Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sundry Photography

Editorial photo used for book cover

Recommended Posts

 

  • Copyright Infringement Claims
  • You hereby grant Shutterstock the right and authority to take such steps as Shutterstock deems commercially reasonable to protect Shutterstock's rights in the Content.
  • In the event that you believe that a Shutterstock license to your Content is being misused, you shall take no action against a Shutterstock licensee without providing notice of such misuse to Shutterstock and receiving Shutterstock's prior written consent to such action.
  • If you would like to submit a notification of alleged infringement for Content on the Shutterstock site, please send us a DMCA takedown notice pursuant to our DMCA Policy.
  • While Shutterstock takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure that the rights of its Contributors are not violated by customers or other parties, Shutterstock has no obligation to pursue legal action against any alleged infringer of any of your rights in and to any Content.
  • In the event Shutterstock receives a complaint about your Content, Shutterstock may suspend access to such Content and terminate your account, pursuant to our DMCA Policy.
  • If you knowingly or repeatedly submit false copyright infringement claims and takedown notices to Shutterstock, Shutterstock reserves the right to disable or delete your account with no further notice to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sundry Photography said:

I found one of my editorial photos used as a book cover, only that I have no idea where it was downloaded from.

Do you have any idea how to proceed in this case?

In my eyes it is not your problem and you don't have to do anything. If the buyer doesn't use the image correctly, it's his/her problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

In my eyes it is not your problem and you don't have to do anything. If the buyer doesn't use the image correctly, it's his/her problem.

This. If the publisher misused the licence, he is the one who broke the contract with whatever agency he bought it from and he's the one who has to face possible legal consequences.

 

However, there is still another quetsion: What kind of book was it? Because editorial usage does not exclude book covers in general. Editorial use means usage in a journalistic or informative context.  It's a gray area, but basically every book that is not a novel, but has the purpose of teaching something (science, school book, how to do yoga, how to train a horse, even travel books) is informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am presuming that not only is the OP concerned about any comeback on them for its use but also about not being paid correctly.

Contact SS with details - if you have the photo elsewhere with other agencies check with them.  Find out  where it sold, if it sold, and for what terms.  If you feel the cover is outside the terms ask whoever sold it to chase for proper licencing so they can get you the correct money.

It is worth doing this - at another site I had a couple of photos licenced for 1 use in 1 article.  They actually appeared twice in the article.  I informed the agency not thinking anything would result but it resulted in the price doubling so I got more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

I am presuming that not only is the OP concerned about any comeback on them for its use but also about not being paid correctly.

Why? We get paid the same for editorial or commercial usage. There is no difference and since shutterstock allows you up to half a million printed copies ( which is A LOT for a book and  very unlikely. Unless we are speaking about an international bestseller...) with a sub licence, you won't get more than a few cents. Whether the image was submitted for editorial or commercial purpose doesn't changed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Firn said:

This. If the publisher misused the licence, he is the one who broke the contract with whatever agency he bought it from and he's the one who has to face possible legal consequences.

 

However, there is still another quetsion: What kind of book was it? Because editorial usage does not exclude book covers in general. Editorial use means usage in a journalistic or informative context.  It's a gray area, but basically every book that is not a novel, but has the purpose of teaching something (science, school book, how to do yoga, how to train a horse, even travel books) is informative.

Are you sure a book cover can be classified as editorial use? I would have thought all book covers fall under advertising, commercial use??? An educational publisher is using an image for commercial purposes when he puts it on a cover. It would be a help to hear what SS says about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lonndubh said:

Are you sure a book cover can be classified as editorial use? I would have thought all book covers fall under advertising, commercial use??? An educational publisher is using an image for commercial purposes when he puts it on a cover. It would be a help to hear what SS says about this.

I am 90% sure, because I know a newspaper or magazine can use an editorial image on their cover (at least various sources on the internet agree with this and I have not found a source disagreeing yet), so why should it be any different for a book? Editorial and commercial purpose is always mixed up. Photos used in a newspaper for example are always editorial, yet, obviously a newspaper is not printed out of the goodwill of someone's heart. The goal is, of course, to sell it and make money with it, which is commercial. Still a magazine can put a paparazi photo of celebrity XY on it's front cover and they certainly did not get a model release. There is, of course, the possibility that Shutterstock has it own rules (I know that Alamy allowes covers for example, there was an issue where a magazine had cropped an editorial image fon its cover so much that it was out of context) regarding this matter, but I could not find any specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Milo J said:

I too thought at first it should be ok for non-fiction book cover, but according to this SS article, it is not.  https://www.shutterstock.com/support/article/Premier-Editorial-Content#:~:text=The Shutterstock Editorial License can be used in,publication or other medium in one language only.

949722561_ScreenShot2020-08-04at5_05_10AM.png.077a5bebdb50cc30187f125acc981d36.png

 

That's nice but not our images, that's the premier collection. (as I read it?)

But still, our image license:

https://www.shutterstock.com/license

IV. Any use of Editorial Content licensed hereunder is further subject to those express restrictions set forth in Part I, Section 4 (prohibiting any use distributed via broadcast/cable/OTT, on publication covers, and in print runs in excess of 500,000) as well as any “special restrictions” (e.g., geographical or industry-specific usage restrictions) indicated on the image detail page and/or included in the metadata attached to an item of Editorial Content.

13 hours ago, Sundry Photography said:

I found one of my editorial photos used as a book cover, only that I have no idea where it was downloaded from.

Do you have any idea how to proceed in this case?

I'll just jump back to the first question, is this same image available on more than Shutterstock and if you have no idea where it was downloaded from, how would you proceed with any case, anywhere, as you don't know the terms of that license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sundry Photography said:

I found one of my editorial photos used as a book cover

My question would be: what exactly is your concern? Do you think you are owed more money for this use (not likely) or are you afraid someone might come after you seeing themselves on the cover of a book? Are there clearly recognizable people in the shot? If so, are they shown in a light that would make them angry if they saw the book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book is a short story collection about the author's experiences...not educational.

Unfortunately, I don't know what stock agency was the photo downloaded from (at least I couldn't find any credits in the Amazon excerpts).

The biggest problem, in my view, is that the photo depicts a landmark that is prohibited by SS for commercial use (and they are very strict with this place so maybe they received complaints)

On all the stock websites where I contribute, the photo is posted as editorial, but I'm afraid that I am still exposed as they can easily do a reverse search and find me as the author.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

In my eyes it is not your problem and you don't have to do anything. If the buyer doesn't use the image correctly, it's his/her problem.

Yes, of course - you're absolutely right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The publisher probably took advantage of Shutterstock's "Asset Assurance" program, "a safeguard for brands using powerful editorial imagery in campaigns." (https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/introducing-asset-assurancetm-safeguard-brands-using-powerfulhttps://www.shutterstock.com/blog/asset-assurance-editorial)

Here's where it's addressed in contributors' contract with SS: "You agree that Shutterstock may permit Content designated "Editorial Use Only" to be used in a non-Editorial manner at Shutterstock's sole discretion..." (https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms?language=en_US)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sundry Photography said:

The book is a short story collection about the author's experiences...not educational.

Unfortunately, I don't know what stock agency was the photo downloaded from (at least I couldn't find any credits in the Amazon excerpts).

The biggest problem, in my view, is that the photo depicts a landmark that is prohibited by SS for commercial use (and they are very strict with this place so maybe they received complaints)

On all the stock websites where I contribute, the photo is posted as editorial, but I'm afraid that I am still exposed as they can easily do a reverse search and find me as the author.

 

What Landmark?

SS restrictions may be different from actual legal restrictions. Since you don't know which agency it was licensed from, the whole question is impossible to answer.

21 hours ago, GregDPhotos said:

The publisher probably took advantage of Shutterstock's "Asset Assurance" program, "a safeguard for brands using powerful editorial imagery in campaigns." (https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/introducing-asset-assurancetm-safeguard-brands-using-powerfulhttps://www.shutterstock.com/blog/asset-assurance-editorial)

Here's where it's addressed in contributors' contract with SS: "You agree that Shutterstock may permit Content designated "Editorial Use Only" to be used in a non-Editorial manner at Shutterstock's sole discretion..." (https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms?language=en_US)

Good suggestion, if it was from SS. 👍

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2020 at 7:09 PM, Milo J said:

I too thought at first it should be ok for non-fiction book cover, but according to this SS article, it is not.  https://www.shutterstock.com/support/article/Premier-Editorial-Content#:~:text=The Shutterstock Editorial License can be used in,publication or other medium in one language only.

949722561_ScreenShot2020-08-04at5_05_10AM.png.077a5bebdb50cc30187f125acc981d36.png

 

I have the same issue with one of my editorial image [portrait of a lady (who happens to be my office mate) wearing a mask and face shield]. It's being used in a health and wellness online store (in South Africa).

I thought editorial images can't be used for commercial/promotional use. 😕

Note: Although I have other portrait images of her with MR - but that specific image was taken in April (before she agreed to signed an MR) so I uploaded it as an editorial at that time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...