Jump to content
Robert Mullan

Editorial verses non-editorial sales

Recommended Posts

On 8/4/2017 at 7:34 AM, Kim Christensen said:

This is a realiable eidtorial seler of mine. 

stock-photo-sonderborg-denmark-january-t

If it was not for the flood and the sandbags, the picture would still have to be editorial, but would probably make no sales. 

 

Just curious for my own learning curve here...why is this one editorial? I don't see logos or faces, so is it the buildings? Really nice shot by the way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, samray said:

Just curious for my own learning curve here...why is this one editorial? I don't see logos or faces, so is it the buildings? Really nice shot by the way...

I would suspect because there are identifiable people in the image (even though we don't see their faces). In commercial photos (at least here on SS- though I suspect it's likely true of all sites/countries/etc), that even if you just have a body part (say, a hand) you need a model release from the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Adam Gladstone said:

I would suspect because there are identifiable people in the image (even though we don't see their faces). In commercial photos (at least here on SS- though I suspect it's likely true of all sites/countries/etc), that even if you just have a body part (say, a hand) you need a model release from the person.

Hmmm, i thought that I read that a release is only needed if faces are recognizable, or if there are any tattoos or specific unique visual aspects that would make them identifiable. I've got several back shots that pass as commercial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, samray said:

Hmmm, i thought that I read that a release is only needed if faces are recognizable, or if there are any tattoos or specific unique visual aspects that would make them identifiable. I've got several back shots that pass as commercial. 

They're more lineant on here when someone is far away or have their face covered but they do crack down on tattoos.

 

We're lucky this far since some agencies even someone's hand need a model release since images are in such high definition that prints are visible. Dystopian...

Share this post


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

Hmmm, i thought that I read that a release is only needed if faces are recognizable, or if there are any tattoos or specific unique visual aspects that would make them identifiable. I've got several back shots that pass as commercial. 

I know if they have any identifiable tattoos/speciific unique visual aspects need a model release.  I tried to find the SS page I saw the comments where they have a picture of people as well as someone's hand holding something and commenting that they even needed the "hand model's" release. I either have to change my search words or perhaps it was on a different site. 

I was only supposing that it's because the two people in the photo could be identified (eg, hey, that photo has my uncle harry and dad in it!!) by someone who knew them well enough to ID them from behind. Without looking at your port, I suppose there are a couple of reasons why you have photos of people's backs that pass as commercial 1) differences in reviewer knowledge/where different reviewers draw the line with what's "identifiable" 2) what's considered ok has changed 3) My supposition could be wrong.

 

I know I have a few photos that have people in them and they pass as commercial. However, they're far enough away and small enough in the photo that to identify them, the photos' would have to be blown up to the point where individual pixels start showing/there's not enough detail to ID people.

 

N.B. It the example of a limb/hand being in the photo was on another site's list of when a model release is needed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/protecting-your-content-learn-about-model-releases

When do I need a model release?

You need a model release for a commercial image where the image features a recognizable individual. Even though parts of a person may not be visible, if the person might 
be recognizable (due to accessories, clothing, etc.), then a release should be obtained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 6:01 PM, samray said:

Just curious for my own learning curve here...why is this one editorial? I don't see logos or faces, so is it the buildings? Really nice shot by the way...

At the agency where I started in stock, even the shadow or footprin of a person needed a model release. This pic was from a newsworthy event, so I posted it a editorial in hope that it would get a fast review, and they would not pixel-peep so much becaue some of the pics from that event ha to be shot at a rather high ISO. Other agencies acknowledge that reportage pics cant be made under studio conditions. They did pixel-peep and the files waited no less that 7 days for review, while all the pics of sliced tomatoes were reviewed within 24 hours. 

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

×