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.

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

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...

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

Quote from: snurder on June 04, 2008, 16:26

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: sjlocke on June 04, 2008, 16:54

Quote from: snurder on June 04, 2008, 16:26

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Pixart on June 06, 2008, 10:54

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.

If that is, that the image was originally offered as a RM image in the first  place through an agency that could actually administer such a condition. An important distinction with RM images is that each license is usually negotiated with consideration to its usage, placement, public profile etc. i.e. use it more, get more exposure, pay more unlike RF which is supposed to be buy a bigger one pay more and use it (almost) all you want.

Are these the same image?  Maybe it's postprocessing, but they look the same place/pose with a slightly different angle.

Anyway, had the first one to buy its license required (and paid for it), they could have had exclusivity in one country (or even worldwide) for a certain period of time.

BTW, I don't think FP shows this type of info when you sell an image as RM (although there are some of such restrictions when you quote an RM image).  In TSS/MyLoupe you can enter this info, but I am not sure you are obliged to; FP doesn't have that.

Regards,
Adelaide