MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Files sold as both RF and RM on Alamy  (Read 10628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 23, 2012, 04:08 »
0
Hello everyone,

So yesterday, I was testing some keywords in the search engine on alamy to check whether my files (illustrations) were at a good position or not, and I saw many of them which were sold both as RF and RM... But I have uploaded them only once i'm sure and have chosen RF for the licence.
Do you know if sometimes Alamy select RF files and switch them also as RM ?

BTW i'm on alamy since november 2011. I have RF images there just like I do on other micro sites (FT, SS, IS etc...).
I did 2 small sales since the beginning (around 0,5 and 1 $ each) but now i've sold one for 115$ ! :-)

Some of you may have encountered such thing ? (RF turned into RM also...)

Thanks


« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2012, 04:34 »
0
They don't like the same image selling as RF and RM.  Look in their contributor contract.  There's a few ways this can happen, an ignorant contributor or a 3rd party distributor that doesn't know what they're doing seems most likely.  You could let them know, they can then sort this out.  They're nice people to deal with, so I don't think they're likely to ban people if they make a genuine mistake, like other sites might.

« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2012, 20:34 »
0
Do you have them elsewhere as RM? There are many partners in Alamy.

« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2012, 03:21 »
0
Do you have them elsewhere as RM? There are many partners in Alamy.
Hello

no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF...

thanks

RacePhoto

« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2012, 03:40 »
0
Do you have them elsewhere as RM? There are many partners in Alamy.
Hello

no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF...

thanks

Maybe you didn't understand. (maybe I don't understand?) These are images that only you have uploaded?

Is the same image RF and RM or do you mean, some are RF and some are RM?

It's difficult to understand.

No, the same files will not be put up for sale with two different licenses by Alamy. If you have another site that's a partner, they may be uploading your work? It's difficult from your message to understand what the problem actually is. Can you be more specific? Alamy will take anything without a model release that has unreleased "people" in it and make it RM. Alamy will take anything with unreleased Property in it and make it RM.

Otherwise Alamy doesn't set the license, you do.

Link to an example would be perfect for answering this. Or look and see who's portfolio they are in, if there are duplicates of the identical image with two different licenses.

« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2012, 06:19 »
0
I have one question about Alamy, and this topic seems good for it. If not, I'm sorry.

Can I sell same picture as RM on Alamy, if I have that picture as RF elsewhere (Shutterstock)?

Thanks!

« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2012, 06:26 »
0
^^^No, read the contributor contract.  If you sell the photo as RF anywhere else, it has to be RF with alamy.  Don't mix licenses.  Some people might argue that there's nothing wrong selling photos as RF and RM on different sites but I think they make it clear that it's not allowed on alamy.

Edit:-  Here's the relevant part:-

Quote
2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/default.asp
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 06:32 by sharpshot »

« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2012, 06:29 »
0
^^^No, read the contributor contract.  If you sell the photo as RF anywhere else, it has to be RF with alamy.  Don't mix licenses.  Some people might argue that there's nothing wrong selling photos as RF and RM on different sites but I think they make it clear that it's not allowed on alamy.

I thought so. It's fine by me, only 5 images, RM only for 3 images I don't have anywhere else.

Thanks!

« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2012, 08:49 »
0
I submit as RF but I remember searching about this matter not so long ago and there was a comment from Sean saying it was allowed, have they changed the rules?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2012, 09:41 »
0
I submit as RF but I remember searching about this matter not so long ago and there was a comment from Sean saying it was allowed, have they changed the rules?
I think Sean was speaking more generally that an RM image isn't always (IME never) sold with exclusive use, therefore the fact that it may have sold previously as RF may not be relevant.
That said, Alamy now don't allow it, whether they did before or not.
They haven't defined what they mean by 'similar'. For example, Getty wouldn't allow a contributor to have a photo of species A taken at location B on date C on iStock and a photo of a different individual of species B taken at location D on date E on Getty, which was pretty restrictive. I don't know how Alamy stands on that. Anyone got an actual reference/link (rather than speculation/supposition)?

« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2012, 09:49 »
0
I submit as RF but I remember searching about this matter not so long ago and there was a comment from Sean saying it was allowed, have they changed the rules?
I think Sean was speaking more generally that an RM image isn't always (IME never) sold with exclusive use, therefore the fact that it may have sold previously as RF may not be relevant.

right!

« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2012, 09:52 »
0
I submit as RF but I remember searching about this matter not so long ago and there was a comment from Sean saying it was allowed, have they changed the rules?
I'm sure alamy have never allowed it.  The wording might not of been as unambiguous in the past but it was clear to me years ago that you shouldn't sell images that have an RF license elsewhere as RM with alamy.

« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2012, 10:54 »
0
Do you have them elsewhere as RM? There are many partners in Alamy.
Hello

no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF...

I understood you said they you had uploaded them as RF in Alamy, but anyway, my comment still holds. Alamy has several partners and if you have the same image at Alamy and elsewhere, both will show in a search.

Now, if you are seeing just one instance of the image with a different license you had set it for, then I don't know what can be teh reason.

« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2012, 11:17 »
0
... But I have uploaded them only once i'm sure and have chosen RF for the licence.
Do you know if sometimes Alamy select RF files and switch them also as RM ?...
Quote
Hello no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF... thanks
You are confusing (trolling) us.

I have no clue why anyone would want to upload the same image as RF here and as RM somewhere else. It doesn't just confuse the customers/agencies it would also confuse me.

« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2012, 14:19 »
0
... But I have uploaded them only once i'm sure and have chosen RF for the licence.
Do you know if sometimes Alamy select RF files and switch them also as RM ?...
Quote
Hello no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF... thanks
You are confusing (trolling) us.

I have no clue why anyone would want to upload the same image as RF here and as RM somewhere else. It doesn't just confuse the customers/agencies it would also confuse me.

Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.

« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2012, 14:48 »
0
Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.
You are right, as of now, (most) Micros allow such images without a release.

This might change though in the future as Alamy got sued for such an image and therefore implemented this new rule of requiring a release for people pics.
So as soon as the micros get hammered with such law suits they might change their requirements as well.

However, the OP didn't give me the impression (or proof) that the images were actually people pics or no-people pics. So we can't really help here.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2012, 16:53 »
0
In reading the OP's reply, I got the impression he had some images that he had uploaded to microstock agencies as RF, but later uploaded the same images to Alamy as RM.  This, of course, is not allowed.  I recently noticed I had several images up on Alamy that were marked RM which I would swear I had uploaded as RF.  I must have clicked something at the wrong point in the upload process.  Anyway, as they hadn't sold yet, I contacted Alamy and asked if they would change them to RF.  They checked and switched them over with no problem.

« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2012, 17:37 »
0
Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.
You are right, as of now, (most) Micros allow such images without a release.

This might change though in the future as Alamy got sued for such an image and therefore implemented this new rule of requiring a release for people pics.
So as soon as the micros get hammered with such law suits they might change their requirements as well.

However, the OP didn't give me the impression (or proof) that the images were actually people pics or no-people pics. So we can't really help here.
When were alamy sued?  I watched their AGM video a few years ago and they never mentioned being sued.  They mentioned photos that shouldn't be sold as RF but I remember someone asking if that had caused problems and they said it hadn't.  I think they wanted to make their rules for when to use RF and RM clear cut.  People can say they recognise themselves in a photo, even if it isn't them.  How can a reviewer decide when a model release is required and how can buyers be sure they don't need one?  The way alamy have done it makes it very clear.

« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2012, 18:00 »
0
When were alamy sued?  I watched their AGM video a few years ago and they never mentioned being sued.  They mentioned photos that shouldn't be sold as RF but I remember someone asking if that had caused problems and they said it hadn't.  I think they wanted to make their rules for when to use RF and RM clear cut.  People can say they recognise themselves in a photo, even if it isn't them.  How can a reviewer decide when a model release is required and how can buyers be sure they don't need one?  The way alamy have done it makes it very clear.
I tried to find the video as CEO James West addressed this issue in a contributor meeting a few years ago but I can't find it. It must have been around 2009. Alamy published it on their web site, it wasn't on youtube.

I remember James West showing the image of a priest during a sermon outdoors (showing the lower half of the body, basically the robe) and a dog that walked up to him lifting his leg about to pee.

The image was licensed and as soon as the priest saw it, he sued as he never signed a release, yet, due to the extraordinary nature of the event that happened/which was documented, he knew it was him, although no face or other actual body parts were visible.

I'm pretty sure that the priest was successful making his claim. I don't remember if it was settled out of  court, but James West used that example in the meeting to explain why Alamy wants releases for ANY person in the photo no matter if they are 200 feet away, blurry or body parts.

Maybe someone can find the link to the video.

« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2012, 18:32 »
0
I'm trying hard to find the video I mentioned but I found a Q&A video from Alamy where James is addressing the usage of the submission interface determining the amount of people in the image and the purpose of that for the buyers:
Watch it at 2:20 when the question is asked
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AyyNeuHf_b0[/youtube]
Hopefully I can find the other video...

« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2012, 02:24 »
0
Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.
You are right, as of now, (most) Micros allow such images without a release.

This might change though in the future as Alamy got sued for such an image and therefore implemented this new rule of requiring a release for people pics.
So as soon as the micros get hammered with such law suits they might change their requirements as well.

However, the OP didn't give me the impression (or proof) that the images were actually people pics or no-people pics. So we can't really help here.
When were alamy sued?  I watched their AGM video a few years ago and they never mentioned being sued.  They mentioned photos that shouldn't be sold as RF but I remember someone asking if that had caused problems and they said it hadn't.  I think they wanted to make their rules for when to use RF and RM clear cut.  People can say they recognise themselves in a photo, even if it isn't them.  How can a reviewer decide when a model release is required and how can buyers be sure they don't need one?  The way alamy have done it makes it very clear.

I believe the suit was because of someone who had actually forged a model release. 2 Years ago maybe? Check their blog. I remember them posting it there.

XPTO

« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2012, 03:09 »
0
I have one question about Alamy, and this topic seems good for it. If not, I'm sorry.

Can I sell same picture as RM on Alamy, if I have that picture as RF elsewhere (Shutterstock)?

Thanks!

Absolutely not, according to the Alamy contract you've signed.

And I advise you to change the license of those images in alamy to RF as soon as possible, because if a client pays thousands of dollars for an image that he believes he is the only one using because the sales history on alamy says so, and later finds that it's being used by hundreds or thousands of other people that bought it in Micro you may end up having a lot of problems.

« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2012, 04:05 »
0
I have one question about Alamy, and this topic seems good for it. If not, I'm sorry.

Can I sell same picture as RM on Alamy, if I have that picture as RF elsewhere (Shutterstock)?

Thanks!

Absolutely not, according to the Alamy contract you've signed.

And I advise you to change the license of those images in alamy to RF as soon as possible, because if a client pays thousands of dollars for an image that he believes he is the only one using because the sales history on alamy says so, and later finds that it's being used by hundreds or thousands of other people that bought it in Micro you may end up having a lot of problems.

A) You cannot change the license on Alamy, you can only take down the image, which takes a long time
B) People buying RM on Alamy have no access to the sales history of an image (which could, after all, have been sold a gazillion times RM somewhere else) and so there is no case against anyone on those grounds. It's more likely that the client would demand (and probably get) a refund and the supplier will be in trouble with Alamy over violation of the terms of supply.

« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2012, 04:38 »
0
One point that some people may overlook is that an "editorial" license on SS or IS is not an RM license, it is an RF license, so if you put an image up as micro editorial you still can't sell it on Alamy.

« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2012, 04:58 »
0
I thought I watched all the alamy videos and I don't remember seeing a blog about them being sued.  Does anyone have a link?  I do remember them saying that despite some obvious problems with people selling RF when they shouldn't, it hasn't led to legal action but that was a few years ago.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3616 Views
Last post June 24, 2011, 17:24
by seawhisper
16 Replies
3954 Views
Last post January 16, 2012, 00:22
by ann
14 Replies
4843 Views
Last post March 10, 2014, 21:47
by Pixart
17 Replies
5564 Views
Last post February 28, 2016, 17:11
by mantered
4 Replies
6684 Views
Last post May 30, 2016, 15:42
by click_click

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors