Author Topic: Alamy RM or RF (Read 23221 times)

jsfoto · « **on:** August 22, 2011, 06:06 »

Hi, hopefully I will be accepted at Alamy soon and so I would like to ask you a question:
If I understood right you can choose either RM or RF not both and you can't change your decision later. I upload to many microstock agencies so I thought it would be the best to try to sell my images at Alamy as RM to get better RPI there. What is your experience: Is it better to choose RM or RF and what's about RM plus that what they call "novel use" (if you may combine these two what I am not sure about)?

zollster · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2011, 06:58 »

you cant sell images as rm if you already sell them as rf elsewhere

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2011, 07:16 »

Quote from: jsfoto on August 22, 2011, 06:06

Hi, hopefully I will be accepted at Alamy soon and so I would like to ask you a question:
If I understood right you can choose either RM or RF not both and you can't change your decision later. I upload to many microstock agencies so I thought it would be the best to try to sell my images at Alamy as RM to get better RPI there. What is your experience: Is it better to choose RM or RF and what's about RM plus that what they call "novel use" (if you may combine these two what I am not sure about)?

As above, plus I think I read somewhere that they now don't want the same Micro images on their RF program, though there are many already in existence. (Didn't note the link, and I guess I could be wrong). If there's a chance you might ever want to be exclusive at iStock (!) you may want to consider only submitting RM. News is, however, that RF sells for more $$ there, but there are more RM sales, but that's only forum speak, and a tiny proportion of Alamy contributors post in the forums.
You can opt into the 'novel use' scheme if you sell RM (though again not if you are iStock exclusive, as they weren't sure about the t&c for novel use) and you can opt in or out of the newspaper scheme.
Be aware that although the RPD is generally better with Alamy RM, prices are generally highly discounted off the quoted prices. Some very big sales are reported, many more quote prices very similar to micro. It obviously depends what you shoot, how unique it is (it's difficult to get 'unique' on Alamy!) and how suited to Alamy's market it is. (Difficult to know what their target market is other than newspapers, magazines and textbooks, as I've never actually seen an Alamy advert - has anyone else?) I was seven months/800 uploads until I got my first sale, and although I read recently about someone who had uploaded about 20 images over six months and had a sale (and was whining about his 'lack of downloads') my experience is more like the 'reported norm'. For myself, I send things to Alamy that would seldom if ever sell on micro (e.g. unusual locations) plus things that micro won't take as editorial. And I'm experimenting a bit.
Clearly, YMMV, but don't necessarily expect instant success.

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2011, 07:18 »

I take this as meaning if it's RF anywhere else, it can only be sold as RF on alamy.

"you must not submit the same or similar images as different licence types."

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-licences.asp

jsfoto · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2011, 07:26 »

Thanks for your quick answer.

Now two new questions:
If a have to similar but not identical photo from a series, can I sell one on my microstock agencies, the other as RM on Alamy?

And does anyone have experience with "novel use". Can you combine it with RF and is it worth doing it?

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** August 22, 2011, 07:35 »

Quote from: jsfoto on August 22, 2011, 07:26

Thanks for your quick answer.

Now two new questions:
If a have to similar but not identical photo from a series, can I sell one on my microstock agencies, the other as RM on Alamy?

And does anyone have experience with "novel use". Can you combine it with RF and is it worth doing it?

It depends how similar. Some definitions of sister/similar are remarkably different - Getty is particularly sticky about thatl.
You can combine RF with novel use. What I've read is that 'novel use' returns can be tiny, but I've seen on iStock/Getty forum that sometimes Getty sales can be under a dollar too. Up to you to decide if it's worth it. You almost certainly wouldn't get full price sales from the NU buyers unless you've got something really unique that they can't get CC on Flickr, for example.
IIRC, you're either 'in' NU or not, so if you are opted into the scheme and get a photo of the Loch Ness Monster, you couldn't opt that photo alone out. Same applies to the newspaper scheme. You get a chance to opt in or opt out of each programme in April each year.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** August 22, 2011, 08:08 »

Quote from: zollster on August 22, 2011, 06:58

you cant sell images as rm if you already sell them as rf elsewhere

Sigh, yes you can.

jsfoto · « **Reply #7 on:** August 22, 2011, 08:21 »

Ok, now I'am totally confused. Can I sell photos which I have for example in my portfolio of shutterstock and iStock as RM on alamy or can't I? Voting starts now

Ed · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2011, 08:36 »

Quote from: jsfoto on August 22, 2011, 08:21

Ok, now I'am totally confused. Can I sell photos which I have for example in my portfolio of shutterstock and iStock as RM on alamy or can't I? Voting starts now

You can do anything you want to do but from a legal perspective, this can get you into trouble. Here's why....on occasion, a customer will want to license an image with certain restrictions. They may want exclusive rights to that image within a certain country. If that image has been licensed as royalty free through another agency (shutterstock or istock), you cannot assure that customer that s/he will have exclusive rights to that image for the given time frame. If you deceive the customer into thinking this then you are opening yourself up for a lawsuit.

There are some that will tell you that you can't even post exclusive images on social media sites (such as Facebook or Google+ or 500px) because by posting those images there, you are granting Facebook or Google+ or etc. the right to publish those images on a royalty free basis (see the terms of service for Facebook or Google).

Your mileage may vary.

Xalanx · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2011, 08:43 »

Quote from: jsfoto on August 22, 2011, 08:21

Ok, now I'am totally confused. Can I sell photos which I have for example in my portfolio of shutterstock and iStock as RM on alamy or can't I? Voting starts now

Yes you can. RM means just that several aspects regarding your photo can be set up. For example locations, usage, how many copies of the printed material, etc. You can also restrict usage in some countries if you like. But it has nothing to do with exclusivity, and this is what you're interested in. So, you cannot exclusively sell an image that was previously sold elsewhere, no matter if it's RF or RM.
Again, RM means exactly what it says: Rights Managed.

click_click · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2011, 08:46 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 22, 2011, 08:08

Quote from: zollster on August 22, 2011, 06:58
you cant sell images as rm if you already sell them as rf elsewhere

Sigh, yes you can.

*Sarcasm on - Zollster of course you can. That's what Sean is doing with his exclusive IS content. He uploads it as RM to Alamy. *sarcasm off.

Sean, I had to, forgive me. I'm still not getting the drift how the same image can be RF at one agency and RM at another. While agency terms may have those loopholes, is that a practice that you actually do?

So, should one upload an image to Alamy twice, once RF and once RM since it apparently doesn't matter anyway?

Why even use two forms of licenses then?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** August 22, 2011, 09:10 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 22, 2011, 08:43

RM means just that several aspects regarding your photo can be set up. For example locations, usage, how many copies of the printed material, etc. You can also restrict usage in some countries if you like. But it has nothing to do with exclusivity, and this is what you're interested in. So, you cannot exclusively sell an image that was previously sold elsewhere, no matter if it's RF or RM.
Again, RM means exactly what it says: Rights Managed.

This ^.

No, I don't license my iStock content elsewhere as RM. It's not something I'd feel like doing, personally, but also, the Artist's Agreement says: "The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content (as defined below)". So, if something is exclusive on IS, they're the only ones that can license it. That has nothing to do with RF or RM.

click_click · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2011, 09:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 22, 2011, 09:10

... but also, the Artist's Agreement says: "The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content (as defined below)". ...

Two things, one is the agency contract and then the legal definition between RM and RF.

As you pointed out, IS prohibits any RF content to be sold elsewhere, even selling any RF elsewhere.

Sean, I'm sure you know that other agencies have similar clauses in their contracts that don't allow the contributor to either offer the same content elswhere (exclusivity) or that the files cannot be sold under a different license at another agency.

Agencies, that don't cover those aspects contribute to the confusion in the buyer's market when customers see the same image as RF at one place and as RM at another.
It just doesn't make much sense, if any at all.

I've tried to follow these discussions about RF/RM at the same time-thing and never read about conclusion of it.

Sean, could you kindly give us an example where in your opinion one and the same image should be uploaded as RF to one agency and as RM to another.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:05 »

Quote from: click_click on August 22, 2011, 09:41

Quote from: sjlocke on August 22, 2011, 09:10
... but also, the Artist's Agreement says: "The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content (as defined below)". ...
As you pointed out, IS prohibits any RF content to be sold elsewhere, even selling any RF elsewhere.

Sean surprisingly missed out the important qualifier that the agreement he's quoting is the exclusive ASA. The regular ASA does not have that clause.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:25 »

Oh yeah, well, I thought that was apparent in the part that said "exclusive agent"...

Quote

Sean, could you kindly give us an example where in your opinion one and the same image should be uploaded as RF to one agency and as RM to another.

I'm not saying anyone _should_ do it. Just that as long as nothing in whatever locations' agreements prohibits it, you could if you want to. In general, there is nothing that says you can't do it. RM and RF are just groups of rights you are selling. You just can't offer history or exclusivity if an image was RF.

SNP · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:47 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 22, 2011, 08:08

Quote from: zollster on August 22, 2011, 06:58
you cant sell images as rm if you already sell them as rf elsewhere

Sigh, yes you can.

Sean - I need to add a comment here. I've been involved in a lengthy ongoing discussion with iStock contributor relations about this. in my situation it is regarding editorial files. iStock claims that I cannot sell any files I am already selling as RF editorial on iStock as RM elsewhere. so I am caught in a decision about selling any editorial at iStock when it means I'm shooting myself in the foot. I would prefer to sell editorial through news wires and agencies than through iStock where I can't even sell much of my editorial work because they don't take it (celebs, politics, time-sensitive news etc.). I know this is in regards to Alamy, but iStock claims that we cannot sell ANY files or similars that we sell on iStock as RM ANYWHERE.

I still dispute this and it is NOT stated in our ASA. it is incredibly frustrating. supplying editorial to iStock has turned into a PITA for me.

click_click · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:51 »

Not being an IS expert but it sounds to me like IS doesn't want IS exclusives to submit ANY non-RM content anywhere else.

You are free to sell different material as RM somewhere else but that's it.

I'm probably wrong though, back to Sean!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #17 on:** August 22, 2011, 10:51 »

Well, that's what I quoted above: ""The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content (as defined below)"

If you have something that is exclusive content, you've agreed they're the only ones who can license it. Solution - just don't upload editorial to iStock.

jsfoto · « **Reply #18 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:21 »

Ok, good news for me: my first batch of 4 images was accepted by Alamy some minutes ago.

Bad news for me: I still do not know wheter Alamy allows to sell images RM if sell them RF on other agencies. I am not really interested about what iStock is saying cause I am not exclusive there (or elsewhere). I just would like to know wheter Alamy allows it.
And I would like to know (if there is anybody who sells some RM and some RF on Alamy): which kind of liscence is earning more money

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:22 »

Quote from: jsfoto on August 22, 2011, 11:21

Ok, good news for me: my first batch of 4 images was accepted by Alamy some minutes ago.

Bad news for me: I still do not know wheter Alamy allows to sell images RM if sell them RF on other agencies. I am not really interested about what iStock is saying cause I am not exclusive there (or elsewhere). I just would like to know wheter Alamy allows it.
And I would like to know (if there is anybody who sells some RM and some RF on Alamy): which kind of liscence is earning more money

Do you know there is an Alamy forum?

jsfoto · « **Reply #20 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:27 »

No, I did not notice that yet, good hint ... thanks

click_click · « **Reply #21 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:29 »

Quote from: jsfoto on August 22, 2011, 11:21

Ok, good news for me: my first batch of 4 images was accepted by Alamy some minutes ago.

Bad news for me: I still do not know wheter Alamy allows to sell images RM if sell them RF on other agencies. I am not really interested about what iStock is saying cause I am not exclusive there (or elsewhere). I just would like to know wheter Alamy allows it.
And I would like to know (if there is anybody who sells some RM and some RF on Alamy): which kind of liscence is earning more money

Let me ask you why you actually want to sell RF images as RM on Alamy?

What is it that you want to achieve with that?

Don't you worry about that a buyer might find your image on both agencies wondering why he can buy it for $5 at Canstock in full resolution without many restrictions while being charged 100 times as much for a specific use as RM at Alamy?

SNP · « **Reply #22 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:38 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 22, 2011, 10:51

Well, that's what I quoted above: ""The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Exclusive Content (as defined below)"

If you have something that is exclusive content, you've agreed they're the only ones who can license it. Solution - just don't upload editorial to iStock.

yeah, that's the decision I'm working on.....;-)

Ed · « **Reply #23 on:** August 22, 2011, 11:51 »

jsfoto - Alamy is a different market place than the micros. At Alamy, you have companies as well as picture buyers/brokers looking through the work. At the micros, for the most part, you've got a different class of person licensing images. Every once in a while, you'll have a big player but for the most part, it's the small fish that are licensing images. If you have work on the micros and the same work on Alamy, the picture buyers will buy from the micros instead for the lower commission - that's their job and it's what they do for their clients.

The impression I'm getting from your post:

Quote from: jsfoto on August 22, 2011, 11:21

which kind of liscence is earning more money

Is that you're doing this to chase dollars. If you want to sell RF on Alamy, then feel free to upload the RF images you have at the micros. You may get lucky and license one or two but invariably, a picture buyer is also going to find it on the micros and license it there.

If you want to sell Rights Managed, then upload rights managed content to Alamy (not content listed on the micros) and then pursue other agencies that sell Rights Managed content as well. This will bring you higher prices.

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2011, 12:25 »

@OP: I hope you realise that Alamy don't welcome nudity or 'glamma'?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Alamy RM or RF (Read 23221 times)

jsfoto

zollster

ShadySue

sharpshot

jsfoto

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

jsfoto

Ed

Xalanx

click_click

Sean Locke Photography

click_click

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

SNP

click_click

Sean Locke Photography

jsfoto

ShadySue

jsfoto

click_click

SNP

Ed

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors