Author Topic: Royalty-free - a misleading term (Read 4736 times)

Freedom · « **on:** July 18, 2010, 13:55 »

Many people have mistaken royalty-free means Take-It-For-Free. It's really frustrating.

Do you think that the agencies should come up with a better term?

ann · « **Reply #1 on:** July 18, 2010, 14:10 »

I strongly agree with you that "royalty free" can give wrong impression that a photo is free, most particularly to people who regularly don't use photos for their business. To make matters worse, when photos come up in searches, the FREE part often is so big, since that draws audience in.

Alas, RF is such a long-standing, legally meaningful term that I don't see it changing, though it would be a very interesting, possibly worthwhile, challenge to come up with clearer term than "royalty free" - something along lines of LR - "Limited Royalty"

Stock photography sites could post some clever, eye-catching notices that user must BUY license to use Royalty Free images. It would be good to include that using the images With a watermark is not even close to good enough or legal. (Yes, I realize this only works if user actually sees the notice/ad on stock photography site or elsewhere.)

There ARE potential users who are honest and would choose to do the right thing if they knew what the right thing to do was. and could easily do it.

VB inc · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2010, 14:18 »

many dumb people may mistake royalty-free as take it for free but i think most people with some common sense does a little bit of reading if their new to stock imagery.

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2010, 14:27 »

Yes, many people don't understand what RF means. In SP, where we can see how people found our images, it is very common to see the search was "free photos" or something like that.

It is however a well-establied term in the market, and I find it difficult that it will be ever changed.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #4 on:** July 18, 2010, 15:30 »

Agree it's misleading, but not necessarily bad.

People will learn it's meaning the hard way when they're being asked for a credit card number.
But at that point, they already registered "for free" to a microstock site and some of them may convert into actual buyers.

fotografer · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2010, 06:19 »

I really don't agree with this statement. , To anybody that is not in the know Royalty free can easily be taken as meaning free from royalties, so there is no need to pay. We are so used to the expression that it is obvious to us but not to somebody just searching for an image for a college project, church leaflet etc.

Quote from: VB inc on July 18, 2010, 14:18

many dumb people may mistake royalty-free as take it for free but i think most people with some common sense does a little bit of reading if their new to stock imagery.

red · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2010, 07:53 »

Yes, photographers may know the term but because more and more non-professionals are buyers of images the term is very confusing. Especially today when everyone is looking for something free. People who we assume should know better are snagging images off the internet because they see the words royalty "free." Having once worked in an educational setting I was surprised at how many teachers did this on a regular basis. When I tried to educate them they justified it by saying it was only for their classroom, they had no money or time to purchase images, or it was only for a one-time use so what harm could it do. They obviously didn't take the time to find out what the term meant so I believe many others don't have a clue.

Google images has changed the game - if someone needs a quick image for a throw-away use they search, find what they need and use it without paying anything (today it is common knowledge how to do this with a few clicks and in the past you had to have some extra smarts to even know that this was possible). So, why should they pay anything if they do stumble across a microstock site where, heaven forbid, they have to actually pay for an image (even if it's pennies). Again, I'm talking about the many, many new users of images not media buyers or art directors or ad agencies, etc. I hate to admit it but when I first had to purchase images for use in marketing I had to do research into the types of image licenses and what would be best (and cheapest) way to go. Who takes the time to do that these days?

Freedom · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2010, 13:54 »

I raised the issue because I saw many bloggers were advising newbies that they could go to royalty-free sites to get free photos. In the advertising space of the same blog, there usually an ad from ShutterStock, DT or someone else. How convenient!

louoates · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2010, 14:12 »

How about this:

RFSF
Royalty Free--Small Fee

ann · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2010, 14:25 »

Quote from: Freedom on July 19, 2010, 13:54

I raised the issue because I saw many bloggers were advising newbies that they could go to royalty-free sites to get free photos. In the advertising space of the same blog, there usually an ad from ShutterStock, DT or someone else. How convenient!

P.S. Well, since there ARE free photos on many of the legitimate, well-established stock images sites, it's even easier to see how some people new to concept of stock images could misunderstand legal need to pay for license to use RF.

Freedom · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2010, 16:21 »

Ann, you made a good point. The free photos from micro sites make the term even more confusing.

Quote from: ann on July 19, 2010, 14:25

Quote from: Freedom on July 19, 2010, 13:54
I raised the issue because I saw many bloggers were advising newbies that they could go to royalty-free sites to get free photos. In the advertising space of the same blog, there usually an ad from ShutterStock, DT or someone else. How convenient!

P.S. Well, since there ARE free photos on many of the legitimate, well-established stock images sites, it's even easier to see how some people new to concept of stock images could misunderstand legal need to pay for license to use RF.

Read_My_Rights · « **Reply #11 on:** July 20, 2010, 14:19 »

Pay once eternal licence - POEL
Single royalty eternal use licence
Royalty Once licence - RO

I like RO the best.

Lets vote.
Actually lets think of some more alternatives.

ann · « **Reply #12 on:** July 20, 2010, 14:46 »

Quote from: Read_My_Rights on July 20, 2010, 14:19

Pay once eternal licence - POEL
Single royalty eternal use licence
Royalty Once licence - RO

I like RO the best.

Lets vote.
Actually lets think of some more alternatives.

Good ones, R-M-R!

AF - Almost Free

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Royalty-free - a misleading term (Read 4736 times)

Freedom

ann

VB inc

madelaide

microstockphoto.co.uk

fotografer

red

Freedom

louoates

ann

Freedom

Read_My_Rights

ann

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors