MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: True and false RF?  (Read 4791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« on: January 06, 2011, 17:10 »
0
I recently have opened an acount in Photoshelter; until now I have only worked with microstock agencies, and studying how to use PS, I have founded some information that makes me doubt respect some things I used to have clear in my mind. I hope I could expose them orderly, and you could help me:

1- I know the difference between RF and RM licenses, and we ethically should not sell the same images as RF very cheap and as RM many many times more expensive. And I also think this way.

2- PS have three kind of licenses: Personal use (PU from now), RF and RM. PU is, of course, only for personal and never for commercial use. RM, as we know, determines the different uses and has different prices depending on them. RF is royalty free at all, licensee could do practically anything he/she wants with the file.

3- My conclusion is that in microstock RF is not a true but a false RF, and corresponds with PU in PS, because in micro lincensees can't commerce with the image unleast they purchase an Extended License, so in the beginning the sale is only for personal use (and the extended one is more expensive).

4- If I'm right until now, I'm ethically allowed to sell an image in microstock as RF for a few bucks (for me a few cents) and the same file in PS as RF for $100, for example (and as PU for the same price as in micro).

Am I right? Am I confused?


« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2011, 17:29 »
0
3- My conclusion is that in microstock RF is not a true but a false RF, and corresponds with PU in PS, because in micro lincensees can't commerce with the image unleast they purchase an Extended License, so in the beginning the sale is only for personal use (and the extended one is more expensive).

4- If I'm right until now, I'm ethically allowed to sell an image in microstock as RF for a few bucks (for me a few cents) and the same file in PS as RF for $100, for example (and as PU for the same price as in micro).

Am I right? Am I confused?


No.  Yes.

Commercial use isn't just selling t-shirts.  It's more about using content for promotional use (ads, etc.), and that is the majority of what MS images are licensed for.

"RF" and "RM" are just general terms for generally accepted licensing requirements.  See if this helps: http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/istockphoto-to-offer-new-editorial-content-collection/

« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2011, 21:32 »
0
I don't know what are the restrictions of RF in PS - it may cover the EL uses of micro RF - but certainly the regular micro RF is not equivalent to their PU. In micro RF, the buyer may use the image in advertisement, web, documents, etc. Images can be even used as book or CD covers, unless their print run is bery high,

« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2011, 22:15 »
0
there's absolutely nothing unethical about selling the same product at different prices in different markets, esp'ly when the usage license varies.  there MAY be business or other marketing reasons for not doing so, but variable pricing is part of any market system.  you can buy the same items for half price at costco that you find at full price elsewhere. 


i sell the same maps on ebay and amazon -- on ebay they bring about $2-3 each, on amazon people pay $10 or more.  if they order direct from my website the price is cheaper.

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2011, 08:25 »
0
Royalty-Free images are delivered electronically through the PhotoShelter website. The sale and fulfillment process is totally automated by PhotoShelter. Unlike Rights-Managed images, royalty-free images have relatively loose restrictions on their usage. The licensing agreements for these images are found here.

Electronic Personal Use licenses are appropriate for images you'd like to sell to individual consumers for their personal use, which may include, but is not limited to, using the image for at-home printing, screensaver slideshows, wedding announcements, online personal profiles, etc. A Personal Use license prohibits the buyer from using the image for anything but strictly personal or limited educational use (e.g. school projects or single-classroom education).

So, is RF in micro a step between PU and RF in PS? I'm a bit confused...

« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2011, 09:23 »
0
So, is RF in micro a step between PU and RF in PS? I'm a bit confused...


Again, you're missing the point that "RF" or whatever you want to call a set of licensing guidelines is not some set list of restrictions hard coded to the world.

For example, the RF license from Getty allows printing of content on merchandise.  The RF license from IS does not.  Is one _more_ RF than the other?  No, they are just different sets of requirements that generally fall under the term RF because for the generally accepted usage, commercial applications, once the royalty is paid, further usage requires no more payment.

This PU license from PS would likely cost the buyer less, because the usage is much more restrictive (in the PS world) than their full RF license.  Essentially the buyer is not allowed to "make money" from the content, like a full license where they could use it to promote their business and gain more customers.  It's permission to use it... personally.

Read this: http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the-right-value-for-your-money/

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2011, 09:58 »
0
Thank you, Sean, your blog have been very useful to me. So, I have to study what offers every kind of license in every agency/platform and put prices in consequence. But after reading your posts, I'm still thinking that, in general, RF-without extended license in micro is similar (with differences) to the PU in PS, at least in terms the user can not do commerce with the image. If you add an extended license, as you compare IS with Getty, it depends on restrictions such as quantity of uses for IS, while Getty has not restrictions (as PShelter). So I can, with a margin of error, equal micro RF without extended license (and price)  with PU in PS, and RF with extended license with RF in PS, thinking that this last is absolutely non-restricted and perhaps more expensive.

Elsewhere, the point that interest me the more, is that I can (ethically, in fact I know I can) sell the same image in micro for a buck, and in PS or Getty or macro in general, for a hundred, while it depends on the rights the license allows (no matter if we speak on PU, RF or RM, it depends on the real content of the license).

Am I right... at least?

« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2011, 10:14 »
0
Thank you, Sean, your blog have been very useful to me. So, I have to study what offers every kind of license in every agency/platform and put prices in consequence. But after reading your posts, I'm still thinking that, in general, RF-without extended license in micro is similar (with differences) to the PU in PS, at least in terms the user can not do commerce with the image.

If by "do commerce", you mean selling merchandise with the content, then I guess yes.  But the most important usage of the IS (or general RF license) is that you can use it commercially - advertising, promotion, etc.  That is where the true value lies, and you can obviously not do that with a PU license.

« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2011, 12:33 »
0
I think you are correct to say that micro RF EL is equivalent to PS RF, given tat you say that the buyer can use the image in products (no print-on-demand restrictions? no maximum copies?). 

But regular micro RF is not equivalent to PU, as you described it, because it for personal use, not business use.  A buyer can out the image in his personal website, but not if he is offering a service in his website, as I understand it.

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2011, 14:32 »
0
Ok, that's the point. Now I see the real difference between PU-Photoshelter and RF-micro: advertising, promotion... So the first should be cheaper than RF-micro, and RF-Photoshelter should be more expensive than RF+Extended in micro. And I can use all of them.

Thank you Sean, Madelaide (obrigado para ti) and Cascoly.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2011, 14:55 »
0
Ok, that's the point. Now I see the real difference between PU-Photoshelter and RF-micro: advertising, promotion... So the first should be cheaper than RF-micro, and RF-Photoshelter should be more expensive than RF+Extended in micro. And I can use all of them.

Thank you Sean, Madelaide (obrigado para ti) and Cascoly.

Do you find that lots of people pau to licence your images for personal use? There are so many sites where you can get good-to-excellent images free for non-commercial use, not just Flickr/CC I'd think your image would have to be incredibly 'unusual yet necessary' for people to pay for them.

« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2011, 15:19 »
0
Do you find that lots of people pau to licence your images for personal use?

I know people at SP that buy images for printing and hanging on the wall. I have a friend who used to buy images for his daughter's school assignments (maybe very specific images, but he is the only person I know who buys images for personal use).

Hmm, I bought an image at DT this year for my Christmas e-card.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2011, 16:05 »
0
Do you find that lots of people pau to licence your images for personal use?
I have a friend who used to buy images for his daughter's school assignments (maybe very specific images, but he is the only person I know who buys images for personal use).
I remember reading someone on iStock not long after I started about parents buying iStock images for their kids homework. As a very recently ex-teacher, I still find that incredible. If I'd required it, I'd have been in big trouble. If an assignment had come in with a stock image, what would it have got credit for? That the kid had a parent wealthy enough to have a computer and a credit card?

« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2011, 16:31 »
0
What is wrong about using a stck image for illustration?  ???  I would be more concerned about copy&paste texts from the Internet.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2011, 16:57 »
0
What is wrong about using a stck image for illustration?  ???  I would be more concerned about copy&paste texts from the Internet.
I never encouraged any assignment which could be completed by copying and pasting either. Totally pointless.
Nothing wrong with using a stock image per se, but it is so against the tenets of Scottish education that it should cost anything other than the tax we all pay. Can't see why anyone should get credit just because they have better off parents (though of course that is usually going to happen indirectly).
I think it would take a major 'paradigm shift' to get my head round the concept of private education!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
8455 Views
Last post May 04, 2007, 17:46
by Federico87
5 Replies
2341 Views
Last post December 07, 2012, 14:07
by Szakaly
4 Replies
2370 Views
Last post June 25, 2013, 06:56
by Ron
4 Replies
1868 Views
Last post December 12, 2013, 12:04
by cobalt
8 Replies
3246 Views
Last post March 17, 2015, 10:23
by etudiante_rapide

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle