Author Topic: Few doubts about Alamy submission (Read 36678 times)

gemmy12 · « **on:** November 20, 2011, 08:39 »

hello everyone,
I am planning to submit 4 (1st time) images for QC in Alamy. But i have few terms what i don't understand.
(1) What does RM (Right Management) category ? Does it mean that if we choose submit photo for RM then those photos must be exclusive (I mean is it related to become Exclusive Alamy photographs? )
(2) If we fail to qualify for 1st and 2nd time then after how many days can we submit again for QC for 2nd and 3rd attempts ?
(3) Is it necessary or good to be exclusive for Alamy. I mean if we submit a photo to Alamy then we should not submit the same pic for any other micro/macro stock site ?

I hope I may get answers to my doubts here.
Thanking you in advance.

ann · « **Reply #1 on:** November 20, 2011, 10:35 »

Alamy does not have official designations of exclusive and nonexclusive for its photographers. It's fine with Alamy for contributor to submit same images on other agencies, but offer the Same License for the same/sister image on all sites.

In other words, if you have RM license for photo on Alamy, have RM license for it at every agency. Also, if you have two sister (Significantly similar) images, give them same license type.

RM basically means that when image license is purchased, it will specify TYPE, TIME, Maximum SIZE, Geographic LOCATION, of use. This differs from RF where buyer generally may use licensed image without time limit, and for wide range of uses (though not just Any use, such as logo, or those that require extended license, print runs beyond certain Big size....)

This is broadstroke - rather than legal, thorough - info.

gemmy12 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 20, 2011, 10:46 »

Thank you ann for the reply.
ya I am getting it now. So does it mean.. its better to give RF licence than RM if some one selling his photos in other sites as well ?

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** November 20, 2011, 10:56 »

Quote from: dr_skn08 on November 20, 2011, 10:46

Thank you ann for the reply.
ya I am getting it now. So does it mean.. its better to give RF licence than RM if some one selling his photos in other sites as well ?

If you're selling an image RM on one site, it should be RM on any others you have the same image on. And you have to keep tabs on when each photo has sold at each agency, in case a buyer wanted an exclusive use and you had to assure them that such a use hadn't been given before (which you could never do if the image has sold RF, as the buyers can use an RF file as often as they want, in (almost) any way they like.
Of course, maybe no-one will ever ask for an exclusive RM use. The only enquiry for a limited exclusive use I had from Alamy didn't materialise in the end. But presumably plenty of other people get them (they cost more, as they're blocking out a particular range of future sales.)

For example, a non-exclusive RM license might be for calendar use in Europe for one year.
An Exclusive RM license might be for calender use in Europe for one year too - but no one else can use it for a calendar in Europe during that time, so they have to pay morel. Wiht the first example, other people can still license, non-exclusively, for the same use.
With RF, someone could license the image, paying once, then use it on a calendar, an advertisement, a book cover, a website, on packaging ...

gemmy12 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 20, 2011, 11:37 »

Thank you ShadySue for such a descriptive explanation. Let me ask once more to be sure that if i have sold a pic in exclusive RF licence in and then i get an offer for the same pic under RM licence then can i sell it now as RM or I will have to remove the pic from the gallery/stock itself for a specific period of time once i have sold it as any form of exclusivity ?

lagereek · « **Reply #5 on:** November 20, 2011, 11:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2011, 10:56

Quote from: dr_skn08 on November 20, 2011, 10:46
Thank you ann for the reply.
ya I am getting it now. So does it mean.. its better to give RF licence than RM if some one selling his photos in other sites as well ?

If you're selling an image RM on one site, it should be RM on any others you have the same image on. And you have to keep tabs on when each photo has sold at each agency, in case a buyer wanted an exclusive use and you had to assure them that such a use hadn't been given before (which you could never do if the image has sold RF, as the buyers can use an RF file as often as they want, in (almost) any way they like.
Of course, maybe no-one will ever ask for an exclusive RM use. The only enquiry for a limited exclusive use I had from Alamy didn't materialise in the end. But presumably plenty of other people get them (they cost more, as they're blocking out a particular range of future sales.)

For example, a non-exclusive RM license might be for calendar use in Europe for one year.
An Exclusive RM license might be for calender use in Europe for one year too - but no one else can use it for a calendar in Europe during that time, so they have to pay morel. Wiht the first example, other people can still license, non-exclusively, for the same use.
With RF, someone could license the image, paying once, then use it on a calendar, an advertisement, a book cover, a website, on packaging ...

Sue! RM = Lets say you give Getty an RM image, that image can ONLY be sold by Getty, you cant then put exactly the same shot as RM, to say Alamy. Blimey, could land you deep in trouble. Surely you mean to tell him once an RM shot, the same cant be used as RF.
With Rights-managed material, you have to be very careful only because the reason clients pay big money for RM, is not so much because of the picture but the exclusive rights, sometimes world-rights.

The whole idea behind RM, is that its exclusive for a certain period to the client that bought it or rather the product or service, he bought the image for.

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** November 20, 2011, 11:57 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 20, 2011, 11:50

Sue! RM means exclusivity. Lets say you give Getty an RM image, that image is exclusive ONLY to Getty, you cant then put exactly the same shot as RM, to say Alamy. Blimey, could land you deep in trouble. Surely you mean to tell him once an RM shot, the same cant be used as RF.
With Rights-managed material, you have to be very careful only because the reason clients pay big money for RM, is not so much because of the picture but the exclusive rights, sometimes world-rights.

We're not talking about Getty. Why do you always drag Getty into every discussion?
This discussion is about Alamy.
Take a look. This is the ALAMY forum. The title mentions ALAMY specifically. At NO PLACE in the OP is Getty mentioned.

Alamy does not require image exclusivity for RM. Of course you should not put the same pic RM and RF, Ann already said that.
Not all RM is exclusive RM.

@OP to clarify: this is a recent Alamy RM license I had. It is not an exclusive RM license:

Country: United Kingdom
Usage: Editorial
Media: Magazine - Print only
Print run: up to 100,000
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 01 October 2011
End: 01 November 2011

They have licensed the right to use the image in a monthly print magazine. They did not purchase exclusive rights to do so, and if anyone else had wanted to use the image in a monthly print magazine, they could have, unless the second party wanted exclusive rights.

ann · « **Reply #7 on:** November 20, 2011, 12:00 »

Lagereek - RM license is not automatically an exclusive one.
Perhaps Getty requires RM licensed images placed with them to be exclusive?

[Edited to add: thanks ShadySue. I was typing above while you posted.]

lagereek · « **Reply #8 on:** November 20, 2011, 12:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2011, 11:57

Quote from: lagereek on November 20, 2011, 11:50
Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2011, 10:56
Quote from: dr_skn08 on November 20, 2011, 10:46
Thank you ann for the reply.
ya I am getting it now. So does it mean.. its better to give RF licence than RM if some one selling his photos in other sites as well ?

If you're selling an image RM on one site, it should be RM on any others you have the same image on. And you have to keep tabs on when each photo has sold at each agency, in case a buyer wanted an exclusive use and you had to assure them that such a use hadn't been given before (which you could never do if the image has sold RF, as the buyers can use an RF file as often as they want, in (almost) any way they like.
Of course, maybe no-one will ever ask for an exclusive RM use. The only enquiry for a limited exclusive use I had from Alamy didn't materialise in the end. But presumably plenty of other people get them (they cost more, as they're blocking out a particular range of future sales.)

For example, a non-exclusive RM license might be for calendar use in Europe for one year.
An Exclusive RM license might be for calender use in Europe for one year too - but no one else can use it for a calendar in Europe during that time, so they have to pay morel. Wiht the first example, other people can still license, non-exclusively, for the same use.
With RF, someone could license the image, paying once, then use it on a calendar, an advertisement, a book cover, a website, on packaging ...

Sue! RM means exclusivity. Lets say you give Getty an RM image, that image is exclusive ONLY to Getty, you cant then put exactly the same shot as RM, to say Alamy. Blimey, could land you deep in trouble. Surely you mean to tell him once an RM shot, the same cant be used as RF.
With Rights-managed material, you have to be very careful only because the reason clients pay big money for RM, is not so much because of the picture but the exclusive rights, sometimes world-rights.
We're not talking about Getty. Why do you always drag Getty into every discussion?
This discussion is about Alamy.
Take a look. This is the ALAMY forum. The title mentions ALAMY specifically. At NO PLACE in the OP is Getty mentioned.

Alamy does not require image exclusivity for RM. Of course you should not put the same pic RM and RF, Ann already said that.
Not all RM is exclusive RM.

