Several years ago I had an RM image that I had taken off Alamy and waited 6 mos to put on the micros as RF. It sold as RM on Alamy more than six months after I'd removed it, so it does happen. I was glad that I had waited the six months before putting it anywhere else. It's gotten many ELs on SS and some on the other sites, earning me over $500 on the micros, so moving it off Alamy worked out for me.

I have pages and pages of contact sheets so I can keep track of sales, RF, RM etc - it's time consuming but necessary if you are licensing both RM and RF images. I had a book publisher ask me about an image recently and it was good to have the history handy. It also gives me a good sense of what sells when I"m planning future shoots.

I wish Alamy had an RF editorial option, because it would be nice to have the same editorial photos both on Alamy where they often end up in the newspaper scheme and on the micros, but most print publications have been buying RM images for so long that I suppose that is the model they are used to.

Quote from: bunhill on May 30, 2014, 13:57

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 30, 2014, 08:53

The only images it can offer exclusivity guarantees for are RM-Exclusive (and it seems to demand that all those are fully released, so they are not really editorial).

1. Not disagreeing but what makes you say that - the bit I bolded ? I have not heard that before.

The one time I tried to put one into RF-exclusive it wouldn't allow the licensing for "release required/no release". The only option for that was non-exclusive RM.

I am probably being thick, but I still do not understand. You seem to be saying that only a fully released image can be offered as RM exclusive. ??

Of course, any image can be used in an editorial context but for normal news shots of an event taking place - a Press conference, a sporting event, an accident etc. -   it's highly unlikely you are going to be able to get releases for every face or piece of property in the frame - indeed, it would generally be bizarre to ask for signatures.

Sure. But the other way around .... there are potentially good reasons why a released image might be restricted to editorial use only in certain jurisdictions for example - or in general. Or that its uses might be restricted in relation to other uses. Typical example - a book cover: Nothing wrong potentially with the image still being used editorially in other jurisdictions .... but the publisher might not want the same image turning up on a different book within the licence period.

Alamy doesn't not set 'editorial only' restrictions. It is for the artist to set those in the restrictions settings. Which you can change at any time. And Alamy makes that our responsibility. Quite separate from the licence type.

Quote from: bunhill on May 30, 2014, 14:50

I am probably being thick, but I still do not understand. You seem to be saying that only a fully released image can be offered as RM exclusive. ??

That seemed to be how it worked when I tried to submit one. When you choose the license types if there is material that would need a release in it and you don't have one then it defaults to non-exclusive RM and the exclusive-RM button is greyed out.

Interesting. Next time I upload anything via the regular queue I will test that.

An image does not have to have a release to be accepted into RM, I guarantee you that much.

Baldrick was saying that it seemed to him that an image needed to have releases in order for it's licence type to be set as RM-Exclusive. Which is different from plain RM.

I have a few which I set as RM-Exclusive. But they are ones which do not need releases (i.e. No to both the property and people question). Baldrick's point, if so, must only relate to images where a release would be required. Everything else I have there is plain RM.