MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: You want to sell images RF as microstock and images elsewhere as RM?  (Read 15050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 09, 2008, 21:18 »
0
What happens when your at the negotiating table and your RM buyer finds that you sell work at the microstock level for 1$.  I was in this situation today.  And no I was not offering the same images RF and RM.  The buyer has a hard time understanding why you value some of your work for $1 and some of your work for hundreds and thousands of dollars.  Something for you to think about. 


« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2008, 21:29 »
0
Tell him to suck it up and pay what the cost of what he wants.

« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2008, 21:33 »
0
Tell him to suck it up and pay what the cost of what he wants.

Good point but putting yourself in this kind of situation isn't exactly helping your leverage for negotiating for big money.

« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2008, 21:41 »
0
Tell him to suck it up and pay what the cost of what he wants.

Good point but putting yourself in this kind of situation isn't exactly helping your leverage for negotiating for big money.

When someone wants to buy out the rights to a few of your images for thousands of dollars.....do you want to tell them to "suck it up"?

« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2008, 21:47 »
0
RM is rights managed, It's about licensing images that are not available elsewhere and perhaps somewhat unique. It is also about giving certain rights for a price. like not licensing to a similar industry in the same country for a specified length of time. Although RM sales are down, there is still plenty of happening.

jsnover

« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2008, 21:52 »
0
There are many business situations where a company has several lines of products. Something custom (very expensive), something off the shelf, but with high end materials and workmanship, or with some type of market/time exclusivity  (medium) and mass-market high volume stuff (cheap). I don't think the presence of mass market products says anything about the quality or price of the other two.

The idea that a photographer is sullied in some way by selling more than one way seems to reflect either a misunderstanding of the business situation or just a negotiating tactic to get you to accept a lower price.


PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2008, 23:33 »
0
I would tell the buyer my RF is simple stuff that isn't worth the time for a buyer to save a few dollars to try to replicate. My RM has something unique that might require too much time, money, or access to shoot so therefore the higher cost is justified.

I'm guessing the underlying point you're trying to get at is that selling at a lower price per image drives down industry prices so why sell at micros, right? Consider the following:

- I, and many other people, would love to sell my work at Getty or Corbis but they probably wouldn't let me.
- I already sell my RM work at Photoshelter but it will probably take a couple of years for them to attract buyers
- I already sell my RM work at Alamy but other contributors say the average earnings are $1 per image per year. I'm hoping to do way better than that but I just started so I have no gauge yet.
- Prices of micros are going up and macros are going down.

So, I sell most of my work at Microstock where I currently average just shy of $3 per image per month, or $36 per image per year, which is 36X the performance of "the Alamy average".

So at the moment for me, earnings potential with micros seems to be much greater than friendly-macros with higher prices and way less buyers. And to me total earnings pays the bills, not earnings per image.


lisafx

« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2008, 13:46 »
0
I would tell them I make more money on the micros so I plan to keep selling there :)

Would also tell them that whatever the images were I was selling RM are unique and more difficult to capture/replicate. 

One of the reasons I love being a photographer is the freedom it gives me to direct my own career.  I would never let a customer try to dictate where/how I should sell my work.   

« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2008, 14:22 »
0
...
One of the reasons I love being a photographer is the freedom it gives me to direct my own career.  I would never let a customer try to dictate where/how I should sell my work.   
This, I think, is the best aspect of this industry: I can shoot what, how, and when I want. Unless you have a 'name', this amount of freedom isn't possible in the client-driven (i.e. not stock) marketplace.

hd

« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2008, 18:24 »
0
It's just good business sense to offer a product to a wide market. Locking myself into one type of customer base is limiting.

If asked I'd say, as I have, that at one time I did not have a camera with sufficient megapixels to sell on RM sites and I didn't have the money (and frankly I didn't have the knowledge) to make buying a better camera a financially-wise decision.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 11:17 by hd »

bravajulia

  • I will do it only for money!!
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2008, 23:52 »
0
The question is still there... what you sell as Rf and what as RM?
I am still uploadin on almy the same images I upload on the big six but I don't understand why a customer will pay 300 $ for a RF on alamy that is also on Istock...
I think I continue to upload on alamy My RF shots but one day I will begin to Upload some travel shots that I feel don't sell too much on microstock; think you this is a good way?
P.S.: about * up.... I really don't understand why photographers are so conflictual with customers, there is some frustrations in this job...

« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2010, 01:31 »
0
hi all, i know this is an old thread, but i can't help to reply.. from the thread starter situations..

I will tell the customer that RF and RM are different licences for using an image, and RF had more limitations than RM. Is it why RF is cheaper licence?

it is not a difficult question, unless you are selling same image as RF and RM, which is actually violate the policy of RM license.
 

« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2010, 03:08 »
0
hi all, i know this is an old thread, but i can't help to reply.. from the thread starter situations..

I will tell the customer that RF and RM are different licences for using an image, and RF had more limitations than RM. Is it why RF is cheaper licence?

it is not a difficult question, unless you are selling same image as RF and RM, which is actually violate the policy of RM license.
 


Totally agree!

Plus give him this link of our Sjlocke:

http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the-right-value-for-your-money/

RM give wider spread of use...
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 02:42 by borg »

« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2010, 05:57 »
0
a car manufacturer can sell one model at $20k, another at $40k and a third at $100k. different cars different prices, same with photos.

« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2010, 10:34 »
0
ok, at least my thought is correct, that RM price is more expensive for a reason, not just unreasonable pricing.

and RF price is cheap because of limitation of usage, and it can't use as RM license usage.

« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2010, 13:29 »
0
ok, at least my thought is correct, that RM price is more expensive for a reason, not just unreasonable pricing.

and RF price is cheap because of limitation of usage, and it can't use as RM license usage.

Basically, you should not interfere RM and RF license for the same picture , this is example.
RM may also refer to a certain extent exclusive rights of use, also history of use is difficult to know if pic is already sold under the RF license.

« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2010, 15:19 »
0
As I've said before, you can sell the same image RM and RF.  All RM refers to is selling a set of rights to use the image.  Exclusivity and image history can add value to the RM license but are not technically a requirement.  Heck, you can write and license requirements you want to.


lisafx

« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2010, 15:24 »
0
As I've said before, you can sell the same image RM and RF.  All RM refers to is selling a set of rights to use the image.  Exclusivity and image history can add value to the RM license but are not technically a requirement.  Heck, you can write and license requirements you want to.

Ah.  Thanks for explaining that.  I had thought the terms should be mutually exclusive. 

« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2010, 15:31 »
0
If a buyer wants to know where the image has been used before, we can not provide this information if we sell the image as RF. We can't guarantee either that it will not be used later by the RF buyer in a situation that the RM buyer may not want.

I have already been asked by a buyer if an image had been used in UK before. Although in the end the sale did not happen, I was able to answer him.

Sure, many RM buyers won't ask anything.

« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2010, 16:20 »
0
If a buyer wants to know where the image has been used before, we can not provide this information if we sell the image as RF. We can't guarantee either that it will not be used later by the RF buyer in a situation that the RM buyer may not want.

That is true.  Thus, the additional value history and exclusivity in its various forms can bring to an RM sale.

« Reply #20 on: July 17, 2010, 18:34 »
0
As I've said before, you can sell the same image RM and RF.  All RM refers to is selling a set of rights to use the image.  Exclusivity and image history can add value to the RM license but are not technically a requirement.  Heck, you can write and license requirements you want to.

I think your post slipped my eyes before.

While I understand that I can write any usage terms myself stating things that would anybody go haywire I'm surprised to see this kind of statement.

I can hardly believe that your RM Getty images are offered elsewhere not to mention as Micro RF at some Indonesian local microstock agency that isn't indexed by Google, with a different pseudonym and some conspiratorial exclsuvion from Tineye as well.

Isn't it that any RM collection/agency will drop a contributor like a hot potato if they found out you sold the same stuff as RF (micro/macro) at the same time you have it with them for RM?

If not, feel free to PM me with a list of Macro agencies that tolerate such "business strategies".

« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2010, 22:11 »
0
Subjective Theory of Value - problem solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

 ;D

« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2010, 06:25 »
0
As I've said before, you can sell the same image RM and RF.  All RM refers to is selling a set of rights to use the image.  Exclusivity and image history can add value to the RM license but are not technically a requirement.  Heck, you can write and license requirements you want to.

I think your post slipped my eyes before.

While I understand that I can write any usage terms myself stating things that would anybody go haywire I'm surprised to see this kind of statement.

I can hardly believe that your RM Getty images are offered elsewhere not to mention as Micro RF at some Indonesian local microstock agency that isn't indexed by Google, with a different pseudonym and some conspiratorial exclsuvion from Tineye as well.

I think the point is that it comes down to agency rules. I'm sure like you say Getty would have a problem, other agencies might not.
You would have to check with each agency to find out.


Isn't it that any RM collection/agency will drop a contributor like a hot potato if they found out you sold the same stuff as RF (micro/macro) at the same time you have it with them for RM?

If not, feel free to PM me with a list of Macro agencies that tolerate such "business strategies".

« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2010, 08:09 »
0
Isn't it that any RM collection/agency will drop a contributor like a hot potato if they found out you sold the same stuff as RF (micro/macro) at the same time you have it with them for RM?

If not, feel free to PM me with a list of Macro agencies that tolerate such "business strategies".

You clearly missed the point of what I'm saying.  I am not referring to specific agencies with requirements on this or that.  I'm speaking generally.  For instance, you can have an image on iStock, and a customer wants to use it an a way not covered by the license.  Support will tell you to work that out for yourself outside IS, so you write a short RM license with specific terms for that use.  Viola, RM and RF.

« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2010, 08:48 »
0
Isn't it that any RM collection/agency will drop a contributor like a hot potato if they found out you sold the same stuff as RF (micro/macro) at the same time you have it with them for RM?

If not, feel free to PM me with a list of Macro agencies that tolerate such "business strategies".

You clearly missed the point of what I'm saying.  I am not referring to specific agencies with requirements on this or that.  I'm speaking generally.  For instance, you can have an image on iStock, and a customer wants to use it an a way not covered by the license.  Support will tell you to work that out for yourself outside IS, so you write a short RM license with specific terms for that use.  Viola, RM and RF.

You didn't clarify the fact that you are explicitly referring to iStock and its terms of usage/license agreements.

I'm not arguing with you whether iStock support hands you additional business. I'm just surprised that iStock "allows" any contributors to license their (even exclusive - I assume you did license images as RM as it sounds...?) images freely besides iStock (only if referred by support I suppose).

I thought iStock wants to have full control over their content (speaking of exclusives). So if you are "allowed" to license images as RM it is ok? Unless you are referring to non-exclusives here which you haven't stated clearly either.

I'm not questioning what you do or did at iStock/Getty. I'm just surprised in general to hear about this RM/RF mix.

Also I think it makes a bigger difference if you are a Macro contributor at Corbis, Getty, Masterfile etc. and start uploading your RM content to the Micros.

My point I wanted to make was this scenario, that in such a case, the Macro agency will kick you out.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 08:50 by click_click »

« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2010, 09:50 »
0
You didn't clarify the fact that you are explicitly referring to iStock and its terms of usage/license agreements.

I'm not explicitly referring to iStock.  I was just trying to give a specific example, since my general comment seems to cause understanding issues.

« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2010, 10:07 »
0
You didn't clarify the fact that you are explicitly referring to iStock and its terms of usage/license agreements.

I'm not explicitly referring to iStock.  I was just trying to give a specific example, since my general comment seems to cause understanding issues.

I think it's important to clarify as much as possible about this issue. This thread was read over 2000 times by now and it appears that people are interested in how it works (or can work).

I appreciate your input from an iStock/Getty point as well as your experience as a professional photographer in general. Therefore it IS (at least to me) very surprising to see such things happening (RM/RF mix) as I wasn't aware of it.

I'm usually understanding things well once an example is being used. Therefore I was pushing my question with the scenario of being a Macro RM contributor who also wants to sell Micro RF that this would be a major issue for the RM agency - am I right?

I understand that you cannot give me an answer that will cover all agencies of the world but if at least you could speak on behalf of yourself/Getty's policy it would help a bit to understand the rules of a leading agency which would be somewhat substantial.


« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2010, 10:35 »
0
I'm intentionally not going into specifics per agency, because I am only trying to point out that both RM and RF are just terms for a list of usage allowances, RM tending to be known as a more restrictive set of terms and RF as a more widely allowed set of permissions.  Additionally, since you know the usages of what you've licensed RM, you are additionally able to create value-added additions to your RM service, like history or exclusivity, assuming the content was never licensed RF.

So, again, trying to show an example, say you sell images RF from your own website, excluding, say the right to print posters.  Someone contacts you about wanting to license the image to print posters.  You determine the value for that permission and only that permission, and write a rights managed license for it.

It would be up to the reader to ascertain what licensing terms they are able to combine in their situation.

« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2010, 10:49 »
0
Also, note that the OP of this thread was not about selling the same images in two places at the same time.  It was about selling micro, and then trying also license content as a higher priced RM.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2010, 13:10 »
0
An image that has been sold as RF cannot be offered up for exclusive RM use unless you know how that RF image has been used in the past and how it will be used during the RM license period.....during that time span it cannot be used on a RF basis the same way it is to be used on an exclusive RM basis.

No agency I work with offers the same image as RF and RM; it's one or the other.   
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 13:16 by mlwinphoto »

« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2010, 14:16 »
0
Probably in that case, we need some kind of feedbacks like on eBay for contributors..

« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2010, 10:20 »
0

No agency I work with offers the same image as RF and RM; it's one or the other.   

Try Zoonar. Granted, they are nowhere near a "major RM agency", but they do offer both RM and RF licences for the same picture.

That works, because they DO NOT offer additional services as exclusive licences or usage history.

In that case the RM license is more restrictive (one specific use) while the RF license is less restrictive (use it as often and where you wish). Consequently, the RF licenses costs an add on of 100% on the RM license.

This example just explains what Mr. Locke has been saying, RF and RM (on the same photo) are no contradiction in itself. The added values (exclusivity, usage history) that are often attached to RM licenses can cause problems.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2010, 16:03 »
0
Tell him to suck it up and pay what the cost of what he wants.

I tend to agree on a more general level! I learned from my other job (architect) that it's not worth treating clients well

Do they accept your conditions? alright

Do they disagree? alright anyway, they can go and find someone else - everybody's happy

Since I am using this technique, I am earning the same and working less, and especially having a good time
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 16:29 by microstockphoto.co.uk »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
5055 Views
Last post February 06, 2007, 17:31
by madelaide
12 Replies
5119 Views
Last post June 03, 2008, 08:32
by Sean Locke Photography
10 Replies
3177 Views
Last post November 24, 2008, 19:19
by loop
4 Replies
2147 Views
Last post December 14, 2009, 18:43
by Jonathan Ross
16 Replies
6190 Views
Last post July 18, 2010, 02:46
by sharpshot

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors