Alamy + IS exclusivity

[yecatsdoherty]

so, is it possible to be an iStock exclusive, and sell images on Alamy and other RM macrostock sites? if so, what are the limitations? for example, can I sell the same images I have on iStock as RM on a macro site?

is there a way to only sell RM on Alamy? or when I agree to their contract, am I agreeing to have them sell royalty-free also? is it an option I can opt out of?

[cphoto]

so, is it possible to be an iStock exclusive, and sell images on Alamy and other RM macrostock sites? if so, what are the limitations? for example, can I sell the same images I have on iStock as RM on a macro site?

is there a way to only sell RM on Alamy? or when I agree to their contract, am I agreeing to have them sell royalty-free also? is it an option I can opt out of?

I can answer the Alamy part:
Yes, you can only submit RM with Alamy, not a problem.

But you need to understand the difference between RM and RF.  Microstocks including IS only sell RF images.  Once you sell an image as RF you can't sell it anywhere else as RM.

[jsnover]

I have a small portfolio at Alamy and Photoshelter Collection, and you get to choose the license type for each photo when you upload it. Most of the agencies don't want you uploading RF files that are on the micros to their higher priced sites.

You can sell RM and do work for hire and still be RF exclusive at iStock. You cannot sell any RF image as RM as you can't control the rights you're selling to buyer X when you have no idea what the hundreds of RF buyers are doing with the image.

[yecatsdoherty]

thank you, yes, as I delved deeper, I understood the separate images for separate sites issue....perfect, thanks so much

[Sean Locke Photography]

Technically, you can sell whatever you want as RM.  All an RM license does is specify usage terms.  In addition to specifying terms, you can also provide the history of an image as a service, or promise usage exclusivity, like per industry, region, etc.  However, in general, all RM is, is a limiting license.  There is no guarantee it was or was not used anywhere else, unless you provide that option for the buyer.

I wouldn't upload anything currently RF as RM at the same time.  However, if you pulled stuff from RF, you could list it RM, you just couldn't offer the buyer any history or exclusivity guarantee.

[yecatsdoherty]

Thanks Sean, you just answered my second question....seems to be a good idea to keep any RF images as RF and RM as RM...I would hate to accidentally screw up and go against my IS exclusivity contract...

[snurder]

I wouldn't upload anything currently RF as RM at the same time.  However, if you pulled stuff from RF, you could list it RM, you just couldn't offer the buyer any history or exclusivity guarantee.

You are incorrect in making this statement. See cphoto's post above. Once it is released in RF world, it cannot go RM.

[yecatsdoherty]

regardless, I would never list a RF image for RM...or vice versa obviously...I would always keep them separate

[Sean Locke Photography]

You are incorrect in making this statement. See cphoto's post above. Once it is released in RF world, it cannot go RM.

No, actually, I'm not incorrect.

[grp_photo]

You are incorrect in making this statement. See cphoto's post above. Once it is released in RF world, it cannot go RM.

No, actually, I'm not incorrect.

Maybe in general you are correct but Alamys CEO made a clear statement about that so if we are talking about Alamys RM you are in fact incorrect Alamy doesn't allow it.

[Sean Locke Photography]

I'd like to read that.  Could you post a link?

[yecatsdoherty]

I checked out what you said Sean, so far everything you said is in fact correct...

[RT]

To the OP, what sjlocke has said is true however I recommend that before you consider selling your work on Alamy you take a good look into licensing and get an understanding of the types of licenses available, and the implications of what you've suggested.
As far as the statement from the Alamy CEO, Alan Capel made a comment about this issue in so much that Alamy don't knowingly allow this type of practise because of the way their agency operates.
So although it wasn't mentioned as such you can pretty much guarantee that if Alamy contacted you for previous licensing details on an image you're selling under a RM license, and you replied you don't know because you've previously sold it RF they'd most probably cancel your membership because it makes them look very bad. And believe me from time to time they do contact people for such information.

[RT]

I'd like to read that.  Could you post a link?

Sean,
It was a comment he made in reply to a question at the annual convention last year, not sure if you'd find a link.

[grp_photo]

I'd like to read that.  Could you post a link?

If i remember right it was in the video from the Alamy Event (about November 2007) the one Alamy Measures was announced. It is very interesting anyway!

[yecatsdoherty]

RT - yes, as I mentioned, I would only consider new images with NO prior history to sell as RM to Alamy. not to mention, I would not jeopardize my standing with iStock.

[snurder]

You are incorrect in making this statement. See cphoto's post above. Once it is released in RF world, it cannot go RM.

No, actually, I'm not incorrect.

You had better read this then istead of making up your own rules

http://www.thephotographybiz.com/photography-business/understanding-licensing-types-rights-managed-image-licences/

[Sean Locke Photography]

I'm not making up my own rules, but if you like, I'll put what I've said on my website.  Would you believe it then, since it's on a website instead of a forum?

... and I'll use the Alamy page as "proof"
http://www.alamy.com/help/stock-photography-licensing.asp

Non-exclusive:
    *  The buyer pays a licence fee each time they use the image, but another buyer can also purchase and use the image under the same licence.
    * The buyer must specify, each time: intended use, media, territory and duration.
    * Pricing is based on intended use, media, duration and territory. The territorial pricing will be matched to the specific country.

Nothing at all about knowing the history, or guaranteeing the history or anything.  Nope.  At it's simplest, RM is selling an image for a specified use.  Kind of like renting a car.

I also see nowhere on Photoshelter that guarantees knowledge of an image's history.

Oh, by the way, here's a bit from Getty:
"Rights-managed products are licensed on a use-by-use basis. The fee for using the product is calculated from several factors including size, placement, duration of use and geographic distribution. At the time you order a rights-managed product, you will be asked to submit information that will specify the usage rights to be granted. You can use our price calculator or contact a sales representative to determine an exact price."

Except, please note: "Exclusive rights are available for purchase for some rights-managed products."  So, on some RM, exclusivity can be guaranteed.  That's an extra service, see?

[PeterChigmaroff]

Let me stir the mud a bit more here.

Alamy's RM that everyone refers to is called L (Licensed) by Alamy because guess what? It's not really RM. The moniker RM, although probably not written into national statutes, general implies an image that has a known sales history. Therefore a buyer can use it knowing that someone down the street isn't using it or if they are using it they aren't in the same business. Now it's true that a lot of purchases are made without purchasing the extra rights but they could be and that's why there is still money in RM. Something had to separate RM for RF. So in Alamy's case they sell L because most of the images are RM in nature except often sold on other sites, hence no guarantee of sales history can be made. Also RM generally has a fixed and very defined licensed, usually for a specified period of time. So imagine this, a buyer after using the image for a year decides he wants to re-use it, he comes back a pays more. A crazy concept in the world of RF and especially micro, but hey, it's a crazy world. Did I every tell you about the times I made >$10,000 on a single sale or several images that each had a sales history's >$150,000.  Nah, I'd sound too much like a drunken loser.

[yingyang0]

You are incorrect in making this statement. See cphoto's post above. Once it is released in RF world, it cannot go RM.

No, actually, I'm not incorrect.

You had better read this then istead of making up your own rules

http://www.thephotographybiz.com/photography-business/understanding-licensing-types-rights-managed-image-licences/

Sorry, but sjlocke is the one that is correct on this. From the site you link to, "Most stock libraries will not allow you to place an image as rights managed if it has ever been sold as Royalty Free." Just because that is the SOP at many of the big stock houses doesn't mean that is what the license requires. I'm not saying I would do it, but the reasons not to do it are ethical in nature and have nothing to do with the term Rights-Managed or the licenses that normally accompany such photographs.

[Pixart]

Isn't RM is supposed to prevent things like this from happening... 

[yingyang0]

Well pixart, those are technically different photos. Look at the folds in his suit where his left hand folds under his right arm. Also the fold in his suit at the shoulder in the esquire photo that doesn't exist in the time photo. I'd be pissed if I was the editor of either one of those magazines though.

[PeterChigmaroff]

RM can prevent this IF the buyer buys the rights. It depends on who is selling it and with what restrictions are purchased, if any. I imagine an image like this could be on some non exclusive editorial site and Esquire and Time in their zeal to save a buck ended up with the same image. On a side note if I were the editor in chief for either publication I would fire my photography editor.

[Seren]

Sean is 100% right.  "Royalty Free" images are in essence just "Rights Managed" images with a VERY broad license.  You're saying "You can use this file where ever you want, under certain conditions" which is still managing them.

Poster above is getting confused about photographic exclusivity arrangements.

Traditionally, when it all kicked off, rights managed images were generally cheaper than royalty free because you were paying for LESS rights.  Then it all went tits up somewhere along the lines - I think with the advent of the photo disc type collections.

I'm not making up my own rules, but if you like, I'll put what I've said on my website.  Would you believe it then, since it's on a website instead of a forum?

... and I'll use the Alamy page as "proof"
http://www.alamy.com/help/stock-photography-licensing.asp

Non-exclusive:
    *  The buyer pays a licence fee each time they use the image, but another buyer can also purchase and use the image under the same licence.
    * The buyer must specify, each time: intended use, media, territory and duration.
    * Pricing is based on intended use, media, duration and territory. The territorial pricing will be matched to the specific country.

Nothing at all about knowing the history, or guaranteeing the history or anything.  Nope.  At it's simplest, RM is selling an image for a specified use.  Kind of like renting a car.

I also see nowhere on Photoshelter that guarantees knowledge of an image's history.

Oh, by the way, here's a bit from Getty:
"Rights-managed products are licensed on a use-by-use basis. The fee for using the product is calculated from several factors including size, placement, duration of use and geographic distribution. At the time you order a rights-managed product, you will be asked to submit information that will specify the usage rights to be granted. You can use our price calculator or contact a sales representative to determine an exact price."

Except, please note: "Exclusive rights are available for purchase for some rights-managed products."  So, on some RM, exclusivity can be guaranteed.  That's an extra service, see?

[Seren]

Isn't RM is supposed to prevent things like this from happening... 

Uh, no.  That's not what rights managed means at all.  It would only mean that if Time had paid more to prevent any other magazines using the same image in the same territories.