I thought they never happen.
Can someone help me out and explain why and in what ways can an Editorial EL be used?

Thank you and enjoy your weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've had them a couple of times so they definitely happen - no idea how they are used, though.  I've also had some editorial SODs.  I figure it's up to the buyer to use them correctly so haven't worried about it.

Quote from: Liorpt on March 13, 2015, 18:16
I thought they never happen.
Can someone help me out and explain why and in what ways can an Editorial EL be used?

Thank you and enjoy your weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EL just means that they can use it on a bigger print run. An image doesnt have to have a commercial purpose to be licences as EL.

If I print a news paper of 300,000 and want to put an editorial photo of an airport, I still need to purchase an EL to cover the print run. The regular licence only covers for 250,000 prints.

http://www.shutterstock.com/license_comparison.mhtml

one simple way would be if the editorial part of the image could be cropped or blurred out

Quote from: cascoly on March 13, 2015, 19:46
one simple way would be if the editorial part of the image could be cropped or blurred out

But Shutterstock would still only be selling an editorial license, so the buyer would still be limited to editorial purposes by that.

Not necessarily true. The buyer can determine the proper use on their own. The license only covers us and the agency as far as approved use, notification. The buyer may determine on their own that they don't need a release to use an image.

At least that's the way I read the license?

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on March 13, 2015, 21:59

Quote from: cascoly on March 13, 2015, 19:46
one simple way would be if the editorial part of the image could be cropped or blurred out

But Shutterstock would still only be selling an editorial license, so the buyer would still be limited to editorial purposes by that.

Thanks people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 14, 2015, 01:50
Not necessarily true. The buyer can determine the proper use on their own. The license only covers us and the agency as far as approved use, notification. The buyer may determine on their own that they don't need a release to use an image.

At least that's the way I read the license?

Not the way I read it. From Shutterstocks license terms' catalogue of things you are not allowed to do: "17. Use an Image marked "Editorial Use Only" for commercial purposes."

Saying that, protects SS, it's not necessarily what the LAW says.

The answer for me would be, does SS (or any other agency) pursue anyone for using an image licensed as Editorial, as commercial, at their own risk? Which also doesn't make it legal, but would at least show that they tried to enforce the license.

The way I have seen this is this: Final use is the responsibility of the buyer.

Anyway, yes there are a number of legal editorial uses that someone might want an EL. Large publication over a long period of time, text book, high circulation magazine or newspaper.

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on March 14, 2015, 16:01

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 14, 2015, 01:50
Not necessarily true. The buyer can determine the proper use on their own. The license only covers us and the agency as far as approved use, notification. The buyer may determine on their own that they don't need a release to use an image.

At least that's the way I read the license?

Not the way I read it. From Shutterstocks license terms' catalogue of things you are not allowed to do: "17. Use an Image marked "Editorial Use Only" for commercial purposes."

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 14, 2015, 16:30
Saying that, protects SS, it's not necessarily what the LAW says.

The answer for me would be, does SS (or any other agency) pursue anyone for using an image licensed as Editorial, as commercial, at their own risk? Which also doesn't make it legal, but would at least show that they tried to enforce the license.

The way I have seen this is this: Final use is the responsibility of the buyer.

Anyway, yes there are a number of legal editorial uses that someone might want an EL. Large publication over a long period of time, text book, high circulation magazine or newspaper.

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on March 14, 2015, 16:01

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 14, 2015, 01:50
Not necessarily true. The buyer can determine the proper use on their own. The license only covers us and the agency as far as approved use, notification. The buyer may determine on their own that they don't need a release to use an image.

At least that's the way I read the license?

Not the way I read it. From Shutterstocks license terms' catalogue of things you are not allowed to do: "17. Use an Image marked "Editorial Use Only" for commercial purposes."

No, of course that's not what the law says. But licenses are only valid within the restrictions that they give, and those contractual restrictions are the licensor's (SS) to set. Meaning that with a clause like no. 17 up there, if you use an editorial photo for commercial purposes anyway, it's the same as if you are using it without a license.

The practical relevance may still be pretty much zero. What's editorial anyway? Hard to say from case to case, and I as an author certainly don't particularly care how my editorial images are used so long as trouble doesn't fall back on me.

Yes if they don't come after me for the misuse, I'll take the money.

As for the license and the end use, I don't even want to get into the legal arguments, such as, is the SS license actually, legal and binding? 

My opinion is mine alone, Final use is the responsibility of the buyer.   

That may not include what SS intends Editorial or #17 to mean. It also might cover, if something is obviously not licensed properly and the buyer uses it. They are responsible. That's why the larger agencies are over the top careful. They want buyers to have some confidence that the images are safe to use, as licensed.

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on March 14, 2015, 17:18

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 14, 2015, 16:30
Saying that, protects SS, it's not necessarily what the LAW says.

The answer for me would be, does SS (or any other agency) pursue anyone for using an image licensed as Editorial, as commercial, at their own risk? Which also doesn't make it legal, but would at least show that they tried to enforce the license.

The way I have seen this is this: Final use is the responsibility of the buyer.

Anyway, yes there are a number of legal editorial uses that someone might want an EL. Large publication over a long period of time, text book, high circulation magazine or newspaper.

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on March 14, 2015, 16:01

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 14, 2015, 01:50
Not necessarily true. The buyer can determine the proper use on their own. The license only covers us and the agency as far as approved use, notification. The buyer may determine on their own that they don't need a release to use an image.

At least that's the way I read the license?

Not the way I read it. From Shutterstocks license terms' catalogue of things you are not allowed to do: "17. Use an Image marked "Editorial Use Only" for commercial purposes."

No, of course that's not what the law says. But licenses are only valid within the restrictions that they give, and those contractual restrictions are the licensor's (SS) to set. Meaning that with a clause like no. 17 up there, if you use an editorial photo for commercial purposes anyway, it's the same as if you are using it without a license.

The practical relevance may still be pretty much zero. What's editorial anyway? Hard to say from case to case, and I as an author certainly don't particularly care how my editorial images are used so long as trouble doesn't fall back on me.

Right. I wasn't trying to dispute that your opinion is yours alone to have. I was thinking of the buyer side. I was trying to make sure people (buyers) don't read this thread and think they're in the clear to do whatever with an editorial image. They're not and I as a buyer wouldn't do it without individually checking back with the agency.

I don't disagree with you either. I think I golfed with too many lawyers for too many years. 

The terms on SS are quite clear. You May Not: "17. Use an Image marked "Editorial Use Only" for commercial purposes."

Quote from: MarcvsTvllivs on March 14, 2015, 18:44
Right. I wasn't trying to dispute that your opinion is yours alone to have. I was thinking of the buyer side. I was trying to make sure people (buyers) don't read this thread and think they're in the clear to do whatever with an editorial image. They're not and I as a buyer wouldn't do it without individually checking back with the agency.

How long does it take for editorial images to be reviewed?

I took some newsworthy pics but the clock is ticking...

Usually they review editorial the same day, within a few hours. I haven't uploaded editorial in ages, but most of my photos on SS are reviewed in 24 hours, occasionally 48, so I'm surprised your editorial have been sitting there. Maybe send them a note that it's newsworthy? News can be time-sensitive while general editorial doesn't mean there's a rush, though they usually look at editorial right away in case it's news. 

As everyone said, Editorial EL makes sense for large circulation periodicals and textbooks.