Author Topic: Editorial: RM vs RF (Read 20615 times)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2011, 16:50 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 22, 2011, 14:28

Quote from: madelaide on January 22, 2011, 10:04
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 22, 2011, 01:26
So you are actually charging them MORE by sticking strictly to RF at both places. Isn't that even MORE unethical?

And who says I have the same RF in Alamy as in micros? I don't. The few RFs I have in Alamy were never submitted to the micros.

Well that's beside the point. I didn't mean you personally, I meant the general principle. But, actually, I don't think it is unethical at all to upload the same RF on different sites. People are free to choose where to shop. I am not doing them a favour if I refuse to allow them to buy my goods, which may be just what they want, just because they are on sale somewhere cheaper. But that's also beside the point.

True but that wasn't the question. Look at the top...

is there any legal issue/prohibition in placing an editorial image as RM on Alamy
and RF Editorial on Microstock?

I say that L on Alamy is RM, so you can't sell RM on site A and the same image as RF on site M.

You say, we can. I'm asking how you get around that simple guideline. To which you waffle around and say "even Alamy won't answer" or, Someone else says... or, I answered before or, they really don't track that well, or something else about how I'd be doing the buyer a favor. That's not the question. Is It Legal?

Please someone, explain to me, how RF images from one agency can be lawfully licensed RM on another site.

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** January 22, 2011, 16:55 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 22, 2011, 16:50

Please someone, explain to me, how RF images from one agency can be lawfully licensed RM on another site.

They could be, legally, if the RM was only for usage and not for guaranteed unique usage of any type.
A bit like buying the same soap in from your local supermarket or in Harrods brand packaging at four times the price.
You couldn't legally sell an image, which had previously sold even once as RF, RM if the buyer wanted unique usage, e.g. of use, geographic region and/or timespan.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #27 on:** January 22, 2011, 17:46 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 22, 2011, 16:55

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 22, 2011, 16:50
Please someone, explain to me, how RF images from one agency can be lawfully licensed RM on another site.
They could be, legally, if the RM was only for usage and not for guaranteed unique usage of any type.
A bit like buying the same soap in from your local supermarket or in Harrods brand packaging at four times the price.
You couldn't legally sell an image, which had previously sold even once as RF, RM if the buyer wanted unique usage, e.g. of use, geographic region and/or timespan.

While your second point is done all over, it still doesn't explain the mixed license. Once RF = Always RF.

I suppose since we are on different continents the Harrods allusion will be lost to many Americans.

But major companies do private label and what you have just used as an example is done very often. Many so called generic brands of products are the same cans, codes, packaging and name brand products that sell for more. Here's where I agree with the buyer beware warning. If I go to Aldi (do you have Aldi stores there?) and buy many of their products, I know that they are identical in every way to things selling at the other grocery stores, as a brand name, for a higher price.

Here's where it gets interesting. Some people argue that selling their RF on Micro for $5 and then selling the same identical image on Alamy for $80, is just fine. I don't do it, because I find it personally unethical, however I don't care what others do. To each their own.

Some of the same people also argue that IS selling the same images on their site for one price and then as a sub on ThinkStock for a cheap sub is a horrible problem and unethical.

I say, wait a minute. How is it OK on Alamy when it's the individual's greed doing it, and not fair when Getty does it? Interesting question, isn't it?

I'll be checking back for the answer to the one question. Can someone sell RF images one place and the identical images as RM in another place. I say no, but would like a clear answer to why someone may claim it's legal to do this?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** January 22, 2011, 21:53 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 22, 2011, 17:46

I'll be checking back for the answer to the one question. Can someone sell RF images one place and the identical images as RM in another place. I say no, but would like a clear answer to why someone may claim it's legal to do this?

Again? How many times do we have to answer this? Of course it's "legal".

Yes, you can sell as "RF" in one place and "RM" in another place. "RF" and "RM" are just sets of licensing terms. One does not exclude the other.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #29 on:** January 23, 2011, 02:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 22, 2011, 21:53

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 22, 2011, 17:46
I'll be checking back for the answer to the one question. Can someone sell RF images one place and the identical images as RM in another place. I say no, but would like a clear answer to why someone may claim it's legal to do this?

Again? How many times do we have to answer this? Of course it's "legal".

Yes, you can sell as "RF" in one place and "RM" in another place. "RF" and "RM" are just sets of licensing terms. One does not exclude the other.

That's what I wanted to see. Someone who would say that we can license a RF image one place and license the identical image somewhere else as RM. All the people who say we can't have been perpetrating a myth of some sort. And I bought into it.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #30 on:** January 23, 2011, 04:16 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 23, 2011, 02:04

That's what I wanted to see. Someone who would say that we can license a RF image one place and license the identical image somewhere else as RM.

Oh, finally. Try reading what reply No. 3 said.

Stu49 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 23, 2011, 05:14 »

That was hard work !!

lol

madelaide · « **Reply #32 on:** January 23, 2011, 09:47 »

There is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. For me, at least.

RT · « **Reply #33 on:** January 23, 2011, 10:57 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 22, 2011, 16:50

Please someone, explain to me, how RF images from one agency can be lawfully licensed RM on another site.

I'm lost as to why you keep asking if it's - lawful, legal, illegal etc. There isn't a law to govern the licensing of stock image, there's contract law but each site applies it's own contract so that's an impossible question to answer.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #34 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:14 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 23, 2011, 09:47

There is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. For me, at least.

I'm not really sure why you see some sort of morality in these contractual arrangements. On another thread, someone pointed out that Getty images is now offering the same image for sale, full size, at prices ranging from something like $25 to $300+ and that is within different branches of the same organisation.

There are some clients who feel good paying a lot for an image. There are probably design companies who know perfectly well about cheap sites but who won't use them because they want to charge their clients a mark-up on the cost price. Taking a 50% mark-up on a $12 image is less sustainable than taking the same mark-up on the same image at $300.

If someone is selling an isolated orange on Alamy RF and you have an isolated orange on DT which is almost identical, why should you consider it immoral to deprive yourself of the chance to compete with that other orange for sales? And what if someone put up an isolated orange on Alamy L, does that make it an extra special orange? You can't post yours in both L and RF on alamy because that is contrary to their rules, but you could choose to put it in one or the other.

All you seem to be doing is inventing a spurious morality that imposes restrictions on yourself without it doing anything beneficial (except, perhaps, to your competitors). And it all seems to be based on a simplified (or misunderstood) piece of advice that was passed around the micros years ago, became a revealed truth and has now become a source of moral guidance. It's an interesting parallel to the emergence of religious rules.

Stu49 · « **Reply #35 on:** January 23, 2011, 11:24 »

Nicely put !

bit like buying an orange in Harrods or Tescos !! very different price, same basic goods !!

madelaide · « **Reply #36 on:** January 23, 2011, 13:05 »

Do they sell oranges at Harrods 10-20x the price of Tescos?

I don't know why we're discussing this here again, I'll refrain from doing it in the future. Each of us has our own standards, our ways to conduct business.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #37 on:** January 23, 2011, 15:26 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 23, 2011, 13:05

Do they sell oranges at Harrods 10-20x the price of Tescos?

I don't know why we're discussing this here again, I'll refrain from doing it in the future. Each of us has our own standards, our ways to conduct business.

I have no argument against anyone pricing anything the way they want. The whole question to start with was fairly simple.

Can someone license an image as RF on one site and then offer it as RM on another. Apparently there are no rules anymore.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #38 on:** January 24, 2011, 18:18 »

From Alamy: They answered in one day... I added the color for effect and emphasis.

Thanks for your email.

Image duplication is not aesthetically pleasing and more importantly can have more far reaching repercussions for our clients, our business and may potentially have knock on legal implications for the contributor.

If a client purchased one image as Licensed, for a substantial fee, then found the same image on our site as RF (and possibly less expensive), this would cause confusion and possible license conflicts. As well as confusing our customers about our pricing and licensing policy, it could also have an adverse effect on their confidence in Alamy.

So contractually you should not be selling images on different locations or same locations under different licence types.

And your understanding is correct, it is widely referred to elsewhere in the industry as "Rights Managed" or "RM". But at Alamy it is known as "Licenced" "L".

Kind Regards

Member Services

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #39 on:** January 24, 2011, 19:04 »

Yet 'contractually' it isn't prohibited. That just sounds like a cya email.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #40 on:** January 24, 2011, 21:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 24, 2011, 19:04

Yet 'contractually' it isn't prohibited. That just sounds like a cya email.

That part we're always going to agree about from all the agencies. Also I do like the Alamy clause that says the final use is the responsibility of the buyer. Stop micro managing the sales. Oh wait, it is Micro Stock?

Yes, true contractual not legal.

WHat I should really do is go back to school and get a degree in Copyright law. Not that it would make me rich, but maybe I'd have some clear answers?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #41 on:** January 25, 2011, 02:39 »

They say "contractually" but where in their contract does it state that you mustn't do it? If it isn't one of the contract terms then surely "contractually" is over-stating the case.

Also "possible license conflicts" referring to sales RM elsewhere means that it depends on the terms of that RM license, they don't say that selling L at Alamy conflicts with RF elsewhere, so they haven't answered that side of the question. And the fact that license conflicts are only "possible" not "certain" means that there must be RM licenses that do not conflict with RF ones, so the claim that you can "never legally sell a photo RM if it has ever been RF" must be incorrect (as we have been saying).

It is clear they don't like it, though. It's also clear that they don't like stuff selling in two different places at wildly different price points, which means that they don't really like micro files also being on Alamy, however helpful they are to people who ask about that.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #42 on:** January 25, 2011, 07:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 25, 2011, 02:39

It is clear they don't like it, though. It's also clear that they don't like stuff selling in two different places at wildly different price points, which means that they don't really like micro files also being on Alamy, however helpful they are to people who ask about that.

Exactly.

ShadySue · « **Reply #43 on:** January 25, 2011, 08:29 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 25, 2011, 02:39

It is clear they don't like it, though. It's also clear that they don't like stuff selling in two different places at wildly different price points, which means that they don't really like micro files also being on Alamy, however helpful they are to people who ask about that.

At least, that they don't like micro RF files being on Alamy as RM.

rubyroo · « **Reply #44 on:** January 25, 2011, 08:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 25, 2011, 08:29

At least, that they don't like micro RF files being on Alamy as RM.

Yep. That's how I read it too. I can't see that it says any more than that (which is surely what most people would assume anyway?).

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #45 on:** January 28, 2011, 09:13 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 25, 2011, 08:29

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 25, 2011, 02:39

It is clear they don't like it, though. It's also clear that they don't like stuff selling in two different places at wildly different price points, which means that they don't really like micro files also being on Alamy, however helpful they are to people who ask about that.
At least, that they don't like micro RF files being on Alamy as RM.

If a client purchased one image as Licensed, for a substantial fee, then found the same image on our site as RF (and possibly less expensive), this would cause confusion and possible license conflicts. As well as confusing our customers about our pricing and licensing policy, it could also have an adverse effect on their confidence in Alamy.

They are talking about two things - one is possible conflict between licenses, the other (which they make great play of) is the impact on confidence in Alamy of different price points between two agencies. This is their fall-back argument against the possibility that there is no licensing conflict ... "even if there isn't the price difference might upset people".

If the difference between paying two different levels of trad agency prices is seen as a problem (where there is unlikely to be a difference of more than a few hundred percent) don't you see that the argument becomes even more powerful when the discrepancy becomes tens of thousands of percent between micros and trad?

Stu49 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 28, 2011, 09:31 »

I've sold 3 images on Alamy for $284 ! ALL are RF and could have been bought on SS for a fraction of that !! (1$ each ??)

Some buyers obviously think it's worth using Alamy !! Who am I to argue !?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #47 on:** January 28, 2011, 10:02 »

Quote from: Stu49 on January 28, 2011, 09:31

I've sold 3 images on Alamy for $284 ! ALL are RF and could have been bought on SS for a fraction of that !! (1$ each ??)

Some buyers obviously think it's worth using Alamy !! Who am I to argue !?

Precisely.

madelaide · « **Reply #48 on:** January 28, 2011, 10:46 »

Possibly they think these images would never be in micros. One day they may know, and then hey won't pay a much more decent price they pay at Alamy. We say it here "kill the chicken that lays eggs of gold".

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #49 on:** January 28, 2011, 13:08 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 28, 2011, 10:46

Possibly they think these images would never be in micros. One day they may know, and then hey won't pay a much more decent price they pay at Alamy. We say it here "kill the chicken that lays eggs of gold".

Possibly already happening. Certainly, the prices have come down at Alamy. It's one of those situations where you have to ask yourself if you are going to sacrifice potential income in a principled stand to try to hold back the tide. A bit like Thinkstock, really.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Editorial: RM vs RF (Read 20615 times)

RacePhoto

ShadySue

RacePhoto

Sean Locke Photography

RacePhoto

BaldricksTrousers

Stu49

madelaide

RT

BaldricksTrousers

Stu49

madelaide

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

Sean Locke Photography

RacePhoto

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

rubyroo

BaldricksTrousers

Stu49

BaldricksTrousers

madelaide

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors