Hi, I would like to knw why I have to buy an extended licence if that doesn't give me the autorisation to use the image on my product.
For exemple: I want to use an image with the mention "Editorial use only". But I can have it for free with the standart licence so if it's not give me the autorisation to use it on my products to sell them, why would I need t buy an Extended Licence?
Editorial use images MUST NOT be used in advertising or on a product. They are for use in illustrating news articles, and may contain trademarks and identifiable products which could get you sued if you use it to promote other products. See https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/stock/faq.html, item "What is the Adobe Stock Editorial Collection?"
If you want to use an image with a depiction of someone else's intellectual property, you need full permission from all the intellectual property holders, but still can't use items licensed to you for Editorial Use. Note that this covers a wider range of man-made things than you might think. Even in the background or there by accident. Shop signs, cars, clothing brands, shoes and luggage, public artworks, even buildings (including cityscapes). Adobe are VERY strict about rejecting pictures with these things so you don't get in trouble, so long as you don't use Editorial for the wrong purpose...
I understand but what I was saying is that there is no point in buying an extended license if it's just for editorial content since whatever happens the extended license only offers the right to use an image for products but on an image for editorial use I have no right. So why buy an extended license when it doesn't get me anything more? You might as well stay on a standart license, right?