pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Files sold as both RF and RM on Alamy  (Read 30161 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 23, 2012, 04:08 »
0
Hello everyone,

So yesterday, I was testing some keywords in the search engine on alamy to check whether my files (illustrations) were at a good position or not, and I saw many of them which were sold both as RF and RM... But I have uploaded them only once i'm sure and have chosen RF for the licence.
Do you know if sometimes Alamy select RF files and switch them also as RM ?

BTW i'm on alamy since november 2011. I have RF images there just like I do on other micro sites (FT, SS, IS etc...).
I did 2 small sales since the beginning (around 0,5 and 1 $ each) but now i've sold one for 115$ ! :-)

Some of you may have encountered such thing ? (RF turned into RM also...)

Thanks


« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2012, 04:34 »
0
They don't like the same image selling as RF and RM.  Look in their contributor contract.  There's a few ways this can happen, an ignorant contributor or a 3rd party distributor that doesn't know what they're doing seems most likely.  You could let them know, they can then sort this out.  They're nice people to deal with, so I don't think they're likely to ban people if they make a genuine mistake, like other sites might.

« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2012, 20:34 »
0
Do you have them elsewhere as RM? There are many partners in Alamy.

« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2012, 03:21 »
0
Do you have them elsewhere as RM? There are many partners in Alamy.
Hello

no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF...

thanks

RacePhoto

« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2012, 03:40 »
0
Do you have them elsewhere as RM? There are many partners in Alamy.
Hello

no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF...

thanks

Maybe you didn't understand. (maybe I don't understand?) These are images that only you have uploaded?

Is the same image RF and RM or do you mean, some are RF and some are RM?

It's difficult to understand.

No, the same files will not be put up for sale with two different licenses by Alamy. If you have another site that's a partner, they may be uploading your work? It's difficult from your message to understand what the problem actually is. Can you be more specific? Alamy will take anything without a model release that has unreleased "people" in it and make it RM. Alamy will take anything with unreleased Property in it and make it RM.

Otherwise Alamy doesn't set the license, you do.

Link to an example would be perfect for answering this. Or look and see who's portfolio they are in, if there are duplicates of the identical image with two different licenses.

« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2012, 06:19 »
0
I have one question about Alamy, and this topic seems good for it. If not, I'm sorry.

Can I sell same picture as RM on Alamy, if I have that picture as RF elsewhere (Shutterstock)?

Thanks!

« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2012, 06:26 »
0
^^^No, read the contributor contract.  If you sell the photo as RF anywhere else, it has to be RF with alamy.  Don't mix licenses.  Some people might argue that there's nothing wrong selling photos as RF and RM on different sites but I think they make it clear that it's not allowed on alamy.

Edit:-  Here's the relevant part:-

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
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 06:32 by sharpshot »

« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2012, 06:29 »
0
^^^No, read the contributor contract.  If you sell the photo as RF anywhere else, it has to be RF with alamy.  Don't mix licenses.  Some people might argue that there's nothing wrong selling photos as RF and RM on different sites but I think they make it clear that it's not allowed on alamy.

I thought so. It's fine by me, only 5 images, RM only for 3 images I don't have anywhere else.

Thanks!

« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2012, 08:49 »
0
I submit as RF but I remember searching about this matter not so long ago and there was a comment from Sean saying it was allowed, have they changed the rules?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2012, 09:41 »
0
I submit as RF but I remember searching about this matter not so long ago and there was a comment from Sean saying it was allowed, have they changed the rules?
I think Sean was speaking more generally that an RM image isn't always (IME never) sold with exclusive use, therefore the fact that it may have sold previously as RF may not be relevant.
That said, Alamy now don't allow it, whether they did before or not.
They haven't defined what they mean by 'similar'. For example, Getty wouldn't allow a contributor to have a photo of species A taken at location B on date C on iStock and a photo of a different individual of species B taken at location D on date E on Getty, which was pretty restrictive. I don't know how Alamy stands on that. Anyone got an actual reference/link (rather than speculation/supposition)?

« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2012, 09:49 »
0
I submit as RF but I remember searching about this matter not so long ago and there was a comment from Sean saying it was allowed, have they changed the rules?
I think Sean was speaking more generally that an RM image isn't always (IME never) sold with exclusive use, therefore the fact that it may have sold previously as RF may not be relevant.

right!

« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2012, 09:52 »
0
I submit as RF but I remember searching about this matter not so long ago and there was a comment from Sean saying it was allowed, have they changed the rules?
I'm sure alamy have never allowed it.  The wording might not of been as unambiguous in the past but it was clear to me years ago that you shouldn't sell images that have an RF license elsewhere as RM with alamy.

« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2012, 10:54 »
0
Do you have them elsewhere as RM? There are many partners in Alamy.
Hello

no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF...

I understood you said they you had uploaded them as RF in Alamy, but anyway, my comment still holds. Alamy has several partners and if you have the same image at Alamy and elsewhere, both will show in a search.

Now, if you are seeing just one instance of the image with a different license you had set it for, then I don't know what can be teh reason.

« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2012, 11:17 »
0
... But I have uploaded them only once i'm sure and have chosen RF for the licence.
Do you know if sometimes Alamy select RF files and switch them also as RM ?...
Quote
Hello no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF... thanks
You are confusing (trolling) us.

I have no clue why anyone would want to upload the same image as RF here and as RM somewhere else. It doesn't just confuse the customers/agencies it would also confuse me.

« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2012, 14:19 »
0
... But I have uploaded them only once i'm sure and have chosen RF for the licence.
Do you know if sometimes Alamy select RF files and switch them also as RM ?...
Quote
Hello no, i have them as RM only at Alamy. Anywhere else, i'm RF... thanks
You are confusing (trolling) us.

I have no clue why anyone would want to upload the same image as RF here and as RM somewhere else. It doesn't just confuse the customers/agencies it would also confuse me.

Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.

« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2012, 14:48 »
0
Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.
You are right, as of now, (most) Micros allow such images without a release.

This might change though in the future as Alamy got sued for such an image and therefore implemented this new rule of requiring a release for people pics.
So as soon as the micros get hammered with such law suits they might change their requirements as well.

However, the OP didn't give me the impression (or proof) that the images were actually people pics or no-people pics. So we can't really help here.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2012, 16:53 »
0
In reading the OP's reply, I got the impression he had some images that he had uploaded to microstock agencies as RF, but later uploaded the same images to Alamy as RM.  This, of course, is not allowed.  I recently noticed I had several images up on Alamy that were marked RM which I would swear I had uploaded as RF.  I must have clicked something at the wrong point in the upload process.  Anyway, as they hadn't sold yet, I contacted Alamy and asked if they would change them to RF.  They checked and switched them over with no problem.

« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2012, 17:37 »
0
Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.
You are right, as of now, (most) Micros allow such images without a release.

This might change though in the future as Alamy got sued for such an image and therefore implemented this new rule of requiring a release for people pics.
So as soon as the micros get hammered with such law suits they might change their requirements as well.

However, the OP didn't give me the impression (or proof) that the images were actually people pics or no-people pics. So we can't really help here.
When were alamy sued?  I watched their AGM video a few years ago and they never mentioned being sued.  They mentioned photos that shouldn't be sold as RF but I remember someone asking if that had caused problems and they said it hadn't.  I think they wanted to make their rules for when to use RF and RM clear cut.  People can say they recognise themselves in a photo, even if it isn't them.  How can a reviewer decide when a model release is required and how can buyers be sure they don't need one?  The way alamy have done it makes it very clear.

« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2012, 18:00 »
0
When were alamy sued?  I watched their AGM video a few years ago and they never mentioned being sued.  They mentioned photos that shouldn't be sold as RF but I remember someone asking if that had caused problems and they said it hadn't.  I think they wanted to make their rules for when to use RF and RM clear cut.  People can say they recognise themselves in a photo, even if it isn't them.  How can a reviewer decide when a model release is required and how can buyers be sure they don't need one?  The way alamy have done it makes it very clear.
I tried to find the video as CEO James West addressed this issue in a contributor meeting a few years ago but I can't find it. It must have been around 2009. Alamy published it on their web site, it wasn't on youtube.

I remember James West showing the image of a priest during a sermon outdoors (showing the lower half of the body, basically the robe) and a dog that walked up to him lifting his leg about to pee.

The image was licensed and as soon as the priest saw it, he sued as he never signed a release, yet, due to the extraordinary nature of the event that happened/which was documented, he knew it was him, although no face or other actual body parts were visible.

I'm pretty sure that the priest was successful making his claim. I don't remember if it was settled out of  court, but James West used that example in the meeting to explain why Alamy wants releases for ANY person in the photo no matter if they are 200 feet away, blurry or body parts.

Maybe someone can find the link to the video.

« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2012, 18:32 »
0
I'm trying hard to find the video I mentioned but I found a Q&A video from Alamy where James is addressing the usage of the submission interface determining the amount of people in the image and the purpose of that for the buyers:
Watch it at 2:20 when the question is asked
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AyyNeuHf_b0[/youtube]
Hopefully I can find the other video...

« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2012, 02:24 »
0
Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.
You are right, as of now, (most) Micros allow such images without a release.

This might change though in the future as Alamy got sued for such an image and therefore implemented this new rule of requiring a release for people pics.
So as soon as the micros get hammered with such law suits they might change their requirements as well.

However, the OP didn't give me the impression (or proof) that the images were actually people pics or no-people pics. So we can't really help here.
When were alamy sued?  I watched their AGM video a few years ago and they never mentioned being sued.  They mentioned photos that shouldn't be sold as RF but I remember someone asking if that had caused problems and they said it hadn't.  I think they wanted to make their rules for when to use RF and RM clear cut.  People can say they recognise themselves in a photo, even if it isn't them.  How can a reviewer decide when a model release is required and how can buyers be sure they don't need one?  The way alamy have done it makes it very clear.

I believe the suit was because of someone who had actually forged a model release. 2 Years ago maybe? Check their blog. I remember them posting it there.

XPTO

« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2012, 03:09 »
0
I have one question about Alamy, and this topic seems good for it. If not, I'm sorry.

Can I sell same picture as RM on Alamy, if I have that picture as RF elsewhere (Shutterstock)?

Thanks!

Absolutely not, according to the Alamy contract you've signed.

And I advise you to change the license of those images in alamy to RF as soon as possible, because if a client pays thousands of dollars for an image that he believes he is the only one using because the sales history on alamy says so, and later finds that it's being used by hundreds or thousands of other people that bought it in Micro you may end up having a lot of problems.

« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2012, 04:05 »
0
I have one question about Alamy, and this topic seems good for it. If not, I'm sorry.

Can I sell same picture as RM on Alamy, if I have that picture as RF elsewhere (Shutterstock)?

Thanks!

Absolutely not, according to the Alamy contract you've signed.

And I advise you to change the license of those images in alamy to RF as soon as possible, because if a client pays thousands of dollars for an image that he believes he is the only one using because the sales history on alamy says so, and later finds that it's being used by hundreds or thousands of other people that bought it in Micro you may end up having a lot of problems.

A) You cannot change the license on Alamy, you can only take down the image, which takes a long time
B) People buying RM on Alamy have no access to the sales history of an image (which could, after all, have been sold a gazillion times RM somewhere else) and so there is no case against anyone on those grounds. It's more likely that the client would demand (and probably get) a refund and the supplier will be in trouble with Alamy over violation of the terms of supply.

« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2012, 04:38 »
0
One point that some people may overlook is that an "editorial" license on SS or IS is not an RM license, it is an RF license, so if you put an image up as micro editorial you still can't sell it on Alamy.

« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2012, 04:58 »
0
I thought I watched all the alamy videos and I don't remember seeing a blog about them being sued.  Does anyone have a link?  I do remember them saying that despite some obvious problems with people selling RF when they shouldn't, it hasn't led to legal action but that was a few years ago.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: February 25, 2012, 05:19 »
0
This is something they need to make a bit more sophisticated.
If you have unrecogniseable bits of people in an image, you must tick people - no MR (if you haven't got one) and it shows up as 'with people' on a search.
That's fine from covering the MR angle, and the buyer can assess the risk of whether the group of pixels which represent an unrecogniseable bit of a person is likely to sue.
But it really mucks up the search. I'm sure that if a searcher ticks 'with people' they actually want to be able to see the people clearly, not an empty scene with some tiny blobs in the background.
And note that by Alamy's rules, it's only an actual person who needs an MR. E.g. a poster with a 'recognisable person' would need need a PR for the poster design, but not an MR. I'm sure this scenario could be potentially risky, but can only think of convoluted hypotheticals right now.

« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2012, 11:32 »
0
...A) You cannot change the license on Alamy, you can only take down the image, which takes a long time ...
This is incorrect. I accidentally submitted some images with the wrong license and Member Support swiftly changed the license type. No big deal.

Alamy just doesn't offer a user interface so we can change it ourselves and of course they don't want people to constantly switch their licenses either. But if you made a mistake, Member Services can (and did - for me) correct it.

« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2012, 13:28 »
0
Fair enough. The upload interface says you can't change it. Support obviously can do more than the interface.

« Reply #28 on: February 25, 2012, 14:06 »
0
Fair enough. The upload interface says you can't change it. Support obviously can do more than the interface.
Most importantly the license types are not set in stone. I'm sure that if I contacted Member Support every 2 weeks asking 100 licenses to be switched they would eventually disable my port and tell me to remove the images and re-upload them correctly.

« Reply #29 on: February 25, 2012, 14:18 »
0

Absolutely not, according to the Alamy contract you've signed.

And I advise you to change the license of those images in alamy to RF as soon as possible, because if a client pays thousands of dollars for an image that he believes he is the only one using because the sales history on alamy says so, and later finds that it's being used by hundreds or thousands of other people that bought it in Micro you may end up having a lot of problems.

You should read my second post here. I'm not selling, just asked.

I only have 6 images there, 2 of them are RM and they can't be found anywhere else

« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2012, 18:47 »
0
Well there are images that are acceptable as RF on the micros (eg something unreleased with a completely unidentifiable person in it) which can only be sold RM on Alamy. You are now effectively banned from placing such an image on Alamy, in the past (as I understood it) you could have sold it on both the micros and on Alamy.

You are right, as of now, (most) Micros allow such images without a release.

This might change though in the future as Alamy got sued for such an image and therefore implemented this new rule of requiring a release for people pics.
So as soon as the micros get hammered with such law suits they might change their requirements as well.

However, the OP didn't give me the impression (or proof) that the images were actually people pics or no-people pics. So we can't really help here.

When were alamy sued?  I watched their AGM video a few years ago and they never mentioned being sued.  They mentioned photos that shouldn't be sold as RF but I remember someone asking if that had caused problems and they said it hadn't.  I think they wanted to make their rules for when to use RF and RM clear cut.  People can say they recognise themselves in a photo, even if it isn't them.  How can a reviewer decide when a model release is required and how can buyers be sure they don't need one?  The way alamy have done it makes it very clear.


I believe the suit was because of someone who had actually forged a model release. 2 Years ago maybe? Check their blog. I remember them posting it there.


On the lookup, there was no actual suit. I should have done the lookup when I made my previous post. The facts are that a contributor contract was terminated as a result of the incident in the blog post here

http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2008/02/25/2681.aspx

So lawsuit, no as far as this reads, although it is very possible Alamy may have been on the hook for some damages. To my knowledge further details have not been disclosed, and Alamy is under no obligation to disclose any private settlements.

As people sometimes lie about things like releases in desperation to get a stupid photo posted, they are now required. Next step would be forgery - then you've got some real trouble.

Just as a note some of the posters here don't seem to know what a rights managed license actually entails and I suggest you do some outside reading rather than listen to the misinformation being presented here.

« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2012, 23:54 »
0
Just as a note some of the posters here don't seem to know what a rights managed license actually entails and I suggest you do some outside reading rather than listen to the misinformation being presented here.

"Outside reading" is mostly a waste of time since it is a misconception to think a rights managed contract is a single thing that can be described in generic chit-chat, much of which is based on misconceptions created by the microstock industry.

What you can usefully do is read the details of the contract whatever site you are selling from. Alamy, for example, cannot sell any exclusive usage rights from its standard RM license without contacting the photographer to check they are available, since it does not know the history of an RM image (how could it, since it allows you to sell it via other agencies?). Come to think of it, since even the photographer may not know the image's history, as sales reports can be delayed, Alamy really shouldn't offer exclusive rights with any image that is not provided exclusively to them.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
6283 Views
Last post June 24, 2011, 17:24
by seawhisper
16 Replies
8146 Views
Last post January 16, 2012, 00:22
by ann
14 Replies
8806 Views
Last post March 10, 2014, 21:47
by Pixart
17 Replies
11156 Views
Last post February 28, 2016, 17:11
by mantered
4 Replies
28885 Views
Last post May 30, 2016, 15:42
by click_click

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors