RE: Photographers - Let's Educate Users About Correct Image Usage
There is a difference between Editorial Images and using images editorially. It's not the same thing.
The Shutterstock link was linked to a description of Editorial Images. When an image is listed as Editorial, you purchase only an Editorial license which would allow for use in a magazine, textbook or newspaper etc. where the focus is on the image and what it is about. There will be advertising of course, and the book or magazine can be sold!
For example, someone could write an article about such and such a Castle, with the use of an image of the castle (with no property release available.) . A text book may write about old age, with an image of an elderly person who had agreed to make his image available for editorial use only (so no model release is available.)
Another example would be of a photograph of a train wreck offered as Editorial. That image could only be used to write about that train wreck or about avoiding train wrecks etc.
Using an image editorially on the other hand, means that the image itself provides no personal or monetary gain to the user. A person writing a personal blog about her family, with no monetary gain involved, would qualify as using images editorially. If an image is used on a blog or even a Facebook Business Page in a way that brings monetary gain to the user, that use is classed as commercial.
It is very confusing I know, but it's apples and pears. LOL! Two different ball games in the confusing world of stock photography.
The standard license at ShutterStock includes editorial use: "Physical reproductions, such as books, magazines, advertising posters, and packaging", Up to 500K. This includes photos that are not marked as "editorial use only". Photos that are not marked for editorial use only can be used for editorial or they can be used for packaging and posters. If they are marked for editorial they can be used in an editorial context only which includes newspapers and magazines, as well as blogs, videos and books, even for profit newspapers and magazines can as well as for profit blogs, videos and books.
https://www.shutterstock.com/license-comparison
A little background, I have worked for two major media companies, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and and BuzzFeed, ten years in the industry between the two. Both organizations use licensed photography in articles that they make money on, as well as use imagery in advertisements. I am very familiar with the distinction between editorial work and commercial work and the licensing requirements for both.
Editorial does not mean that the publication cannot make money off of the content they produce that includes images used for editorial purposes. It means that they cannot used them in advertisements, or in any fashion where the photo itself is sold as a product. They can however include them in news articles as long as the image contributes to the topic of the article. If they are going to use an image in an advertisement, or sell prints of them, or merchandise that has the image printed on it, then they must purchase a commercial license if it is offered; if the photo is editorial only they cannot use it for ads or merchandise but they can use it in an article.
Here is an example of an editorial photo licensed by the Star Tribune, a for profit company, from Getty Images/istockphoto: http://www.startribune.com/favorite-bug-protection/417199623/
There are ads all around this article and photo, from which the Star Tribune is receiving profit from.
If editorial only photos could not be used in a for profit editorial context, so few people would purchase a license to their work that they could not make a living.
Nice chatting with you by the way. I do realize that images are used in that fashion all the time. My own image are mostly used in that way these days. And i never have a problem with that. It's my bread and butter. My point is, and I may be wrong, that the blog itself on Steemit could be classified as commercial usage because people are Upvoting and paying for the blog itself. I just think it is new territory. I had originally thought like you did on my first days at Steemit, but looking back at my contracts, I am interpreting them differently. I found an IP lawyer on a legal page who advised that even using an image in your Facebook blog would be classified as commercial usage, because you expect to make money in your business from the blog. I will try to find the link.
It has been a compelling conversation 😃 and valuable in all of the refined research I have been doing.
The link you shared primarily discusses the difference between commercial license and license infringement. Every point it makes is in my opinion valid and true.
In my take on the use of licensed stock photography (meaning the poster has purchased a license to use the photo), based on the ShutterStock licenses and my previous experience, receiving money from an upvote is no different that getting money from a newspaper subscription.
In either a Steemit blog or a newspaper, if one were to just post an image that was licensed from a stock photo agency without that image contributing to the topic of editorial content it would be in violation of the license.
In either a Steemit blog post or a newspaper, if one were to write editorial content about a subject and include a photo licensed from a stock photo agency that relates to that topic or enhances the content in some way the photo would NOT be in violation of the license.
In my opinion, editorial content is editorial content on Steemit or elsewhere, and an upvote is equivalent to a subscription payment or advertisement revenue that a newspaper would receive for the same editorial content.
It is true that there is some amount of grey area here, insofar as, to my knowledge this have never been tested in a court of law. The courts are the system we turn to for the final word on the meaning and intent of a legally binding document like a license agreement. Certainly the license agreements were written with the internet in mind, but not specifically Steemit as Steemit likely did not exist when they wrote their license agreements. I do believe that if it were tested, that a proper editorial post on Steemit that include licensed stock photography, would be upheld as NOT violating the terms of the license.
All fine points aside, I doubt that more than 2% of photos posted on Steemit that were not produced by the poster, were licensed in any way. Further I would bet less than 10% of the photos not produced by the poster, licensed or otherwise, are used in a valid editorial context.
Cheers,
You are 100% correct in that last paragraph. I have yet to see a proper credit line given for any stock image on here, yourself excepted. So, regardless of the usage, they are all infringing on copyright. As for listing Pinterest and Google as the source..... Stuff is easily found on Google, so it's just a matter of time before someone is wishing he/she had spent a few bucks for a license!
Here's the link I was thinking about. It's from a site set up by Getty images and some other agencies about correct usage of stock and it has some Q&A's http://www.stockphotorights.com/faq/#dpc