Author Topic: Some Newbie Questions...Appreciate The Help (Read 3227 times)

howardg · « **on:** June 22, 2008, 16:56 »

I know this is probably a simplistic question, but I don't know where else to get it answered. Can you submit RF images to Alamy as well as to microstock. They , ar, after all, royalty free in either instance. Am I right in understanding that a RF sale at Alamy nets more than on microstock?

I presume that you can't submit rights managed to Alamy and RF to micros...is that right? I guess it would make sense to have that as a no-no.

Ho often is one likely to get a sale with rights managed as opposed to RF? Do nature images sell 'better' at RM compared to RF.

Finally, if an image was listed as RF with micros and then taken off the micro sites, can they then be sold as rights managed after a certain period of time, assuming that they are no longer put back on RF micros?

Lots of questions and I am new at this and don't quite know where to get the answers!

loop · « **Reply #1 on:** June 22, 2008, 17:12 »

1. You can, but it will look unprofessional.

2. Youc can't sell an MR image as RF. You would be cheating the MR buyers.

3. Once sold in RF, one image is always RF.

litifeta · « **Reply #2 on:** June 22, 2008, 19:06 »

I would urge you to consider what you believe is the right or wrong thing to do.

BUT. Virtually every micro site has its own pricing structure. If someone buys your image at DT, and then finds out they could have bought it cheaper at SS, would that concern you?

Personally, I would only send images to Alamy I do not have elsewhere. But I might change my mind one day as well. LOL>

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2008, 19:31 »

howardg,

I have sold images both as RM and RF (not the same images). It's hard to say what sells more - my sales are too small for proper statistics.

I have images in sites as RM and the same images in other sites as RF (sites in which RM is not available). When I sell one of these images in one license, I delete it from the sites in the other license (that is, if I sell image as RM, I delete it where I have it as RF, and vice-versa). You must be careful to know if sites will allow you to remove images.

I also keep a different portfolio for micro and macrostock. I think it makes sense and personally I think it is very unprofessional to do otherwise. Of course it may be a rare event to be "caught" doing that, but I don't want to risk, even if stock photography is not my main income.

Quote from: litifeta on June 22, 2008, 19:06

Virtually every micro site has its own pricing structure. If someone buys your image at DT, and then finds out they could have bought it cheaper at SS, would that concern you?

Although prices in micros do vary, they are within a certain typical range. I don't think a buyer would complain of buying an image for US$8 in one site and find it for US$6 in another. But if he buys it for US$150, he might. And for that price, he probably expected to be buying something more unique (even though with RF there is no guarantee at all), and will be quite upset to learn that the image has sold hundred of times in micros.

I don't think the comparison of credits vs subs (DTxSS) is valid, as in theory the subs buyer puts a lot more money, so it's like he's getting a huge discount for volume. Not that I agree with that discount, which is excessively high in something that is already too cheap.

I believe it would be of more concern a buyer in MP finding the same images in the micros - not the same shock as one buying in Alamy, but still a significant price difference.

Regards,
Adelaide

howardg · « **Reply #4 on:** June 22, 2008, 21:48 »

Now I am really confused....

Both micro and RF Alamy are RF but it is unprofessional to submit RF to Alamy and micro...not sure I understand why. Isn't RF RF? You can buy your new camera from a local full price store or from B&H...well you get the analogy. It doesn't look like (in a brief perusal) that there is something in the Alamy contract that forbids it. Don't many RM sites specifically forbid selling as RF elsewhere...I would think if Alamy didn't want it to happen they would make it a part of their contract. I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand what and how the rules arose.

Adelaide, Why is it that you think that you should have different portfolios for macro and micro but sell the same image as RF (presumably for cheap) and RM, just pulling the RF one if a RM sale is made? I would think that would be against the rules?? And it certainly goes against Loops comment that once RF always RF.

Again, I am not trying to be a pain but trying to sort it out in my own mind. It is very confusing and it seems like there are so many rules, most unwritten, and with many people having their own versions.

I would really appreciate more ideas and comments as well.

snurder · « **Reply #5 on:** June 22, 2008, 23:38 »

See these posts

http://www.thephotographybiz.com/comment/stock-photography-can-you-sell-an-image-as-rf-and-rm-at-the-same-time/

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/choose-microstock-or-macrostock-or-both.html

http://niagarashooter.blogspot.com/2008/05/perilous-line-in-stock-photography.html

yingyang0 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 22, 2008, 23:49 »

Quote from: howardg on June 22, 2008, 16:56

I presume that you can't submit rights managed to Alamy and RF to micros...is that right? I guess it would make sense to have that as a no-no.

Finally, if an image was listed as RF with micros and then taken off the micro sites, can they then be sold as rights managed after a certain period of time, assuming that they are no longer put back on RF micros?

You can sell the same image under RM and RF as long as the RM license doesn't claim the usage is exclusive. The same answer would work for the second question. HOWEVER, I wouldn't do either because it's unprofessional. I wouldn't want to upset any buyer for any preventable reason.

madelaide · « **Reply #7 on:** June 23, 2008, 19:39 »

Howard,

RF is RF, but when you have such huge price differences between microstock and macrostock, they are not actually the same. We are talking about image costing US$150-250 (if I am not wrong) versus images costing US$6-10, so it's not the same as B&H vs competition.

Indeed, there is nothing against the rules about placing the same images in both micro and macrostock. Many people here will tell you they do that. Many others however, like me, think it is just not a good policy, and it may harm your name. It simply doesn't make sense to me to sell the same thing at such different prices.

As I said, although RF images do not guarantee any exclusivity, someone buying at Alamy may expect that an image costing US$250 won't be found being used everywhere. Someone buying at microstock know this is much likely to happen (and they can easily see how many times that image was sold).

In my point of view, you have to decide whether an image is worth selling 100 times at US$2.50 or a single time at US$250 (and I prefe the latter). You may get the same in the end, you may even get more at the micros, but you have to decide how you want that image sold. It is a lot about how you value your work, or a certain part of your work. Again, just my opinion.

Regards,
Adelaide

howardg · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2008, 22:18 »

Adelaide,

I really appreciate your following up on my questions and you make some excellent points. There really is a lot here to think about...so I guess I have some thinking to do. It would just make so much sense to have the rules more formally defined so that different people aren't playing by different rules in the same game.

Howard

snurder · « **Reply #9 on:** June 24, 2008, 00:16 »

Quote from: howardg on June 23, 2008, 22:18

Adelaide,

I really appreciate your following up on my questions and you make some excellent points. There really is a lot here to think about...so I guess I have some thinking to do. It would just make so much sense to have the rules more formally defined so that different people aren't playing by different rules in the same game.

Howard

Howard,

If you visited the links I supplied, you will see that PhotoShelter has already defined their position - no micro. From PhotoShelter:

"Cross-listing live PhotoShelter Collection images with microstock sites is now prohibited.
We will no longer allow photographers to sell images via The PhotoShelter Collection if the same image is currently listed for sale at a microstock site. We consider 'microstock' to be any image provider offering licenses for less than $50."

Always know the restrictions and limitations of Terms where you submit, whether it be micro or macro.

howardg · « **Reply #10 on:** June 24, 2008, 08:42 »

Yes, I did read the links...even printed them out and they were excellent discussions,and I do see what Photo Shelter did. Frankly, I can see the point of once RF always RF (though it would seem to make sense that after a certain period of no sales it could be reintroduced as RM if taken off the micro sites...but that is splitting hairs). What I have more trouble with understanding is saying that it shouldn't (note I said shouldn't instead of can't) be sold as RF in the micros and at the same time sold RF with the macros....to me that doesn't make sense. If the buyer is that concerned about price they should shop around first...they are paying for the convenience and perceived better screening at macro RF and that is their choice...to me it seems that once you decide to 'devalue' the image by making it RF it should be able to be sold as RF everywhere. Again, that is just what seems right to me...

Alatriste · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2008, 11:54 »

I think in a different way.

You can buy the same product from different stores for example a Canon camera. You can find a big difference in price from one shop to another.
How is guilty for that diference? Canon or the shop? How decides de price?

I dont chose the price of alamy or SS

They put the prices so Im not guilty or unprofesional if I have the same images in both sites

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** June 24, 2008, 18:27 »

Trebuchet,

I have to disagree with you. They set the prices, but you know how their pricing is, and you know Alamy charges much more than SS.

Let's suppose I am a jewel crafter. I go to Cartier and offer them my pieces. They like, they agree to sell them. They set the prices according to their market, and they will share profits with me - that's our deal. A buyer goes to Cartier because it's Cartier and not because it's just a jeweller, and he buys one of my pieces. Next day he goes to Target and he finds one of my pieces at 1/10th the price. He will return to Cartier and complain. Possibly he will return the piece, and will never buy at Cartier, and will tell everybody what happened when he bought at Cartier. Cartier will call me, and I will say I never signed any terms of exclusivity or of pricing. True. Cartier will never sell my pieces again, and if they are part of some guild they will tell other members not to market my pieces.

It's Cartier that will have its name burnt with the client, I will have mine burnt with Cartier (and maybe other such jewellers).

There is nothing illegal about my attitude in the scenario above, it's about what I think it's ethical. You may say it's Cartier fault not to have asked me about other places I would be selling my pieces, or make me sign a contract limiting this, but from the moment I know this would be frowned upon (and we know this is frowned upon), I am not innocent either.

Regards,
Adelaide

Alatriste · « **Reply #13 on:** June 25, 2008, 02:48 »

You are probably right but:

Quote from: madelaide on June 24, 2008, 18:27

You may say it's Cartier fault not to have asked me about other places I would be selling my pieces, or make me sign a contract limiting this, but from the moment I know this would be frowned upon (and we know this is frowned upon), I am not innocent either.

Regards,
Adelaide

Exatly.
Alamy doesnt say you cant upload "micro-images", so its their problem I think.
Also, if Im not wrong they will include the new "micro license" at "micro price" so I dont see the reason why not to upload there the microportfolio.

helix7 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 25, 2008, 09:36 »

Quote from: loop on June 22, 2008, 17:12

1. You can, but it will look unprofessional.

According to who?

I've heard that the owner of Alamy encourages contributors to submit to many RF agencies, regardless of pricing. And I've read opinions from top microstock contributors that it's up to the buyer to decide where to get images and shop around, not us to worry about where they get them. I happen to agree, and have some stuff on Alamy that is also available on micros.

Alatriste · « **Reply #15 on:** June 25, 2008, 10:10 »

Exactly

madelaide · « **Reply #16 on:** June 25, 2008, 19:47 »

Quote from: Trebuchet on June 25, 2008, 02:48

Alamy doesnt say you cant upload "micro-images", so its their problem I think.

Does you girlfriend/wife need to say "I don't want you to cheat me"? And if she doesn't, and you cheat her, is "You didn't say I could not cheat you" a reasonable excuse?

Some behaviours are expected without explicitly demanding them.

Quote from: Trebuchet on June 25, 2008, 02:48

Also, if Im not wrong they will include the new "micro license" at "micro price" so I dont see the reason why not to upload there the microportfolio.

Their controversial micro license is for educational purposes only on web-size images. One might even consider it philantropy, nearly "giving" an image for a good cause. Not that I agree with it either.

Regards,
Adelaide

tan510jomast · « **Reply #17 on:** July 07, 2008, 15:43 »

Trebuchet, amigo bueno, I am not questioning your liberal free market opinion, but why would you not prefer to sell an image for more money
when you can do that?
it may take a longer time to sell one image at 50 dollars, perharps,
but to sell it at 5 dollars, it will take you ten sales instead of one.
Would you not prefer to give your image a higher value, and earning more in the long run as well?

uploaderz · « **Reply #18 on:** July 07, 2008, 16:32 »

of course everyone would prefer one sale of $50 over 9 sales, or 10 sales of $5.00 the think with micro is, or in speaking in regards to alamy...

i get 10,000 sales at $.38 in the same time i get 1 sale at $380 at alamy
so simple math tells me my images earn more for me at shutterstock.

stozka · « **Reply #19 on:** July 10, 2008, 07:56 »

Can I sell one image as RM both at Alamy and Photoshelter ?

thanks.

RT · « **Reply #20 on:** July 10, 2008, 08:34 »

Quote from: helix7 on June 25, 2008, 09:36

Quote from: loop on June 22, 2008, 17:12
1. You can, but it will look unprofessional.

According to who?

I've heard that the owner of Alamy encourages contributors to submit to many RF agencies, regardless of pricing. And I've read opinions from top microstock contributors that it's up to the buyer to decide where to get images and shop around, not us to worry about where they get them. I happen to agree, and have some stuff on Alamy that is also available on micros.

Absolutely correct, and the reason is that the owner of Alamy and the top microstock contributors understand this business, and that is you are selling a non-exclusive license to use an image NOT the image itself, and as such the two market places and licenses differ very much indeed, buyers understand this as well which is why it's something that is very rarely raised from a buyers perspective.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 10, 2008, 21:34 »

Quote from: RT on July 10, 2008, 08:34

...buyers understand this as well which is why it's something that is very rarely raised from a buyers perspective.

It has always been my experience that buyers of intellectual property don't really understand the intricacies of the licenses until an issue comes up, but I only deal with buyers when things have gone wrong (ie they've been sued).

Are you talking about the higher end buyers, or all buyers in general? I've never heard this view point expressed so I'm very interested.