Jump to content
Doug McLean

Non Editorial Use Of Editorial Photos

Recommended Posts

I routinely find a few of my editorial photos used for non editorial purposes, for example, I just found one of my editorial photos in a Reader's Digest article (or is that editorial?), and one on a web site being used to sell a service (this site edited the photo to remove license plate info).

Is this something I should worry about? What happens if someone mis-uses a photo with people in it and the people find the photo online?

And if there is ever a problem, who is legally responsible, me, Shutterstock, or the organization that bought and mis-used the photo?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The image used in Reader's Digest is Editorial but the image on the website isn't. I would report the website to SS, they can then take action if the website is misusing the bought licence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

Just be happy you made the sale.  If you followed the rules, you are off the hook and what difference does it make to you.  Spend the money wisely.

I am happy for the sales, but I don't want any legal liability for mis-use. As long as I'm not responsible, I won't worry about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would he want to do that??? They might reverse the sale.  It is not the contributor's job to play policeman unless he feels he has been harmed in some way. I get the impression he doesn't care, just curious what it means.  Ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would still report it to Shutterstock. (Not the first one, as that's editorial) I am pretty sure you are not the one responsible, but if it came hard on you might still get into legal trouble, even if in the end you would not have to face any consequences. (Anyone remember that guy who was asked for thousands of $ because of an editorial photo of a female soldier he sold? We still don't know how that one will turn out, but in the end, would it not be best to avoid this kind of situation in the first place?) It's still a situation everyone would like to avoid. So it would be best to contact Shutterstock about it so they can take proper actions since one of their customers broke their terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maurice James Dawson said:

The image used in Reader's Digest

A copy of Readers Digest isn't free.  Therefore ought to be considered as commercial use of the photo. But like I said, who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Doug McLean said:

.... and one on a web site being used to sell a service (this site edited the photo to remove license plate info)......

 

  • Perhaps you could make the same change and submit as commercial?
  • Have two versions - one editorial and one commercial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leonard Whistler said:

 

  • Perhaps you could make the same change and submit as commercial?
  • Have two versions - one editorial and one commercial.

Haven't you seen the other thread where just the taillight and bumper of a car was rejected for commercial?  Wiping the number off the plate probably won't make any difference in this era of lawyers gone crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

A copy of Readers Digest isn't free.  Therefore ought to be considered as commercial use of the photo. But like I said, who cares?

But Doug says it was an Editorial photo used in Reader's Digest. So the use of the image in Reader's Digest is correct. The photo used on the website isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

A copy of Readers Digest isn't free.  Therefore ought to be considered as commercial use of the photo. But like I said, who cares?

I think you missunderstood something. Editorial does not mean "free". It usually means that images can be used for purposes of news reporting, criticism, education, etc. It does not have to be free news reporting, criticism or education. There is almost always a commercial aspect of news reporting for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

It is not the contributor's job to play policeman unless he feels he has been harmed in some way. I get the impression he doesn't care, just curious what it means.  Ignore it.

I can hear you haven't been in contact with the legal system, Doug. It's not for fun the rules are made. If someone feel that their face, property, artwork  or something else is misused for commercial (and maybe also even if it's editorial) reasons you can get into terrible - and very expensive - troubles ...! And I think that SS has covered their a** big time - so that means that you - as an underpaid  contributor - stand all alone in the legal system. Look up the post from our Israeli friend ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, anyone can sue anyone for anything they want anytime they want to.  Bring it on.  Not only will I win I will recover my expenses, which will be considerable. When I upload an editorial clip and someone buys it with editorial licensing, that's their problem if someone doesn't like how they have used it.  So we'll have to agree to disagree.  But with that kind of attitude I'm surprised you would even dare to submit anything at all.  Do you feel like you are living in a house of cards?

Share this post


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

A copy of Readers Digest isn't free. 

Neither is the NY Times.  It's not the publication or price of which that determines what's editorial or not.  It's the use.

Share this post


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

Yes, anyone can sue anyone for anything they want anytime they want to.  Bring it on.  Not only will I win I will recover my expenses, which will be considerable. When I upload an editorial clip and someone buys it with editorial licensing, that's their problem if someone doesn't like how they have used it.  So we'll have to agree to disagree.  But with that kind of attitude I'm surprised you would even dare to submit anything at all.  Do you feel like you are living in a house of cards?

So if someone used your video as a commercial instead of the editorial license they actually purchased you dont't care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically editorial photos are used as visual explanation of a written article in newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. For example a photo of people riding bikes to accompany a story on exercise. The same photo could no however be used in an advertisement selling  bikes (commercial) without model and property releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone uses an editorial photograph that they have downloaded for commercial purposes, that must be at the user's risk. If that is not the case, anyone with editorial images in their port is at constant risk of legal action should someone decide to misuse one of their images (an eventuality that is absolutely beyond the photographer's control).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to hear that an editorial image was used in a commercial context.  I have many editorial images with releases that SS does not accept.  They are perfectly fine for commercial.  It's the buyers call as to how comfortable they are with the intended use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly correct.  And there is no obligation on the photographer's part to be the policeman and blow the whistle when misuse is suspected.  Who cares?  You got paid. Move on.

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

×
×
  • Create New...