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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

......
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'

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.

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.

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
...