Whats the matter with you, Getty was only an example, take another one then lets say you supply an RM image to agency.A. and then exactly the same RM image to agency.B. what do you think will happen if two competitors buy the identical image for their product? especially if the first buyer bought it with world-rights. Come on use your head.

lagereek · « **Reply #9 on:** November 20, 2011, 12:07 »

Quote from: ann on November 20, 2011, 12:00

Lagereek - RM license is not automatically an exclusive one.
Perhaps Getty requires RM licensed images placed with them to be exclusive?

[Edited to add: thanks ShadySue. I was typing above while you posted.]

No, it doesnt have to be exclusive at all BUT its exclusive to the buyer who purchase the file just for that purpose. Look! I am talking from experience here I was inches of getting sued for a massive sum back in 2009, thanks to a teflon frying pan. An agency screwed up and sold the picture exactly to two compeeting companies, through their ad-agency as well.
Besides, policing this is difficult and I would not trust any agencys rights-controle management here. In the end of day its always the photographer who lands in trouble.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** November 20, 2011, 12:08 »

Quote from: dr_skn08 on November 20, 2011, 11:37

Thank you ShadySue for such a descriptive explanation. Let me ask once more to be sure that if i have sold a pic in exclusive RF licence in and then i get an offer for the same pic under RM licence then can i sell it now as RM or I will have to remove the pic from the gallery/stock itself for a specific period of time once i have sold it as any form of exclusivity ?

I'm not sure if you can have an 'exclusive RF licence' - would that mean you had sold all rights to an image to one buyer?
If you have sold an image RF, you can't then sell it under an exclusive RM license unless the buyer agrees that they accept that the image previously sold as RF and they accept that you have no control over how it is used under the RF licence. I'd get them to sign specifically on that, to avoid any future trouble.

If you are selling at one agency, it's far simpler, or even if you put different pictures (not similars/sisters) to different agencies. The agencies will themselves keep a record of any exclusive licenses. If e.g. Alamy which allows you to submit to different agencies, they would still contact you to see if you're ever sold it elsewhere, just to be sure.

However, if you were selling image at Alamy, Bagency and Cagency, YOU would be repsonsible for keeping tabs on all sales at each of the agencies, probably by means of a spreadsheet, so that if BAgency contacted you and asked if you'd ever sold picture X (at all, or for a particular use), you'd be able to tell them for sure.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** November 20, 2011, 12:12 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 20, 2011, 12:03

Whats the matter with you, Getty was only an example, take another one then lets say you supply an RM image to agency.A. and then exactly the same RM image to agency.B. what do you think will happen if two competitors buy the identical image for their product? especially if the first buyer bought it with world-rights. Come on use your head.

As I said, in the case of Alamy, they contact you to ask if you've sold it anywhere else.
I have no idea if other agencies do that. Presumably as Getty require image exclusivity, they don't need to contact you as they'll have the record of any sales the file has had.

lagereek · « **Reply #12 on:** November 20, 2011, 12:15 »

Quote from: dr_skn08 on November 20, 2011, 11:37

Thank you ShadySue for such a descriptive explanation. Let me ask once more to be sure that if i have sold a pic in exclusive RF licence in and then i get an offer for the same pic under RM licence then can i sell it now as RM or I will have to remove the pic from the gallery/stock itself for a specific period of time once i have sold it as any form of exclusivity ?

Look! do yourself a favour here, its very touchy stuff, find out via the agencies, etc. Once a picture has been sold as RF or Micro, it can NEVER be sold as RM. At Alamy you yourself decide RM or RF, you can change as long as the picture havent sold as RF.
Be careful, any RM breech and you will land in court.

lagereek · « **Reply #13 on:** November 20, 2011, 12:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2011, 12:12

Quote from: lagereek on November 20, 2011, 12:03
Whats the matter with you, Getty was only an example, take another one then lets say you supply an RM image to agency.A. and then exactly the same RM image to agency.B. what do you think will happen if two competitors buy the identical image for their product? especially if the first buyer bought it with world-rights. Come on use your head.
As I said, in the case of Alamy, they contact you to ask if you've sold it anywhere else.
I have no idea if other agencies do that. Presumably as Getty require image exclusivity, they don't need to contact you as they'll have the record of any sales the file has had.

Fair enough but Getty was only an example, could be any agency. Since clients buy RM for the sole reason of rights, its important to get it spot-on, lawsuits can be very, very costly.

Ed · « **Reply #14 on:** November 20, 2011, 18:57 »

Lagereek - Sue is correct. There are certain RM agencies that require exclusive images. There are many other RM agencies that are non-exclusive. One very quick example is distributor imagebroker which will place your non-exclusive RM images at various agencies (including Alamy) for licensing. Another example is the 500+ agencies that have their portfolios up on Alamy - Aurora Images being an example.

If you designate an image as exclusive, and you upload it to multiple agencies then yes, you will have a problem. At agencies that are non-exclusive, the agency will contact you and ASK if they can license the image as an exclusive image...and it's EXPECTED that you will restrict any similar images as well.

Also note that an image can be licensed exclusively by region. As an example, a customer may license an image exclusively in North America for a period of time (say 5 years as example) and that same image can still be available to be licensed in the UK.

Take a look at Jeff Greenberg's portfolio of 80,000+ images at Alamy - Jeff is not exclusive to any agency...and Alamy isn't the only agency he contributes to. In fact, he recently stated in a post that his business model is to submit to as many non-exclusive RM agencies as he can...and that's what he does (no different than many non-exclusive contributors here).

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** November 20, 2011, 19:28 »

Quote from: Ed on November 20, 2011, 18:57

Take a look at Jeff Greenberg's portfolio of 80,000+ images at Alamy - Jeff is not exclusive to any agency...and Alamy isn't the only agency he contributes to. In fact, he recently stated in a post that his business model is to submit to as many non-exclusive RM agencies as he can...and that's what he does (no different than many non-exclusive contributors here).

My goodness, I had no idea he submitted to other agencies. I don't know how he manages to get as many up on Alamy, apart from not 'describing' images as such.

Ed · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2011, 20:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2011, 19:28

Quote from: Ed on November 20, 2011, 18:57
Take a look at Jeff Greenberg's portfolio of 80,000+ images at Alamy - Jeff is not exclusive to any agency...and Alamy isn't the only agency he contributes to. In fact, he recently stated in a post that his business model is to submit to as many non-exclusive RM agencies as he can...and that's what he does (no different than many non-exclusive contributors here).

My goodness, I had no idea he submitted to other agencies. I don't know how he manages to get as many up on Alamy, apart from not 'describing' images as such.

In this thread...

http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=11707&p=2

Quote from: JeffGreenberg

Quote from: geoffpix
The one thing that doesn't change in this business is the need to change.... don't and you most likely will suffer.

Am I the OMO (odd man out) or what? Few changes since '88:
since 1993, multiple non-exclusive agencies;
end of 2003, switched from slides-dupes to digital-RAWs;
end of 2003, stopped frequent tripod-monopod usage;
end of 2003, stopped severe editing of results;
late 2001 to early 2010, no international travel;
2005, learned Levels, clone tool, Excel doc.;
2011, learned burn & dodge tools;
shooting unreleased non-studio since '88;

I don't care who criticizes his images for quality or content. The man is living his dream traveling and grossing over 100k per year (see the Alamy blog where he is featured). It's a goal to aspire to...and that's for non-released, what I would describe as Street Photography.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #17 on:** November 21, 2011, 08:42 »

Rights-managed images are sold with a fee based on the buyer's specified use. There is nothing to say it's exclusive or not, unless there's a limited license or reserved rights are attached to the license.

Reserved rights, a traditional license but includes terms restricting the photographer from making sales for a specified period in a specified location or locations. According to the severity of the restrictions there is a premium paid over and above the cost of a traditional license. This may give a buyer exclusive use of an image. (also the artist can restrict where the image can be used and for what purposes, but we're just discussing buyers at this point?)

"Royalty-free" means that the buyer pays once for an image that can be used by the buyer, over an unlimited period of time. (unless the contract specifies a period of time...) Other buyers may acquired similar rights.

So very simply if you sell a photo RF, it would be impossible to sell the same image exclusive or with any reserved rights. It's already Royalty Free. But selling something RM doesn't stop someone else from licensing the same image, it just means the specific usage is known and can be tracked.

You can sell the same images at multiple RM sites, without any problems at all. In theory you can't sell a RF licensed image, as RM, because the use hasn't been recorded, so there's no way to know how it's being used. Plus every agency contract I've seen, doesn't allow it, so it's forbidden.

lagereek · « **Reply #18 on:** November 21, 2011, 09:25 »

Well personally I would never supply identical RM-shots to differant RM-agencies and it would surprise me if Alamy accepted that.

FD · « **Reply #19 on:** November 21, 2011, 09:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2011, 12:12

As I said, in the case of Alamy, they contact you to ask if you've sold it anywhere else.

See? Gostwyck was sortof right. I can't imagine an RM image not being exclusive. How can different RM agencies synchronize geo locations and durations? Pardon my ignorance but as a buyer I would be very pissed off if a competitor used the same image in the same geo location because he licensed it at another agency. Isn't that contradictory to the RM concept?
If so, he could as well have bought RF at 1% of the price.

lagereek · « **Reply #20 on:** November 21, 2011, 09:31 »

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 21, 2011, 09:26

Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2011, 12:12
As I said, in the case of Alamy, they contact you to ask if you've sold it anywhere else.
See? Gostwyck was sortof right. I can't imagine an RM image not being exclusive. How can different RM agencies synchronize geo locations and durations? Pardon my ignorance but as a buyer I would be very pissed off if a competitor used the same image in the same geo location because he licensed it at another agency. Isn't that contradictory to the RM concept?
If so, he could as well have bought RF at 1% of the price.

Agreeing! thats the way I see it too. However if what they say here is true? jeez! dangerous and risky business. Must say during 20 years of RM shooting, never heard of this precidure.

Ed · « **Reply #21 on:** November 21, 2011, 09:51 »

From Alamy's website...

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/sell-images.asp

Quote

Freedom and control
We don’t ask for exclusivity and we do not edit your images. Our customers want to find the right image as quickly as possible. We provide a fast, user-friendly website to showcase and sell quality imagery and back this up with excellent customer service.

Not all RM images are licensed exclusively. Not all image buyers are looking to pay a premium for exclusive rights to an image. Not all photographers will agree to license an image exclusively to a buyer.

dirkr · « **Reply #22 on:** November 21, 2011, 09:53 »

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 21, 2011, 09:26

Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2011, 12:12
As I said, in the case of Alamy, they contact you to ask if you've sold it anywhere else.
See? Gostwyck was sortof right. I can't imagine an RM image not being exclusive. How can different RM agencies synchronize geo locations and durations? Pardon my ignorance but as a buyer I would be very pissed off if a competitor used the same image in the same geo location because he licensed it at another agency. Isn't that contradictory to the RM concept?
If so, he could as well have bought RF at 1% of the price.

From the licence terms on the Alamy website:

Exclusivity and rights control

   You can maintain the integrity of your rights protection because we report sales in real-time in your “Summary of Images sold”.
   When a customer buys a Rights Managed - Exclusive image we automatically prevent the future sale of the licence.
   If you sell an image exclusively elsewhere, you must restrict sales for that usage or territory for that image on Alamy.

The last sentence says it all. Yes, you can sell RM images elsewhere. And in that case you are responsible to make sure non of the exclusivity conditions in case of a sale are violated.
Obviously, that does not work if you use a RM agency that does sell exclusive rights without contacting you first. But Alamy does. So only combine RM on Alamy with other RM agencies that either do not offer exclusive rights or only do so after asking you first.

click_click · « **Reply #23 on:** November 21, 2011, 11:54 »

Could someone here write a sticky about the difference of RM and RF as well as exclusivity?

This would make things a lot easier for everyone.

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #24 on:** November 21, 2011, 12:06 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 20, 2011, 12:15

Quote from: dr_skn08 on November 20, 2011, 11:37
Thank you ShadySue for such a descriptive explanation. Let me ask once more to be sure that if i have sold a pic in exclusive RF licence in and then i get an offer for the same pic under RM licence then can i sell it now as RM or I will have to remove the pic from the gallery/stock itself for a specific period of time once i have sold it as any form of exclusivity ?

Look! do yourself a favour here, its very touchy stuff, find out via the agencies, etc. Once a picture has been sold as RF or Micro, it can NEVER be sold as RM. At Alamy you yourself decide RM or RF, you can change as long as the picture havent sold as RF.
Be careful, any RM breech and you will land in court.

Christian, technically a previously sold as RF can be sold as RM - no problem. Can even be sold exclusively if past history is accepted by buyers. HOWEVER, Getty doesn't accept this (RF to RM).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Few doubts about Alamy submission (Read 36678 times)

gemmy12

ann

gemmy12

ShadySue

gemmy12

lagereek

ShadySue

ann

lagereek

lagereek

ShadySue

ShadySue

lagereek

lagereek

Ed

ShadySue

Ed

RacePhoto

lagereek

FD

lagereek

Ed

dirkr

click_click

CarlssonInc

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors