pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Zoonar, Rights Managed / Royalties Free licenses, not very clear (for me)  (Read 3399 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 17, 2013, 10:49 »
0
I had some email exchanges with Michael from Zoonar about this.
I must say that Michael is a very gentle and patient person, and I appreciate him for this.

On Zoomar when you choose RF as the kind of license for your images they are signed as RM/RF in the list, I have asked to Michel to explain me how an image can be RF and RM at the same time.
Michael answered me that the RM from Zoonar is a non-exclusive RM.

How can it be?
As I know the essence of RM is to be exclusive, to be sold to one customer in the way that a competitor cannot use the same image (and for this reason a RM image cannot be proposed as RF on other microstocks).

On the Zoomar site the images are marked as RM (default) or as RM/RF.
How can an image to be RM and RF at the same time, they are completely opposite kind of licenses if I have understood well.

Probably it is just a question of terminology from Zoonar using RM meaning something else.

Can somebody help me to clear this question?
What can be the real risk selling the same image under RM and RF license at the same time?

And of course I have invited Michael to participate to the discussion, as it can be an help for many of the forum's users.


« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2013, 12:08 »
0
How can it be?
As I know the essence of RM is to be exclusive, to be sold to one customer in the way that a competitor cannot use the same image (and for this reason a RM image cannot be proposed as RF on other microstocks).

That is a common misunderstanding. The core of rights managed is that the customer pays a license fee based on the specific use and he gets a restricted license for a specified period of time.

Royalty free means the clients get a license that is more less free in its use and perpetual. So, an RF license by definition allows the client to do MORE than an RM license. In the classic model when RF came up some 15-20 years ago, it was quite logical to offer the same image at a lower price for a limited use or at a higher price for unlimited use. So RF was more expensive than RM.

This has basically changed over the years, already with the macro agencies in the past but the more so with microstock which was just impractical to offer RM. So microstock almost by definition is RF and that is part of why today RF is considered cheap and RM expensive.

What you are also saying is a potential additional use of RM: The ability to offer exclusivity to a client for a specific use, specific reason, specific timeframe. This can be done only with pure RM images, of course. But it isn't something essential for RM, just a potential additional offer. It is up to each agency and/or photographer to decide if they want to make that additional offer. If that is not an issue, there is no reason keeping you from offering the same image with RM and RF licensing. But once sold as RF, you lose the ability to ever offer exclusivity in the future, of course.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4334 Views
Last post October 28, 2009, 20:50
by yuliang11
7 Replies
3646 Views
Last post August 10, 2010, 06:05
by ShadySue
41 Replies
11251 Views
Last post January 29, 2011, 04:05
by BaldricksTrousers
18 Replies
3935 Views
Last post April 20, 2012, 07:34
by sgoodwin4813
8 Replies
6244 Views
Last post September 11, 2017, 23:28
by stockload

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results