royalty free or licenced?

[Peter]

I am selling non exclusive images to alamy. Should I put royalty free or licenced licence?

[sharpshot]

If they are selling as RF on other sites, you should choose RF.  I use licensed for photos with people or property in them that I don't have a release for.

[Peter]

ok, tnx.

[sharply_done]

This quote, from PDN's Stock Income Survey last year may be of help:

One particularly noteworthy result of the survey was the difference in average income between royalty-free and rights-managed photographers. Photographers who reported that the majority of their income is from royalty-free sales earned $63,200 on average from stock sales last year. Those who reported the majority of their income was from rights managed sales generated an average of $38,500 in 2006 stock sales.

This result might be a bit skewed if the noted RF high rollers participated in the survey, which may account for some of the $25k difference in RF and RM income.

[sharpshot]

I wonder if that applies to alamy, as the majority of their sales are editorial.

[PecoFoto]

I don't have any RF on Alamy at the moment but the way I decide is if they are of a generic type then I would set them as RF. If they were more specific like a particular travel destination then set them as RM.  Of course if you don�t have a model or property release then also set them as RM.

There's a couple of interesting articles at Dan Heller's site -

http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/rf-vs-rm-which-is-more-profitable.html

[Lee Torrens]

Of course if you don�t have a model or property release then also set them as RM.

You can only sell an unreleased image with an editorial license - not with a commercial stock, RM or RF, license.

I had the same misunderstanding in the past, and even wrote it on my blog! After time it seemed a little odd, so I investigated and was assured that model releases are very much required for Rights Managed stock. (I corrected my blog )

[The Corey]

Of course if you don�t have a model or property release then also set them as RM.

You can only sell an unreleased image with an editorial license - not with a commercial stock, RM or RF, license.

I had the same misunderstanding in the past, and even wrote it on my blog! After time it seemed a little odd, so I investigated and was assured that model releases are very much required for Rights Managed stock. (I corrected my blog )

Lee is absolutely correct. If someone's image or property ( like a animal or house) is going to be used outside of an editorial context you want to have a release.  Typically you only want to us RM if you have very unique imagery. If the subject matter is more common ( business meeting, family playing in the park) it might be a better option to choose RF and have a better earning potential.

[PecoFoto]

Of course if you don�t have a model or property release then also set them as RM.

You can only sell an unreleased image with an editorial license - not with a commercial stock, RM or RF, license...

Yes you're right, but on Alamy you can specify that a release may be required but that you haven't obtained one. You can do this without setting an editorial restriction although Alamy suggest you do.

A quick search on Alamy produces lots of licensed (RM) images depicting people and places without releases, I think in the past it was left up to the buyer to decide if an image can be used.  As we have all seen on other stock sites the requirement to secure releases has been tightened up and this has been discussed at length on the Alamy forum.

[Lee Torrens]

Wow, I didn't know that!  Alamy clearly views the sophistication level of its buyers very differently to microstock agencies.

I'll got have a look for the discussions on the Alamy forums. I wonder how many Alamy buyers decide to use unreleased images for commercial purposes.

Thanks for the info.

[PecoFoto]

Wow, I didn't know that!  Alamy clearly views the sophistication level of its buyers very differently to microstock agencies.

I think Alamy has a very different client base - institutions and big publishers who buy images on account rather than businesses paying by credit card.  The majority of their sales are editorial although they want to attract buyers from the commercial sector.

Lee, you might find these four videos of Alamy's recent contributors seminar of interest. -

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/01/14/2594.aspx#

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/01/14/2594.aspx#


http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/01/14/2594.aspx#

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/01/14/2594.aspx#

[Lee Torrens]

Alamy Terminates Contributor Over Model Release

This topic gets more and more interesting!

In this case the photographer said that he DID have a model release when he didn't, but it's interesting in the context of the apparent relaxed attitude to model releases at Alamy.

[PecoFoto]

Alamy Terminates Contributor Over Model Release

This topic gets more and more interesting!

In this case the photographer said that he DID have a model release when he didn't, but it's interesting in the context of the apparent relaxed attitude to model releases at Alamy.

Yes, Alamy don't require you to upload a release but if you say you have one then you better had!

I've just been doing some management work on my images at Alamy and noticed a change in the wording regarding property releases.

It now reads -

"Does this picture contain property that needs a release for commercial use?  Yes/NO"

Previously the question was -

"Does this picture contain property that needs a release? Yes/No"

[Lee Torrens]

Looks like they're tightening up then.

It's interesting to see what macrostock agencies are learning from microstock agencies.