MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Read_My_Rights on July 20, 2010, 16:01
-
Please select your top 2 choices.
Perhaps we can start a grass root movement for changing this misnomer.
When RF was born it was competing with rights managed (RM) content which required the payment of royalties. ("Royalty" by its definition is a payment for use). So technically a single fee can never be a "Royalty" if perpetual use is allowed. So the problem was keeping Royalty in the name "Royalty free".
Just my 0.02 pesos.
-
I kind of like "Single Fee" but it should be "Single Size Royalty" . . . the word "Royalty" is the point and the customer is buying an image according to the size. Guess it is too late to add it to the choices.
-
I kind of like "Single Fee" but it should be "Single Size Royalty" . . . the word "Royalty" is the point and the customer is buying an image according to the size. Guess it is too late to add it to the choices.
I was actually arguing that "Royalty" should be removed from the new term to avoid the conflicting meaning of "Pay per use". BTW the customers do not "buy an image" they obtain the rights to use an image. Thanks anyways - we need more votes.
-
I kind of like "Single Fee" but it should be "Single Size Royalty" . . . the word "Royalty" is the point and the customer is buying an image according to the size. Guess it is too late to add it to the choices.
I was actually arguing that "Royalty" should be removed from the new term to avoid the conflicting meaning of "Pay per use". BTW the customers do not "buy an image" they obtain the rights to use an image. Thanks anyways - we need more votes.
OOPS . . . . . . . really?
-
Royalty free is not a problem for the agencies who want to attract the "cheap" buyer. Those will find what they look for and be bored to remove the logos one day.
Type for "free download", "free software" free this free that, you will often be asked to pay at the end. It's a internet thing to insert a free term in web pages, to attract more traffic.
-
Type for "free download", "free software" free this free that, you will often be asked to pay at the end. It's a internet thing to insert a free term in web pages, to attract more traffic.
Hahaha. I spent an evening googling for a free flash slideshow generator. The download was free of course. Even the use was "free", till you installed it and then there was a big fat watermark all over. You could remove it by buying the Pro version for just 49.99$. Hahaha. What I really hate are those vendors that throw you in the Internet Exploder when you uninstall their not-so-free product, asking what was wrong. Grrrr... (sorry for the off-topic).
I prefer "single fee" because that is what it is, compared to RM. "Royalty" reminds me of queens and kings in the tabloids. I also wouldn't call a commission of 0.20$ "royal".
-
I just noticed that the "Single" in single fee license will include our pictures in all the millions of searches for "Single Ladies that charge a fee" ;D
-
As i said in another thread, I think the discussion is useless because the term "Royalty free" has been on for ages and I don't see a chance that any agency will stop using it.
-
As i said in another thread, I think the discussion is useless because the term "Royalty free" has been on for ages and I don't see a chance that any agency will stop using it.
agree completely - it's an accepted term [with many meanings], and no poll is going to change that:
("Royalty" by its definition is a payment for use). So technically a single fee can never be a "Royalty" if perpetual use is allowed. So the problem was keeping Royalty in the name "Royalty free".
wrong - NO roylty is paid under a RF license - the term rf means "no royalties ever need to be paid" and is technically correct. any other term using 'single ' or 'free' would imply the image could be used for aNything else; most RF licnese are still restricted and may require addtl payment for various uses.
finally, the old physical stock agencies like getty & corbis used RF in their licenses for what many call RM now -- the alternative was not necessarily RM, but rather an intial fee to get the image, then required royalties if it was used commercially. similar termini;logy is used in software. eg, some progtams require royalties be paid if something made with the program is used elsewhere.
steve
-
... wrong - NO roylty is paid under a RF license - the term rf means "no royalties ever need to be paid" and is technically correct. ...
We are talking in circles here. That was exactly what I ment. The problem is that the casual observer equates royalty with fee and thinks RF licenced content is free to use ("Hey it says free here"). Of course "RF" is technically correct but our argument is trying to improve the name for RF licences so that casual observer - potential customers - understand that there is a one time fee attached with use.
Thats all.
-
I think there is no point to talk about it because term RF is already in use, but I like the most PO or SF
-
Of course "RF" is technically correct but our argument is trying to improve the name for RF licences so that casual observer - potential customers - understand that there is a one time fee attached with use.
We can have this theoretical discussion, but the fact is that no site will change a term that is widely known in the field just because some eventual visitor may not understand what this is about. That's why I say it's a useless discussion.