Comercial footages but Pond5 mark them as "EDITORIAL"
Serge_K
8 Nov 2019 10:38
Hello, recently found thet many of my footages which could be sold by "Comercial" license, Pond5 mark them as "Editorial" files, but I send them as standart ones. Also for my oppinion there are no any reason to mark them as "editorial" for example, historic buildings such as Kremlin or other USSR times buildings. So how to fix this problem. Thanks
wideweb
8 Nov 2019 10:59
If I consider this clip:
https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/116725095/manezhnaya-square-heart-moscow-buildings-are-beautifully-ill.html
All other agencies (at least 5) sell this square with editorial license, even when no person or artwork are identifiable.
I guess some of the shown real estate is privately owned with a unique design.
https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/116725095/manezhnaya-square-heart-moscow-buildings-are-beautifully-ill.html
All other agencies (at least 5) sell this square with editorial license, even when no person or artwork are identifiable.
I guess some of the shown real estate is privately owned with a unique design.
ODesigns
8 Nov 2019 12:29
Recently I was told that The White House is now considered Editorial on Pond5. When I noticed my White House shots have been either changed to or tagged Editorial, I was told the location needs released.
Not sure why or how a public building that's owned by American taxpayers needs a property release, but now it does here. It didn't before.
I suspect P5 has become overly cautious lately. Perhaps there was some incident we aren't aware of that raised the comfort level of P5. Heck, even iStock and Adobe Stock have White House media in their commercial-use libraries. And those two agencies are notoriously overly cautious.
Which just brings up my point I've been making for years - there should be THREE categories:
1. Commercial (releases included or not needed or required)
2. Editorial (newsworthy-only events, with editorial caption)
3. Unreleased (everything else that may need released, but releases are unprovided - leave it up to the buyer to decide to use as-is, acquire permission, or otherwise modify themselves to make a clip commercial use)
Too many agencies wrongly lump clips that are unreleased, but not necessarily newsworthy, into their Editorial category since there isn't a better third option available. You can't crowbar everything in the universe into two categories. You probably can't with three either, but without making it overly-complicated, three categories are better than two.
Not sure why or how a public building that's owned by American taxpayers needs a property release, but now it does here. It didn't before.
I suspect P5 has become overly cautious lately. Perhaps there was some incident we aren't aware of that raised the comfort level of P5. Heck, even iStock and Adobe Stock have White House media in their commercial-use libraries. And those two agencies are notoriously overly cautious.
Which just brings up my point I've been making for years - there should be THREE categories:
1. Commercial (releases included or not needed or required)
2. Editorial (newsworthy-only events, with editorial caption)
3. Unreleased (everything else that may need released, but releases are unprovided - leave it up to the buyer to decide to use as-is, acquire permission, or otherwise modify themselves to make a clip commercial use)
Too many agencies wrongly lump clips that are unreleased, but not necessarily newsworthy, into their Editorial category since there isn't a better third option available. You can't crowbar everything in the universe into two categories. You probably can't with three either, but without making it overly-complicated, three categories are better than two.
rasomaso
8 Nov 2019 14:35
"I suspect P5 has become overly cautious lately." I am more comfortable with that than the agency trying to force everything to be commercial even though I specifically asked it to be editorial. I was seeing the exact opposite of what you describe lately so I welcome this change. Better safe than sorry imo, anyway I'm not making huge money from this so the prospect of getting sued for a video that made me 20 USD doesn't exactly excite me.