MicrostockGroup

Alamy does not have official designations of exclusive and nonexclusive for its photographers. It's fine with Alamy for contributor to submit same images on other agencies, but offer the Same License for the same/sister image on all sites.

In other words, if you have RM license for photo on Alamy, have RM license for it at every agency. Also, if you have two sister (Significantly similar) images, give them same license type.

RM basically means that when image license is purchased, it will specify TYPE, TIME, Maximum SIZE, Geographic  LOCATION, of use. This differs from RF where buyer generally may use licensed image without time limit, and for wide range of uses (though not just Any use, such as logo, or those that require extended license, print runs beyond certain Big size....)

This is broadstroke - rather than legal, thorough - info.

If you're selling an image RM on one site, it should be RM on any others you have the same image on. And you have to keep tabs on when each photo has sold at each agency, in case a buyer wanted an exclusive use and you had to assure them that such a use hadn't been given before (which you could never do if the image has sold RF, as the buyers can use an RF file as often as they want, in (almost) any way they like.
Of course, maybe no-one will ever ask for an exclusive RM use.  The only enquiry for a limited exclusive use I had from Alamy didn't materialise in the end. But presumably plenty of other people get them (they cost more, as they're blocking out a particular range of future sales.)

For example, a non-exclusive RM license might be for calendar use in Europe for one year.
An Exclusive RM license might be for calender use in Europe for one year too - but no one else can use it for a calendar in Europe during that time, so they have to pay morel. Wiht the first example, other people can still license, non-exclusively, for the same use.
With RF, someone could license the image, paying once, then use it on a calendar, an advertisement, a book cover, a website, on packaging ...

Sue!  RM = Lets say you give Getty an RM image, that image can ONLY be sold by Getty, you cant then put exactly the same shot as RM, to say Alamy. Blimey, could land you deep in trouble. Surely you mean to tell him once an RM shot, the same cant be used as RF.
With Rights-managed material, you have to be very careful only because the reason clients pay big money for RM, is not so much because of the picture but the exclusive rights, sometimes world-rights.

The whole idea behind RM, is that its exclusive for a certain period to the client that bought it or rather the product or service, he bought the image for.

Lagereek - RM license is not automatically an exclusive one.
Perhaps Getty requires RM licensed images placed with them to be exclusive?

[Edited to add: thanks ShadySue. I was typing above while you posted.]

No, it doesnt have to be exclusive at all BUT its exclusive to the buyer who purchase the file just for that purpose. Look! I am talking from experience here I was inches of getting sued for a massive sum back in 2009, thanks to a teflon frying pan. An agency screwed up and sold the  picture exactly to two compeeting companies, through their ad-agency as well.
Besides, policing this is difficult and I would not trust any agencys rights-controle management here. In the end of day its always the photographer who lands in trouble.

As I said, in the case of Alamy, they contact you to ask if you've sold it anywhere else.
I have no idea if other agencies do that. Presumably as Getty require image exclusivity, they don't need to contact you as they'll have the record of any sales the file has had.

Fair enough but Getty was only an example, could be any agency. Since clients buy RM for the sole reason of rights, its important to get it spot-on, lawsuits can be very, very costly.

My goodness, I had no idea he submitted to other agencies. I don't know how he manages to get as many up on Alamy, apart from not 'describing' images as such.

Rights-managed images are sold with a fee based on the buyer's specified use. There is nothing to say it's exclusive or not, unless there's a limited license or reserved rights are attached to the license.

Reserved rights, a traditional license but includes terms restricting the photographer from making sales for a specified period in a specified location or locations. According to the severity of the restrictions there is a premium paid over and above the cost of a traditional license. This may give a buyer exclusive use of an image. (also the artist can restrict where the image can be used and for what purposes, but we're just discussing buyers at this point?)

"Royalty-free" means that the buyer pays once for an image that can be used by the buyer, over an unlimited period of time. (unless the contract specifies a period of time...) Other buyers may acquired similar rights.

So very simply if you sell a photo RF, it would be impossible to sell the same image exclusive or with any reserved rights. It's already Royalty Free. But selling something RM doesn't stop someone else from licensing the same image, it just means the specific usage is known and can be tracked.

You can sell the same images at multiple RM sites, without any problems at all. In theory you can't sell a RF licensed image, as RM, because the use hasn't been recorded, so there's no way to know how it's being used. Plus every agency contract I've seen, doesn't allow it, so it's forbidden.

See? Gostwyck was sortof right. I can't imagine an RM image not being exclusive. How can different RM agencies synchronize geo locations and durations? Pardon my ignorance but as a buyer I would be very pissed off if a competitor used the same image in the same geo location because he licensed it at another agency. Isn't that contradictory to the RM concept?
If so, he could as well have bought RF at 1% of the price.

From Alamy's website...


http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/sell-images.asp



Not all RM images are licensed exclusively.  Not all image buyers are looking to pay a premium for exclusive rights to an image.  Not all photographers will agree to license an image exclusively to a buyer.

Could someone here write a sticky about the difference of RM and RF as well as exclusivity?

This would make things a lot easier for everyone.