pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Editorial RM  (Read 11074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« on: September 30, 2010, 00:29 »
0
best places to sell Editorial RM?


« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2010, 01:11 »
0
Alamy is best place for editorial RM.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 01:22 by ann »

« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2010, 04:44 »
0
Alamy is best place for editorial RM.

Yes, alamy is the best place for it

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2010, 19:47 »
0
thank you...

« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2010, 13:07 »
0
For anyone beginning to submit Editorial images to agencies - Start with macro as opposed to micro agencies.

Because of editorial use limitations and micro's price structure, it's virtually impossible to earn reasonable money for editorial images - including strong ones that are unique and/or could be used broadly over long period of time.

I wish I had known from the start about Alamy RM editorial. Just checked the overall earnings of editorial images I submitted to micros a few years ago - $36 for my top editorial at one micro, $25 for top one at the other. And, of course, once image sells as RF, it can never be RM.

(I realize original post was about RM editorial.)

« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2010, 14:04 »
0
And, of course, there's that misperception about RF then RM, but we shan't stray too far off topic.

« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2010, 14:33 »
0
And, of course, there's that misperception about RF then RM, but we shan't stray too far off topic.

...yes, image already bought as RF then called RM is a bit like saying a stray mutt, however lovable, is pedigreed

« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2010, 15:03 »
0
Uh, yeah, no.

« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2010, 16:26 »
0
I was surprised when a person mentioned recently that they sell the same images as RF on istock and RM on alamy.  I don't blame people doing it if alamy let them but it does make me wonder about the future of alamy.  Are buyers going to like it when they pay for a restricted license with RM and then see the same image sold at a fraction of the price as RF?  I do like alamy but I wish they would open a separate microstock collection and ban microstock RF being sold as RM.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2010, 16:28 »
0
I was surprised when a person mentioned recently that they sell the same images as RF on istock and RM on alamy.  I don't blame people doing it if alamy let them but it does make me wonder about the future of alamy.  Are buyers going to like it when they pay for a restricted license with RM and then see the same image sold at a fraction of the price as RF?  I do like alamy but I wish they would open a separate microstock collection and ban microstock RF being sold as RM.
I'm pretty sure it's not allowed, as such.

« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2010, 16:47 »
0
I agree with Shady Sue. Alamy doesn't allow selling images as RM on their site if images have already sold as RF, and contributors who purposely do it have incomprehensibly decided to break the rule, and risk the consequences if found out.

(In my experience, they seem to care very much about what license an image has. For ex, they don't even want related images sold under different licenses. I sold an image as RF elsewhere, and when I submitted a related image (first time submitting it anywhere; different orientation, model doing something quite different, but images clearly were same time/place/model) Alamy Customer Support agreed that 2nd image should be RF.)

traveler1116

« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2010, 17:08 »
0
Could you be sued as well for doing that kind of thing (putting sisters in RF or selling previously as RF and the trying to sell as RM) for example by ruining a large ad campaign.  It seems that a lot of people worry about losing a few sales much more than doing something that could get them sued, but I'm no lawyer so what do I know.

« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2010, 17:59 »
0
I was surprised when a person mentioned recently that they sell the same images as RF on istock and RM on alamy.  I don't blame people doing it if alamy let them but it does make me wonder about the future of alamy.  Are buyers going to like it when they pay for a restricted license with RM and then see the same image sold at a fraction of the price as RF?  I do like alamy but I wish they would open a separate microstock collection and ban microstock RF being sold as RM.
I'm pretty sure it's not allowed, as such.
I was pretty sure too but I was told they did agree to this.  The person told me they thought the rule that RF images can't be sold as RM applies to only images on the alamy site.  If you sell RF on other sites, there is nothing to stop you selling the same images as RM on alamy.  Seems crazy to me and I wouldn't do it but that's what I was informed.  I wasn't going to mention this, as obviously anyone exclusive on istock might think its a good idea to sell the same images as RM on alamy but people have talked about this before and I wish alamy would tighten their terms to stop this happening.  All they have to say is that you can't sell any image as RM if it has been sold as RF anywhere before.

« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2010, 18:02 »
0
For the 55,000 time, there is nothing that stops you from licensing previously sold RF images as RM.  It only restricts you from offering image history or exclusivity as value added offerings.  Sheesh.

traveler1116

« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2010, 01:54 »
0
^Sorry I thought RM meant something more, guess I'll go read the terms.

« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2010, 02:45 »
0
It would be easy for alamy to sort this out when we are applying a license to an image.  They already default to licensed if the image has people in it without a model releases or property that needs a release.  They could just add another one for images that have been sold before as RF.

« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2010, 05:13 »
0
It would be easy for alamy to sort this out when we are applying a license to an image.  They already default to licensed if the image has people in it without a model releases or property that needs a release.  They could just add another one for images that have been sold before as RF.

They already have sorted it out. The L (traditional) license does not provide any guarantees about former usage, only their RM license has that sort of restriction.

Also, traditional licenses are not more expensive than RF licenses, they are much cheaper. The reason for this is the same as the reason why it is cheaper to buy a bottle of milk for use today than it is to buy a lifetime supply of milk.

The micro model vastly undervalues the RF license and I'm pretty sure the micros are only RF because it would have been impossibly expensive to monitor whether images were being reused (or maybe it was just a designers dirty little desire to pay once and have forever). I hadn't thought of it before but it would really make more sense to sell anything at the micros that is going to Alamy on the L license, as that would reduce the price disparity between Alamy and Micro RF.

BTW, the micros are all RM as well, they are "royalty-free rights-managed" to be precise. Why? Because they place a list of restrictions on the permitted use and that means they are managing the rights.

« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2010, 13:42 »
0
I'm most struck by how people interested/involved in stock photography enough to post in "Editorial RM" may have fundamental misconceptions about legal aspects of usage licenses.

Is there a resource that has detailed, legal, widely accepted info about stock photography usage licenses?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2010, 14:26 »
0
Alamy is best place for editorial RM.
Are you selling a lot at Alamy?

« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2010, 16:09 »
0
I'm most struck by how people interested/involved in stock photography enough to post in "Editorial RM" may have fundamental misconceptions about legal aspects of usage licenses.

Is there a resource that has detailed, legal, widely accepted info about stock photography usage licenses?

Yes.  The usage license from the distributor you are interested in licensing from.  So, what fundamental misconceptions are you afraid you have regarding license terms?

« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2010, 18:24 »
0
Alamy is best place for editorial RM.
Are you selling a lot at Alamy?

My port is tiny, but sales are promising. For ex, I've probably earned more on A than combined, all-time total on my now-former ports on IS + F.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 18:29 by ann »

« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2010, 01:18 »
0
if an image of history can not be managed, how can it be 'rights-managed'?

I am sure there are buyers who will pay whatever, and don't care about RM or RF or don't even know what is that.. but as an agency, they should keep a previously sold RF selling as RM as long as the seller is honest.

For the 55,000 time, there is nothing that stops you from licensing previously sold RF images as RM.  It only restricts you from offering image history or exclusivity as value added offerings.  Sheesh.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2010, 02:02 »
0
Alamy is best place for editorial RM.
Are you selling a lot at Alamy?

My port is tiny, but sales are promising. For ex, I've probably earned more on A than combined, all-time total on my now-former ports on IS + F.
That's impressive. I earned more on IS last month than I have on 18 months on Alamy (RM). That said, I'm working on my Alamy port rather than my IS port.

« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2010, 02:52 »
0
Alamy is best place for editorial RM.
Are you selling a lot at Alamy?

My port is tiny, but sales are promising. For ex, I've probably earned more on A than combined, all-time total on my now-former ports on IS + F.
That's impressive. I earned more on IS last month than I have on 18 months on Alamy (RM). That said, I'm working on my Alamy port rather than my IS port.

You're very kind, Sue, but what's impressive here is your port.
Love your profile pics :D

« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2010, 06:00 »
0
Very simply. The right to sell "exclusive usage" in a license is only ONE right. That one can no longer be managed but there are plenty of other rights that can be assigned.

What do you call Alamy's L license? It does not offer exclusive usage. It just prices (manages) the license according to type and duration of use. It is partially rights managed (just the same as the micros partially manage their libraries)

The buyer of an L license knows nothing about where or how that photo is being used, so why does the agency need to manage the history? It doesn't even try. When it makes a sale it doesn't contact you to ensure that the image is not for sale on another RM site, as it would have to do with a managed history image. I'm not sure but I think Getty's "rights ready" concept is similar: buy for a specified use but no guarantee of exclusive usage.

Fully RM images should be exclusive to one agent.


if an image of history can not be managed, how can it be 'rights-managed'?

I am sure there are buyers who will pay whatever, and don't care about RM or RF or don't even know what is that.. but as an agency, they should keep a previously sold RF selling as RM as long as the seller is honest.

For the 55,000 time, there is nothing that stops you from licensing previously sold RF images as RM.  It only restricts you from offering image history or exclusivity as value added offerings.  Sheesh.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Editorial on SS

Started by RacePhoto Shutterstock.com

3 Replies
3014 Views
Last post May 06, 2008, 22:55
by Jor43
4 Replies
3998 Views
Last post July 08, 2008, 16:05
by oboy
2 Replies
2665 Views
Last post March 07, 2009, 11:54
by vonkara
5 Replies
8715 Views
Last post September 07, 2010, 19:24
by RacePhoto
0 Replies
1835 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:11
by waseefakhtar

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle