Source: http://www.photosecrets.com/commercial
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:19:55+00:00

Document:
— Angela Cho, Graphic Designer, Shutterstock.
Stock agencies and publishers use the contrasting terms “Commercial Use” and ”Editorial Use” to distinguish between applications that need releases and those that don’t.
Should I Shoot for Editorial?
Commercial Use is when releases are required. The classic example is advertising.
When photographs are used for predominantly private financial gain, such as in advertisements, to avoid lawsuits and keep everyone happy, any intellectual property included in the photo must have releases.
For example, model releases are required for all people; property releases are required for all property; licenses are required for all artwork, logos, designs, and architecture; and approval is required for any trademarks.
Obviously, this involves a lot of work and money. In addition, permission may be denied which means the photo cannot be used. But permission is not needed in some instances when the usage is not commercial. Those uses are termed Editorial.
Editorial Use is when releases are not needed. The classic example is news reporting.
— Dreamstime Terms and Conditions.
Under British common law and U.S. copyright law, there is a concept of “fair use” (or fair dealing). When the public good is served, publishers do not need permission from the copyrights holders to make copies of copyrighted works.
The publishing industry extends this concept into other forms of intellectual property under the term “Editorial Use.” Note that this is not a legal term and does not have a fixed definition.
The microstock industry considers “Editorial Use Only” photos to be ones that simply do not have all the applicable model and property releases and thus should not be used for “commercial” applications. Notice that, in this context, Editorial is not so much a something as it is an absence of something, namely releases.
For any ‘advertorial’ purposes, ie: in sections or supplements in relation to which you receive a fee from a third party advisor or sponsor.
Microstock agencies are very wary of Editorial Use Only photos. There’s less money to be made in non-commercial businesses and an absence of property releases means potential lawsuits. So any photos that are even slightly editorial get labeled as editorial, and many tricky subjects such as sports and entertainment get ignored entirely. Disclaimers abound and the responsibility for clearances gets left to the publisher.
Shutterstock … does not make any representations or warranties whatsoever with respect to the use of names, trademarks, logos, uniforms, registered or copyrighted designs or works of art depicted in any image. So it is important to consult with your own legal and to review your license agreement to make sure that all necessary rights, consents or permissions as may be required for reproduction of any image have been secured by you.
Sports: Everything is problematic including uniforms, logos, leagues, and players.
Entertainment: Publicity laws vary by state and even dead celebrities are protected.
Unreleased Consumer Goods: Trade secrets, unfair advertising and unfair competition are just the start.
In some ways, the definitions are circular: commercial use is not editorial use, and editorial use is not commercial use. From a microstock perspective, most photos are editorial use, and the ones with all appropriate releases are also commercial use.
That’s up to you, but I wouldn’t. If your interest is photojournalism, then sure, but if your goal is long-term income from microstock, then no.
Newsworthy photos are, by their nature, time sensitive. Last week’s news is no longer news so those photos won’t sell any more. The money in microstock photography comes from selling continuously to the widest market possible. So the more timeless and universal you can make your photos, the more profitable you will be.
Certainly in microstock, being able to upload Editorial Use Only photos is beneficial as photos that previously didn’t have a market due to a lack of releases now at least have some market. But “shooting for editorial” is somewhat like saying “not shooting for commercial.” And that’s a shame. Because commercial, means money — to you.
This amendment is not intended to be interpreted as any sort of not-for-profit limitation on educational uses of copyrighted works. It is an express recognition that, as under the present law, the commercial or non-profit character of an activity, while not conclusive with respect to fair use, can and should be weighed along with other factors in fair use decisions.
— Infinity Broad. Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir.1998).
—Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 450, 104 S.Ct. at 793.
— Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 450, 104 S.Ct. at 793.
— Hustler v Moral Majority, quoting Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at 451, 104 S.Ct. at 793.
— Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 449 (1984).
— Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985).
— Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. at 579.
— Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562.
— Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. at 451.
— Nimmer 13.05[B], at 13-77 - 13-78.
— Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d at 94.
— Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises|Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 567.
— Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp., 758 F.Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
Related: Nominative fair use (trademark).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.