oscars, and manages to snap a cellphone pic of Angelina Jolie tripping on the red carpet, he can sell that to a tabloid and not be violating any laws.  He may not be asked back to the Oscars, but that's an entirely different issue.  

Someone correct me if the above understanding is wrong.  If my father or grandfather were still around to answer, I would ask them.  But unless you have some (objective non-getty) source you can point to that backs up your assertions, don't expect me to take your word for it  

it definitely differs by country, and we're bound by the laws within countries. anytime you take an editorial shot, it's best to get as much released as possible to avoid future issues. obviously much of what we shoot isn't released, but as such we take the risk as photographers of litigation if we misrepresent, or simply shoot a subject that does not wish to be photographed or published. the documentation that we're discussing in here is within the context of supplying editorial images to an agency. obviously agencies prefer content that will not result in litigation.

but effectively you're correct in that anyone can basically shoot anything they want---with consequences. if you want to sell it through a reputable agency, or maintain a good reputation as a journalist---obviously permissions, releases, and ethical behaviour are all good criteria to work from.

Quote from: SNP on June 08, 2011, 19:06

assuming this is true, it's fairly unprofessional of you to have revealed her identity here for the sake of a quick laugh. I'm amazed at the lack of professionalism admitted to by so many photographers, especially on MSG.

Are you serious?  You truly have no clue.  Photos and her stage name have been all over the media today.  I made the realization at a newsstand when I saw a full page photo identifying her in the NY Post.  I had no intention of releasing her real name, but I have every intention of getting the editorial package that I produced (photos not on IS and Shutterstock) to Renta tomorrow and making direct offers to magazines I already work with.  That, in fact, is what is known as professionalism.  

I have been creating editorial portrait and feature layouts for magazines for several years.  Doing this puts me in contact with numerous subjects.  This particular incident adds timeliness and interest to an editorial package that is already in the marketplace.  I had considered signing with Getty for the editorial library I have, but my experience with them on RM lifestyle stock does not encourage me.  This recent change in policy does not change that.

sorry. I suppose in this case, what I said was unfair. I didn't realize her identity was already so public. I still question pointing her out in your iStock portfolio. probably would have sufficed to state you had worked with her, but whatever. I'm being nit picky.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 17:28

Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.

The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse.  Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited.  Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events.  Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers.  Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.

Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already!  So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!

assuming this is true, it's fairly unprofessional of you to have revealed her identity here for the sake of a quick laugh. I'm amazed at the lack of professionalism admitted to by so many photographers, especially on MSG.

Quote from: SNP on June 08, 2011, 15:56

Quote from: sjlocke on June 08, 2011, 15:51

Quote from: SNP on June 08, 2011, 15:33

how are everyone's sales today? my sales are almost non-existent. like a Saturday today. not sure what's up. but they're so bad that I figure something weird happened today.

Not so great this week and today, even less so, relatively speaking.

mine were the same last week. then they picked up to normal again, but today--worse day in years. old files. very strange.

My sales seem to be following the pattern you're talking about. Yesterday was good, today looks pretty bad, but not at weekend levels...

I'm probably exaggerating by saying mine are at Saturday level today--but it feels that way