Commercial vs Editorial

I notice some of my approved submissions are tagged "commercial" while others are "editorial." Without a property release, I can see why certain property (a commercial building on it's own) might be limited to editorial....but an entire city skyline? There seems to be no recognizable criteria for how these clips get labeled. Anyone have any insight on this? Would "editorial" limit your sales? Can the label be changed by the user?

You can write support to take a look at it, honestly I've seen them put editorial clips as commercial more often than other way around, which could have some unpleasant circumstances for the seller. I always check my editorial clips if they actually did it and marked them so.
As far as your clips it could be certain buildings being restricted by the architect from commercial use, for example Eifel tower in Paris or I think London's Gherkin are like that, not sure about others. Also if you made the clips on private property they have to have a release.

Thanks. Their choices seem inconsistent, though. I have an aerial shot of the United Nations building in Manhattan, and they labeled it commercial. I also have a shot of U.S. Military Academy at West Point (a government building which shouuld not require a release...it belongs to the people), and it was labeled "editorial." Go figure.

Editorial is very subjective and in my opinion, totally misused by not only P5, but other agencies as well.

I’ve said this before, but I think there needs to be three categories. Commercial, Editorial, and Unreleased.

But I’ve given up and now just let the agencies dictate how they want to label clips.

Which is very inconsistent as you’ve said.

And, I do think P5 has become VERY conservative when deciding if a clip is "editorial" or not lately. I hear this is due to their Adobe Stock relationship.

Since AS takes no editorial videos (as of this post), and P5 supplies them clips with a process that I bet is 99.9% automatic with no human intervention, neither party wants to take the chance of letting a clip that SHOULD be editorial on P5 but wasn't labeled that way being ported over to AS by mistake.

So, as a result, I bet if there's the slightest chance that a clip should be considered as editorial, it's labeled that way by the P5 reviewer, regardless if you--the producer--is confident the clip is 100% commercial.

Has anyone ever heard about the case that author of the clip had problems because one of his clips were used in commercial production, but in fact were editorial?
If agency marks footage as commercial, then theoretically someone can be offended of have some claims (e.g. owner of brand, architect etc). Who takes responsibility is such case? Agency or contributor?

Haven't heard of that particular problem yet, and when I ask that exact question about possible "misuse" by a buyer, I never get a consistent answer.

I've heard a few answers from various agencies:

1) The buyer is responsible for misusing the clip and not securing the appropriate releases themselves if none were provided with the clip when licensing.

2) An entity who would want to sue for an inappropriate use of a clip would go after the other entity that had the most money and would get the most attention (i.e., the agency that provided the clip)

3) The producer is responsible for this burden should a clip be a part of any litigation.

So, I guess it depends on the agency's policies and licenses and the amount of indemnity that comes with a clip's licensing.

I would hope the first answer would be the right one, but I just don't know. I'd hate to think number 3 would be a reality, but an agency once told me this directly when I ask this very question.

Thanks for the answer. I just hope that it's not the third option. Consequences of clip misuse would be far more painful for individual contributor that to the agency. Especially if it was the agency who marks editorial clips as commercial (as mentioned in earlier posts).

it would be nice to get a reaction on this from a pond5 representative...

If the clip has been legally acquired - ie, there is no possibility of a complainant asserting that the video should not have been shot in the first place - and assuming the author of the clip has made it clear there is no release (model and/or property), then surely the onus is on whoever acquires the licence from the agency concerned, to only use the clip in accordance with the limitations that having no release imposes. If he/she/they, however, misuses the clip, the big question is on what grounds can the author be sued - either as an individual or in conjunction with the agency which sold the clip’s licence?

Which is why I would like to see an "unreleased" category in addition to "commercial" and "editorial."

And then make "editorial" what it's supposed to be: newsworthy subjects.

As it is now, I think agencies lump "unreleased" into the "editorial" category since that and "commercial" are the only two options currently available.

Perhaps go one step further and totally remove the "commercial" name and just call it "released." The "commercial" designation is what I think we have issues with, since that can be interpreted so many ways. Then, if a clip is "released" (model and/or property), that puts the responsibility on the producer to secure and provide--if necessary--the proper release(s). If the clip is labeled "unreleased," that puts the burden squarely on the buyer since it was clearly marked as no releases available. The buyer then needs to take the risk or secure their own releases depending on the project they're using it in.

One agency I work with understands this and tells it's buyers that clips may be unreleased. But I think that agency works directly with buyers to locate and secure clips, unlike agencies like P5, SS, and AS that let the "casual" buyer search and download themselves.