Author Topic: editorial photos but commercial use (Read 8274 times)

grace · « **on:** October 27, 2021, 20:03 »

Hi everyone, yesterday a customer msg me asked me regarding the photos that i selling on stock agency...this photos are editorial license on stock agency, and she hope can directly buy from me and dont wan go thru stock agency and use that photo on commercial use, is it possible? Thanks

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** October 27, 2021, 20:44 »

Quote from: grace on October 27, 2021, 20:03

Hi everyone, yesterday a customer msg me asked me regarding the photos that i selling on stock agency...this photos are editorial license on stock agency, and she hope can directly buy from me and dont wan go thru stock agency and use that photo on commercial use, is it possible? Thanks

Are they offering you a legal contract in which they accept all risks of an editorial photo being used commercially?
Otherwise run as fast as you can in the opposite direction.

Even if they offer you such a contract, think about the particular image and if there's any risk your reputation would come under fire.

Some 'editorial' pics might have very little risk, depending on usage. E.g., a general touristic scene used on e.g. a travel poster. (IANAL)

Caveat vendor.

Caymia · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2021, 03:32 »

You can do what you like but you risk being sued if you don't have releases for the content in the images and you sell them to be used commercially.
And as Shadysue pointed out, you would be risking your reputation too.
It's a no brainer to me, I wouldn't be doing it.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2021, 03:41 »

Depending on the amount of $, it may be "worth the risk". Depends on the subject matter entirely, the question you've posed is purely academic.

(I've consented a few times via Alamy, each time for $100+ earned).

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2021, 04:23 »

Depends on what the photo is and the specific IP considerations that made it Editorial in the first place. Can't offer specific advice without the details.

ravens · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2021, 05:10 »

I've had a few of customer contacts over the years.

Ask yourself, why is the customer REALLY contacting you? Not because you're a top photographer and they love your work, but, because they want something. In this case, they want to put your editorial image in commercial use, they want you to take the risk, and they probably expect to get the image at the same low stock price. Maybe even lower, when they purchase it directly from you.

I would inform them that I don't sell directly, but only thorough stock agencies, and that the agencies will be happy to help with any questions.

Wilm · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2021, 05:16 »

Quote from: ravens on October 28, 2021, 05:10

I've had a few of customer contacts over the years.

Ask yourself, why is the customer REALLY contacting you? Not because you're a top photographer and they love your work, but, because they want something. In this case, they want to put your editorial image in commercial use, they want you to take the risk, and they probably expect to get the image at the same low stock price. Maybe even lower, when they purchase it directly from you.

I would inform them that I don't sell directly, but only thorough stock agencies, and that the agencies will be happy to help with any questions.

Those were exactly my thoughts, too! +1

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2021, 18:22 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 28, 2021, 04:23

Depends on what the photo is and the specific IP considerations that made it Editorial in the first place. Can't offer specific advice without the details.

Right and sometimes what the agencies demand be labeled Editorial IS NOT, but they are making up their own rules.

Can't offer specific advice without the details. what's the subject what's the images? There's no answer without the facts.

By the way, if they want to assume risk, they can just download it from the agency and use it the way they want. Artist and agency are covered.

Quote from: Brasilnut on October 28, 2021, 03:41

Depending on the amount of $, it may be "worth the risk". Depends on the subject matter entirely, the question you've posed is purely academic.

That's another way of putting it since we know nothing of the image content or the license offer.

Mantis · « **Reply #8 on:** October 29, 2021, 08:12 »

Do the opposite of the Nike tag line: Just DON'T do it. It's the safest way.

For Real · « **Reply #9 on:** October 29, 2021, 10:13 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on October 28, 2021, 03:41

Depending on the amount of $, it may be "worth the risk". Depends on the subject matter entirely, the question you've posed is purely academic.

(I've consented a few times via Alamy, each time for $100+ earned).

that a good way to have a subpoena mailed to you via register mailed...

Mantis · « **Reply #10 on:** October 29, 2021, 10:45 »

Quote from: For Real on October 29, 2021, 10:13

Quote from: Brasilnut on October 28, 2021, 03:41
Depending on the amount of $, it may be "worth the risk". Depends on the subject matter entirely, the question you've posed is purely academic.

(I've consented a few times via Alamy, each time for $100+ earned).

that a good way to have a subpoena mailed to you via register mailed...

Exactly. Not worth the risk.

NikonFThree · « **Reply #11 on:** October 30, 2021, 13:36 »

I agree with the rest, it's really not worth the risk. A real estate broker I shoot for asked if she could but images from me directly instead of through IStock where I am exclusive. I told her no, because I did not want to risk my 13 year relationship with Istock/Getty. for a few extra $. However, an excursion boat I shot in the Virgin Islands, contacted me to ask if I could change my file from editorial only to creative so they could use it in their ads. I asked them to sign a release, they did, and it was a win-win all around

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2021, 13:28 »

I don't know how so many people can answer this question without knowing the image or the use?

Editorial can be used, some examples:

"Common uses include:
Newspapers and magazines (except for covers), editorial broadcasts, documentaries, non-commercial websites, blogs and social media posts illustrating matters of public interest

Can’t be used for:
Book or magazine covers, commercial, promotional, advertorial, endorsement, advertising, or merchandising purposes in any media (e.g. print, commercial broadcast, film, digital)"

Also:
The microstock industry considers “Editorial Use Only” photos to be ones that simply do not have all the applicable model and property releases and thus should not be used for “commercial” applications. It is up to the buyer (the user, the publisher) to make the distinction based on the use of the image.

But Microstock agencies also require us to mark images as Editorial when they don't need to be. It's not illegal but they make up the rules for their agency, and all of them are not the same.

I still say if the buyer wants a license and wants to take the risk, and the offer of money is not significant, let them download it and they can be responsible. But lets not leap into, don't do it, or you're breaking some law, can get sued, without knowing the image, and how it's going to be used?

Wilm · « **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2021, 16:26 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 02, 2021, 13:28

I don't know how so many people can answer this question without knowing the image or the use?

Editorial can be used, some examples:

"Common uses include:
Newspapers and magazines (except for covers), editorial broadcasts, documentaries, non-commercial websites, blogs and social media posts illustrating matters of public interest

Can’t be used for:
Book or magazine covers, commercial, promotional, advertorial, endorsement, advertising, or merchandising purposes in any media (e.g. print, commercial broadcast, film, digital)"

Also:
The microstock industry considers “Editorial Use Only” photos to be ones that simply do not have all the applicable model and property releases and thus should not be used for “commercial” applications. It is up to the buyer (the user, the publisher) to make the distinction based on the use of the image.

But Microstock agencies also require us to mark images as Editorial when they don't need to be. It's not illegal but they make up the rules for their agency, and all of them are not the same.

I still say if the buyer wants a license and wants to take the risk, and the offer of money is not significant, let them download it and they can be responsible. But lets not leap into, don't do it, or you're breaking some law, can get sued, without knowing the image, and how it's going to be used?

Pete,

it's true - we don't know the image and we don't know what it will be used for.

But I see it exactly the same way as ravens.

If the buyer has problems buying the image from the agency where he found it, the very first thing to ask is what the problem is. If the $10 is the problem, then one should be very careful from my point of view. If signing up with a microstock agency is too complicated, then I'm surprised if it's less complicated to find out the contributor‘s contact information through a search engine and write to them - and then possibly to formulate a joint agreement regarding the legal situation…

Personally, I would be very skeptical about such requests. Where is the benefit for the contributor if he sells it directly? There is only a benefit if significantly more money is offered than it would cost at the microstock agency. But why would someone who is looking for microstock - where it costs as little as possible - want to pay significantly more than they would have to?

My opinion therefore: in this case, caution is advised!

Wilm · « **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2021, 16:37 »

There is one more option:

The buyer is too lazy to read the license agreements or he does not understand them. So he passes the legal problem on to the contributors.

Myphotobase · « **Reply #15 on:** November 09, 2021, 14:19 »

Difficult to give advice without seeing the image first... is it a logo copyright problem, a person or building release problem ?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: editorial photos but commercial use (Read 8274 times)

grace

ShadySue

Caymia

Brasilnut

Justanotherphotographer

ravens

Wilm

Uncle Pete

Mantis

For Real

Mantis

NikonFThree

Uncle Pete

Wilm

Wilm

Myphotobase

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors