Author Topic: Editorial: RM vs RF (Read 20693 times)

falzettaM · « **on:** January 11, 2011, 11:20 »

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

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** January 11, 2011, 11:45 »

If you're exclusive, that would likely violate your exclusivity contract.

Otherwise, Alamy might not like it. You'd need to be adept in contacting them with info if it sells RF.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #2 on:** January 13, 2011, 15:17 »

Hi falzettaM,

I personally don't know of any agency that is RM letting you sell the same work in RF as well, it's in most their contracts. Every RM agency I shoot for would not be happy, I can't even move an image from RF to RM without upsetting the apple cart and would never consider it myself. Keep your RM in RM and your RF in RF and you will stay free from concern. I will say it is a lot easier to remove an image from RM and move it to RF than the other way around. Hope this helps.

Best,
Jonathan

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2011, 07:50 »

Alamy probably don't like it but as long as you stick to their L licence and don't put it in the full RM section it's not breaking any laws. They probably don't like having microstock photos in their collection at all, but they allow it.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2011, 17:40 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 17, 2011, 07:50

Alamy probably don't like it but as long as you stick to their L licence and don't put it in the full RM section it's not breaking any laws. They probably don't like having microstock photos in their collection at all, but they allow it.

Try that again? How can someone sell the same files RF and RM? I don't understand.

The L at Alamy is identical to RM elsewhere as far as I can read it.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** January 19, 2011, 23:42 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 17, 2011, 07:50

Alamy probably don't like it but as long as you stick to their L licence and don't put it in the full RM section it's not breaking any laws. They probably don't like having microstock photos in their collection at all, but they allow it.

Asking again.

How do you sell the same images as RF and RM? L is the equivalent of RM as far as I can tell by the license?

The Micro on Alamy is anyone's personal choice. The agency has never said they were against it, or that they frowned upon it. If someone assumes that buyers are stupid and can't search, so they will buy for Alamy prices instead of on some Micro site, or as sub, happy fishing.

rubyroo · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2011, 04:48 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 19, 2011, 23:42

The Micro on Alamy is anyone's personal choice. The agency has never said they were against it, or that they frowned upon it. py fishing.

Indeed - quite the opposite IME. I emailed them before uploading anything to be sure that they didn't have a problem with having the same work on micros. They said that, as a 'non-exclusive' agency, submitters are free to submit to other agencies "including microstock". I found them to be friendly, polite, and welcoming.

Of course, I only sell microstock images as RF on Alamy. I haven't ventured into RM territory yet, but hope to start producing a separate collection for RM this year. As long as contributors categorise their work properly, it all seems fine with Alamy.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2011, 00:31 »

Quote from: rubyroo on January 20, 2011, 04:48

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 19, 2011, 23:42
The Micro on Alamy is anyone's personal choice. The agency has never said they were against it, or that they frowned upon it. py fishing.

Indeed - quite the opposite IME. I emailed them before uploading anything to be sure that they didn't have a problem with having the same work on micros. They said that, as a 'non-exclusive' agency, submitters are free to submit to other agencies "including microstock". I found them to be friendly, polite, and welcoming.

Of course, I only sell microstock images as RF on Alamy. I haven't ventured into RM territory yet, but hope to start producing a separate collection for RM this year. As long as contributors categorise their work properly, it all seems fine with Alamy.

Personal choice I have nothing on Alamy that I have on micro. Or possibly none of it would have been accepted anyway?

But you have it right. Over and over they have stayed away from any limitations on distribution or where someone chooses to sell their RF materials. That and the open acceptance based on quality, instead of deciding what buyers want, makes Alamy a nice place to work with. It's not Micro in any way. The customers are different, the buyers search for different kinds of shots.

I'm still waiting and have asked the same question before, never get a reply from BaldricksTrousers who has been the one making this claim. How does someone sell RF and Alamy as L (which I believe is RM with a different name) So they are selling RF as RM... Maybe someone can explain it to me, so I can get past the contradiction.

If nothing else, it's an outlet for photos that are editorial or anything that's "not suitable" for stock.

It's free exposure!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:13 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 19, 2011, 23:42

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 17, 2011, 07:50
Alamy probably don't like it but as long as you stick to their L licence and don't put it in the full RM section it's not breaking any laws. They probably don't like having microstock photos in their collection at all, but they allow it.

Asking again.

How do you sell the same images as RF and RM? L is the equivalent of RM as far as I can tell by the license?

The alamy L license merely restricts the usage allowed by the purchaser. It does not provide any guarantees of exclusive rights in any way, shape or form. That means that there is no legal collision between one person having the right to use it any time, anywhere on an RF license and someone who has bought the right to use it for a year for a specific purpose.

A legal contradiction would only happen if L licenses were being (or could be) sold with guarantees of exclusive usage rights. Some RM licenses are like that, but Alamy's L one isn't.

RM is not a "thing", it is a set of terms in a contract. There are as many different kinds of RM licenses as you like to dream up.

Actually, all the RF licenses are just a subset of RM, not an alternative to it. They contain all sorts of managed rights, such as the number of copies that can be created without the purchase of an additional "EL" license, etc. etc.

The "you cant sell a photo that has been RF as RM EVER" myth was created to keep uninformed amateur photographers out of trouble. The fact is that sometimes you can and sometimes you can't, it depends entirely on the contractual terms in the RM license.

I think this is similar the myth that you can't have logos etc in any photo that is ever sold RF - I suspect this idea was created to protect amateur designers who don't have a sophisticated understanding of what is allowed and what is not, or who may make mistaken assumptions about an image they have on file form long ago. The RM route means that at least the agency can give advice if someone wants to use an image in an inappropriate way.

The real issue with Alamy is about the vast discrepancy in the prices of things sold there, compared with things sold on the micros. It looks bad for them if someone pays $300 for an image and then discovers the same thing available for a $50 bundle of credits. If you are going to put the same images on Alamy and the Micros that is the issue that should make you think. From the customers' perspective, it is better for them to have an image from the micros available on L, so they can pick it up for $50, than as RF, when it may cost them $250.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2011, 02:20 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 21, 2011, 00:31

I'm still waiting and have asked the same question before, never get a reply from BaldricksTrousers who has been the one making this claim.

I hadn't wandered back into the thread. I have also answered this in detail (as above) a couple of times before. I've seen Sean Locke make much the same point, too.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2011, 03:49 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 21, 2011, 02:20

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 21, 2011, 00:31
I'm still waiting and have asked the same question before, never get a reply from BaldricksTrousers who has been the one making this claim.

I hadn't wandered back into the thread. I have also answered this in detail (as above) a couple of times before. I've seen Sean Locke make much the same point, too.

Link or answer would do it? Instead we get a roundabout answer. I don't see it above, or don't understand, or I wouldn't have asked. So please for someone who doesn't understand, can you explain to me How RM/L is not the same as RM? Or maybe how it's OK to sell RF as RM based on a letter designation, when the terms are the same. L on Alamy is RM as far as I see it. Clear and specific would be positively appreciated.

The main point is, images that are RF can't be sold RM someplace else.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2011, 05:26 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 21, 2011, 03:49

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 21, 2011, 02:20
Quote from: RacePhoto on January 21, 2011, 00:31
I'm still waiting and have asked the same question before, never get a reply from BaldricksTrousers who has been the one making this claim.

I hadn't wandered back into the thread. I have also answered this in detail (as above) a couple of times before. I've seen Sean Locke make much the same point, too.

Link or answer would do it? Instead we get a roundabout answer. I don't see it above, or don't understand, or I wouldn't have asked. So please for someone who doesn't understand, can you explain to me How RM/L is not the same as RM? Or maybe how it's OK to sell RF as RM based on a letter designation, when the terms are the same. L on Alamy is RM as far as I see it. Clear and specific would be positively appreciated.

The main point is, images that are RF can't be sold RM someplace else.

Look at my post immediately above the one you replied to (which was just my afterthought). The slightly earlier post explains exactly why RF images can be sold on some RM licenses.

RT · « **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2011, 05:27 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 21, 2011, 03:49

The main point is, images that are RF can't be sold RM someplace else.

Pete, BaldricksTrousers has done a good job of trying to explain to you what RF,L + RM are, they are just terms to do with how your royalties are paid, they having nothing to do with the image itself and it's content or the purpose for which the image is used. It is the individual site that determines what can and can't be sold under the licenses it sells, there is no hard and fast rule or guidelines.

