You want to sell images RF as microstock and images elsewhere as RM?

sjlocke

« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2010, 09:50 »

#link

Quote from: click_click on July 18, 2010, 08:48

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

click_click

« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2010, 10:07 »

#link

Quote from: sjlocke on July 18, 2010, 09:50

Quote from: click_click on July 18, 2010, 08:48

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2010, 10:35 »

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2010, 10:49 »

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

mlwinphoto

« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2010, 13:10 »

#link

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 »	Ignore \| Logged

borg

« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2010, 14:16 »

#link

Probably in that case, we need some kind of feedbacks like on eBay for contributors..


	Ignore \| Logged

dirkr

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

#link

Quote from: mlwinphoto on July 18, 2010, 13:10

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2010, 16:03 »

#link

Quote from: sjlocke on May 09, 2008, 21:29

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 »	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: You want to sell images RF as microstock and images elsewhere as RM?

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results