MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Alamy contributor: Do you submit your micro images to the RF collection at Alamy?

Yes
61 (74.4%)
No
21 (25.6%)

Total Members Voted: 73

Author Topic: Alamy contributors: Are you submitting micro images to Alamy?  (Read 28176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 01, 2011, 07:49 »
0
I really need some opinions - is it okay to submit micro images to Alamy ? Can it be justified by the different (and possibly wider) licensing terms ?

I've always restrained myself from joining because I wouldn't want to be that buyer who found the image on a micro site the next day. On the other hand, maybe some buyers are staying with Alamy because they like their service and licensing terms - well aware of all the micro alternatives out there. Maybe they're seeing some professionalism / extra security there that they won't find on the micros - I have no idea.
What do you think, do you have any qualms submitting micro images to Alamy as RF?

It's probably not going to change my opinion on this, but I guess if everyone else is doing it and it's not against the Alamy contributor agreement, I might consider jumping on the bandwagon.

I wanted to make a poll for better "measurement" of opinions, but don't know how to.

ETA: There it was.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 07:52 by ThomasAmby »


« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2011, 08:07 »
0
I do not put the same images on both Alamy and micro.  I have tried some of the very same style and find that the market seems to be different.  What sells on micro is not so hot at Alamy.  I also have images on Alamy that certainly don't make sense at micro (unreleased travel and special events).

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2011, 08:35 »
0
I really need some opinions - is it okay to submit micro images to Alamy ? Can it be justified by the different (and possibly wider) licensing terms ?

Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.
AFAIK, it's 'legal' so send the same images to micro and Alamy, so long as you're not exclusive for your micro images (person or image).
As to whether it's moral, it's for you to decide: the same products are sold in different physical shops at vastly different price points; most shoppers know this and may choose accordingly or may choose for other factors than price. For example, Alamy allows some big buyers quite a long time (3+ months in some cases) to pay, so that might suit some accounting systems more than paying in advance. Some accounting systems, e.g. in my old job, wouldn't allow payment to be made before you had the physical product in your hands. Their argument would be, 'if the agency goes bust, what use is ten months unused subscription or 5000 unused credits?'
Though as I branch out, I must admit I'm looking to maximise my efforts by looking at different angles of the same subject (literally or figuratively) for iStock and for Alamy. At the moment, I haven't got a handle on what sells at Alamy. The sales I've had so far have been pretty 'random'.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 09:07 by ShadySue »

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2011, 08:52 »
0
I know this particular topic has been a never ending debate about the ethics of offering the same product at different prices on different sites. I've always taken the view that my images are sold at widely different prices on the various microstock sites, and there is nothing intrinsically "micro" about my images. I try to get the best quality and most original view that I can. As a result, I just upload all my images to Alamy. If I have model releases (or they don't need one), I mark them as "Royalty Free" in Alamy. If they don't have a release, but they need one, I mark it as "Rights Managed." I've sold images on Alamy that have ended up in a UK Photography magazine, and the same image is on Shutterstock, but I think I have given the buyer what they want - the image they were seeking on the stock site they chose to use.

Steve

« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2011, 09:04 »
0
Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.

Yes, you're right that they are two different questions. The poll and the title really does ask what I want to know, but there's room for a discussion of morals in the thread as well - I'd like Alamy contributors to answer the poll, then backup their answers in the threads, which will inevitably touch the topic of morals. Sorry for not being clear
I know this has been eagerly discussed before but didn't manage to find a poll here at MSG asking the exact question I'm seeking an answer to (not saying it's not here somewhere though). I'd like to see the share of people respectively for and against.

ShadySue

« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2011, 09:09 »
0
Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.

Yes, you're right that they are two different questions. The poll and the title really does ask what I want to know, but there's room for a discussion of morals in the thread as well - I'd like Alamy contributors to answer the poll, then backup their answers in the threads, which will inevitably touch the topic of morals. Sorry for not being clear
I know this has been eagerly discussed before but didn't manage to find a poll here at MSG asking the exact question I'm seeking an answer to (not saying it's not here somewhere though). I'd like to see the share of people respectively for and against.
But that's not what you'll get from your question. I voted no, as I'm currently iStock exclusive, but if I were independent, I might, IYSWIM.

« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2011, 09:27 »
0
I agree with Steve. I submit everything to alamy RF. I know there is a moral debate about pricing, but I'm of the mind that people who are buying at alamy, aren't necessarily looking at the rest of micro and price shopping. I know if I buy something at one store and find it cheaper at another, I don't get mad at the store or vendor, I'm more annoyed at myself for not shopping better. Weak comparison, but it's early for me.

lagereek

« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2011, 09:34 »
0
Yeah well any morals in this game and you end up last in the dole que, piss poor.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2011, 09:38 »
0
I'm not sure it is about ethics or morals at all, as I think about this. Here is a photo that I sold on Alamy, and it is on all the other stock sites:


Pretty reasonable image of Washington Cathedral that can be used to illustrate an article about Washington DC. It sold for $32 on Alamy for low res web use for a 12 month period. The buyer obviously had something specific in mind and this image met his/her requirements. Perhaps they don't use many images and have always used Alamy. What is the ethical problem with me putting this image in the buyers hands through Alamy even though they could have bought it from Shutterstock for $5, say? I see no problem, at all, in uploading the same images to both sites.

