pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: To sell RF or with Alamy? Travel photography mainly.  (Read 9522 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

traveler1116

« on: November 06, 2009, 13:28 »
0
I've decided to go exclusive with IS but would like to sell RM as well, mainly editorial.  Since most of my pictures now and in the next year will be travel related and don't sell so well as RF I was hoping maybe some of you could look at my recent IS uploads and tell me if I would be better offering these as RM on Alamy and focusing more of my IS uploads on images that are more likely to sell more often.  Also I will probably get to gold on IS fairly soon would it be better to hold off on uploading RM editorial images to Alamy in hopes of having them sell on Getty? And lastly is there an issue selling RM on Getty if I have RM images on Alamy?  I realize this is a lot and not all necessarily related to Alamy but any advice would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 11:52 by traveler1116 »


vonkara

« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2009, 14:15 »
0
Sorry for not answering but, are you saying that you can submit different RM images to Alamy while you are exclusive and submiting RF at IS ? I thought you wasn't able to sell anywhere else than at IS when exclusive.

Does it mean you can submit editorial RM as they are diferent licence?

« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2009, 14:22 »
0
It's my understanding that once you go exclusive at IS, you can no longer sell RF images anywhere else, period. You can sell RM anywhere you like, but you cannot sell any images RM that you have on IS, not even ones that you have not uploaded to IS but are from the same shoot. In other words, the images on IS are exclusive. There cannot be any image anywhere else that even remotely looks like that same image. Anything else is fair game for RM. For example, if you don't upload your travel images to IS, you can sell them anywhere else RM, but NOT RF.

I think I have that right.

vonkara

« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2009, 14:25 »
0
Thanks a lot cclaper!

vonkara

« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2009, 14:30 »
0
I was hoping maybe some of you could look at my recent IS uploads and tell me if I would be better offering these as RM on Alamy and focusing more of my IS uploads on images that are more likely to sell more often. 
I looked at the first page of your portfolio sorted by age on IS. I think you should offer them on Alamy as RM instead. They will probably sell a couple of times on IS but you probably won't do as much as if it's sell once on Alamy IMO

« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2009, 14:39 »
0
It looks like you have a few really good travel images on iStock.  If they are selling well, they should be fine there.  I would only sell things on Alamy as RM that are quite obscure or that you can't sell as RF because of the people or branding.

I think you have the right idea though.  If it isn't generic enough to be very usable - it is better off with a RM license.

Also remember that if an image sells as RF anytime it cannot be later sold as RM.  If you sell as Right Managed you are saying that you know the usage history of the image - if it has ever sold as RF you can't know how it has been used.

RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2009, 15:45 »
0
From the IS site, which I interpret as, RM you can sell anyplace?

Does that cover all of my files?

Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:

    * Rights-managed files with other organizations
    * Personal portfolio sites
    * Work for hire/editorial work contracts
    * Prints for sale
    * Prints, t-shirts and the like produced on art-only sites such as cafepress.com


Below is a portion of  http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php

Then the document - lengthy.  ;D (bold is mine since the important phrase gets lost)

2. Provision of Exclusive Content

   1. In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, either or both of: (i) Still and Flash Content, and (ii) Motion Content; together in any case with (iii) descriptive and other information, documents (such as model or property releases) or software relating to such Still and Flash Content and Motion Content, as the case may be (collectively, Content) or otherwise required to enable iStockphoto to realize the commercial potential of the rights granted in the Content ("Descriptive Information"); but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity, except to the extent Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement; (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked; (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto (such as stand alone audio files); or (5) other Content specifically designated by the Supplier and agreed by iStockphoto as being non-exclusive Content.
   2. Notwithstanding the definition of Exclusive Content and the exclusive license granted in this Agreement, nothing shall restrict the Supplier from (i) establishing or maintaining a personal portfolio web-site on which Exclusive Content is posted for the purposes of art display but not the sale or licensing or giving away of rights to the digital Content; or (ii) using Exclusive Content in connection with the sale by Supplier of prints, t-shirts and other merchandise where the sale or licensing or giving away of rights to the digital images or other Content beyond such merchandising use is not involved.
   3. The Supplier will provide Exclusive Content to iStockphoto using the Upload procedures and policies of the Site or such other procedures and policies as the parties may mutually agree. iStockphoto, in its sole discretion, may determine which of such Exclusive Content is suitable for posting on the Site or other means of distribution, and only such Exclusive Content as it deems suitable will be considered "Accepted Exclusive Content" for the purposes of applicable provisions of this Agreement.
   4. In addition to the terms of this Agreement, the parties acknowledge that iStockphoto's exclusivity program and the provision of all Exclusive Content are subject to the policies and procedures outlined in the relevant portions of the Site, the terms of which are incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Any breach of the rules relating to the exclusivity program and acceptable Exclusive Content outlined in the Site will be deemed to be a breach of this Agreement.


But what Leaf said: if something has ever been RF it's always RF.
cclapper: You can't sell similar shots or rejected shots RF anywhere else, without written permission. Which seems kind of odd, since they rejected them? But that's what it says. Basically you can't sell anything RF anywhere else, that's your exclusive content contract.

