Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

A Real World Example

of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 23 matches.
MSRPhoto
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:13AM

(if you set up the shot) Image is not in a studio, therefore, I would think the staging rules would apply and I would say no.


(if you didn't) You photograph a stranger then ask for a release, I would say yes


(stranger with no release)  The individual knows they are on private property and therefore may cause a legal issue regarding privacy. I would say no


 


If you set up the shot to appear as a real life situation then call it editorial you are lying and being unethical.


That is my opinion and the opinion of NPPA.

But you want facts from admin so i digress.
SWKrullImaging
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:33AM
This is not editorial.  An editorial shot would be if you went to the store to document a big sale going on and photographed random people shopping.  And who besides your local newspaper would be interested in a sale at the grocery store?  Besides, that would then become news photography which IS doesn't want.
SWKrullImaging
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:05AM

Add a Pepsi bottle and you have a Pepsi product shot.  Outside of Pepsico, I doubt there would be much interest a shot of an unkknown model with a Pepsi bottle.  Furthermore, I'm sure Pepsi can afford to shoot their own advertisements with their own models, generally a supermodel or hollywood actress with a big name to represent their product.


I found a definition of "editorial photography" at editorialphoto.com:


"Editorial" refers to the market where the images will be used -- primarily books, magazines, and newspapers -- and, to a lesser extent, to the style of photography that appears in these venues. We use the term editorial to distinguish it from other markets like corporate, advertising, general commercial, or fine art. Most editorial outlets offer a fair amount of creative freedom, but also extremely low budgets compared to other venues.


Notice "the term editorial to distinguish it from other markets like corporate, advertising, general commercial, or fine art".  A model with a Pepsi bottle is corporate advertising.  Not editorial.
blackwaterimages
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:37AM
Posted By EventureMan:

Add a Pepsi bottle and you have a Pepsi product shot. Outside of Pepsico, I doubt there would be much interest a shot of an unkknown model with a Pepsi bottle.  

Well, actually a shot like this with a Pepsi bottle in hand might be quite useful for illustrating an article on healthy food choices or something similar so I don't think usage is necessarily limited to the brand name of the item in the shot.
SWKrullImaging
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:00AM

Pepsi as a healthy food choice? Soft drinks as an unhealthy food choice might be a story, but a Pepsi logo in a story like that would get somebody sued. Why would anyone writing a story on food want to take the risk of  upsetting any particular company for any reason by using their brand in a photo when an RF photo would be perfectly acceptable?

(Edited on 2011-01-16 09:08:16 by EventureMan)
jentakespictures
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:16AM

iStock is accepting product shots for editorial.  An image doesn't necessarily become "corporate advertising" just because the model is holding a branded product.




We will accept images of products, including isolated products on white backgrounds, and products in context. These images should contain all the original branding and trademark information.
blackwaterimages
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:05PM
Posted By EventureMan:

Pepsi as a healthy food choice? 

Umm, no. You've missed the obvious comparison - produce or junk food.
SWKrullImaging
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:43PM
Exactly...  Pepsi, Coca Cola, General Foods...  it doesn't matter.  Use one of their products and call it "junk food" and you will be talking to lawyers.
blackwaterimages
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:50PM
Posted By EventureMan:
Exactly... Pepsi, Coca Cola, General Foods... it doesn't matter. Use one of their products and call it "junk food" and you will be talking to lawyers.

Interesting that you'd think so. McDonalds and Burger King logos dominate the first page of a Getty search for "junk food" so I'm wondering who's using them then...
jentakespictures
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:53PM
You are really focusing on this one issue.  The fact is that iStock will be accepting product shots to be sold with an editorial license.  Toddmedia is asking about the rules for taking pictures of people indoors without written permission.  
SWKrullImaging
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:56PM
I guess my point was missed too... Just because something will be accepted doesn't mean there will be much of a market for it.  I think this shot would be more salable as an RF image.

(Edited on 2011-01-16 16:01:23 by EventureMan)
SWKrullImaging
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:36PM

My mistake. You are right... it is a focused technical question that you have. I would imagine that since the shot was accepted as RF where anyone can use the image for any purpose, it would also be accepted as editorial where the usage is much more regulated.


However, I think MSR's original comment is spot on, and with a model in the image or with unreleased people on private property in the image it should be rejected as editorial.  It will be interesting to find what IS has to say.

(Edited on 2011-01-16 16:50:40 by EventureMan)
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:52PM

Posted By EventureMan:
I guess my point was missed too... Just because something will be accepted doesn't mean there will be much of a market for it.  I think this shot would be more salable as an RF image.


You do know the difference between 'RF/RM' and 'commercial/editorial', yes?

As for the OP, yes, this should be acceptable. We have taken no NPPA oath or anything, nor is it required. The only thing we are doing is offering content under an 'editorial' license. You are reading something into that that has not been stated. And, yes, there is a market for someone 'out there' holding a pepsi, and no, you cannot get in trouble for someone using it in an editorial context, like an article on corn syrup sodas or something. And yes, a model holding a branded soda should be fine. IMO.

(Edited on 2011-01-16 16:53:16 by sjlocke)
SWKrullImaging
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:07PM
I hope Sean is right.  That will certainly expand my interpretation of what I should be uploading as editorial!
laughingmango
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:31PM
i shoot a lot of editorial and IMO this shot looks very staged. that said it could be used editorially to illustrate a woman shopping. i am not sure how istock will tackle this editorial issue, but my guess is they would want this shot in a more candid factual story telling way, and yes you can also set up a good editorial shot, every pro i know who shoots editorial for a living including myself set up shots, but the trick is to make them not look setup. i would always try to get a MR cause editorial shots really don't sell like one would like to think they do, they do sell, but i can say from lots of experience in this area, MR images will sell much more simply cause they can be used for both editorial and commercial. 
stacey_newman
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:57PM
Posted By blackwaterimages:

Posted By EventureMan:
Exactly... Pepsi, Coca Cola, General Foods... it doesn't matter. Use one of their products and call it "junk food" and you will be talking to lawyers.


Interesting that you'd think so. McDonalds and Burger King logos dominate the first page of a Getty search for "junk food" so I'm wondering who's using them then...

bingo...
SWKrullImaging
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:50AM
I never said that the photographer would get in trouble for shooting a photo and uploading it with unfavorable keywords.  I am just wondering why a writer or publisher would want to buy the photo and run the risk of a libel lawsuit when a photo with no logos might illustrate their story with no risk.  So why in the case of this particular image would a photographer want to limit his sales to only buyers that are intrested in Pepsi when he could remove the logos and reach a broader market? 

Posted By stacey_newman:


Posted By blackwaterimages:


Posted By EventureMan:
Exactly... Pepsi, Coca Cola, General Foods... it doesn't matter. Use one of their products and call it "junk food" and you will be talking to lawyers.



Interesting that you'd think so. McDonalds and Burger King logos dominate the first page of a Getty search for "junk food" so I'm wondering who's using them then...


bingo...
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:07AM

Posted By EventureMan:
I never said that the photographer would get in trouble for shooting a photo and uploading it with unfavorable keywords.  I am just wondering why a writer or publisher would want to buy the photo and run the risk of a libel lawsuit when a photo with no logos might illustrate their story with no risk.  So why in the case of this particular image would a photographer want to limit his sales to only buyers that are intrested in Pepsi when he could remove the logos and reach a broader market?


Because there is a market that specifically wants someone drinking a real product, not a photoshopped bottle of something. If the world only wanted photoshopped logo free model-released images, IS wouldn't be starting this visually representative 'editorially' licensed collection.
SWKrullImaging
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:41AM
I'm sure there is a market, and even if it's a narrow market it makes sense for IS to capitalize. I'm just wondering if it makes sense for the photographer. On the odd chance that such a photo does sell, IS photographers will make a couple of bucks. At Getty if such an image were to sell, the photographer gets a good amount of money, making it worth the effort for the upload, even if the image only ever sells one time. Before becoming exclusive I did editorial at other microstocks, and I didn't find the limited market worth my time. Now if IS / Getty is planning to put a large percentage of these images in "Agency", we're talking about a whole new ballgame!



Posted By sjlocke:






Posted By EventureMan:
I never said that the photographer would get in trouble for shooting a photo and uploading it with unfavorable keywords. I am just wondering why a writer or publisher would want to buy the photo and run the risk of a libel lawsuit when a photo with no logos might illustrate their story with no risk. So why in the case of this particular image would a photographer want to limit his sales to only buyers that are intrested in Pepsi when he could remove the logos and reach a broader market?




Because there is a market that specifically wants someone drinking a real product, not a photoshopped bottle of something. If the world only wanted photoshopped logo free model-released images, IS wouldn't be starting this visually representative 'editorially' licensed collection.


(Edited on 2011-01-17 08:43:11 by EventureMan)
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:47AM

Posted By EventureMan:
I'm sure there is a market, and even if it's a narrow market it makes sense for IS to capitalize. I'm just wondering if it makes sense for the photographer. On the odd chance that such a photo does sell, IS photographers will make a couple of bucks. At Getty if such an image were to sell, the photographer gets a good amount of money, making it worth the effort for the upload, even if the image only ever sells one time. Before becoming exclusive I did editorial at other microstocks, and I didn't find the limited market worth my time. Now if IS / Getty is planning to put a large percentage of these images in "Agency", we're talking about a whole new ballgame!


Yes, one needs to be a smart manager of their time. This stuff isn't "Agency" fodder though.
This thread has been locked.
of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 23 matches.
Not a member?Join