Steve

« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2011, 09:44 »
0
Your poll question doesn't ask the question you need to know.
In your post, you ask whether it's OK to submit micro images to Alamy, but in your poll you ask whether we submit our micro images to Alamy.

Yes, you're right that they are two different questions. The poll and the title really does ask what I want to know, but there's room for a discussion of morals in the thread as well - I'd like Alamy contributors to answer the poll, then backup their answers in the threads, which will inevitably touch the topic of morals. Sorry for not being clear
I know this has been eagerly discussed before but didn't manage to find a poll here at MSG asking the exact question I'm seeking an answer to (not saying it's not here somewhere though). I'd like to see the share of people respectively for and against.
But that's not what you'll get from your question. I voted no, as I'm currently iStock exclusive, but if I were independent, I might, IYSWIM.

I'm sorry, but it should be pretty clear that the poll is meant only for people submitting to Alamy - hence "Alamy contributors:" in the poll & thread title. Exclusives like yourself are welcome to join the discussion, about whether or not you should or would, but voting as an IS exclusive will ruin the poll results.
But this is not the direction I want the thread to take. So far I've got some valuable and interesting views :)
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 09:48 by ThomasAmby »

« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2011, 10:16 »
0
I'm not sure it is about ethics or morals at all, as I think about this. Here is a photo that I sold on Alamy, and it is on all the other stock sites:


Pretty reasonable image of Washington Cathedral that can be used to illustrate an article about Washington DC. It sold for $32 on Alamy for low res web use for a 12 month period.
....
Steve


Great example. So did you offer it for sale at Alamy as RM but you offer it as RF on the Micros?

Sean mentioned before that it's possible to offer the same image as RF at one agency and as RM at another.

Maybe someone can elaborate if this example here qualifies.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2011, 10:31 »
0
At the time I uploaded this, I don't think Alamy had their Royalty Free license option - they just had Rights Managed, but that basically meant, as I understand their approach, that the buyer licensed the image for a particular purpose. There was no implication that it was exclusive to Alamy, or that Alamy could describe where or when the image had been used before, or that I, as the photographer, had to explain where it had been used - it was just a way of licensing to that buyer for that purpose. So this image went in as a RM image on Alamy. Now that they have RF, I would put this one as RF if I uploaded it today.

Steve

Microbius

« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2011, 10:32 »
0
I get some of my lowest payments from the novel use scheme at Alamy, so can't really see what the problem is, they aren't much more expensive than some of the micros for RF

« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2011, 10:51 »
0
At the time I uploaded this, I don't think Alamy had their Royalty Free license option - they just had Rights Managed, but that basically meant, as I understand their approach, that the buyer licensed the image for a particular purpose. There was no implication that it was exclusive to Alamy, or that Alamy could describe where or when the image had been used before, or that I, as the photographer, had to explain where it had been used - it was just a way of licensing to that buyer for that purpose. So this image went in as a RM image on Alamy. Now that they have RF, I would put this one as RF if I uploaded it today.

Steve

It states that your image was taken on 3rd October 2009. I don't know if you tampered with the EXIF or intentionally entered that date but ever since I started uploading at Alamy in 2005 I was able to select between RF and L and L exclusive. They didn't call it RM back then.

helix7

« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2011, 10:52 »
0
My images sell at the various microstock sites ranging in price from a few bucks to over $20. The difference from the low end to the high end can sometimes be a multiple of 3 or 4. In some cases the price difference from the high end of the microstock price range to the Alamy price range isn't much different in terms of the percentage increase.

I don't worry about Alamy buyers seeing images they bought there available for less elsewhere. The same thing could happen within the microstock sites, where someone buys a photo for $30 and then sees it for $5 somewhere else.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2011, 11:23 »
0
Quote
Quote from: steheap on Today at 10:31
At the time I uploaded this, I don't think Alamy had their Royalty Free license option - they just had Rights Managed, but that basically meant, as I understand their approach, that the buyer licensed the image for a particular purpose. There was no implication that it was exclusive to Alamy, or that Alamy could describe where or when the image had been used before, or that I, as the photographer, had to explain where it had been used - it was just a way of licensing to that buyer for that purpose. So this image went in as a RM image on Alamy. Now that they have RF, I would put this one as RF if I uploaded it today.

Steve

It states that your image was taken on 3rd October 2009. I don't know if you tampered with the EXIF or intentionally entered that date but ever since I started uploading at Alamy in 2005 I was able to select between RF and L and L exclusive. They didn't call it RM back then.

You are right - it was taken in 2009, and I did enter it as Licensed at that stage. My brain must be going, because I don't recall the RF option then, although I do remember lots of debates about the ethics of choosing Licensed on Alamy when it was RF elsewhere. My mistake.. sorry.

