MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Alamy + IS exclusivity  (Read 9739 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2008, 13:10 »
0
Isn't RM is supposed to prevent things like this from happening...  ;)






Uh, no.  That's not what rights managed means at all.  It would only mean that if Time had paid more to prevent any other magazines using the same image in the same territories.


If that is, that the image was originally offered as a RM image in the first  place through an agency that could actually administer such a condition. An important distinction with RM images is that each license is usually negotiated with consideration to its usage, placement, public profile etc. i.e. use it more, get more exposure, pay more unlike RF which is supposed to be buy a bigger one pay more and use it (almost) all you want.


« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2008, 13:29 »
0
Also, they were out 6 months apart.  I  think I read elsewhere that it was from Getty - but I can't say for certain as PDN didn't say where it came from - just that it was fantastic the photographer got 2 covers. 

« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2008, 18:34 »
0
Are these the same image?  Maybe it's postprocessing, but they look the same place/pose with a slightly different angle.

Anyway, had the first one to buy its license required (and paid for it), they could have had exclusivity in one country (or even worldwide) for a certain period of time.

BTW, I don't think FP shows this type of info when you sell an image as RM (although there are some of such restrictions when you quote an RM image).  In TSS/MyLoupe you can enter this info, but I am not sure you are obliged to; FP doesn't have that.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2008, 01:25 »
0
I would agree that these are not the same Image, it might be the same location and possibly the same photographer but there is a shift in the jacket folds / pose, so it is likely to be two different frames / images from the same set, how often do you get Images that look the same, as the model and photographer only moves slightly

As you Licence a specific Image and not the Image and all variants / similars, there is nothing really wrong, the photographer may have uploaded similar images to two different sites, or would that be legally wrong?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 01:33 by Adeptris »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4041 Views
Last post April 18, 2008, 12:11
by stokfoto
24 Replies
14215 Views
Last post October 29, 2010, 22:54
by PaulieWalnuts
47 Replies
14050 Views
Last post September 19, 2008, 12:18
by dnavarrojr
17 Replies
9143 Views
Last post November 08, 2008, 11:38
by loop
4 Replies
4299 Views
Last post February 03, 2009, 12:26
by Anyka

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors