pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Editorial images  (Read 7953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 29, 2011, 09:19 »
0
On Alamy one can only upload editorial images as "Rights Managed" with restrictions set. Is it still possible to upload the same images to other stocksites like DT, also editorial. (on both sites non-exclusive of course). ?


« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2011, 12:18 »
0

« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2011, 12:38 »
0
There is no conflict between selling an image as both RM and RF UNLESS, that is, it has been sold WITH EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS.

Alamy's ordinary RM license never provides an exclusive usage guarantee, all it does is restrict the length of time a buyer can use it for. IF someone wanted exclusive rights Alamy would have to contact you to ask if they are available.

So someone can pay Alamy to use it for a year, then they are not allowed to any more. Someone can pay for an RF licence and they can use it for ever. There is no legal conflict between the two.

But once you've sold it RF you can never offer the option of exclusive rights (despite dreamstime's peculiar fudging of the issue).

Whether you think it is morally right or wrong to sell at such different price points/terms and conditions is entirely a matter for you.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 12:42 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2011, 13:38 »
0
Quote
You should read this-
http://www.youngimaging.com/Article-WhyNotLicenseAnImageAsRFAndRM.asp


To me this article seems not saying all.
I agree when it comes to the global use of RF and RM. He is totally right that you must not change RF to RM. Once RF, always RF.
But what he tells not in this article is that an image can be (legally) uploaded as RM to different stock agencies, which makes it also difficult for buyers to control the use of it! (This seems not to be allowed by Getty Images.)
And editorial use is also different (as far as I can see it). In fact when in Microstock an image is set to be strictly used editorial it cannot be used for commercial purposes. When on Alamy the same image is set RM AND set to be strictly used editorial, it seem to me the same thing: it can also not be used for commercial purposes. What is the difference then only the name of the licence form?
   
Of course you cannot sell an image elsewhere when selling it exclusive at one agency.

On the Alamy forum someone wrote that in fact editorial images also ought to be RM at microstock agencies, for they nearly always contain copyrighted material. And RF cant be controlled.

Quote
So someone can pay Alamy to use it for a year, then they are not allowed to any more. Someone can pay for an RF licence and they can use it for ever. There is no legal conflict between the two.


To me this feels strange: why should you have RF and RM when it can be mixed up? RM is not only for a using an image for a period of time, but also to control the use elsewere.  Like we saw when two political parties in a country were using the same model in their campains!
But that is about commercial use. To me it is clear that you must not do this. Commercial RF cannot be commercial RM.

But editorial?
What can be the problem? Two newspapers or magazines using the same image? You can see that often. So why should an image not be RF editorial on microstock agencies and RM editorial on Alamy? This question I have seen more than once, but no one gives a good explanation why this is not possible or allowed, otherwise than: RF should not be set to RM.
Even on the Alamy site I cannot find a clear explanation to this question.

To make myself clear: I dont upload edorial images to Alamy when already on microstock, but I am a Why? person. I want to understand the reasons (and the problems).

« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2011, 15:44 »
0
Colette, the reason why you don't do it is because you have decided not to. It's not a legal problem, it is a widespread misunderstanding of what the terms RF and RM actually mean.

As long as the buyer gets what he pays for, there isn't a problem. And Alamy RM does not make any promises about whether or not the file has sold elsewhere.

« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2011, 18:20 »
0
When it is true what you say then RM means nothing at all.

A buyer has to pay more for an RM image only to find out that he has to do deal with restrictions that he shouldnt have problems with when he buys the same image as RF. And he cannot be sure that the image is used elsewere under  an RF license.
It seems to me that the buyer not gets what he wants then.

When using the example of the two political parties again: then there is also no way left to avoid the risk that your opponent uses the same images or models for their campaign too. (Unless you hire your own photographer of course.)
Even not buying exclusive images or images from exclusives at Istock, for they are RF too and can be sold to different parties at the same time. 

The only way to avoid this type of situations is buying RM images, but then it has not to be sold as RF!  And also not as RM with two different agencies!

About editorials: they have restricted use already. The only reason for buying RM editorials lays in the option to be the only one who can use the image for a certain period of time. Why should newspapers and magazines be interested in that option?
Again: the only way to avoid the risk that others use the same image at the same time is to hire your own photographer.
But when it can be sold at other agencies too as RM,  I see no meaning in the whole RM thing. Why shouldnt it then be sold as RF editorial too?

« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2011, 18:52 »
0
RF was, and sometimes still is, more expensive than RM. This week I've sold an RF for $252 and an RM for $100. The previous week I sold one RF for $40 (it's been a good month at Alamy).

For RF Alamy seems to price according to the size of the required image, for RM the price is for the way it is used rather than the size. So there is a difference in the way they price the different licenses.

A buyer can avoid the risk of conflict with RM images by getting exclusive usage rights. However, exclusivity can really only be offered if Alamy is the only site with the image. I couldn't sell exclusive rights from my RM because it is also with other agencies and I could not guarantee that they won't sell it - or might have sold it and not told me yet.

Alamy has an "exclusive-RM" option, and if you put an image in that, then they know they can sell an exclusive license without having to check with you.

Alamy puts pictures with people or logos into the RM collection (what you are calling editorial) because it wants to check that the usage is allowed and for RM the use has to be declared. Newspapers are happy to buy RM images because they are cheaper than RF, though some RF images may also be used editorially.

Have you actually sold an RM image? Here are the details from my last one:

Country: United States
Usage: Editorial
Media: Magazine - Print only
Print run: up to 1 million
Placement: Inside
Image Size: Spot size
Start: 22 December 2011
End: 29 December 2011

If that image had been sold RF there would be no information about how it was used. If this user tries to use it in any way that goes beyond those conditions listed in the sale then he would be breaking the terms of his contract. Therefore, Alamy knows that it is being used properly for an RM image.

The micros "RF editorial" licences set a similar usage restriction - and there is no reason you cannot sell an "RF editorial" file as an RM file - AS LONG AS you don't offer any exclusive usage rights.

« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2011, 19:09 »
0
I think the OP was referring to the editorial images as in "have no model or property release". In this case, Alamy automatically chooses for you RM license and you can't modify it. Probably this will change over time, and it will look like microstock's "editorial".
For the RM vs RF, BaldricksTrousers is right. However, I never put images as RM in one place and RF in other.

« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2011, 01:03 »
0
Quote
The micros "RF editorial" licences set a similar usage restriction - and there is no reason you cannot sell an "RF editorial" file as an RM file - AS LONG AS you don't offer any exclusive usage rights.

Of course you cannot do that when selling the same image elsewhere. That is clear to me.

Perhaps you are right, but here: http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=11316
is a discussion on the Alamy forum saying that selling images as RM when they are also sold as RF with other agencies is not allowed by Alamy.

From Alamy:
Quote
As per the terms and conditions of the Alamy contributor agreement:
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.


When I read this well, this question was about commercial use of images and the answer from Alamy was about all type of images.
So when I understand that right, Alamy says it is not allowed by them, commercial use or not.
For me the question stands if this rule is also for RF editorial vs RM editorial, when you restrict the use to non-commercial use only.
English is not my native language, so is there something I did read and/or understand wrong?

RacePhoto

« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2011, 02:14 »
0
Real simple, the Alamy contributor agreement says we can't, so we can't. It's back to that "what the agency says" vs "What the law says" and they aren't the same, especially on Micro. If Alamy finds someone selling the same images RF Micro as RM on Alamy they can just close your account and the problem is solved.

(people do things to risk their accounts, uploading using purchased elements, re-submitting rejections, spamming keywords, buying their own images for better rank and mixed licenses, then come here and cry when they get their account closed and earnings confiscated. Ask yourself, is it worth the gamble for a few more cheap micro sales?)

It has nothing to do with commercial use, it has to do with the type of license that the buyer has. Editorial can be either, which complicates things.

BT is right, if you aren't offering an exclusive, it's basically the same thing. Buyer pays for a license, and uses the image. Anyone can argue all they want about selling an image for $3 one place and $250 another. If the buyers aren't dumb as a brick, they will find the cheap version and license that, so who loses in that deal? I can't see competing with myself for spare change when I can get $80 for a license. That's 320 downloads vs one?

End user is responsible for the use. If someone licenses and image off SS as Editorial and they determine that it's Public Domain and they can do what they want, then fine. We've done our part and so has the agency. We licensed it right, the end user takes the risk.

« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2011, 02:34 »
0
OK, I hadn't seen that section 2.2 of the agreement before. I think it must have been changed recently because neither Alamy nor anybody else has talked about it in the previous discussions I've seen on this topic.

In the past, when Alamy has been asked about it directly they haven't mentioned this clause and have not answered the question.


Anyway, that rule means you must not send the same editorial images to Alamy and the Micros. It also means you should not join their Novel Use scheme if your RF images are also on micros (though I don't suppose they intend it to mean that).

I apologise for giving you wrong information but this rule is new to me.

On the wider legal issue, you will see that Alamy gives itself the right to take an RF image and make it an RM one if it wants to (section 6.2). So it obviously doesn't see a legal problem with something that has been RF being turned into what it calls RM.

« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2011, 02:48 »
0
End user is responsible for the use. If someone licenses and image off SS as Editorial and they determine that it's Public Domain and they can do what they want, then fine. We've done our part and so has the agency. We licensed it right, the end user takes the risk.

You mean "commercial" not "public domain". It isn't "fine", because they are breaking the terms of the contract and even though you have legal protection it could still cause you personal problems with angry people who blame you and don't care about the legal niceties.

« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2011, 03:13 »
0
Until now Ive only RF images with Alamy. I am working on a selection of RM that (of course) are not on Microstock. Until now I am not sure if it makes sense to upload these images as RM to Alamy either so I have hold them back.

Recently I uploaded a few editorials that also are on microstock, where they  are licensed as RF editorial. When passed QC I found out that they can only be licensed as RM, for I have no releases for them. Searching the site I found what Alamy says about RF and RM and I deleted the files. So it seems I did the right thing according to Alamys rules. When Alamy chooses to change an RF in RM, well it is their site and their responsibility.

Stands the problem that a buyer only can be sure about the use of an image when it is sold as RM on one agency only. But when agencies allow contributors to submit the same image to different agencies as RM, the rest is indeed the responsibility of the agencies and the buyers.

There is so much to learn and to read and it can so easily be misunderstood.
This makes a few things clearer to me. Thank you for your info!

By the way: Until now it is a pleasure to upload to Alamy, for no more rejections like: white balance may be incorrect  for an image made at sunrise or sunset and for OOF when submitting a tacksharp image made with F16, remote control and a tripod  ;D

RacePhoto

« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2011, 03:24 »
0
End user is responsible for the use. If someone licenses and image off SS as Editorial and they determine that it's Public Domain and they can do what they want, then fine. We've done our part and so has the agency. We licensed it right, the end user takes the risk.

You mean "commercial" not "public domain". It isn't "fine", because they are breaking the terms of the contract and even though you have legal protection it could still cause you personal problems with angry people who blame you and don't care about the legal niceties.

First off, you are correct legally, about the RF and RM thing, as long as someone doesn't try to offer an exclusive later.

Second we have no control over how a buyer uses something, so as long as we license it properly, we're off the hook.  It's the same as if someone took an RF image and used it on a pron site as (whatever) then we could have problems. And the example I used was  PD image that SS or IS requires us to upload as "Editorial" even though it's not and is public domain so we can sell it, in it's new edited form.

Say you sell someone a pencil and they stab someone else. Are you liable? You sell gasoline at a gas station, they make a molitov cocktail and burn down a building. Are you responsible? You license and image Editorial and they use it commercial... We Are Not Responsible!

The end user whether we have the license right or not, is actually responsible for final use. And if we have the proper license, releases Etc. and they break the law, we are not liable. It's plain and simple.

« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2011, 03:25 »
0
Just to be sure I've deleted my few editorial images on Alamy since I can only put them as RM and not as RF. Have to think what to do in future with editorials. I'm just starting submitting this kind of pictures.

« Reply #15 on: December 30, 2011, 04:01 »
0
End user is responsible for the use. If someone licenses and image off SS as Editorial and they determine that it's Public Domain and they can do what they want, then fine. We've done our part and so has the agency. We licensed it right, the end user takes the risk.

You mean "commercial" not "public domain". It isn't "fine", because they are breaking the terms of the contract and even though you have legal protection it could still cause you personal problems with angry people who blame you and don't care about the legal niceties.

First off, you are correct legally, about the RF and RM thing, as long as someone doesn't try to offer an exclusive later.

Second we have no control over how a buyer uses something, so as long as we license it properly, we're off the hook.  It's the same as if someone took an RF image and used it on a pron site as (whatever) then we could have problems. And the example I used was  PD image that SS or IS requires us to upload as "Editorial" even though it's not and is public domain so we can sell it, in it's new edited form.

Say you sell someone a pencil and they stab someone else. Are you liable? You sell gasoline at a gas station, they make a molitov cocktail and burn down a building. Are you responsible? You license and image Editorial and they use it commercial... We Are Not Responsible!

The end user whether we have the license right or not, is actually responsible for final use. And if we have the proper license, releases Etc. and they break the law, we are not liable. It's plain and simple.

Oh, I wasn't even aware of the public domain rules because I would never dream of taking a PD image and trying to sell it. I think it makes people look like con artists when they do that.

I do understand that we are legally in the clear when people violate the terms of an editorial license but it can still cause other problems. Maybe it is better to stick to putting editorial stuff on Alamy, where the control is much more effective and buyers will really understand the license they are buying.

« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2011, 08:26 »
0
Just to be sure I've deleted my few editorial images on Alamy since I can only put them as RM and not as RF. Have to think what to do in future with editorials. I'm just starting submitting this kind of pictures.


once you disble your photo in alamy it will remain online upto 6 months. It's in your Contract:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/default.asp
2.4 You may delete any Images after one hundred and eighty (180) days notice, subject to the section entitled "Pricing and Promotion". This is in addition to your rights to terminate the whole Contract set out below.

ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: December 30, 2011, 09:14 »
0
Just to be sure I've deleted my few editorial images on Alamy since I can only put them as RM and not as RF. Have to think what to do in future with editorials. I'm just starting submitting this kind of pictures.


once you disble your photo in alamy it will remain online upto 6 months. It's in your Contract:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/default.asp
2.4 You may delete any Images after one hundred and eighty (180) days notice, subject to the section entitled "Pricing and Promotion". This is in addition to your rights to terminate the whole Contract set out below.


You can, however, make them unsearchable/unbuyable [1] by removing the title, caption and relevant keywords.
But yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[1] The six months thing is because the process can be long drawn-out in RM, and someone could have bookmarked an image but not finalised the sale for a long time. So there is a tiny chance that someone may have selected your image before you made it unsearchable.

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2011, 22:57 »
0

Oh, I wasn't even aware of the public domain rules because I would never dream of taking a PD image and trying to sell it. I think it makes people look like con artists when they do that.

I do understand that we are legally in the clear when people violate the terms of an editorial license but it can still cause other problems. Maybe it is better to stick to putting editorial stuff on Alamy, where the control is much more effective and buyers will really understand the license they are buying.

It was an example! I used it because some sites force us to put images that are free of copyright up as Editorial. The buyer can use it properly, for commercial products, and there's no problem. I wasn't going into whether we can license PD images or not. That's a whole different subject. (and yes we can!) Just because site "X" says it's Editorial only, doesn't mean the end user can only use it that way. They can decide for themselves.

Let me make this shorter. We are not responsible for the final use, as long as WE have the proper license and releases.

Not only that, the end user is still responsible for the use, even if we have it licensed improperly.

If you are going to argue that we can be taken to court for improper use by an end user. Well fine, that can happen with any image, any license, and probably even someone who steals one of our images and uses it illegally. Being taken to court is one thing. The plaintiff collecting damages is another. We aren't legally liable for misuse by someone else.

OK?

« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2011, 23:15 »
0
Con artists?!  Guess I never thought of myself as a con artist before.   :-[  Most of my vintage ephemera images are one-of-a-kind historical items and would never be seen again had I not replicated them and made them available for licensing.  Licensing public domain images is a legitimate revenue generator for libraries, museums and collectors alike that helps us pay for the originals' preservation for generations to come.

Back to the original topic.  I just had to say something, because even though it wasn't meant as a personal attack, that comment is a pretty nasty reflection on me and my primary business, which is preserving and licensing vintage ephemera.  It's shocking my business could and would be perceived as a con job.  And I don't think anyone would accuse a highly respected vintage stock image library like the Mary Evans Picture Library of being con artists.

http://www.maryevans.com

« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2012, 21:04 »
0
Con artists?!  Guess I never thought of myself as a con artist before.   :-[  Most of my vintage ephemera images are one-of-a-kind historical items and would never be seen again had I not replicated them and made them available for licensing.  Licensing public domain images is a legitimate revenue generator for libraries, museums and collectors alike that helps us pay for the originals' preservation for generations to come.

Back to the original topic.  I just had to say something, because even though it wasn't meant as a personal attack, that comment is a pretty nasty reflection on me and my primary business, which is preserving and licensing vintage ephemera.  It's shocking my business could and would be perceived as a con job.  And I don't think anyone would accuse a highly respected vintage stock image library like the Mary Evans Picture Library of being con artists.

http://www.maryevans.com


Nice site how much does she charge for downloads. I want to be a con artist to I like old vintage ephemera and sell it.

« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2012, 22:57 »
0
I don't know, Yada.  The library does license its photos on Alamy, which is how I found out about them.

« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2012, 06:34 »
0
Con artists?!  Guess I never thought of myself as a con artist before.   :-[  Most of my vintage ephemera images are one-of-a-kind historical items and would never be seen again had I not replicated them and made them available for licensing.  Licensing public domain images is a legitimate revenue generator for libraries, museums and collectors alike that helps us pay for the originals' preservation for generations to come.
http://www.maryevans.com


Sorry. I only just noticed your response. What I was really thinking of was all the people who grab NASA images and then put them up for sale as commercial stock (maybe with a hand cloned on), or grab PD material that is already freely available on the net and just re-post it. I wasn't referring to the sort of work you are talking about.

« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2012, 12:29 »
0
Thanks...I appreciate the clarification.   :)  I was concerned someone might get the wrong impression about my business, as I'm sure you can understand.  You're right about the NASA images.  Slapping those types of images into one's portfolio without much, if any, work is unethical, IMO. 

« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2012, 19:11 »
0
Thanks...I appreciate the clarification.   :)  I was concerned someone might get the wrong impression about my business, as I'm sure you can understand.  You're right about the NASA images.  Slapping those types of images into one's portfolio without much, if any, work is unethical, IMO. 

thinking like that is  why this is MICROstock - ethics is irrelevant here - the govt says it's ok, aso it's legal, and if agencies accept them, what's the problem?  there are plenty of businesses that use govt subsidies, publkic data, research etc, and make a profit - it's part of how the market functions.  it's only unethical if you claim the image is your own work.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
5523 Views
Last post June 03, 2008, 08:32
by Sean Locke Photography
4 Replies
3422 Views
Last post October 14, 2008, 17:10
by madelaide
0 Replies
1694 Views
Last post March 25, 2011, 00:52
by bizair
9 Replies
6771 Views
Last post April 27, 2011, 19:51
by Chadlatta
12 Replies
3154 Views
Last post November 06, 2012, 22:21
by Niakris

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results