RM you can license anywhere you wish and still be a RF exclusive on IS.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 15:58 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2009, 16:30 »
0
Quote
cclapper: You can't sell similar shots or rejected shots RF anywhere else, without written permission. Which seems kind of odd, since they rejected them? But that's what it says. Basically you can't sell anything RF anywhere else, that's your exclusive content contract.

So you are saying that similar shots or rejected shots from a shoot that is on IS exclusive RF can be sold RM?

Quote
Which seems kind of odd, since they rejected them? But that's what it says.
But when you think about it, that actually makes sense. What's the point of being exclusive if you are going to upload similar shots RF on other sites?




traveler1116

« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2009, 21:31 »
0
Thanks for the input.  To get some of this clear are you guys saying that I could not upload an editorial image to Alamy from the same shoot that I uploaded an RF image to IS if I was exclusive?
Do you think it's best to only put editorial shots on RM and should I wait to put all my RM editorial for Getty rather than put it up on Alamy now?
Thanks
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 21:42 by traveler1116 »

vonkara

« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2009, 22:02 »
0
Do you think it's best to only put editorial shots on RM and should I wait to put all my RM editorial for Getty rather than put it up on Alamy now?
Thanks
I may be wrong but, I think you need to spend money to put images on Getty which is not the case on Alamy. Not sure about Getty fees though

RacePhoto

« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2009, 02:02 »
0
Quote
cclapper: You can't sell similar shots or rejected shots RF anywhere else, without written permission. Which seems kind of odd, since they rejected them? But that's what it says. Basically you can't sell anything RF anywhere else, that's your exclusive content contract.

So you are saying that similar shots or rejected shots from a shoot that is on IS exclusive RF can be sold RM?

Quote
Which seems kind of odd, since they rejected them? But that's what it says.
But when you think about it, that actually makes sense. What's the point of being exclusive if you are going to upload similar shots RF on other sites?


No - Yes.  ;D

According to the exclusive contract with IS, you cannot sell rejected RF images anywhere else. You can't sell similar RF images from a shoot, anywhere else. There is a sentence that says "without written permission" so that's up in the air.

The yes part is, yes it makes sense that you can't sell similar RF shots on other sites. But you can't sell anything RF on any other sites, so it's not an issue in the end.

Reading their rules can be tricky if one doesn't pay attention to the RF vs RM clauses. It could have said,

1) Exclusive - If you have a RF picture on our site, or tried to get it on our site, you can't sell it anywhere else, or anything from that same shoot, under any license, even if we don't want it.

2) RM pictures can be sold anywhere.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2009, 04:58 »
0
Do you think it's best to only put editorial shots on RM and should I wait to put all my RM editorial for Getty rather than put it up on Alamy now?
Thanks
I may be wrong but, I think you need to spend money to put images on Getty which is not the case on Alamy. Not sure about Getty fees though
That's just the 'Photographer's Choice' programme.

« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2009, 10:44 »
0
One thing that is a bit unclear to me (but I don't plan to go exclusive): if they reject an image, can I still sell it as RM elsewhere?  Because in one line they say we can sell RM images in other agencies, but in another they say rejected images can not be sold elsewhere.

I understand the serial images conflict, but if an image not from a seires is rejected, can it still be sold as RM?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2009, 11:18 »
0
One thing that is a bit unclear to me (but I don't plan to go exclusive): if they reject an image, can I still sell it as RM elsewhere?  Because in one line they say we can sell RM images in other agencies, but in another they say rejected images can not be sold elsewhere.

I understand the serial images conflict, but if an image not from a seires is rejected, can it still be sold as RM?
To be safe, it would be best to get permission from Support.

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2009, 17:08 »
0
One thing that is a bit unclear to me (but I don't plan to go exclusive): if they reject an image, can I still sell it as RM elsewhere?  Because in one line they say we can sell RM images in other agencies, but in another they say rejected images can not be sold elsewhere.

I understand the serial images conflict, but if an image not from a seires is rejected, can it still be sold as RM?

I try writing it a different way. I thought I made it simple, but people keep combining RF Exclusive rules with RM non-exclusive rules.

Only RF is Exclusive.

Logically since you can sell RM anywhere, it doesn't matter if they accept or reject it, you can sell it anywhere to start with.  ;D

If the question is, IS rejects an RF image, can you sell it RM somewhere else? Since it's a similar, or from the same shoot, and it's already RF, NO.

If it was a single photo, unique, and you sell it RM, what grounds would they have for making it exclusive. It's RM!  ???
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 17:22 by RacePhoto »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2638 Views
Last post January 14, 2008, 12:19
by zorki
16 Replies
9007 Views
Last post May 09, 2009, 05:44
by psd photography
17 Replies
12069 Views
Last post March 04, 2017, 04:23
by ostap
12 Replies
4923 Views
Last post December 18, 2011, 06:09
by BaldricksTrousers
0 Replies
2801 Views
Last post February 26, 2019, 01:00
by FiledIMAGE

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle