Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - Reviewers are putting NON editorials as editorials: why????

xlabrador · Joined: 12 Aug 2007 Posts: 252 Location: Moscow, Russia

I always thought that I need a model release only if my picture IS ABOUT the person, that's on it. If the persons or a group IS NOT the main idea or the main part of a composition, then what's the problem?

It's just like those skyscrapers. When you shoot an urban landscape of a skyline - it's all ok with copyright holders. But if the picture IS about one of them - you need a property release.

I've read a HUGE article about that somewhere in the Internet, I'll try to find it, if I get some free time.

dzain · Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 2796 Location: The Netherlands

Hello Setho, or other admin/moderator: can you please explain the recent strange reviewer-actions about editorials?

adeptris · Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:21 am

As already said, the FAQ on most sites are out of date, there has been big clampdowns on copyright, property and model releases, on a lot of sites, someone must have had thier fingers burnt.

Here in the UK in a letter from the Home Office last week, it reads "There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place"

So with this and the current copyright being with the photographer, I could argue there is no need for a model release if I photograph strangers in a public place.

But stock images are international, and with a lot of countries having there own "International" Copyright Rules, best advice is to adapt and move on, big thing at the moment is risk management, that is what the sites are doing managing the risk by making these images editorial!

If the guy squating or kneeling down in the second image was me I would know, would you?

David

dzain · Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 2796 Location: The Netherlands

But you couldn't prove it was you and that's what it's all about. The silhouette in the first picture is from the backsite and completely dark and so small that no details could be recovered, so I still want an answer from the management.
When they change their rules for whatever reason, it would be polite to share that with their photographers.

dzain · Joined: 21 Jan 2007 Posts: 2796 Location: The Netherlands

*UP*

(for any admin that comes checking in today)

moderator · Moderator Joined: 17 Jan 2008 Posts: 331

Hello everyone:

For the record, no new initiatives have taken place in regards to editorial vs non-editorial imagery. Should any new initiatives be put into place, we will notify all of our submitters accordingly.

Each and every image that comes through my review team is evaluated on its own merit, for quality, sales potential and, of course, whether or not it should be marked as editorial.

A few image examples, as pointed out by submitter dzain are great examples of basic stock imagery that, in our judgment, do not require model releases and should not be editorial.

The first two images mentioned in this post depict tourists at a tourist site. These images are editorial.

Some other images needed additional attention, such as:

Image # 6446212 - as I understand it, was part of a batch of images that did have a model release. This one image did not have the model release properly associated to it and I have asked the submitter to resubmit with the model release attached. (thank you dzain for bringing this to my attention!)

Image# 12323305 - Looking at this image, it should not have been marked as editorial. I have spoken with the reviewer and this is understood.

Some basic rules for editorial include: an editorial image must be newsworthy and cannot endorse a product or service.

Remember, we are striving to make sure that all images are processed correctly and in a timely manner. Our goal is to make sure that your images appear properly to all of our subscribers - every single time.

Sincerely,

Anthony Correia
Manager, Content Acquisition
Shutterstock