FYI: Any photos taken using this new Press Pass system needs to be exclusive with SS.

FYI: Any photos taken using this new Press Pass system needs to be exclusive with SS.

Well if it's the price to pay to have access to places where you're not allowed without a press pass, I'll pay that price.

Remember, ShutterStock doesn't require you to be exclusive, only those shots!

Claude

Quote from: GeoPappas on June 04, 2007, 18:47

FYI: Any photos taken using this new Press Pass system needs to be exclusive with SS.

Well if it's the price to pay to have access to places where you're not allowed without a press pass, I'll pay that price.

Remember, ShutterStock doesn't require you to be exclusive, only those shots!

I also don't have any problem with this.  Since they are getting a person access to an event, then they deserve to have exclusive use of the images.

I just wanted to point it out and make sure that people understood one of the caveats.

wow, interesting concept.  It will be fun to see how it pans out.  I would like to hear of anyone who uses it.  Not sure how worthwhile it would be but probably allright.

I just wonder how popular press type images will be.  They might be hot for 3 weeks, then die out.  I feel press images in general are ones to send to the macro stocks, as there are a few people who will REALLY want it and be willing to pay for it whereas microstock images are ones that everyone can use thus warranting 100's or 1000's of sales making a microstock image worth while.

Additionally the aggreement to sell the images exclusively at shutterstock is pretty strong.  That means if in 10 years time i want to sell one of the images to someone privately, I can't, I have to send them to shutterstock.  I would feel better if they only had to be exclusive with shutterstock for a years time or something.

edit =>  the images are exclusive to shutterstock for 2 years.  After that you can sell them as you please.  Good to know. (found in the contract)

Scoop (owned by Getty) requires 1 year exclusivity.  Citizen Image requires 3 month.

I personally have no problem with a 2 year exclusivity.  The images will be newsworthy during that time, then they will be sought after in a different market - textbooks, encyclopedias, etc.  Essentially, you're recording history - pretty good stuff when you think about it.  This is also a foot in the door with relation to local press organizations.  Here in Colorado, there is a sanctioning body that will grant you a blanket press pass for street photography (so you can photograph everything from accident scenes to protests, to local fairs and carnivals knowing that if the police confront you, they know you have a reason to be there and you are not causing mischief).  In order to get one, you simply have to prove you work in the industry.  Having backing like this, as a freelancer, makes the proof show (I just need to get my web site updated again).

What disturbs me is certain contributors in the Shutterstock thread seem to think this gets them an instant model release.  Maybe there should be a tutorial somewhere about what is acceptable as "Commercial" imagery and what constitutes "Editorial" imagery.

yes, that IS how it works.  the images would be treated as editorial

I have sent in my first application to a concert festival coming up.  We shall see if I can get to take some pics there.  I have my doubts, but hope is in the air.

Just to clarify, it only works that way if the person is in a newsworthy situation.  Editorial rights cannot be used for things like everyday beach shots, playing in the park, that kind of stuff. 

hmm i might disagree here.  Shutterstock may only accept images that are 'newsworthy' but 'any' image could be used with editorial rights.

if a magazine is printing a story about how nice hawaii beaches are, they can easily just take an everyday beach shot and use it as editorial with the people that happened to be there.

Okay...let me be try to be more specific.  I was a newspaper reporter and news editor some years back, so I sort of know how the editorial photo game works.

Let's say you're at a concert and a gorgeous woman suddenly takes her top off (or at a political rally for a Democrat candidate and you see two men in the crowd just sitting there observing without getting into the celebration).  You take a close-up shot.  This photo, although shot at an event where you have access with a press pass, can be used in the newspaper ONLY if you obtain her/their consent.  In stock terms, that would be obtained through a model release.  Newspapers require what's called proof of consent, which can be obtained by asking for the person's name and contact information.

But then let's say you're at the concert and you take a shot of the crowd and there just happens to be a topless woman (or a political rally for a Democrat candidate where there just happens to be two men sitting in the crowd without getting into the spirit).  You shoot the photo in a big-picture way where she/they isn't the main subject.  This shot shows the event to be newsworthy and is thus editorial.  No need for releases, because releases are impossible to obtain from events and crowds.

The need for obtaining the consent of the topless woman is obvious.  But what about the close-up of the two men just sitting in the crowd at a political rally?  Without actually speaking to them, you don't know who they are or why they are in the crowd.  They could be Secret Service agents.  They could be grumpy men having a bad day.  They could be members of the Republican opponent's campaign team.  Whoever they are, you need to find out and obtain their consent, press pass or no press pass.       

There's just a lot of contributors who don't understand these simple rules or implications, and will try to pass off the close-up people shots as editorial without acquiring consent.  The basic rules taught in Photojournalism 101 is to obtain consent from people whom you have shot as a primary subject, and to always always always obtain parental consent on any photos depicting children. 

In the end, it doesn't matter about what kind of editorial shots various sites accept or don't accept.  What matters is how you conduct yourself as a photojournalist.  If you have permission to photograph an event and have a press pass, just remember that the same rules for general stock with models apply when it comes to close-up shots of people in the crowd.  Performers, celebrities, athletes, politicians...they expect their photos to be taken by the press and published in non-commercial publications, and the press pass grants you permission to photograph them.  But take care with the close-up shots of people in the crowd and obtain permission when possible (war and riots or major disasters and other dangerous situations excluded). 

If you can't obtain permission, just save the photo for your personal collection.  It will save you a lot of headaches in the long run, and give you a lot of great stories to tell your grandchilden. 

           

well you obviously know what you are talking about so i won't argue anymore - and try to sound like I know something

But then I am confused, because i can't think of quite a few editorial shots where I am pretty sure no release was signed where there is a main subject to the photo, and may or may not of had background people. - but of course I can't seem to find an example now

Does Lonely Planet guide get releases for its photos.  they have some great individual shots (local on the street photos)but due to language difficulties, I am sure they dont get releases.

What do you think about it that SS wants all photos exclusive -even the ones they rejected? I wonder if they allow you to submit the rejected pictures also to another agency after two years? SY

What do you think about it that SS wants all photos exclusive -even the ones they rejected? I wonder if they allow you to submit the rejected pictures also to another agency after two years? SY

yes you should be able to sell them where you want after two years.  If they don't have exclusivity, you are free to do what you please.

Karin, every paper has it's own policies on what it will and will not publish.  Getting a release for editorial imagery (not inclusive in the term "photojournalism") is not necessary.  Editorial imagery can fall under the guise of everything from travel to lifestyle.

I understand with relation to what you are saying, but as long as a person's "reasonable right to privacy" (in the U.S. anyway) is not invaded, then there is no issue whatsoever.  There was a recent settlement between Jennifer Aniston and a paparazzi photographer where he shot an image of her topless.  He was standing in a public place taking the picture from public view.  Rather than take the case to court, there was a settlement where the photographer basically agreed to withdraw the photo.  The argument in court would have been if Aniston had a "reasonable right to privacy" undressing in front of a window in the view of the public.  Probably would have lost in court.

Let me also point out a contradiction - on a model release, there needs to be some sort of exchange (compensation or consideration) for the form to be legal and legally enforceable.  The NPPA itself outlines as part of its ethical code "Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation." - it's #7 on the list.

I agree with you that you better know the entire story about who or what you are photographing though - your paper may have used a "model release" of some sort but other agencies may use a contact card instead.  I know in Denver, a model release is not always necessary and children are OK without their parents permission.  There is an article that shows up every year (and It's generic enough that I'm sure it gets replicated throughout the world) that when news is slow in the summer, photojournalists will go "cruising for art" and on a hot day, they may capture an image of kids running through fountains in a park.  Happens every summer and always gets published.

Take a look at the images available as editorial either at Getty or at Zuma Press - they're there for the taking (at the right price).