Tomorrow one microstock site could announce that they are changing all of the images they have on their site to RM, you could still sell the same images on another micro site as RF, it makes no difference whatsoever. It is on;y the site internal administrative policy that determines whether you can sell the same images elsewhere under different licenses. The only time anywhere that problems arise is when there's some form of exclusivity license purchase involved.

As far as Alamy goes there licensing system determines the license based on the questions you answer during process to get them online, and in some cases an image you want to sell as RF gets put to RM if you answer the commercial question, but that is just their system.

Here's an example, I take a photo of a Porsche 911 and want to sell it as RF, on some microstock sites that's not a problem if you tick the editorial box, on Alamy however it would end up as RM because they don't have the feature to be able to sell RF with an editorial restriction. Now I know you're immediltely going to tell me I can't sell the Porsche as RF, yes you can and I think you need to understand that before you'll understand the rest.

Oh and by the way Alamy does not have RF, RM and L, they use to have RF and RM but changed it to RF,L and LRP a while ago, RM and L are one in the same.

Edited to add: An editorial image can be used for commercial purposes, if you notice iStock cottoned on to this recently hence they want photos of iPhones, Blackberries etc isolated with logos showing, all in the editorial collection but these will be used for commercial purposes quite legally. The big IF is how they are used, but that is down to the buyer.

@ the OP

No there isn't any legal problem but it may infringe on the sites own policy.

Stu49 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2011, 10:06 »

Quote from Alamy site :

Rights Managed (RM)

The image is licensed for a specific use, duration and territory. Pricing will depend on the options you select. For options not listed on our price calculator, or for multiple rights, please contact us and we will work out a price for you.

Non-exclusive

The buyer pays a licence fee each time they use the image. Other buyers can also purchase and use the image under the same licence.

Exclusive

The buyer obtains exclusive use of an image under the terms of the licence. Exclusivity is generally by industry or territory and will restrict other buyers from using the image in a similar way. Pricing for this type of licence depends on the terms requested, but it is usually more expensive. Not all images are available for an exclusive license.

Bit of a mine field really !! Trying to get my head around these licences for ages !

RT · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2011, 10:16 »

Quote from: Stu49 on January 21, 2011, 10:06

Bit of a mine field really !! Trying to get my head around these licences for ages !

Actually Alamy is one of the easiest to work with:

As a general rule if you are going to upload an image to Alamy and only to them and you want it to be available to be bought exclusivley without your involvement then you can set it as RP.

For any other form of exclusivity, whatever license the image is under, Alamy will contact you prior to making any agreement with a buyer because they are a non-exclusive agency and are well aware people sell their images through other sources.

Other than that just decide where applicable if your image would sell best as RF or L - and nobody can get their head round that $:-\$

madelaide · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2011, 11:04 »

Quote from: Stu49 on January 21, 2011, 10:06

Rights Managed (RM)

The image is licensed for a specific use, duration and territory. Pricing will depend on the options you select. For options not listed on our price calculator, or for multiple rights, please contact us and we will work out a price for you.

This has always been the standard for RM licensing, with or without an agency. In editorial, it is normally more regulated by number of copies, but duration also applies - you can however, when negotiating directly, set that there is no restriction for that. In my direct editorial sales (for books, not magazines), I was never asked for any type of exclusivity (territory, for instance), and in fact I think it's preferrable to set "worldwide" use, because books can actually be sold anywhere, so if someone asks me I will try to negotiate that way. But in Alamy I see sales for a specific country.

I would not say that "you cant sell a photo that has been RF as RM EVER" is a myth, because if a buyer requests some type of information about previous usages, you can not guarantee anything. I believe images for advertisement are more likely to be needed this way.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2011, 11:07 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 21, 2011, 11:04

I think it's preferrable to set "worldwide" use, because books can actually be sold anywhere, so if someone asks me I will try to negotiate that way. But in Alamy I see sales for a specific country.

Educational books in particular might have a specific geographic sales market, because of different curricula in different countries. The publishers will know where they can sell these books.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2011, 16:15 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 21, 2011, 11:04

I would not say that "you cant sell a photo that has been RF as RM EVER" is a myth, because if a buyer requests some type of information about previous usages, you can not guarantee anything. I believe images for advertisement are more likely to be needed this way.

What does image history matter? Alamy can't provide any image history, anyway, for most of its stock. It doesn't stop them selling RM images. If a client insists on image history he will have to go somewhere like Getty, where they insist on exclusivity and can see where each image has gone.

Nor is the ability to offer exclusive rights a requirement for RM. I get a few sales on Alamy every month and I have NEVER been asked if I can offer any exclusive rights. Most RM images are sold for news - and media companies couldn't care less about exclusive rights. They just want to get stuff cheap. Now if Pepsi want an image for a global campaign they will want image history and exclusive rights ... which is why they will probably hire their own photographer rather than hunting around stock libraries.

Only a tiny handful of buyers will be demanding these special terms and they will be looking at the LRP (rights protected) collection, not the L collection.

So all having an image without a usage history does is cut you off from any chance of hitting the LRP jackpot. If you are uploading into L instead of into RP then you are cut off, anyway. I doubt if there are many jackpots handed out in a year.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2011, 17:42 »

Quote from: RT on January 21, 2011, 05:27

Edited to add: An editorial image can be used for commercial purposes, if you notice iStock cottoned on to this recently hence they want photos of iPhones, Blackberries etc isolated with logos showing, all in the editorial collection but these will be used for commercial purposes quite legally. The big IF is how they are used, but that is down to the buyer.

I wouldn't say that is right, because, while an isolated logo'd product might be good for a commercial use, the license the image is being sold under specifically prohibits it. Or at least specifically allows only an editorial use.

madelaide · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2011, 18:15 »

Oh, well, I posted a reply through my smartphone, I see now it didn't make it.

It happened to a friend of mine, in a direct negotiation, that the buyer want to know if the image had ever been used in advertisement in a country. As he had never licensed it for advertisement before, he could answer it. I believe Alamy can give you that information if required. In MyLoupe, you can enter information about previous licensings.

I might also add that one must be careful about having an image as RF in micro and RM in Alamy or such, because the RM buyer will be paying more for a very restricted license, unlike in the RF micro. Although this is not illegal, I would say it is unethical, and this may harm your reputation.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2011, 01:16 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 21, 2011, 18:15

Oh, well, I posted a reply through my smartphone, I see now it didn't make it.

It happened to a friend of mine, in a direct negotiation, that the buyer want to know if the image had ever been used in advertisement in a country. As he had never licensed it for advertisement before, he could answer it. I believe Alamy can give you that information if required. In MyLoupe, you can enter information about previous licensings.

I might also add that one must be careful about having an image as RF in micro and RM in Alamy or such, because the RM buyer will be paying more for a very restricted license, unlike in the RF micro. Although this is not illegal, I would say it is unethical, and this may harm your reputation.

Quite true and here's the catch. Anything sold RF anywhere, we have no idea where it was used, by who or for what. Then someone proposes it's OK to sell that same image as Licensed or RM? I don't think so. I wish they would answer with a specific explanation, instead of I answered before, search for it, or someone else said so...

Let me add some information to the mix while I ask for a clear answer:

From Alamy:

you must not submit the same or similar images as different licence types.

And this:

Can someone please answer how they can license RF images as RM or L on Alamy? I don't think it's legal or appropriate.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2011, 01:26 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 21, 2011, 18:15

Oh, well, I posted a reply through my smartphone, I see now it didn't make it.

It happened to a friend of mine, in a direct negotiation, that the buyer want to know if the image had ever been used in advertisement in a country. As he had never licensed it for advertisement before, he could answer it. I believe Alamy can give you that information if required. In MyLoupe, you can enter information about previous licensings.

I might also add that one must be careful about having an image as RF in micro and RM in Alamy or such, because the RM buyer will be paying more for a very restricted license, unlike in the RF micro. Although this is not illegal, I would say it is unethical, and this may harm your reputation.

It will be cheaper for the buyer to get an RM license from Alamy than it will for them to get the RF. So you are actually charging them MORE by sticking strictly to RF at both places. Isn't that even MORE unethical?

I supply to Alamy and to a redistributor who supplies other trad-type agencies. There's no way that I can find out the usage history even on my purely RM stuff. So how can you say that Alamy can provide usage history? A file sells in January via an Alamy distributor and I get notified in October... meanwhile, in March, megastock.inc has asked me for a guarantee of worldwide exclusivity and usage history. I provide both, no usage, full exclusivity. So I pocket $10,000 and promptly get sued when the buyers rival uses it first.

So if you are offering usage history, you had better be pretty damned sure the image is exclusive wherever you are selling it.

Yes, I know some people want history and exclusive rights. And congratulations to your friend. But if you want to access that sort of market, Getty is the place to be, not Alamy. Supplying them, you guarantee you have not and never will sell that image or anything like it anywhere else so they can always give usage history and territorial guarantees to buyers.

I'm not advocating selling RF on the micros and RM on Alamy. I'm just saying that if Alamy forces me into the L contract on an image that if RF somewhere else - because, for example, a human figure a mile off forms 30 pixels of the image - I don't worry about it.

The line "you must not submit the same or similar images as different license types" refers to submissions to Alamy. They don't say "you cannot submit an image on an RM license if it is RF elsewhere". The fact they don't spell that out, despite it having been discussed many times, strongly suggests that it isn't their rule. I heard that if you ask them this directly, they simply don't reply.

And I do wish they had a simple "editorial use only" button. I'm not the only person who once labelled all my editorial images as being restricted to non-editorial use because of the ambiguity of their restrictions system.

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2011, 05:35 »

Somehow I had forgotten that bit "Price is 20%-30% more to guarantee an exclusive licence".
Actually, 30% is a very, very low maximum for an extensive exclusive licence which could cover a geographic area or even worldwide for a specific timeframe, e.g. 5 years.

madelaide · « **Reply #23 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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #24 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.

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.

Stu49 · « **Reply #50 on:** January 28, 2011, 15:17 »

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".

Surely they would have a search to find out !? or do u think buyers are a bit thick ??

They were RF on Alamy, NOT RM !! Which is a clue

madelaide · « **Reply #51 on:** January 28, 2011, 15:48 »

Quote from: Stu49 on January 28, 2011, 15:17

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".

Surely they would have a search to find out !? or do u think buyers are a bit thick ??

They were RF on Alamy, NOT RM !! Which is a clue

Many companies work directly with stock agencies, they don't go shopping for images.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #52 on:** January 28, 2011, 18:31 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 28, 2011, 15:48

Quote from: Stu49 on January 28, 2011, 15:17
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".

Surely they would have a search to find out !? or do u think buyers are a bit thick ??

They were RF on Alamy, NOT RM !! Which is a clue

Many companies work directly with stock agencies, they don't go shopping for images.

Ah Ha, so if someone has a cheap contract to buy from ThinkStock, they won't be searching all the micro sites, which in the same way, means ThinkStock isn't harming Micro sales. Interesting.

Also interesting how any thread will eventually come around and become a ThinkStock thread for some reason?

I have a number of RF images on Alamy, which are not editorial and that's why they are RF. They are large and not on Micro. Also something to consider, maybe the micro sites, wouldn't even take them because they are scenic landscapes.

Many of the newspaper buys on Alamy now are basically Micro prices. I'm not going to claim that they aren't. The books and magazines and some other publications do buy bigger images for bigger prices, so there's the advantage. I won't compete with myself for $1 downloads when I can get maybe $80 - $200 on Alamy. Personal choice. If someone else thinks it's a good idea to offer something for ten bucks on micro and potentially lose a $200 sale on Alamy, then fine, play the game. Just like gambling, the house always wins! (we are not the house...)

Risk vs Reward, it's just that easy.

When the sales and prices are close, and the license type is the same, it doesn't matter much if we have RF dupes on Alamy and Micro. If an image is selling as an Editorial RF sub on IS or SS and at the same time on Alamy as Editorial RM based on usage. There's a huge conflict in pricing. One I get paid 25 cents to $1.50 for one download. The other I get paid $80 for one download. There's something wrong when an artist says it's OK to screw buyers, and take every cent with mixed and confusing duplication or licenses, but the same artist cries foul when the agency cuts commissions 5%. Interesting indeed, when we're the ones taking the cut and getting less value for a dollar, it becomes a big deal.

People who say "buyer beware" price can be high or low, and the same product can be sold anywhere for whatever we want. Well then that same logic applies to those rascal agencies who sell for more through a partner and pay us the same, or charge different prices to various clients and pay us at the lowest rate, or maybe for paying different commissions to people, based on currency or location. If it's OK for one, it's OK for the other? Right? Seller Beware!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Editorial: RM vs RF (Read 20693 times)

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

rubyroo

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

rubyroo

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors