MicrostockGroup

is that before the inspection, or after ?

I agree with RacePhoto.  I am not a lawyer but I would be concerned about a couple of things even if, technically, you could license an image both with RF & and RM licenses. 

1.  Get ready to be sued.  (http://asmp.org/articles/rights-managed-stock-vs-royalty-free-stock.html).  This ASMP piece on licensing clearly states why a purchaser of an RM image could sue you.  They have a RM reason...there are specific rights and expectations when you purchase an RM image.

2. Simply put if the sites say don't do it, then you risk having your account closed if/when they find out.  I wouldn't take that risk as the income I get helps pay my bills and beer tab.

I thought this guy had an excellent answer that covered the why and why not, the possible issues and why should I stuble around trying to say the same things, when he does it better?

http://www.youngimaging.com/Article-WhyNotLicenseAnImageAsRFAndRM.asp

Here's the specific answer to people who keep thinking about money and not legal or moral points:  There are no guarantees that RF will make more sales than RM, but it often will, simply because the price is lower. However, RM is still the preferred way to sell image licenses by most experienced stock photographers.

In effect a non-answer, because no one knows for sure.

Homeboy Alamy Thread. I think the mood has changed since 2008, but interesting reading.  http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=1513

Which is best? RF or RM on Alamy? Nice well thought out point and counterpoint style review:

http://www.thephotographybiz.com/photography-business/copyright-for-photographers/licensing-licencing/selling-on-alamy-as-rf-or-l-which-one-is-best/

Maybe that will answer all the questions? 

Actually I think Alamy fails in not allowing us to add license information from other sites (hmm, maybe we can in that area in which we set restrictions). In MyLoupe, this is more clear.

If you license an image directly to a buyer in which he requests exclusivity for, say, one year in Europe, the image can still be licensed to other places during that period. If you ever sold that image as RF before, however, you can never license an image that way because you can not guarantee anything. Also if you sell as RF during that period, you are not being fair with the RM license buyer.

Of course, if an image has never sold as RM or RF yet, it is irrelevant, but you should remove it from RF once it has sold as RM or vice-versa. That's what I do.

Gee glad I could help, now maybe you can explain it to me. I thought the opinions and websites made a pretty good argument for NEVER creating confusing licenses? Once sold RF always RF, no mixed licenses where one site has it one way, the other another.

What do you see that I don't? Just figure I only saw the obvious?  

It takes six months to remove something from Alamy. So Photo X sells on IS or SS or FT... RF and now for six months it's still on Alamy RM? Or the other case, you sell something RM on Alamy and some Microstock site like DT (six months), Featurepics (two years!) or whatever, claims they can sell your photos, but you just licensed it RM on Alamy.

Legal Storm Warning: Looks like trouble is on the way.  

I wouldn't have RM on alamy that has been or is offered as RF on other sites.  It looks to be against their contributor contract.  If in doubt, why not email them and ask?

"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

I don't think it's me seeing something you don't. It's just my interpreting it differently. To me, the immorality of it is offering the same image under both license types at the same time. That means, if someone buys it from Alamy as RM, they might pay $150, whereas if they had gone over to 123RF they could've gotten it as RF for maybe $10. OTOH, if I used to sell it for $10 RF but no longer do, and likely never will, I don't see a problem with now offering that image for sale as RM.



I had read that, and it was part of what helped me with my decision. It reads: "... the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites." The important word being "have". It does not say "have or ever had". It does not imply that. It says only that the same image (or similars) can't be available as RF and RM simultaneously.



I've heard others say this (or maybe it was you, elsewhere; I don't recall). But I feel if it isn't in the ASA, they can say what they want, but I'm not bound by it. I've agreed to the terms of the ASA, but I haven't agreed to necessarily abide by verbal statements by CR reps.