This guy states that his commercial images sell on average only about 20% higher in value than editorials.

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2019/08/12/editorial-to-commercial-4-examples/

Hope that helps.

...It's clear that Commercial images far outsell Editorial.
As for making editorial images commercial by cloning out logs etc I think it's a waste of time.

I think whether or not to edit an image to allow it to be sold with a commercial license is dependent on the content and location of the image - assuming that the contributor has the ability to do the work invisibly.

I have a number of images that have done very well as commercial but would have had to be editorial without a lot of cloning. This is an example - it's in my top 50 images at Adobe Stock and was doing similarly well at Shutterstock while I was still there.

https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/132125856

Although some of the uses it sells for would work fine with an editorial license, as the Cayman Islands is a financial center - world-renowned tax haven - many of the uses are in advertising and marketing contexts.

I don�t understand why removing logos etc from the buildings makes an image non-editorial. The place and buildings and boat are still recognizable.

Recognizable, but not restricted
https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/What-is-the-difference-between-Commercial-and-Editorial-content

This is just my personal opinion.
I don�t understand why removing logos etc from the buildings makes an image non-editorial. The place and buildings and boat are still recognizable. Good on you for doing the work and having a successful image.

Everything in the world is recognizable, no one could take a photo of virtually anything if that was the determination. (wild animals in nature and naked people are exceptions)

Many of the restrictions on SS for (in this case) buildings and names and logos, are not legal restrictions, but SS restrictions. Any cityscape with more than seven buildings (as a rough example that sites use) is not using a specific subject as the main point of interest, so the editorial is unnecessary. A roadway full of cars, is not a photo of A CAR, but a single car in a shot, would be not allowed, because it's a specific car make.

I hope that explains a bit of the difference? Main subject vs simply background material.

but this is only SS opinion, will they support you in court if the property owner decides to sue?

Very simple question with many implications and answers. Do they need to defend you?

a. The people suing would go after the agency, deep pockets, not the artist.
b. Can the person suing actually win?
c. Why would anyone spend money suing someone who only makes $1,000 or less a month, what's in it for them. Cost is prohibitive for the return.
d. Do they even have a case in the first place? It's not illegal to take photos of scenes. (In the US) Right of panorama.
e. Can someone actually get payment, if they get a judgment against you personally, when you aren't in the state or country where that verdict was rendered.

I agree that commercial photos sell more frequently than editorial ones.  However, as we know, even frequent sales don't translate into a lot of money in this business.

I do this mainly as an offshoot of the hobby of photography, for what one might call artistic satisfaction, if that's not too pretentious a term.  I find that editorial photos are more likely to be used in publications and web pages that credit the photographer.   It's interesting to search for my name and come up with hits of my photos being used.

So what is the coclusion here? Does it pay to do editorial stuff or not? I don't get a clear picture from the reactions.

I think whether or not to edit an image to allow it to be sold with a commercial license is dependent on the content and location of the image - assuming that the contributor has the ability to do the work invisibly.

I have a number of images that have done very well as commercial but would have had to be editorial without a lot of cloning. This is an example - it's in my top 50 images at Adobe Stock and was doing similarly well at Shutterstock while I was still there.

https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/132125856

Although some of the uses it sells for would work fine with an editorial license, as the Cayman Islands is a financial center - world-renowned tax haven - many of the uses are in advertising and marketing contexts.

Hi Jo Ann, thanks for your post, that example is very interesting.
The information I'm looking for is a bit different though: I'm looking for the proportion of commercial vs editorial of Shutterstock's annual revenues, not of my own potential earnings. I looked into their annual report and things like that but I can't seem to find the info. Getty would also work since they do both editorial and commercial.

Let me know if you've ever heard of something like that

Quote from: Just_to_inform_people2 on December 12, 2021, 13:39

So what is the coclusion here? Does it pay to do editorial stuff or not? I don't get a clear picture from the reactions.

It depends

Wow that was exactly what I was going to answer, but I thought I'd just leave this question alone.

It depends on the images.