Steve

« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2011, 12:04 »
0
You are right - it was taken in 2009, and I did enter it as Licensed at that stage. My brain must be going, because I don't recall the RF option then, although I do remember lots of debates about the ethics of choosing Licensed on Alamy when it was RF elsewhere. My mistake.. sorry.

Steve

No biggie. I'm still curious though if this is "ok" to do, according to what Sean was saying in the past in another thread.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2011, 12:43 »
0
Yes, that was the big debate a year or two back. I recall that we reviewed the terms and conditions for Alamy, and the conclusion was that although the files were "Licensed" as opposed to being Royalty Free, there were no other implications with that term. So it wasn't a rights managed file where the history of the image could be tracked. It was also claimed at the time that Alamy were perfectly OK with this, although I don't recall how we knew that! Thinking back, I believe there was an expectation that you would get more money from a Licensed image on Alamy compared to an RF one, although I am not sure that this was shown to be correct.

Does anyone have any evidence of lower prices if the image is RF on Alamy compared to the old "L" category?

Steve

« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2011, 13:03 »
0
i don't, because what sells on Alamy is unpredictable to say the least.
never sold any pattern or still life or typical micro stuff there.
on the other side all my sales are about obscure and hard to find subjects and all RM.

« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2011, 13:13 »
0
Yes, that was the big debate a year or two back. I recall that we reviewed the terms and conditions for Alamy, and the conclusion was that although the files were "Licensed" as opposed to being Royalty Free, there were no other implications with that term. So it wasn't a rights managed file where the history of the image could be tracked. It was also claimed at the time that Alamy were perfectly OK with this, although I don't recall how we knew that! Thinking back, I believe there was an expectation that you would get more money from a Licensed image on Alamy compared to an RF one, although I am not sure that this was shown to be correct.

Does anyone have any evidence of lower prices if the image is RF on Alamy compared to the old "L" category?

Steve

My memory might be going but this is what I see in my sales overview at Alamy:

I started selling L (or RM) in 2007 and although it was sold as L (Licensed - non-exclusive) I always received the info that we still receive today for RM sales:

Country: Italy
Usage: Editorial
Media: Magazine - Print only
Industry sector: Media Industry
Sub-Industry: Publishing
Print run: up to 50,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1/8 page
Start: 28 March 2007
End: 04 April 2007

Also you cannot compare L with RF prices. As you could see in your sold  image it states all those facts which determine the final price. RF price is fixed but L depends on many factors. L could be cheaper than RF but L (or RM for that matter) could also earn you a lot more money (thousands of $ for one license).

The "old" L is now just called RM to match the industry standard. AFAIK there is no difference in licensing terms but I may be wrong on that one.

« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2011, 13:20 »
0
Yes, that was the big debate a year or two back. I recall that we reviewed the terms and conditions for Alamy, and the conclusion was that although the files were "Licensed" as opposed to being Royalty Free, there were no other implications with that term. So it wasn't a rights managed file where the history of the image could be tracked. It was also claimed at the time that Alamy were perfectly OK with this, although I don't recall how we knew that! Thinking back, I believe there was an expectation that you would get more money from a Licensed image on Alamy compared to an RF one, although I am not sure that this was shown to be correct.

Does anyone have any evidence of lower prices if the image is RF on Alamy compared to the old "L" category?

Steve

You aren't supposed to sell the same photo as RF and RM on alamy and I think that makes it a problem doing it on other sites.  I don't mix licenses, if it's sold RF elsewhere, I would only sell it as RF on alamy.

Actually, reading the terms and conditions, it really looks like selling using the RM license isn't allowed if you sell the same or very similar photo as RF elsewhere.
Quote
2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/default.asp

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2011, 13:27 »
0
Quote
Quote
2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites.

I wonder if the second sentence is relatively new. I certainly recall the first one, but the second one is definitely a surprise. Good job I am now using the RF option when I upload images! ;D

Steve

« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2011, 13:28 »
0
All I have right now are micro images so that's all that Alamy got from me aside from one that I changed and am selling RM exclusive.  I would like to do more RM illustrations but I need to figure out what that would be.  And I've been so busy with other stuff lately I haven't had the chance to dive into that just yet.

I also, from my understanding, is that once it's RF somewhere else it has to be RF there.  There's no harm in putting your RF stuff on there it's just somewhat of a pain to upload there sometimes.

« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2011, 13:55 »
0
Quote
Quote
2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites.

I wonder if the second sentence is relatively new. I certainly recall the first one, but the second one is definitely a surprise. Good job I am now using the RF option when I upload images! ;D

Steve
It does look a bit different to when I last looked, probably over a year ago.  It was obvious to me then that they didn't want RF from other sites sold as RM but I know some people were doing it and perhaps they had complaints?  I think I might of quoted the old sentence somewhere way back but I'm not going to hunt for it now.

« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2011, 14:38 »
0
So, 18 says "yes", and 5 says "no". Very surprised by the poll results so far. I thought most people were against it as I've read many posts over time encouraging not to submit micro images to Alamy. Maybe these people have been more sound than others and I've just misunderstood the situation.
Think I'm going to start reading their agreement and consider selling my images there

Slovenian

« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2011, 14:04 »
0
So much talk about micro and macro images. But what's the difference, really? Could someone enlighten me, illustrate it for me? Not making fun or anything, just asking same newbie questions. I did go through Alamy and Getty and did find photos to be a bit different, I'd say a bit more natural and when it comes to RM, really conceptual or even arty. And I didn't find many photos with punchy colors (vetta style) either. But that alone can't be it, these are just more or less minor differences

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2011, 09:18 »
0
Quote
So much talk about micro and macro images. But what's the difference, really?

I've struggled with that difference. It is clear that there are licensing choices that companies (and the photographer can make), but I don't think that is the same as "micro" and "macro." Wikipedia defines microstock as:
Quote
What defines a company as a microstock photography company is that they (1) source their images almost exclusively via the Internet, (2) do so from a wider range of photographers than the traditional stock agencies (including a willingness to accept images from "amateurs" and hobbyists), and (3) sell their images at a very low rate (anywhere from $.20 - $10) for a royalty-free (RF) image

However, the point I wanted to make was slightly different and it goes back to the discussion a few posts back about the apparently new line in the Alamy terms and conditions where they state that the license should be the same as the license offered for similar images on other stock sites.

I was posing a question on a different thread about copyright of a statue - we all agreed it was complicated, although there are some documents that I am going to plough through to get to the answer. But, assuming I hadn't done that and just uploaded to Shutterstock et al, some of the sites would have accepted it and others would have rejected because of no property release (as has happened). I then go to Alamy and complete their upload form where I am specifically asked if the image needs a property release and if I have one. As I am not 100% sure, I say that I think it needs one and I don't have one. That defaults the image to RM. Bottom line - even though I may think I have done some research and am "sort of" sure that it doesn't still have copyright, the subject is so complex that no photographer can be really sure, so I err on the side of caution with Alamy. I then end up, with no ulterior motive, with the file as RF on some sites and RM on Alamy.

Steve

« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2011, 11:28 »
0
" I then end up, with no ulterior motive, with the file as RF on some sites and RM on Alamy."

But that isn't what you asked in your survey. Your survey asks specificaly for RF rather than RM. You would likely have seen completely different results had you asked if people submit their RF images as RM on Alamy. I certainly don't.

« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2011, 11:29 »
0
OK, nvm, I just noticed it wasn't your survey. Sorry.

RacePhoto

« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2011, 23:36 »
0
For me it has almost nothing to do with dual marketing, although I don't want to compete with myself when I get $80 commission on Alamy and 25c to 50c on Micro. Anyone can sell at multiple sites if they wish and find they are also wasting time on Alamy because buyers aren't living in a closet and do search for better prices?

The question for me is, do I want to waste time competing with myself and will the same images that sell on micro actually sell on Alamy? Maybe some do, but they are different buyers and a different market, so no I just don't bother.


So, 18 says "yes", and 5 says "no". Very surprised by the poll results so far. I thought most people were against it as I've read many posts over time encouraging not to submit micro images to Alamy. Maybe these people have been more sound than others and I've just misunderstood the situation.
Think I'm going to start reading their agreement and consider selling my images there

« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2011, 01:04 »
0
I agree with RacePhoto about not wanting to compete with oneself.
A while back, I was speaking with someone who had a lovely conceptual image zoomed on Alamy and then downloaded on a micro. Though the 2 events might have been unrelated, the micro sale was not happy news.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2011, 06:18 »
0
If you're selling an image as RM on one site, and RF on another, you're likely to encounter legal problems.  RM goes with the image, not the site.  A possible and hypothetical scenario:  I'm a buyer, and I want a particular image, but I don't have the budget to hire a photographer, model, MUA, stylist, etc.  I don't want an exclusive, but neither do I want to use an image that has been used or that could be used by one of my competitors, so I look through a RM collection, find just the right image that fits that criteria, and I purchase the rights to that image in a way that precludes that image from being used in a similar fashion (i.e., that image can't be used in association with a competitor's product).  Later, I discover that the same image was purchased and used on a RF basis by a competitor.  I'm furious because the image was presented to me under false pretenses, so I sue everyone involved - the RM site, the RF site, the photographer, and anyone else who even remotely could be held responsible or accountable.  I have a strong case to present in court, and I'm seeking punitive damages plus compensation for lost income, lost market share, attorneys' fees, etc.  As a photographer, if I were to offer an image as RM, I certainly wouldn't offer it as RF on another site because of just such a likely scenario, and I would limit the RM image(s) to one site.  How could the rights be tracked and managed otherwise?

« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2011, 08:25 »
0
Lately, my RF sales on Alamy are almost the same royalties as on the Micros.

Regardless of what Alamy pricing is, for my images they ALWAYS offer steep discounts (up to 80%), so even for medium sized RF sales, I get $10.

Maybe that's the Micros effect, but hey, at least I pocketed those $10 that I might have not gotten at all. Who knows.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2011, 09:23 »
0
Quote
If you're selling an image as RM on one site, and RF on another, you're likely to encounter legal problems.  RM goes with the image, not the site.  A possible and hypothetical scenario:  I'm a buyer, and I want a particular image, but I don't have the budget to hire a photographer, model, MUA, stylist, etc.  I don't want an exclusive, but neither do I want to use an image that has been used or that could be used by one of my competitors, so I look through a RM collection, find just the right image that fits that criteria, and I purchase the rights to that image in a way that precludes that image from being used in a similar fashion (i.e., that image can't be used in association with a competitor's product).  Later, I discover that the same image was purchased and used on a RF basis by a competitor.  I'm furious because the image was presented to me under false pretenses, so I sue everyone involved - the RM site, the RF site, the photographer, and anyone else who even remotely could be held responsible or accountable.  I have a strong case to present in court, and I'm seeking punitive damages plus compensation for lost income, lost market share, attorneys' fees, etc.  As a photographer, if I were to offer an image as RM, I certainly wouldn't offer it as RF on another site because of just such a likely scenario, and I would limit the RM image(s) to one site.  How could the rights be tracked and managed otherwise?

Is that correct? If I sold an image as RM on Alamy, and the same image as RM on Panthermedia, then there is no linkage in terms of managing usage between those two sites. I don't believe that the basic RM license on Alamy allows anyone to purchase in a way that the image could not be used by a competitor say. If it was exclusive RM on Alamy, then OK, but not in any other circumstances.

Steve

lisafx

« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2011, 09:26 »
0
Lately, my RF sales on Alamy are almost the same royalties as on the Micros.

Regardless of what Alamy pricing is, for my images they ALWAYS offer steep discounts (up to 80%), so even for medium sized RF sales, I get $10.

So true!  Makes the rest of this discussion pretty much moot. 

ShadySue

« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2011, 09:36 »
0
Quote
If you're selling an image as RM on one site, and RF on another, you're likely to encounter legal problems.  RM goes with the image, not the site.  A possible and hypothetical scenario:  I'm a buyer, and I want a particular image, but I don't have the budget to hire a photographer, model, MUA, stylist, etc.  I don't want an exclusive, but neither do I want to use an image that has been used or that could be used by one of my competitors, so I look through a RM collection, find just the right image that fits that criteria, and I purchase the rights to that image in a way that precludes that image from being used in a similar fashion (i.e., that image can't be used in association with a competitor's product).  Later, I discover that the same image was purchased and used on a RF basis by a competitor.  I'm furious because the image was presented to me under false pretenses, so I sue everyone involved - the RM site, the RF site, the photographer, and anyone else who even remotely could be held responsible or accountable.  I have a strong case to present in court, and I'm seeking punitive damages plus compensation for lost income, lost market share, attorneys' fees, etc.  As a photographer, if I were to offer an image as RM, I certainly wouldn't offer it as RF on another site because of just such a likely scenario, and I would limit the RM image(s) to one site.  How could the rights be tracked and managed otherwise?

Is that correct? If I sold an image as RM on Alamy, and the same image as RM on Panthermedia, then there is no linkage in terms of managing usage between those two sites. I don't believe that the basic RM license on Alamy allows anyone to purchase in a way that the image could not be used by a competitor say. If it was exclusive RM on Alamy, then OK, but not in any other circumstances.

Steve
I believe that, as content does not need to be exclusive to Alamy, they will contact you to ask if any exclusive RM terms can be granted. If the sale goes through (I once had urgent emails asking about a particular image, but the sale didn't go through), it is then up to you to make sure than any other outlet you sell the image knows about any exclusive rights you sold.

« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2011, 09:52 »
0
Quote
If you're selling an image as RM on one site, and RF on another, you're likely to encounter legal problems.  RM goes with the image, not the site.  A possible and hypothetical scenario:  I'm a buyer, and I want a particular image, but I don't have the budget to hire a photographer, model, MUA, stylist, etc.  I don't want an exclusive, but neither do I want to use an image that has been used or that could be used by one of my competitors, so I look through a RM collection, find just the right image that fits that criteria, and I purchase the rights to that image in a way that precludes that image from being used in a similar fashion (i.e., that image can't be used in association with a competitor's product).  Later, I discover that the same image was purchased and used on a RF basis by a competitor.  I'm furious because the image was presented to me under false pretenses, so I sue everyone involved - the RM site, the RF site, the photographer, and anyone else who even remotely could be held responsible or accountable.  I have a strong case to present in court, and I'm seeking punitive damages plus compensation for lost income, lost market share, attorneys' fees, etc.  As a photographer, if I were to offer an image as RM, I certainly wouldn't offer it as RF on another site because of just such a likely scenario, and I would limit the RM image(s) to one site.  How could the rights be tracked and managed otherwise?

Is that correct? If I sold an image as RM on Alamy, and the same image as RM on Panthermedia, then there is no linkage in terms of managing usage between those two sites. I don't believe that the basic RM license on Alamy allows anyone to purchase in a way that the image could not be used by a competitor say. If it was exclusive RM on Alamy, then OK, but not in any other circumstances.

Steve

Here is my 2 cents about the definition of RM (please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong):

RM does NOT mean exclusivity is implied.

RM (or RF) exclusive uses can only be guaranteed if the image is only offered by one agency - UNLESS the following example happens:
An image is offered as RM (non-exclusive) on Alamy but a buyer wants the image exclusively. Alamy Member Services will contact you and ask if it's possible to license this image exclusively, which means Alamy wants to know if you have uploaded this image to another RM agency or if you already licensed it RM yourself already.

If you are able to disable the image at other agencies for the term required and don't license it yourself, you can then tell Alamy to go ahead an license it as exclusive.

Alamy offers two RM licenses - exclusive and non-exclusive.  

At other agencies RM means non-exclusive or exclusive depending on their terms of agreement.

Offering non-exclusive RM at various agencies is perfectly fine. Only if a buyer requires exclusivity you might get the run-around.

RacePhoto

« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2011, 01:26 »
0
That seems to be true and the case, however, since I sell Editorial on Alamy and RF on Micro, I don't really have the same situation.

Someone who puts Micro style shots up on Alamy, should expect to get the same value from them for the same license and materials. There's no magic there. :)

I put up one large RF image on Alamy and got the usual $200 download, $120 commission. I wonder if I should have uploaded it to Micro and collected my $3 from four agencies. Oh Whoopee, that's exciting.

Even if the coincidence of views on Alamy and sales on micro are true, there's no way to prove it. I just figure if it's good enough for Alamy, that's where it goes. If it's editorial/news it goes on Alamy. If it's smaller and RF, then it goes on Micro. I don't need to compete with myself, with my own images, by selling them for 1/20th of the price, and pennies for commission. As far as views and sales, I have sales on Alamy with no views, no zooms, no searches and no data except someone did find it and did buy a license. Fine with me, the measures data is just for information, not perfect and accurate.

Let me be frank. I'm not willing to sell out and work for spare change by putting up hundreds of images and years of work, to get some payback from micro. The agencies change the rules, change the commission, change anything they please, cancel promises and people are so hungry and owned by Microstock that they are afraid to stand up to the abuse. Oh can't quit, I depend on the income. Oh good, crowdsourcing has now driven commissions down to 15% and worse. I'm not willing to spend a three day weekend shooting from Sunrise to Sunset, driving hundreds of miles to get to events. Gain access to highly selective and restricted media credentials. Spend another night or two culling, editing, identifying and uploading this work?

All so I can sell the photos on some Microstock site and get a crummy quarter or maybe a dollar. (honest IS is still best at $1.50 per download average, and that's going down)

I'm still happier getting less sales volume and getting paid what I feel is a fair price for my work.

Don't get me wrong, sales for me on Alamy have also dropped in the last year. But one sale still beats four years income from a small Micro site.  :o

 
Lately, my RF sales on Alamy are almost the same royalties as on the Micros.

Regardless of what Alamy pricing is, for my images they ALWAYS offer steep discounts (up to 80%), so even for medium sized RF sales, I get $10.

Maybe that's the Micros effect, but hey, at least I pocketed those $10 that I might have not gotten at all. Who knows.

« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2011, 04:29 »
0
I fail to see the benefits of choosing RM over RF in any situation. If the image is not even exclusive when being sold as RM, then why pay more for restricted usage - RM - when you can get almost unlimited usage - RF - for less ? Never understood the concept of rights managed. When is it beneficial ? Makes no sense to me

RacePhoto

« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2011, 12:43 »
0
I fail to see the benefits of choosing RM over RF in any situation. If the image is not even exclusive when being sold as RM, then why pay more for restricted usage - RM - when you can get almost unlimited usage - RF - for less ? Never understood the concept of rights managed. When is it beneficial ? Makes no sense to me

Yes. The reason I do is Editorial which defaults to RM on Alamy. They could be RF but that's not the way it works. Once I click no model release, zap, it's RM Editorial there.

In case anyone has been watching the prices for RF and RM have been coming closer together on Alamy. Also the Micro prices and the discounted Alamy prices have been coming closer together. So cheap RF is cheap (or inexpensive?) everywhere. Things are becoming much more alike all over, so the former debate which I took the side of integrity, over selling out or trying to bilk buyers, is irrelevant now.

Still the example changes when someone here is the buyer or the one paying for something, instead of the one selling it. Odd isn't that?

Person goes to store A and buys a new tent. Pays $399 because it's supposed to be good and the latest. Next week they see, identical tent on a website for $99. Now I want the ones arguing that buyers who can get the same images on Micro for subscriptions or $3 on demand are going to pay $240 for the same image on Alamy and not be pissed off at the artist? Also most semi-intelligent buyers know how to do a search or look at multiple sites and will but the same image from Micro if it's offered there, so then "artist" says, Alamy is crummy for sales, no one buys anything there and I have my best 500 Microstock images up there. Yeah, but "artist" also has those same 500 Microstock style images up on 10 - 20 sites, and the style of work is more suited for Micro than Alamy, so what's the obvious?

Different markets, different buyers much of the time, not just different pricing. Alamy has 24 million images. Consider the competition at a high level. And then add in competing with oneself based on price, there's not going to be a happy success story at the end of all this.  :D

Opinion, and that's why I don't compete with myself based on Micro pricing and image demands of buyers at the two sources, being different. I don't put the Micro RF on Alamy either. I don't see it being the right marketplace for those. Also I do pocket camera and snapshots on Micro, many are 4-6MP would never make it. Camera is not on the approved list. The choice is even easier.

ShadySue

« Reply #40 on: June 10, 2011, 05:13 »
0
I fail to see the benefits of choosing RM over RF in any situation. If the image is not even exclusive when being sold as RM, then why pay more for restricted usage - RM - when you can get almost unlimited usage - RF - for less ? Never understood the concept of rights managed. When is it beneficial ? Makes no sense to me

You would buy rights for an image if you didn't want your book cover to have the same photo as someone else's (posted on a different thread last week):
...
Similarly if you didn't want your calendar cover image to be the same as someone else's, or your photo used in an advert and also used in a rival's advert etc.
If you buy specific RM rights the photographer and agency has a reponsibility to assert that the image (and probably any 'significantly similar') has been used before in a conflicting use.
The more 'managed' you want your end usage to be, the more you pay. For example, you'd pay significantly more to buy rights to 'all uses, worldwide' for an image for five years than you would if you paid for 'advertisements, print, magazine, plumbing industry, Luxembourg, one month'.
It can have surprising benefits to the consumer too: a friend was trying to choose an itinerary for a trip to New Zealand and showed me that "all the different tour operators use mostly the same photos" (presumably sent out free by the New Zealand Tourist Board. She eventually chose one where the company showed 'different' images, not the  'obvious' ones most used.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 05:17 by ShadySue »

« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2011, 20:18 »
0
I do not put the same images on both Alamy and micro.
 

dbvirago

« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2011, 07:45 »
0
Revenue from last 3 sales at Alamy    $2.49
Revenue from last 3 sales at Bigstock $2.50

ShadySue

« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2011, 07:54 »
0
Revenue from last 3 sales at Alamy    $2.49
Is that novel use ... or ...?

dbvirago

« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2011, 08:47 »
0
yeah, those three were novel use. Between those and the $3-4 RFs, my average sale there has dropped from $194 to $65. Avg for last 12 is $22

lagereek

« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2011, 08:50 »
0
Ibelieve there isnt much differance at all between amounts of RM and RF sales, pretty even, thats what I have heard. For me Alamy is producing better and better, just looked at my June stats and theres already 5, RF sales and some novelty. Uploading is easy and quite fun actually.

All in all they run their business in a professional way. Cant knock that. Slow payouts though.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 08:51 by lagereek »

Batman

« Reply #46 on: June 25, 2011, 10:55 »
0
Revenue from last 3 sales at Alamy    $2.49
Revenue from last 3 sales at Bigstock $2.50

Evidence that Micro and Alamy are getting closer and closer.  :) It all depends on what type of pictures you have for sale on both RF micro pictures will get RF micro prices.

« Reply #47 on: June 25, 2011, 20:29 »
0
Lately, my RF sales on Alamy are almost the same royalties as on the Micros.

Regardless of what Alamy pricing is, for my images they ALWAYS offer steep discounts (up to 80%), so even for medium sized RF sales, I get $10.

So true!  Makes the rest of this discussion pretty much moot. 

Normally I would jump on the "concur" bandwagon but this month has generated a lot of money for me (June=$1400).  Most months are less...sigh!

« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2012, 12:31 »
0
I have one RF image that Alamy licensed for me for $250 and then they turned around and licensed a similar one from the same shoot that very same month under the NU scheme for 83 cents. When that happens, I'm not the one a buyer should be angry at.
I think most buyers are sophisticated enough to know that they can shop around for images, so I don't think it's unethical when Alamy makes it clear that they will accept RF images that are on the micros. But you can't take an RF  image from the micros and put it on Alamy as RM. Allowing different licenses for the same image is wrong.  Alamy made that clear from day one (for me -  I started uploading there in 2007).

I experimented last year and took a couple of my RF images from Alamy and posted them on the micros - they are doing well for me on both - volume makes up for lower prices on the micros - but I don't allow ELs for them on sites that net me only a few dollars for an extended license after seeing them zoomed and then purchased elsewhere, which is why my experiment ended - Still, ,the experiment was a success netting me over $300 from a few of the images on the micros (and a bit more from the same ones on Alamy) - so I'm keeping that batch on both.

Since certain of my images sell well on both, I'm trying to shoot photos with the same the same feeling - just different subjects for each venue, with the better shots going to Alamy where I still get the occasional $250 RF sale - even ELs don't add up that fast on the micros.

I'm not giving up on the micros, though. I like that I can capture a good image with a handy point and shoot or even my iPhone and have somewhere to sell it. And when I put an Alamy-caliber image on the micros, it sells.

« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2012, 17:26 »
0
I believe that, as content does not need to be exclusive to Alamy, they will contact you to ask if any exclusive RM terms can be granted. If the sale goes through (I once had urgent emails asking about a particular image, but the sale didn't go through), it is then up to you to make sure than any other outlet you sell the image knows about any exclusive rights you sold.

right - i had this happen with DT - the buyer got an exclusive license from that day on, and the images were removed from other agencies that had them  - it was a $300 sale, so not hard to decide to remove it from RF

Poncke

« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2012, 18:56 »
0
I fail to see the benefits of choosing RM over RF in any situation. If the image is not even exclusive when being sold as RM, then why pay more for restricted usage - RM - when you can get almost unlimited usage - RF - for less ? Never understood the concept of rights managed. When is it beneficial ? Makes no sense to me

You would buy rights for an image if you didn't want your book cover to have the same photo as someone else's (posted on a different thread last week):
...
Similarly if you didn't want your calendar cover image to be the same as someone else's, or your photo used in an advert and also used in a rival's advert etc.
If you buy specific RM rights the photographer and agency has a reponsibility to assert that the image (and probably any 'significantly similar') has been used before in a conflicting use.
The more 'managed' you want your end usage to be, the more you pay. For example, you'd pay significantly more to buy rights to 'all uses, worldwide' for an image for five years than you would if you paid for 'advertisements, print, magazine, plumbing industry, Luxembourg, one month'.
It can have surprising benefits to the consumer too: a friend was trying to choose an itinerary for a trip to New Zealand and showed me that "all the different tour operators use mostly the same photos" (presumably sent out free by the New Zealand Tourist Board. She eventually chose one where the company showed 'different' images, not the  'obvious' ones most used.


If I am correct, that can still happen on RM. Because RM is not exclusive. RM exclusive is. So that bookcover can still be sold to many.

ShadySue

« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2012, 19:00 »
0
I fail to see the benefits of choosing RM over RF in any situation. If the image is not even exclusive when being sold as RM, then why pay more for restricted usage - RM - when you can get almost unlimited usage - RF - for less ? Never understood the concept of rights managed. When is it beneficial ? Makes no sense to me

You would buy rights for an image if you didn't want your book cover to have the same photo as someone else's (posted on a different thread last week):
...
Similarly if you didn't want your calendar cover image to be the same as someone else's, or your photo used in an advert and also used in a rival's advert etc.
If you buy specific RM rights the photographer and agency has a reponsibility to assert that the image (and probably any 'significantly similar') has been used before in a conflicting use.
The more 'managed' you want your end usage to be, the more you pay. For example, you'd pay significantly more to buy rights to 'all uses, worldwide' for an image for five years than you would if you paid for 'advertisements, print, magazine, plumbing industry, Luxembourg, one month'.
It can have surprising benefits to the consumer too: a friend was trying to choose an itinerary for a trip to New Zealand and showed me that "all the different tour operators use mostly the same photos" (presumably sent out free by the New Zealand Tourist Board. She eventually chose one where the company showed 'different' images, not the  'obvious' ones most used.


If I am correct, that can still happen on RM. Because RM is not exclusive. RM exclusive is. So that bookcover can still be sold to many.

The question was "Why pay more for restricted usage?"; restricted could be a form of exclusive, e.g. 'book cover, five years' or whatever.

« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2012, 19:49 »
0
Alamy should allow the contributors to make some images exclusive.

ShadySue

« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2012, 03:12 »
0
Alamy should allow the contributors to make some images exclusive.

You can:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-licences.asp, though I've never noticed that as an option when uploading.

Later: maybe you can't do it at the moment, though it was previously allowed. There's been an official Alamy post since I wrote the above, saying, inter alia:
"The RM-E model may be revisited at a later date as has been raised by many of you over the recent white paper discussions; it may be an option to identify images that are genuinely Alamy Exclusive.
However at this point we are treating any images listed on the site as RM-E exactly the same as RM.
If a customer requests exclusivity, rest assured we will clear this with you first."
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 05:03 by ShadySue »

« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2012, 15:16 »
0
SS, thanks for the updates.

Alamy should allow the contributors to make some images exclusive.

You can:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-licences.asp, though I've never noticed that as an option when uploading.

Later: maybe you can't do it at the moment, though it was previously allowed. There's been an official Alamy post since I wrote the above, saying, inter alia:
"The RM-E model may be revisited at a later date as has been raised by many of you over the recent white paper discussions; it may be an option to identify images that are genuinely Alamy Exclusive.
However at this point we are treating any images listed on the site as RM-E exactly the same as RM.
If a customer requests exclusivity, rest assured we will clear this with you first."



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5296 Views
Last post May 01, 2008, 15:58
by ktkane
5 Replies
4522 Views
Last post May 24, 2008, 13:12
by PeterChigmaroff
37 Replies
16715 Views
Last post December 06, 2008, 20:48
by tubed
32 Replies
14896 Views
Last post April 03, 2011, 10:21
by stockastic
11 Replies
7345 Views
Last post July 29, 2011, 01:27
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results