Jump to content

Selling an illustrative editorial image for commercial use


Recommended Posts

Just been approached by someone who wants to use one of my images that would be classed as an illustrative editorial shot for a commercial purpose. I don't have a people/property release on the shot.

I'm a relative newcomer to stock, so I would be interested to know if any of you sell editorial images on a commercial licence? If you do, do you put some sort of clause in the licence that covers you if someone makes a complaint about how the image is being used?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, David Calvert said:

Just been approached by someone who wants to use one of my images that would be classed as an illustrative editorial shot for a commercial purpose. I don't have a people/property release on the shot.

I'm a relative newcomer to stock, so I would be interested to know if any of you sell editorial images on a commercial licence? If you do, do you put some sort of clause in the licence that covers you if someone makes a complaint about how the image is being used?

David, 

I only have a handful of editorial images, so I'm not an expert on the subject.

But: there are commercial images and editorial images. I am very sure that this separation cannot be circumvented legally and trademark-wise. 

From my point of view you have to pass the problem on to the buyer. He has to find out what consequences this has in his case of use. That is not your task.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Calvert said:

I'm a relative newcomer to stock, so I would be interested to know if any of you sell editorial images on a commercial licence? If you do, do you put some sort of clause in the licence that covers you if someone makes a complaint about how the image is being used?

It is my understanding that you shouldn't sell an editorial image on a commercial licence.

I believe that if you are creating a licence then it should only be an editorial one.  I think that otherwise you might be responsible and could be sued. (From what you have written, this seems to be outside of an agency).

It might help if you could let us know something about the subject.  For example, if it's a very well known brand, I personally would avoid this like the plague.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oleschwander said:

Alex - what can the risk be? You only shot the image. It’t differen when people are in the picture, then it’s risky.

Agreed, with people, especially minors it's more risky. All the restrictions that I've lifted didn't feature people.

On here to lift a restriction to earn a sub is obviously not worth it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, oleschwander said:

Alex - what can the risk be? You only shot the image. It’t differen when people are in the picture, then it’s risky.

No, he did not only "only shot the image". He sold it lifting the editorial restriction, meaning there are elements in the picture that he has no property release for. The risk is that whoever owns the property (it can be anything from a building to a can of a soda brand) can sue him.
Everyone has to decide for himself whether it's worth the risk and it's unlikely the owner of the property will ever see the image. But the risk is there and you have to be aware of it. It's something else if you sell an image as editorial and someone buys it and uses it in a commercial way without your consent. Then the person who bought the image broke the license agreement. But if you, as a photographer, lift the restriction yourself, the risk is yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Firn said:

No, he did not only "only shot the image". He sold it lifting the editorial restriction, meaning there are elements in the picture that he has no property release for. The risk is that whoever owns the property (it can be anything from a building to a can of a soda brand) can sue him.
Everyone has to decide for himself whether it's worth the risk and it's unlikely the owner of the property will ever see the image. But the risk is there and you have to be aware of it. It's something else if you sell an image as editorial and someone buys it and uses it in a commercial way without your consent. Then the person who bought the image broke the license agreement. But if you, as a photographer, lift the restriction yourself, the risk is yours.

+1

Absolutely correct!!!

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

No, he did not only "only shot the image". He sold it lifting the editorial restriction, meaning there are elements in the picture that he has no property release for. The risk is that whoever owns the property (it can be anything from a building to a can of a soda brand) can sue him.
Everyone has to decide for himself whether it's worth the risk and it's unlikely the owner of the property will ever see the image. But the risk is there and you have to be aware of it. It's something else if you sell an image as editorial and someone buys it and uses it in a commercial way without your consent. Then the person who bought the image broke the license agreement. But if you, as a photographer, lift the restriction yourself, the risk is yours.

Exactly.

At Alamy, for instance, two years ago I lifted the editorial restriction to an image of the façade of San Siro Stadium in Milan, Italy.

KKG66H.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

There also might be a scenario where a company wishing to purchase a photo actually owns the rights to the product or business or architectural design etc that is featured in the image. So originally, the image would be intended for editorial usage but perhaps the company (that is represented in the image) wants to use it for their own advertising or promotion etc. Though I have no idea how common or how rare cases like that are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As we are all aware, basically anyone can sue anybody.

If a person or animal rights organization thinks it is unethical to dress animals in clothes and exhibit them, then they are in its best right to sue the photographer for animal cruelty.

In addition - no one who shoot editorial photos knows for sure not to be sued for something.

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
×
×
  • Create New...