Author Topic: Why can editorials at iStock and Dreamstime be licensed commercially? (Read 4760 times)

Luuk · « **on:** August 15, 2016, 09:39 »

Last week I saw one of my editorials printed as a greeting card for sale in my (very small) village, so I can imagine that it happens more often (this was the second one in 1 year I saw used this way).
I sometimes shoot special vintage cars and upload these pics to ss, istock, 123rf and dreamstime as editorial; brand names and people are visible on the photo's, that's why I only want them licensed as editorial.

But both with istock and dreamstime you can select an extended license with all editorials permitting resale a.o. on t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, mugs, mousepads, posters, calendars. Actually, it looks that any commercial use is permitted as long as you download these with an extended license.

The greeting card shows volkswagen beetles with license plates taken on a car show. This week I have taken really beautiful shots of vintage cars with people driving these cars; I now doubt if I should even upload these pics because they show the drivers in the cars... I don't want to get sued by these people.

I don't get this. Isn't this illegal use of editorial photos?
And what about liability, where do we stand as photographers?

substancep · « **Reply #1 on:** August 15, 2016, 09:51 »

Editorials CANNOT be used commercially. They are only for EDITORIAL USE, e.g. on a newspaper. I do not know how you would actually report that person, but you should contact your agency to prevent liability.

Luuk · « **Reply #2 on:** August 15, 2016, 10:13 »

both istock and dreamstime permit licensing these photos with an extended license for use on a.o. t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, mugs, mousepads, posters, calendars.
So, a customer can easily download these photos with an extended license and use them accordingly, wrong or not... that's what I am having trouble with.
And where do we stand in this case?

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** August 15, 2016, 11:07 »

Quote from: Luuk on August 15, 2016, 10:13

both istock and dreamstime permit licensing these photos with an extended license for use on a.o. t-shirts, postcards, greeting cards, mugs, mousepads, posters, calendars.
So, a customer can easily download these photos with an extended license and use them accordingly, wrong or not... that's what I am having trouble with.
And where do we stand in this case?

I was also concerned about these EL options on editorial files, so I wrote to iS's CR and got this specific response:
"I've confirmed that these EL options are accurate and are being offered with Editorial files. The reason for this is, there are a number of uses where an EL may need to be purchased when a file is used for Editorial purposes. An example of this would be, if a charity or cause were holding a rally and everyone were to get a t-shirt, postcard, or some sort of product to hold, wear, or post an editorial picture may be used and because of the number of items they're printing, they would need to purchase an EL. Another case might be for a charity or cause sends out an email to its members including one of our images (which is used in an editorial manner) but their email list exceeds our limits, they would need to purchase an EL.
We're not giving customers permission to use them in a commercial manner, the file must still only be used for Editorial purposes, but there are cases where that editorial use will require an EL. I hope this answers your question. "
To my mind, that's pretty confusing - but it's what they said. That surely would NOT allow for any selling on. If anyone did that, they'd be in breach of terms and conditions.
I have no idea about DT, sorry.

Luuk · « **Reply #4 on:** August 15, 2016, 12:14 »

That's my point, it is really confusing. It has happened 2 times in a year now (and those are the ones I noticed in my little village!).

In an earlier post (452117) I mentioned that istock had licensed this file with an extended license 'products for resale'; now, a few months later, I see this photo sold as greeting cards in my local book store. I don't know if it was this license that 'permitted' this use, it can also have been licensed through ss, 123rf or dreamstime as editorial or just being misused.
I don't want to complain about possible abuse of the photo (probably useless), but what bothers me is that I choose to upload certain photos as editorial because of their content, so that I will not be held liable if problems occur.

As said, I also have some beautiful photos waiting to be submitted as editorial, but I am afraid - due to their content, nice vintage cars with people in a beautiful setting - these will also end up being printed on greeting cards and other commercial items.
I have had issues with the first greeting card, because the owner of the car came after me, until I explained how I uploaded this photo as editorial, and telling him the licensee was wrong, not me, things were eventually ok.

It really confuses me, are we indeed protected with an editorial license (I still think so) or can these EL's cause problems in terms of liability for us as contributors?

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** August 15, 2016, 12:27 »

It's up to you.
If it were me, I'd certainly contact CR, and keep copies of everything to cover my back.

Like I said, I have no experience of DT, but I have contacted iS's CR several times regarding editorial images found being used commercially online. Generally they have been removed very quickly, though sometimes it has taken some time.

I did get a reply on that issue to the effect that so long as I had uploaded the files as editorial and the buyer misused them contrary to T&C, I would not be held liable. However, I am not an international lawyer, and I have no idea how this would pan out in all countries.

Luuk · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2016, 04:36 »

Maybe I have to think about selling these specific photos elsewhere (rm) in the future, difficult, difficult...

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** August 16, 2016, 05:21 »

Quote from: Luuk on August 16, 2016, 04:36

Maybe I have to think about selling these specific photos elsewhere (rm) in the future, difficult, difficult...

Still, people could use them in a way they hadn't licensed. No difference.

Also people who haven't licensed images could steal them from websites. You might be surprised at how often clicking on a photo on a web page takes you to a full sized version of the image. Now that iS has gone for an 'all sizes, same price', that happens even more often than in the past, so the full sized version can be XXXL. Probably ignorance of the purchaser, but it makes print res versions easily 'liftable'.