MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Alamy.com => Topic started by: kjekol on May 06, 2013, 11:29

Title: Question about RF and RM
Post by: kjekol on May 06, 2013, 11:29
I'm not that familiar with the policy and rules for the RF and RM licensed content, so I have a question. I earlier uploaded some photos as RM at Alamy. Haven't sold any of them. Is legal to remove them as RM on Alamy and upload them as RF on other agencies?

Thanks!

Kjetil
 
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: ShadySue on May 06, 2013, 11:37
Yes, it's perfectly OK to to that; but be aware that the pictures aren't actually completely removed from Alamy for six months (it's in the contract), in case any buyers have earmarked it but haven't actually bought it yet. Sometimes it does take that long to get from view to sale.
However, if you remove all information from caption, keywords and location it can't be found by any new prospective buyers. Unless things have changed, you need to remove them via manage images BEFORE you hit delete, you can't do it afterwards.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: Imagenomad on May 06, 2013, 12:23
However, if you remove all information from caption, keywords and location it can't be found by any new prospective buyers. Unless things have changed, you need to remove them via manage images BEFORE you hit delete, you can't do it afterwards.

No, it hasn't changed, much to my chagrin.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: Imagenomad on May 06, 2013, 12:33
And another tip that I've learned today is to create a pseudonym with which to associate your deleted files so that your main Alamy rank is not affected.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: kjekol on May 07, 2013, 05:44
Thanks for the answers.

I have already deleted the photos, so I have to wait for 6 month. :(

I was told that I couldn't sell some photo as RM and some as RF from the same shoot. This means that I can't sell photos from the same shoot as RF until the six month are over?

Regards,
Kjetil
Title: Question about RF and RM
Post by: Nikd90 on May 07, 2013, 21:13
I started uploading images to Alamy. I also have the same/similar question. I have some images that are RF on SS but were rejected by some other agencies citing the reason that they see people in that image. Now if I have to submit these to Alamy, should I mark these as RM?

What is the workflow for you to upload images to Alamy because they reject all the images in the submission even if one doesn't pass QC?

Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: ShadySue on May 08, 2013, 06:03
I started uploading images to Alamy. I also have the same/similar question. I have some images that are RF on SS but were rejected by some other agencies citing the reason that they see people in that image. Now if I have to submit these to Alamy, should I mark these as RM?
In case you miss my reply on the other thread, if you have files RF anywhere, you can't submit them RM at Alamy. Therefore for unidentifiable people, which may be accepted on some sites but not others, you have to choose.
Another possibility for some images might be to remove the people and submit to Alamy RF and mark them 'digitally altered', which isn't going to make much difference to (m)any buyers of RF. (It's probably mostly an issue for editorial buyers)
Title: Question about RF and RM
Post by: Nikd90 on May 08, 2013, 06:17
A stupid question: what is the reason why we can't have an image as RM on Alamy and RF on SS?
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: ShadySue on May 08, 2013, 06:33
A stupid question: what is the reason why we can't have an image as RM on Alamy and RF on SS?
1. It's Alamy's rules.
2. It might annoy an RM buyer.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: Pinocchio on May 08, 2013, 07:04
In case some have not seen this:

I will deactivate at least a part of my portfolio at iStock and would like to sell part of it as RM on Alamy.

Does Alamy accept images that have been RF somewhere else and that have sold as such before?

Yes, you can do this but you are ultimately responsible for managing your license history. EG, if you want to sell the images as RM, you need to make sure they are not for sale as RF anywhere else. Also, any RF images that have previously sold would not be available for an exclusive RM sale. These are however rare and in cases where an exclusive may be in the works our sales team would be contacting you to ask about the previous history on the image - if there were no conflicts we could proceed with the sale.

James Allsworth
Content Executive
Alamy

Regards
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: falstafff on May 08, 2013, 07:32
Editorial and RF is what sell at Alamy. Hardly anything else.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: pixsol on May 19, 2014, 11:09
I started uploading images to Alamy. I also have the same/similar question. I have some images that are RF on SS but were rejected by some other agencies citing the reason that they see people in that image. Now if I have to submit these to Alamy, should I mark these as RM?
In case you miss my reply on the other thread, if you have files RF anywhere, you can't submit them RM at Alamy. Therefore for unidentifiable people, which may be accepted on some sites but not others, you have to choose.
Another possibility for some images might be to remove the people and submit to Alamy RF and mark them 'digitally altered', which isn't going to make much difference to (m)any buyers of RF. (It's probably mostly an issue for editorial buyers)

So, can files that are RF in other sites be submitted as RF in Alamy ?
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: Gannet77 on May 19, 2014, 11:18
I started uploading images to Alamy. I also have the same/similar question. I have some images that are RF on SS but were rejected by some other agencies citing the reason that they see people in that image. Now if I have to submit these to Alamy, should I mark these as RM?
In case you miss my reply on the other thread, if you have files RF anywhere, you can't submit them RM at Alamy. Therefore for unidentifiable people, which may be accepted on some sites but not others, you have to choose.
Another possibility for some images might be to remove the people and submit to Alamy RF and mark them 'digitally altered', which isn't going to make much difference to (m)any buyers of RF. (It's probably mostly an issue for editorial buyers)

So, can files that are RF in other sites be submitted as RF in Alamy ?

Yes, provided you aren't exclusive at the other sites.

A stupid question: what is the reason why we can't have an image as RM on Alamy and RF on SS?
1. It's Alamy's rules.
2. It might annoy an RM buyer.

True, but furthermore, surely the reason for the rule is that RM licenses may specify exclusive use of that image for some period of time - and if an image has ever been licensed as RF, anywhere, you can't guarantee that.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: pixsol on May 19, 2014, 11:19
Thanks Gannett77 !
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: photostockad on May 30, 2014, 07:12
But if you sell RM on Alamy, can you sell it Editorial on Shuttersock or others?
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: ShadySue on May 30, 2014, 07:15
But if you sell RM on Alamy, can you sell it Editorial on Shuttersock or others?
NO - you can't sell RM on Alamy and RF on SS or anywhere else. SS only sells RF editorial.
However, you can sell RM on Alamy and RM elsewhere.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: photostockad on May 30, 2014, 08:51
NO - you can't sell RM on Alamy and RF on SS or anywhere else. SS only sells RF editorial.
However, you can sell RM on Alamy and RM elsewhere.

I can not find this rule on Alamy website. Where is write it official? If someone want to buy RM exclusive, first time will be asking me, so i can say NO.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 30, 2014, 08:53
True, but furthermore, surely the reason for the rule is that RM licenses may specify exclusive use of that image for some period of time - and if an image has ever been licensed as RF, anywhere, you can't guarantee that.

No. .... well, that may have been the original idea but Alamy cannot sell standard RM images for exclusive use because it doesn't know where else they may be on sale. 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).

@ Photostockad - it is written somewhere, someone showed it to me when I was making the same query as you, but I can't recall exactly where they put it.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: ShadySue on May 30, 2014, 08:58
Alamy contacted me directly once about a file to ask if it had ever been sold before, and I believe that is standard if a buyer wants exclusive rights. I'm not sure if it was because I was away from home so didn't reply for 9 hours, or if the buyer decided they didn't want the file after all, but it didn't sell.
An Alamy rep said here you can sell files previously (but not currently being) sold RF, provided you have kept notes of sales and can tell them if asked. Clearly that woul rule you out of big exclusive deals, but there are extremely few of them anyway (according to Alamy).
http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/transfer-from-istock-rf-to-alamy-rm/msg298698/#msg298698 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/transfer-from-istock-rf-to-alamy-rm/msg298698/#msg298698)
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 30, 2014, 09:50
That's interesting, Sue. I think it takes six months to deactivate a file on Alamy, so if you have the same file on the same deactivation terms at another RM site there would always be the danger of it selling there after it had been sold with exclusive rights on Alamy.
That's why I thought they wouldn't be able to do exclusive rights deals on ordinary RM. 
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: photostockad on May 30, 2014, 11:13
Can someone tell me which microstock Editorial is RM?
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: ShadySue on May 30, 2014, 11:58
Can someone tell me which microstock Editorial is RM?
None, unless there's some very obscure little micro I don't know about.
Micro is RF, the cheap prices don't really allow for the individual licences.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: bunhill on May 30, 2014, 12:18
I can not find this rule on Alamy website. Where is write it official?


It is in the Contributor Contract (http://www.alamy.com/contributor/contract/default.asp) and also applies to similars:

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.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: Gannet77 on May 30, 2014, 13:45
True, but furthermore, surely the reason for the rule is that RM licenses may specify exclusive use of that image for some period of time - and if an image has ever been licensed as RF, anywhere, you can't guarantee that.

No. .... well, that may have been the original idea but Alamy cannot sell standard RM images for exclusive use because it doesn't know where else they may be on sale. 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).


True enough...  I was just trying to think of some logical reason why they might have the requirement (that an image be not available as RF anywhere) - but you're right of course, they can't know if it's for sale elsewhere, as RM, in any case, without asking first.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: bunhill on May 30, 2014, 13:57
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.

2. It cannot be repeated often enough: Editorial is a type of use - not a type of image. There are plenty of potential reasons why a fully released image might be marked up as editorial use only. For example in restricted jurisdictions. ETA - and especially with a rights managed image where, for example, current commercial licensing of the image might restrict anything other than editorial use.

ETA2: The only way of setting an image to be 'editorial only' at Alamy is via the RM restrictions option. These can be changed at any time.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: wordplanet on May 30, 2014, 14:20
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.

Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 30, 2014, 14:29
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.

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.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: bunhill on May 30, 2014, 14:50
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.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 30, 2014, 17:37
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.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: bunhill on May 30, 2014, 18:18
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.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: Jonathan Ross on May 30, 2014, 19:19
Hi All,

 An image does not have to have a release to be accepted into RM, I guarantee you that much. If you have any other questions I am always willing to help with an answer if I can. Drop me a PM if this isn't making sense and have a super weekend everyone.

Cheers,
Jonathan
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: bunhill on May 31, 2014, 03:22
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.
Title: Re: Question about RF and RM
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on May 31, 2014, 04:34
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.

Correct. And I just uploaded an unreleased photo of a Sri Lankan tea-picker and - once again - no way to make it RM-exclusive. If I mark it as having a release the exclusive option becomes available.