Guide: Commercial Use vs Editorial Use Images in Blogs

Blog posts need images, which means you need to source those images from somewhere.

Some people put together vector elements and make their own images (like what a lot of my blog contains.) Some go out into the world with a camera and take photographs. Some take screenshots of relevant websites and passages. Some turn to stock photo sites and license images to use.

It's this last option that I wanted to discuss today.

One thing you've likely seen when you've browsed stock image sites or other photo resources is different kinds of image licenses. With terms like creative commons and limited licenses, you'll also see images labeled as either "for commercial use" or "editorial use only" on these sites.

What's the difference, and do you need to care? Let's dig in.

What Are Use Cases for Images?

First up, we need to talk about the category that these two terms fall into, which is use cases.

License types, like creative commons or public domain, are copyright licenses. These govern things like whether or not you can use the image with permission, or with no attribution, or only with explicit consent. There are a bunch of different licenses.

Editorial and Commercial are not types of licenses and don't have anything really to do with copyright. The person who creates the image and puts it up for sale on a stock photo site does so with an expectation that it will be used in a certain kind of way.

In simple terms, commercial use images are often genericized so there are no identifiable people or logos, so you can use it to promote your brand or products without conflicts. Editorial images might have people or brand logos in them, so to avoid problems with associations or impressions, they can't be used for commercial purposes.

The devil is in the details here, so let's dig into them a little deeper.

All About Commercial Use

Images meant for commercial use often, but not always, are devoid of identifiable people and brands.

They're meant for sales-focused content, like:

• Print advertising
• PPC advertising
• Corporate presentations
• Commercial website pages
• Product packaging
• Book covers

If you think, "But I see people in commercial images all the time," that's because it's possible to put people, or even brands, in commercial use images. However, in order to do so, the individual in question needs to sign a model release.

A model release is essentially just a contract between the person in the image and the photographer of the image. The model signs over permission to the photographer, and the release states how the photo will be used. A photographer selling the photo on a stock image site will say so in the model release, so the model doesn't find a picture of themselves endorsing a product they've never heard of and throw a fit (or file a lawsuit) over it.

A model release is required if the person, place, or brand is recognizable. It doesn't just mean the person's face is visible! Identifying features like tattoos, recognizable scars, or other features can be enough. Some places require model releases; sometimes, places like local museums, arboretums, and private properties might be restricted to editorial use by default and require explicit permission for commercial use.

Model releases are also required for each recognizable person in an image if those people are the focus of the image. More on that later.

Generally, commercial use images know that it's not worth trying to pursue a permission slip from a brand, so they stage images to not have recognizable brand logos in a photo. You wouldn't want to use a stock photo with a McDonalds in the background to promote your own restaurant, right? And they wouldn't want you to use it either.

All About Editorial Use

Editorial use is both more and less restrictive than commercial use.

It's less restrictive in that you can take pictures of recognizable people or places, and you don't have to worry about a model release. A photo of a city street with a bunch of brand road signs visible is fine for editorial use, whereas it wouldn't be for commercial use.

It's more restrictive because, as you might guess, it can't be used for commercial purposes. You can't use this type of image on product packaging or for marketing materials. You can, however, use it for editorial purposes, such as:

• Magazine articles
• Editorial features
• Descriptive purposes in blog posts
• Documentary content
• Academic content

A lot of this focuses on print, and blogging tends to muddy the waters, which is something I'll talk about in greater detail in a later section.

Generally, editorial use is considered the more restrictive license of the two simply because most people seeking stock images want to use them for commercial purposes. Anything limited to editorial use is something you'll find harder to make work, so you're less likely to buy it.

As such, you often find images like some examples in this post where an element of the picture, such as a model's head, the content of a sign, or the fidelity of the image, is photo-manipulated out. That's right: you can convert an editorial-use-only image into a commercial-viable image with a little bit of Photoshop… if you're the photographer.

This is pretty important: if you're a blogger and you purchase an image on an editorial-only license, you can't then edit that image and use it commercially. The photographer can, but you can't. The exception to this is if the image is also licensed under a general license that allows manipulation and editing of the image.

Yes, it's complicated. That's why most bloggers either don't pay a ton of attention and put themselves and a small but tangible risk, or just don't use photography.

How This Matters to Bloggers

When you're writing a blog post, should you stick with commercial-use images, or are editorial-use images fine?

First: is your blog commercial? This is actually a slightly trickier question to answer than you might think.

On one hand, a personal blog with no actual monetization on it is pretty clearly not a commercial venture. However, if you start adding affiliate links, then you start to blur the lines.

A website that has a few posts that are, "my review of X" with affiliate links but where most of the content isn't commercial can safely make use of editorial use images for most of their content. However, they should be careful to only use commercial use images on the posts with the monetization.

If you have a store or display ads or another form of monetization available from anywhere on your site, then your site is more firmly entirely commercial, and you should stick with commercial use images.

Some marketers will try to argue that some blog posts are clearly commercial while others are more editorial; even though the site as a whole is commercial, those posts are editorial and can use editorial images. This may or may not hold up, and a lot of it depends on how aggressively the rights-holder wants to pursue the issue. A company like Getty Images is going to get all up in your business over it, but a small-time photographer might not.

Second: are you sourcing your images from a site that enforces licenses? There are ways to get around all of this, like using images that are completely free of restrictions. Some stock photo sites operate on that paradigm.

Similarly, as of right now, the current legal framework for copyright has established that AI-generated images can't be copyrighted; thus, they're not subject to these same sort of license restrictions. If you see an AI-generated image on some other site's blog and feel like you want to use it, too, it's technically entirely legal to do so.

I wouldn't because most AI-generated images right now are pretty obvious and can hurt your site's trust, but it's kind of up to you.

How to Avoid the Issue Entirely

You might notice that a lot of what I've mentioned so far has been about stock photos and photographers. That's because it's pretty much entirely focused on photo licensing.

You can avoid all of these issues entirely by changing how you source images.

First of all, you can go out with a camera and take any image you like and use it however you like. You should generally pay attention to things like model releases if you're taking pictures of specific people for commercial purposes, but for more genericized scenes and imagery, you don't have to worry about it.

Secondly, you can just go with graphic design and other non-photo images. You don't have to worry about commercial use when you take a screenshot of a website or put some vectors together in Canva. I have a talented graphic designer working for me who produces a lot of my imagery, and none of it has to worry about commercial or editorial use.

There's also a significant number of bloggers who just steal images and don't much care about all of this fiddly licensing stuff. I really, really don't recommend that, though. Image lawsuits and copyright violations can get you a search penalty, and if a photographer or a stock photo vendor is pushing a lawsuit against you, there's a pretty good chance they're going to win. Since copyright penalties can be quite steep, I wouldn't risk it.

I recommend either sidestepping the issue like a majority of bloggers do or erring on the side of making sure you have commercial permission and model releases as necessary. Or just focus on commercial use unless you're very, very sure you're on the editorial side of things. Which, if you're reading a post like this, you probably aren't.

I, for one, don't want to try my luck with the copyright laws.