MicrostockGroup

You should read this-
http://www.youngimaging.com/Article-WhyNotLicenseAnImageAsRFAndRM.asp

To me this article seems not saying all.
I agree when it comes to the global use of RF and RM. He is totally right that you must not change RF to RM. Once RF, always RF.
But what he tells not in this article is that an image can be (legally) uploaded as RM to different stock agencies, which makes it also difficult for buyers to control the use of it! (This seems not to be allowed by Getty Images.)
And editorial use is also different (as far as I can see it). In fact when in Microstock an image is set to be strictly used editorial it cannot be used for commercial purposes. When on Alamy the same image is set RM AND set to be strictly used editorial, it seem to me the same thing: it can also not be used for commercial purposes. What is the difference then only the name of the licence form?
   
Of course you cannot sell an image elsewhere when selling it exclusive at one agency.

On the Alamy forum someone wrote that in fact editorial images also ought to be RM at microstock agencies, for they nearly always contain copyrighted material. And RF can’t be controlled.



To me this feels strange: why should you have RF and RM when it can be mixed up? RM is not only for a using an image for a period of time, but also to control the use elsewere.  Like we saw when two political parties in a country were using the same model in their campains!
But that is about commercial use. To me it is clear that you must not do this. Commercial RF cannot be commercial RM.

But editorial?
What can be the problem? Two newspapers or magazines using the same image? You can see that often. So why should an image not be RF editorial on microstock agencies and RM editorial on Alamy? This question I have seen more than once, but no one gives a good explanation why this is not possible or allowed, otherwise than: RF should not be set to RM.
Even on the Alamy site I cannot find a clear explanation to this question.

To make myself clear: I don’t upload edorial images to Alamy when already on microstock, but I am a ‘Why?’ person. I want to understand the reasons (and the problems).

When it is true what you say then RM means nothing at all.

A buyer has to pay more for an RM image only to find out that he has to do deal with restrictions that he shouldn’t have problems with when he buys the same image as RF. And he cannot be sure that the image is used elsewere under  an RF license.
It seems to me that the buyer not gets what he wants then….

When using the example of the two political parties again: then there is also no way left to avoid the risk that your opponent uses the same images or models for their campaign too. (Unless you hire your own photographer of course.)
Even not buying exclusive images or images from exclusives at Istock, for they are RF too and can be sold to different parties at the same time. 

The only way to avoid this type of situations is buying RM images, but then it has not to be sold as RF!  And also not as RM with two different agencies!

About editorials: they have restricted use already. The only reason for buying RM editorials lays in the option to be the only one who can use the image for a certain period of time. Why should newspapers and magazines be interested in that option?
Again: the only way to avoid the risk that others use the same image at the same time is to hire your own photographer.
But when it can be sold at other agencies too as RM,  I see no meaning in the whole RM thing. Why shouldn’t it then be sold as RF editorial too?

I think the OP was referring to the editorial images as in "have no model or property release". In this case, Alamy automatically chooses for you RM license and you can't modify it. Probably this will change over time, and it will look like microstock's "editorial".
For the RM vs RF, BaldricksTrousers is right. However, I never put images as RM in one place and RF in other.

Real simple, the Alamy contributor agreement says we can't, so we can't. It's back to that "what the agency says" vs "What the law says" and they aren't the same, especially on Micro. If Alamy finds someone selling the same images RF Micro as RM on Alamy they can just close your account and the problem is solved.

(people do things to risk their accounts, uploading using purchased elements, re-submitting rejections, spamming keywords, buying their own images for better rank and mixed licenses, then come here and cry when they get their account closed and earnings confiscated. Ask yourself, is it worth the gamble for a few more cheap micro sales?)

It has nothing to do with commercial use, it has to do with the type of license that the buyer has. Editorial can be either, which complicates things.

BT is right, if you aren't offering an exclusive, it's basically the same thing. Buyer pays for a license, and uses the image. Anyone can argue all they want about selling an image for $3 one place and $250 another. If the buyers aren't dumb as a brick, they will find the cheap version and license that, so who loses in that deal? I can't see competing with myself for spare change when I can get $80 for a license. That's 320 downloads vs one?

End user is responsible for the use. If someone licenses and image off SS as Editorial and they determine that it's Public Domain and they can do what they want, then fine. We've done our part and so has the agency. We licensed it right, the end user takes the risk.

You mean "commercial" not "public domain". It isn't "fine", because they are breaking the terms of the contract and even though you have legal protection it could still cause you personal problems with angry people who blame you and don't care about the legal niceties.

First off, you are correct legally, about the RF and RM thing, as long as someone doesn't try to offer an exclusive later.

Second we have no control over how a buyer uses something, so as long as we license it properly, we're off the hook.  It's the same as if someone took an RF image and used it on a pron site as (whatever) then we could have problems. And the example I used was  PD image that SS or IS requires us to upload as "Editorial" even though it's not and is public domain so we can sell it, in it's new edited form.

Say you sell someone a pencil and they stab someone else. Are you liable? You sell gasoline at a gas station, they make a molitov cocktail and burn down a building. Are you responsible? You license and image Editorial and they use it commercial... We Are Not Responsible!

The end user whether we have the license right or not, is actually responsible for final use. And if we have the proper license, releases Etc. and they break the law, we are not liable. It's plain and simple.

Oh, I wasn't even aware of the public domain rules because I would never dream of taking a PD image and trying to sell it. I think it makes people look like con artists when they do that.

I do understand that we are legally in the clear when people violate the terms of an editorial license but it can still cause other problems. Maybe it is better to stick to putting editorial stuff on Alamy, where the control is much more effective and buyers will really understand the license they are buying.

You can, however, make them unsearchable/unbuyable [1] by removing the title, caption and relevant keywords.
But yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[1] The six months thing is because the process can be long drawn-out in RM, and someone could have bookmarked an image but not finalised the sale for a long time. So there is a tiny chance that someone may have selected your image before you made it unsearchable.

Con artists?!  Guess I never thought of myself as a con artist before.     Most of my vintage ephemera images are one-of-a-kind historical items and would never be seen again had I not replicated them and made them available for licensing.  Licensing public domain images is a legitimate revenue generator for libraries, museums and collectors alike that helps us pay for the originals' preservation for generations to come.

Back to the original topic.  I just had to say something, because even though it wasn't meant as a personal attack, that comment is a pretty nasty reflection on me and my primary business, which is preserving and licensing vintage ephemera.  It's shocking my business could and would be perceived as a con job.  And I don't think anyone would accuse a highly respected vintage stock image library like the Mary Evans Picture Library of being con artists.

http://www.maryevans.com

I don't know, Yada.  The library does license its photos on Alamy, which is how I found out about them.

Thanks...I appreciate the clarification.     I was concerned someone might get the wrong impression about my business, as I'm sure you can understand.  You're right about the NASA images.  Slapping those types of images into one's portfolio without much, if any, work is unethical, IMO.