MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What would be the best description to replace RF  (Read 1345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« on: June 30, 2015, 16:58 »
+1
What would be the best description to replace Royalty Free?

Full Paid Rights
Once Off Royalty
One Fee All Rights
All Rights Paid

Suggestions?

Would there ever be a change for this confusing name? Who invented that name anyway and why can't it be changed?


« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2015, 17:05 »
+2
No idea where it comes from, but the issue is the word "free" and the missing word "license".

Therefore a better name could be "Comprehensive Rights License" as opposed to "Restricted Rights License" (which could replace RM, though it does not adress the "managing of the rights" part, i.e. the keeping of a usage history to enable the granting of specific exclusivity rights).

Shelma1

« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2015, 17:07 »
+1
It was created in the days when professionals were the only ones licensing images and had to pay royalties for each use. Now all sorts of people use images and I guess have no idea what the heck royalties are. "Pay-once images" might work, but it's not the most enticing language.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2015, 17:08 »
0
What would be the best description to replace Royalty Free?

Full Paid Rights
Once Off Royalty
One Fee All Rights
All Rights Paid

Suggestions?

Would there ever be a change for this confusing name? Who invented that name anyway and why can't it be changed?
None of these, unless you were concurrently doing away with ELs and equivalents.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2015, 17:20 »
+1
Any suggestions Sue?

« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2015, 17:21 »
+1
Any suggestion of "all rights" would be very bad because there are tons of things you can't do with the current agency licenses, even extended licenses.

Perpetual limited license would be descriptive, but it doesn't have much of a ring. Then you'd have a Perpetual extended license for the ELs.

The key thing is that the term of the license is forever; the "what" is the set of restrictions laid out by each agency. License is important because that's what you're buying, not the image itself.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2015, 17:22 »
+1
How about No-Longer-Royalty-Free? Ok ok I'd say something like Rights Enhanced.

I'd prefer if it was done away with. An unrestricted right license should cost a ton more but is actually the cheapest license.

Who invented it? I dunno. No sane business person would ever create a product that costs money and uses the name free in it. "Hey everybody come check out my new Chevy Cost Free" or "My Nikon Price Free".

I'm using a hybrid license on my site. It's Rights Managed but i'm simplifying it to make using it easier.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2015, 17:23 »
0
Any suggestions Sue?
No, because I wish they'd never invented RF!
(Ooops didn't read Paulie's post before I posted.)
Of course, it benefits the buyers, but led to the race to the bottom, even when it was macro RF.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2015, 21:08 »
+2
For the imaginary own site that I've never worked up, my idea was something else. No RF or same giveaway rights, under any other name. I made up my own license.

It would be a Single Use License. Plain and simple, one download, one use. Unlike RM it would not be as restrictive, wouldn't ask what the use was, publication, location, size or much else except - If it would go over a print run of 250,000 or used on a product or as a print. Then an EL would be needed.

It would be a simple, single use license. For as long as the site used it, or the magazine wanted, and if in syndication, that would be one use, all outlets included.

What I'm suggesting is, RF should be executed and something new given life. RM and others are just fine, but the unlimited, uncontrolled, unrestricted aspects of RF are just absurd. Especially on some sites where it's a lifetime use, unlimited, forever for one simple sub DL?

And we worry about illegal use and misuse? HA! With a license some just paid a pittance for unlimited legal use.


No, because I wish they'd never invented RF!
(Ooops didn't read Paulie's post before I posted.)
Of course, it benefits the buyers, but led to the race to the bottom, even when it was macro RF.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2015, 02:13 »
0
Pete, Canva has a single use licence as well.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2015, 02:14 »
0
So how can this RF term be changed then? What would it take to change it?

Is it up to the agencies? Or is there some authority on this?

Shelma1

« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2015, 06:26 »
0
I doubt it will change. The term is used for any content that pays royalties, not just images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
8286 Views
Last post July 29, 2009, 21:22
by puravida
12 Replies
6718 Views
Last post May 06, 2010, 01:40
by leaf
19 Replies
5977 Views
Last post February 08, 2013, 16:16
by Poncke
2 Replies
2725 Views
Last post September 25, 2013, 10:13
by Beppe Grillo
1 Replies
2674 Views
Last post August 24, 2017, 03:08
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle