pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hows your Editorial shots doing on SS?  (Read 10018 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« on: January 28, 2013, 10:43 »
0
I have pretty much only been shooting editorial for a while and only throwing them to Alamy. I still pop in on SS forums and I see some people are showing off some of their Editorial shots in the forum. I am wondering if I should start putting some editorial over there (not doubling up what I have on Alamy) to maybe boost up sale a little. It took a good bit of time since I only concentrated on "A" but sales are starting to get a little slow on SS for me.


« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2013, 10:51 »
0
I guess the only sensible answer is: try it and see.
Different kinds of editorial will perform in different ways. Be ready to tear your hair out, though, over their stupid caption requirements.

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2013, 10:54 »
0
Be ready to tear your hair out, though, over their stupid caption requirements.

I have not even looked at what they require. So now that you mention that...lol. I might try it out here soon to see if it will give me a boost.

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2013, 11:14 »
0
Testing ten, real editorial racing (of course?), not "I don't have a release, so I'll call it news." Some have sales.

Who, What, Where & When - as a caption/description, in under 200 words.

Follow the guidelines exactly including the format, caps, redundant dates. Write the caption in the present tense, not past.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt40005.html

#1 rejection people report here is, Not Newsworthy.

Have Fun!

« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2013, 11:45 »
0
I have some, they dont sell much, so I think they are not worth the trouble.
Also there is a inbuilt conflict in distributing newsworthy content via a micro agency, since the newsworthyness is greatly limiting the sales period.
However, if you get something historic ever lasting, like Kennedy being shot or something very general iconish, like a tsunami, there might be more sales than what I have experienced.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 13:31 by JPSDK »

« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2013, 11:58 »
+3
I've got 72 frames of Kennedy being assassinated but I never knew what to do with them up to now, so I just kept them on file. So there's a chance SS might take them for news, despite it being 50 years old, then? That's great! Mind you, it's B&W on film so it probably won't pass inspection.
They're mostly just close-ups of the gunman shooting from the grassy knoll, anyway, not pictures of the president. Not of much interest.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 12:00 by BaldricksTrousers »

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2013, 12:13 »
0
I can get shots of Representative Phil Roe pretty much anytime because he is based in our City. Might try some shots of him pushing or supporting some Washington bill. That might get newsworthy. Our local flooding might be something too. Like you Race, I was only thinking like 10 - 15 shots.  Just trying for a bump.

« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2013, 12:17 »
0
I can get shots of Representative Phil Roe pretty much anytime because he is based in our City. Might try some shots of him pushing or supporting some Washington bill. That might get newsworthy. Our local flooding might be something too. Like you Race, I was only thinking like 10 - 15 shots.  Just trying for a bump.

Phil Roe is basically unknown to the world. Pictures have to be global and iconish.
Thats what I meant with mentioning the Kennedy icon. It was an analogy.
A Coca Cola newsworthy event could be interesting.

« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2013, 12:37 »
0
I sell some sports stars.  Amelie Mauresmo and Sabine Lisicki (tennis players) both went yesterday. But those were shot about five or six years ago - stuff doesn't sell because it is newsworthy on SS, it sells because someone wants an archive photo of a personality or event.

« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2013, 13:07 »
0
I have some, they dont sell much, so I think they are not worthe the trouble.
Also there is a inbuilt conflict in distributing newsworthy content via a micro agency, since the newsworthyness is greatly limiting the slales period.
However, if you get something historic ever lasting, like Kenedy being shot or something very general iconish, like a tsunami, there might be more sales than what I have experienced.

yep, this is why the editorial == newsworthy requirement is so silly, particulaly for MS.  my real editorial images sell well on ss, dt and elsewhere, but now most of those would be rejected under SS revised rules.  i still submit and sometimes they are accepted - eg, my tall ship series - actually ordinary editorial [no people releases], but accepted at SS because i could say they were part of labor day activities -- but how many buyers are going to be searching for 'tallships on labor day' vs people who just want a tall ship image for non-advertising [aka editorial] purposes?

so we're probably losing sales, but it's SS decision and not much we can doo about it other than kvetch

aspp

« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2013, 13:29 »
+1
Phil Roe is basically unknown to the world. Pictures have to be global and iconish.

Suppose he becomes newsworthy 3 months from now.

I had a series of pictures on Alamy which I shot on spec mostly because it looked like pictures. It was one of those times when you know straight away how the picture looks in your head and took me about 5 mins. I envisaged the images as more or less lifestyle editorial. I imagined seeing them on perhaps a design blog. I thought they looked good but doubted they had much value. Uploaded them to Alamy and forgot about them, until they started selling a few months later. It turned out that the subject matter became directly newsworthy. 6 RM sales so far.

« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2013, 13:40 »
0
ja, if you can figure out what will be newsworthy in the future, you have better chances.
if and if.
BRASOV, ROMANIA, DECEMBER 1: National Day of Romania: Troops parade at the National Day of Romania at a military parade in Piata Tricolorului, Brasov, Romania on December 1, 2010.






« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2013, 13:52 »
0
BTW, I used to take the piss on Mike Ledray with this photo of real unamerican communists in real life so to speak.
It didnt work, it neither got him pissed off or sold:

COPENHAGEN - DEC 12: Demonstrators hold communist flags in front of the parliament at the UN Climate Change Conference on December 12, 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2013, 15:13 »
+2
I tested 3. All were rejected for...wait for it...

Trademark/Copyright infringement.

My guess is the reviewer never took the time to see that they were editorial shots. It happens. So I guess they go to Alamy instead.

Edit - Apparently they can't go to Alamy unless I sell them as RM. Which I can't since they are available as RF at Dreamstime and my own site. Agencies = Headaches.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 15:18 by djpadavona »

« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2013, 15:40 »
0
or...
if they are not newsworthy they would be rejected for trademarks. Its the opposite of the same.

« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2013, 16:06 »
+2
I guess I don't get the purpose of selling an "in the news" shot at the micro level. Once the image is out of the news, it isn't going to sell again. Seems like a lot of effort to grab a couple subscription sales for a few weeks, and then basically nothing after. The DT and IS editorial models make more sense to me.


RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2013, 01:42 »
+2
Yes you are correct, all Editorial on Alamy instantly become RM. It's nice if you want it that way and don't need to click anything but yes people or property and "no model release" or "no property release" ZING it's all automatic.

Funny how we've been through this from both sides and no matter what, people here are always unhappy. I'd guess the answer is don't try to skirt the laws, by claiming something is editorial and news, when it's not?

Someone else was upset because a buyer licensed the image editorial from IS and then used it otherwise. So now people selling on SS want to wink and have buyers buy an editorial license to use it some other way, just to make a sale? That's why SS clamped down on the abuse.

If it's licensed editorial can the buyer use it any way they want? If not then they shouldn't want to license marginal materials, since it has limited usefulness. If the answer is Yes, it's up to the buyer, then people can't complain if it's set Editorial and they use it otherwise.

Which is it?

And I agree, if the image is truly Newsworthy and Editorial I don't understand how it can be refused for Trademark/Copyright, there's no protection for images used as news or editorial. Some other kind of contradiction or review flaw here.


I tested 3. All were rejected for...wait for it...

Trademark/Copyright infringement.

My guess is the reviewer never took the time to see that they were editorial shots. It happens. So I guess they go to Alamy instead.

Edit - Apparently they can't go to Alamy unless I sell them as RM. Which I can't since they are available as RF at Dreamstime and my own site. Agencies = Headaches.


« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2013, 23:43 »
+1
......
If it's licensed editorial can the buyer use it any way they want? If not then they shouldn't want to license marginal materials, since it has limited usefulness. If the answer is Yes, it's up to the buyer, then people can't complain if it's set Editorial and they use it otherwise.

Which is it?

And I agree, if the image is truly Newsworthy and Editorial I don't understand how it can be refused for Trademark/Copyright, there's no protection for images used as news or editorial. Some other kind of contradiction or review flaw here.




 just to be clear - in the real world [not the one defined by SS and some others] not all editorial images are newsworthy

>>>>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. Notice that, in this context, Editorial is not so much a something as it is an absence of something, namely releases.
<<<<
http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-copyright-editorial-and-commercial

>>>Editorial is a form of rights-managed license when there are no releases for the subjects. Since there are no releases the images cannot be used for advertising or to depict controversial subjects, only for news or educational purposes.
<<<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography


>>>>
some of the most exceptional photography the world has ever seen, from Commercial, Editorial, News, Sports, and Entertainment photography
<<<<
http://contributor.corbis.com/faq#faq_3
 note separation of editorial and 'news'

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2013, 12:47 »
0
cascoly yes you are correct, however I'll invoke Microstock rule #8 (this is an ongoing unpublished project)

#8:
Quote from: PeteKlinger
The rules of law and rules of agencies, in regards to copyright, what's editorial and legal use, are as far apart as the planets Mercury and Pluto. If the laws are Mercury and agencies rules are represented by Pluto, because the agencies make their own rules, and they aren't actually a planet either.

Hope that answers the question for now. We're in the same solar system, but not regulated by the identical laws and rules. They are in fact some distance apart.  :D

Wow photo secrets and Wikipedia, there's some solid legal advice... and yes I've used Wikipedia for looking at some copyright information, then went to the US patent and copyright office and law libraries for confirmation.

How's this from IS?

Engravings and illustrated reproduction scans must be dated from 1884 or older in order to be acceptable.

No one has ever come up with an intelligent answer to why it's not 1922 since the source of the image was the US 1899, or why it's possibly 1884 in Canada? (researched and it's not...) And makes me wonder so often how any agency can sell around the world, when the laws are different in so many countries., That would mean origin of the images or sales point of the images, or where it was created. Wow, big snaggle of legal morass.

Asked at IS and the answer was, pretty much "Because we said so". You can submit, get rejected and send it to Scout if you want.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 13:10 by RacePhoto »

aspp

« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2013, 13:46 »
0
At Alamy, the only way that you can restrict an image such that only an editorial licence can be sold is by specifically restricting all other licensing. In the optional restrictions section. You can only apply licensing restrictions if you have first selected that the image is RM (or if the image is RM by default because it does not have releases).

An image of itself is not editorial. Whether or not you have property or model releases. Editorial is a use type. Unless you specifically apply restrictions a buyer can still potentially buy a non editorial licence. And there are good reasons in many cases for not always applying restrictions and for leaving it to the buyer. Images without releases *can* be used non editorially.

Suppose, for example, that you have model released content but the model is wearing an identifiable brand (eyewear or footwear perhaps). Or there is a cute car parked in the background. Some places sell this sort of content as being safe for commercial use without any sort of warning. Commercial stock is full of obvious brands and rip-offs. Especially shoes, clothing and eyewear.

If this sort of content is properly annotated (which often it is not), the Alamy buyer knows that the images may require property releases for commercial use. The buyer may be able to get clearance from the brand to use this content. The buyer may actually represent the brand (internal business use if a non editorial commercial use which is sometimes okay). Consider for example the sorts of images which might be used to illustrate a piece about street fashion or interior style. In many cases this sort of content may be advertorial rather than editorial. The magazine or site may very likely be able to get permission from the brand. Window display (window dressing) is another example of a commercial use in which unreleased content is sometimes acceptable.

Anyway, anyway, anyway. I do not see the point of selling as micro priced RF content which will seldom sell. To me, RF and micro is for images which sell in volume.

Poncke

« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2013, 14:09 »
0
Casoly is right. But on SS editorial must be newsworthy. However, there is hard and soft news. All my editorial is mostly soft news and basically is editorial in the sense that I dont have releases  but also manage to get some sort of newsworthy caption, albeit soft, I do get sales on them.

There is one shot that sells regularly and I cannot for the life of me figure out why

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2013, 14:27 »
0
And there are good reasons in many cases for not always applying restrictions and for leaving it to the buyer. Images without releases *can* be used non editorially.
Indeed, in the UK, (and IIRC in the EU) incidental instances of a logo etc which is naturally in the background of a photo (or YKK on a zip, incidentally on a garment worn by a model in context) is not an issue, and buyers may know that.
Also, there may be e.g. a hotel or restaurant in a resort in a photo and if used in a poster for a travel agency, the hotel/restaurant owner is hardly likely to object  -though in real life, they'd probably want the business to pay for placement in the ad.

aspp

« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2013, 14:42 »
0
-though in real life, they'd probably want the business to pay for placement in the ad.

is that a joke ?

« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2013, 19:55 »
0

Wow photo secrets and Wikipedia, there's some solid legal advice... and yes I've used Wikipedia for looking at some copyright information, then went to the US patent and copyright office and law libraries for confirmation.
...
How's this from IS?

 Engravings and illustrated reproduction scans must be dated from 1884 or older in order to be acceptable. 
we're basically in accord - i used the wiki et al quotes to show the wide variety of interpretations - obviously there is no law about editorial so each agency  is free to tantalize & frustrate its contributors

re the IS quote -- that was the case on SS but now they've decided not to take ANY such images anymore
...

« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2013, 01:01 »
0

Wow photo secrets and Wikipedia, there's some solid legal advice... and yes I've used Wikipedia for looking at some copyright information, then went to the US patent and copyright office and law libraries for confirmation.
...
How's this from IS?

 Engravings and illustrated reproduction scans must be dated from 1884 or older in order to be acceptable. 
we're basically in accord - i used the wiki et al quotes to show the wide variety of interpretations - obviously there is no law about editorial so each agency  is free to tantalize & frustrate its contributors

re the IS quote -- that was the case on SS but now they've decided not to take ANY such images anymore
...

They make their own rules because fear of lawsuits is expensive. DP takes all of this images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
5991 Views
Last post September 22, 2006, 16:35
by Greg Boiarsky
72 Replies
19250 Views
Last post August 08, 2012, 17:15
by MarkRyanDesigns
22 Replies
5199 Views
Last post September 29, 2015, 19:22
by YadaYadaYada
2 Replies
3543 Views
Last post March 25, 2018, 16:53
by rinderart
120 Replies
30605 Views
Last post March 12, 2019, 12:36
by davidbautista

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle