You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.
| New license launched: Editorial images |
| Author |
Message |
Costa007
54 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/06/2008, 03:08:04 AM by Costa007 - member is an admin |
 |
 |
| Originally posted by Mschalke: |
 |
Quoted Message: Hi there! Great news about the editorial section!
But, a question; I uploaded a few last monday, I thought they might be good for the news, but the news is not really news anymore by now... how long is the pending list of this editorial files?
Greetings Melissa |
Please be patient as we are still updating the sistem. There are many images in the editotial section pending line, some of them with no editorial value and it's rather difficult to identify the News worthy images through that huge list.
In this cases is better to write support about the matter, eventually enter some image IDs in the email body so we can review them with high priority. |
|
Sharp eyes
|
Uploaded files: 3202 | Total Sales: 3991
|
|
Mschalke
43 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/06/2008, 07:17:54 AM by Mschalke |
|
|
Ok, thanks! One other question...
Images of royalties, are we allowed to upload them? Shot at public events and visits? |
|
Canon 40d, Canon EF 16-35mm F/2.8L USM, Canon EF 100-400mm F...
|
Uploaded files: 819 | Total Sales: 2203
|
|
Fdrie
1 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/06/2008, 08:16:50 AM by Fdrie |
|
|
Well, that's nice, editorial licences. But why do you send 14 (fourteen!) mails with the same message about these licenses? |
|
|
Uploaded files: 0 | Total Sales: 0
|
|
Tonygers
131 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/06/2008, 16:22:33 PM by Tonygers |
|
|
Can I now upload images of a property that were refused due to having no property release?
I have many images of the modern skyscraper (turning torso) in Malmo but was unable to get a property release for it!
Thanks in advance. |
|
Fujifilm finepix s9600 9,0 megapixel
Kodak EasyShare C743 7...
|
Uploaded files: 437 | Total Sales: 321
|
|
Stuartkey
891 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/06/2008, 16:56:41 PM by Stuartkey |
|
|
I think the images still need to have some editorial value, ie. be newsworthy for some reason.
|
|
Canon 350D - 17-40 f4 L - 70-200 f4 L - 50mm f1.8 II
|
Uploaded files: 406 | Total Sales: 2232
|
|
Boughn
324 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/06/2008, 18:44:43 PM by Boughn - member is an admin |
|
|
| Originally posted by Mschalke: |
|
Quoted Message: Ok, thanks! One other question...
Images of royalties, are we allowed to upload them? Shot at public events and visits? |
Royals are fair game as long as they are in a public place. Everything they do is newsworthy. |
|
|
Uploaded files: 0 | Total Sales: 0
|
|
Madelaide
196 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/06/2008, 21:41:00 PM by Madelaide |
|
|
| Originally posted by Achilles: |
|
| Quoted Message: Note that in some cases like shooting on private properties, you will need to do your own investigation whether selling images as editorial will be allowed or not. |
Sometimes people think that anything you don't have a release for can be sold as editorial. In the Pan American Games, it was clearly written in the tickets that images taken inside the venues could only be used for domestic purposes. If I wanted to sell images for editorial use, I still would need a permit. This did not apply for the outdoor free events.
I guess the general rule is we don't have the rights to sell images taken inside any restricted place (like the San Diego Zoo, as in Achilles' example), unless it is impossible to identify the place.
Personally I would also make a restriction which is more on the ethical side. I would not sell an image of a person when the person is the main subject, unless I know exactly what kind of use the image will have (which is more than just setting for editorial, it should be RM). For instance, I have images of kids in a refugee village in Botswana. I think it's ok to have that in an article about refugees, but not in an article about homeless children (which they are not) or AIDS (I don't know if they have it or not) or infant prostitution (which hopefully is not part of their lives). Therefore I would not upload these images here.
Regards,
Adelaide |
|
Mainly Canon A620 for microstock
Traditional photograph...
|
Uploaded files: 269 | Total Sales: 792
|
|
Celsodiniz
7 posts
|
|
Message edited at 02/06/2008, 22:28:57 PM by Celsodiniz |
|
|
| Originally posted by Achilles: |
|
Quoted Message: Celso, each agency may have its own perspective about the specifics of a license, no matter how it's called (RF, RM, etc). The licenses having same name with various agencies may not assure that the rules are identical, it's just a system used to show similarities. The PLUS coalition that tries nowadays to unite all these rules into an industry-accepted unique license system is obviously facing a huge challenge and they are to be admired for trying to do it.
I cannot answer your question, not only because I can't see the images, but because the editor who reviews them is the best person to do it.
Note that in some cases like shooting on private properties, you will need to do your own investigation whether selling images as editorial will be allowed or not. Copyright lawyers might disagree, however in some cases we would like to be on safe grounds for our photographers. Although the contributor is entirely responsible for what he uploads, we would like to protect them from legal issues that are usually so time consuming. For example, an image shot inside San Diego Zoo will still not be accepted as editorial as we've been notified by them in the past that they want control over their imagery. We may agree or disagree with this rule, but we will respect it.
This was just an example. There may be more that you will find at review time or in the future, as this section will grow. I will discuss this approach again with our copyright lawyers and get back to you if anything changes in our position. |
Hello ! I believe I was able to fix the post so now you should be able to see the pictures. I know definitive answer will come by revision time but if we have a clear idea of the basic DOs and DON'Ts then both contributors and Dreamstime can save time... Would it be OK for Dreamstime to give us an idea of which ones of the following pictures could be safely sold as Editorial here in Dreamstime ?
(01)  (02)  (03)  (04) 
(05)  (06)  (07)  (08) 
(09)  (10)  (11)  (12) 
(13)  (14)  (15)  (16) 
(17)  (18)  (19)  (20) 
(21)  (22)  (23)  (24) 
(25)  (26)  (27)  (28) 
(29)  (30)  (31)  (32) 
(33)  (34)  (35)  (36) 
(37)  (38)  |
|
|
Uploaded files: 979 | Total Sales: 945
|
|
Celsodiniz
7 posts
|
|
Message edited at 02/06/2008, 22:45:06 PM by Celsodiniz |
|
|
| Originally posted by Madelaide: |
|
Quoted Message: Note that in some cases like shooting on private properties, you will need to do your own investigation whether selling images as editorial will be allowed or not.
Sometimes people think that anything you don't have a release for can be sold as editorial. In the Pan American Games, it was clearly written in the tickets that images taken inside the venues could only be used for domestic purposes. If I wanted to sell images for editorial use, I still would need a permit. This did not apply for the outdoor free events.
I guess the general rule is we don't have the rights to sell images taken inside any restricted place (like the San Diego Zoo, as in Achilles' example), unless it is impossible to identify the place.
Personally I would also make a restriction which is more on the ethical side. I would not sell an image of a person when the person is the main subject, unless I know exactly what kind of use the image will have (which is more than just setting for editorial, it should be RM). For instance, I have images of kids in a refugee village in Botswana. I think it's ok to have that in an article about refugees, but not in an article about homeless children (which they are not) or AIDS (I don't know if they have it or not) or infant prostitution (which hopefully is not part of their lives). Therefore I would not upload these images here.
Regards,
Adelaide |
Adelaide, this is exactly the kind of questions I have on my mind. I also have the impression that people think that anything you don't have a release for can be sold as editorial. But since I could not get a clear answer on the topic then I decided to put some pictures here as an example to know for sure what would be Ok or not to submit as Editorial.
Like you said, the Miami Seaquarium clearly states that pictures taken on their premises can not be sold at all, for any purpuses, and are only to be used for domestic purposes. So, I guess those can not be sold not even as Editorial. On the other hand I took aerial photos from their installations and some Stock sites accepted those, some did not. I was flying over them. Can those pictures be sold or do they require a Property Release ? And if they do then maybe those pictures can not even be sold as Editorial. Right ?
And I put many more examples we all know like the London Eye, Hearst Castle, Disney, well known buildings with logos, artwork from other people, shows, people on the streets, etc.
Can you have a look on my post before this one with the list of numbered pictures and let me know your comments on which ones can be safely sold as Editorial, and which ones can not ?
Thanks !!!
Celso. |
|
|
Uploaded files: 979 | Total Sales: 945
|
|
Danp68
178 posts
|
|
Message edited at 02/07/2008, 00:30:30 AM by Danp68 |
|
|
| Originally posted by Boughn: |
|
Quoted Message:
Royals are fair game as long as they are in a public place. Everything they do is newsworthy. |
Ellen,
I figure you would be one of the best people to ask this question to. Can Disney Parks pictures be uploaded as editorial? I would assume the answer, much like the San Diego Zoo example, is a big NO. But we should probably address it before people send you a million Disney parks images. |
|
Canon EOS 5-D and 30-D
Canon 24mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 I...
|
Uploaded files: 473 | Total Sales: 465
|
|
Achilles
3380 posts
|
|
Message edited at 02/07/2008, 02:43:36 AM by Admin |
|
|
We will definitely not accept images of Disney characters and most probably neither Disneyland castles as they are private property. Images taken in theaters or the last Rolling Stone show will also not be accepted. Make sure you check the ticket, usually it says if it's not allowed.
Madelaide's example was very good, portraits of persons that don't have any editorial value (they are simple visitors and for whom you can't "see" the news, just the portrait) will not be accepted. A celebrity portrait photographed on the red carpet will be OK, a tourist's portrait in Times Square where you can't see anything else will not. Editorial is not an excuse for the absence of a MR.
Celso, some of the images will be accepted, some will not. Each of them has its own story, it would be too complicated to discuss them here.
|
|
Nikon D300 / Nikon N80 | Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fishey...
|
Uploaded files: 1964 | Total Sales: 10072
|
|
Sophieso
1289 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/07/2008, 02:53:23 AM by Sophieso |
|
|
Achilles, I have many times contacted various officers of the MGM-Mirage Corporation in Las Vegas to ask about photographing their properties for commercial stock. They simply do not respond. The buildings themselves are under copyright, but I'm unclear as to whether that copyright means the building can't be duplicated in construction, or if it means the buildings can't be photographed from public property for commercial sale.
If my best efforts for clarification on this are unanswered, what am I to think? I know this falls in an area where there are many shades of gray, but if they won't respond, I'm tempted to assume the safest license would be editorial. Yes? No? |
|
|
Uploaded files: 257 | Total Sales: 591
|
|
Danp68
178 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/07/2008, 02:54:54 AM by Danp68 |
|
|
What if a Disney character like Dopey were to run amok and attack a guest, throwing him off the Disneyland castle? I would consider that as a great "In the News" photo.
Imagine the composition of the castle in the background right, with Dopey being led away in cuffs in the foreground left.
;) |
|
Canon EOS 5-D and 30-D
Canon 24mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 I...
|
Uploaded files: 473 | Total Sales: 465
|
|
Photogolfer
1 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/07/2008, 03:20:27 AM by Photogolfer |
|
|
hello
My question is : Is it possible to post as editorial some pictures made on the Golf PGA Tour professionnal events (men and women) ?
Pictures of Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson or Michelle Wie, etc...
thank you
Patrick |
|
|
Uploaded files: 1266 | Total Sales: 874
|
|
1enriquesniper
1 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/07/2008, 04:28:35 AM by 1enriquesniper |
|
|
I don't go around the whole day with my camera (I would like), but many times I missed the possibility of taking good shots at demonstrators and the like. I think it is great. |
|
Lumix DMC FZ 50
Canon 400D 18-55, 55-200
plus tripod, flas...
|
Uploaded files: 96 | Total Sales: 52
|
|
Costa007
54 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/07/2008, 07:38:03 AM by Costa007 - member is an admin |
|
|
Las Vegas streets and skyline are OK to be accepted for editorial use, but no photographs taken inside castle/casino/hotel (private property).
We already have accepted some images with Tiger Woods in contests and usually that kind of images will be accepted as editorial.
Also VIPs posing on the red carpet can be accepted, but when it comes to paparazzi chasing a person and taking photos with him in a "discomfortable" situation, the images will be refused. If the VIPs know thet you are photographing them and ALLOW you to do it, the images can be accepted. |
|
Sharp eyes
|
Uploaded files: 3202 | Total Sales: 3991
|
|
Boughn
324 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/07/2008, 08:15:27 AM by Boughn - member is an admin |
|
|
| Originally posted by Celsodiniz: |
|
| Quoted Message: Personally I would also make a restriction which is more on the ethical side. I would not sell an image of a person when the person is the main subject, unless I know exactly what kind of use the image will have (which is more than just setting for editorial, it should be RM). For instance, I have images of kids in a refugee village in Botswana. I think it's ok to have that in an article about refugees, but not in an article about homeless children (which they are not) or AIDS (I don't know if they have it or not) or infant prostitution (which hopefully is not part of their lives). Therefore I would not upload these images here. |
The editorial license is very strong in regard to using editorial images ONLY in TRUTHFUL articles. So if someone were to use the image of the children in Botswana and imply that they have AIDS, they are violating the license terms. That is why that the keywords and description must be correct, especially for editorial images.
|
|
|
Uploaded files: 0 | Total Sales: 0
|
|
Sophieso
1289 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/07/2008, 14:08:23 PM by Sophieso |
|
|
| Originally posted by Costa007: |
|
Quoted Message: Las Vegas streets and skyline are OK to be accepted for editorial use, but no photographs taken inside castle/casino/hotel (private property).
We already have accepted some images with Tiger Woods in contests and usually that kind of images will be accepted as editorial.
Also VIPs posing on the red carpet can be accepted, but when it comes to paparazzi chasing a person and taking photos with him in a "discomfortable" situation, the images will be refused. If the VIPs know thet you are photographing them and ALLOW you to do it, the images can be accepted. |
Very clear and helpful answer. Thank you. And cudos for not encouraging paparazzi mentality. That shows a lot of class. |
|
|
Uploaded files: 257 | Total Sales: 591
|
|
Mwp1969
102 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/07/2008, 16:55:20 PM by Mwp1969 |
|
|
Here's my first editorial sale here on DT :)
My thanks to the buyer and to DT !
Mark |
|
Canon 400D
Sigma 70-300 DG Macro
5200D Tri-pod
Mono pod
...
|
| |
