is use in a book classed as editorial or commercial?

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Editorial means news reporting, commentary or criticism (inc reviews of things like movies, book etc).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Editorial use is not limited to these listed uses. Educational use is included in editorial use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A book that teaches fashion design does not fit any of those criteria - it is educational, not editorial.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Editorial use is nomenclature for any use that is non-commercial. In other words, uses that are not promotional/advertising/endorsement uses. Since Rob agreed to limit his own and his licensees' use to editorial, the limitation extends only to promotional/advertising/endorsement uses. Educational use is not one of those and is irrelevant to the discussion. Educational use is included in editorial use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks Dan. And your last post also is useful to this discussion. And where does educational use fall in terms of fair use or commercial use in the U.S.?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While the discussion of getting paid not amounting to commercial use is correct, the prior post is bound to cause confusion and misunderstanding. To answer your question of where educational use falls in therm of commercial use, see my response just above. As to how it falls in fair use copyright infringement matters, its so off topic from this one that discussing it may only cause more confusion. It's a different topic altogether.</p>

[danmarchant]

<blockquote>

<p>And where does educational use fall in terms of fair use or commercial use in the U.S.?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As mentioned by a previous poster there is a difference between educational use (as it pertains to Fair Use exemptions to Copyright law) and publishing educational books.<br>

If I, as a student, use your photo as part of my degree course, that is educational use and would be considered Fair Use. If I (a book publisher) publish a book that I hope people will use as an educational reference that is not fair use. My primary use of your image is to make a book as part of my business - it's a commercial undertaking not an educational one. As John H says, fair use is irrelevant in regard to the situation being discussed. The author wants to use an image in a book that will be published. There is no fair use exception that would apply in this situation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Editorial use is nomenclature for any use that is non-commercial. In other words, uses that are not promotional/advertising/endorsement uses. Since Rob agreed to limit his own and his licensees' use to editorial, the limitation extends only to promotional/advertising/endorsement uses. Educational use is not one of those and is irrelevant to the discussion. Educational use is included in editorial use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While that is correct in general I don't agree that it is necessarily so in the OPs case. Words can have specific meanings in law but those meaning can be redefined in a contract. Rob did not agree to limit his use his licensees' use to editorial [period]; he agreed to the images only being "used in an editorial context, *such as reviews in magazines/newspapers/websites etc.*"<br>

I don't know how precise Rob's quoting of the contract was, or if there are other clauses that might make the above section more or less restrictive. However the second part could certainly be interpreted as a definition, which limits usage is a more specific way than the normal definition of editorial. That is why I suggest that Rob talks to the Trade Body first to find out exactly what their definition is.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Rob did not agree to limit his use his licensees' use to editorial [period]; he agreed to the images only being "used in an editorial context, *such as reviews in magazines/newspapers/websites etc.*" I don't know how precise Rob's quoting of the contract was, or if there are other clauses that might make the above section more or less restrictive. However the second part could certainly be interpreted as a definition, which limits usage is a more specific way than the normal definition of editorial.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, we did discuss that Rob may have agreed to more detailed restrictions with the such as list that followed. We don't know and now its clarified as to what editorial use means and that Rob may have agreed to some unorthodox definition in this particular instance.</p>

[robertbanks]

<p>Well, obviously I paraphrased my license! It runs to 44 clauses, but the gist is "editorial RM only" ;) I decided the author's use would be outside this, so I declined the deal. I let them know that they are still able to buy a license for use on my normal terms and they or Wiley can assume the risk if they subsequently use the images outside those terms.</p>

<p>I considered the wording on the agreement from the author, which I think was given to them by Wiley, was too one-sided - they wanted me to take on all the risk for their use and warrant for releases (which I don't have) and trademarks and third party copyright - none of which is relevant to editorial use. And in fact I think the author wanted the images for free (we never even got as far as talking about prices!). I don't give away images for free, and I don't sell or give away my copyright (unless its an offer I can't refuse!), and even if I did I would not be able to sign the warranties they required without significant risk for little or no reward - complete madness!</p>

<p>Several people have mentioned that my question was somewhat vague. The problem is that when you are in the middle of a business negotiation you don't want to give too much away, and photo.net seems to get search engine indexed very quickly. I was trying to balance the need for discretion while giving enough information for an informed decision. This may have been a mistake on my part. </p>

<p>I was not trying to imply that this was academic use at all, and in hindsight the mention of an "academic publisher" may have been my other mistake since it seemed to take the thread in a certain direction, irrelevant in my view. I think Dan cleared this up with his comments regarding editorial use can still be for profit.</p>

<p>There is actually some interesting and useful discussion amongst this thread, so thanks to all who contributed. I think though, if I have future copyright/license questions its best to go to a lawyer specialising in the subject, since its a complex area and there are a lot of misconceptions.</p>

<p>cheers,<br>

Rob</p>