Author Topic: Submitting RM While Exclusive at IS (Read 10240 times)

PaulieWalnuts · « **on:** November 04, 2008, 05:37 »

Anybody know what the rules are with this? I haven't seen anything on IS that makes it clear on what you can or can't submit elsewhere as RM like at Alamy.

Can you use the same model but at a different shoot or do they need to be completely different models? Can you use similar subjects (isolated business phone vs isolated cellphone) or do they need to be completely different?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** November 04, 2008, 06:13 »

No, there aren't really any posted rules. Common sense would say to keep images with similar subjects separate, to keep up the value of the exclusive collection.

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** November 04, 2008, 06:22 »

well not sure of all the nitty gritty rules, but you should certainly be able to use the same model in two different shoots, one for RM and one for RF. If that was not the case, the model would have a hard time finding work after doing one shoot for a photographer, if the model had to be 'exclusive' to a single shoot...

common · « **Reply #3 on:** November 04, 2008, 07:28 »

http://istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

Quote from FAQs:

Quote

Exclusivity only covers your royalty-free stock files. iStock does not require Exclusivity for:

* Rights-managed files with other organizations
* Personal portfolio sites
* Work for hire/editorial work contracts
* Prints for sale
* Prints, t-shirts and the like produced on art-only sites such as cafepress.com

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #4 on:** November 04, 2008, 08:00 »

I saw those terms but to me that's not real clear. I'm planning on submitting different stuff but how different does it need to be?

Here are a couple of examples.

Let's say I'm doing a shoot with a model. Some are just with the model but some are with the model and a car. IS will no longer accept cars. Can I submit the model-only images to IS and the model-car images for RM elsewhere?

Or how about a sports scenario? Maybe I'm doing a shoot at a baseball field and I submit objects like bats and balls to IS but the stadium and the players to RM? Or does it need to be completely separate like if you have sports on RM you shouldn't have any sports at IS?

I just get the feeling that there's some unwritten rule on this that you only find out what it is after you accidentally cross it. I really don't want to get my crown yanked or get booted from IS because I was unclear on how this works.

loop · « **Reply #5 on:** November 04, 2008, 08:33 »

If you need a sure answer, don't hesitate to write to support (mark "Contributor relations" and you'll probably have a faster answer). Ah... and don't forget to post what you have larned when getting the answer!

araminta · « **Reply #6 on:** November 04, 2008, 08:55 »

Seems quite clear to me that IS do not require exclusivity for RM images: IS allow you to sell ANY photo on RM site.

Whether you can sell same or similar photos at Alamy is a question you should ask to Alamy, not to IS: is it allowed to sell as RM a photo while another photo from the same shoot is sold as RF?

RF buyers do not expect to have special rights on a given image and thus don't care to know whether a photo is used a thousand times or not. On the opposite, RM buyers may expect to have more control on the usage of the photo they want to purchase: I thus don't think that IS care much with exclusivity provided you do not compete with them, i.e. RF images.

This is a good question however

Another interesting question: IS do not require exclusivity if you sell your photo with Getty Images. Does it now include StockXpert which is owned by Jupiter Images which is owned by Getty Images?

jsnover · « **Reply #7 on:** November 04, 2008, 10:24 »

Quote from: araminta on November 04, 2008, 08:55

Another interesting question: IS do not require exclusivity if you sell your photo with Getty Images. Does it now include StockXpert which is owned by Jupiter Images which is owned by Getty Images?

The sale hasn't gone through yet. My guess is that once it does, we'll hear about any new rules. I can't imagine diluting iStock exclusive content that way, however.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** November 04, 2008, 11:00 »

Quote from: araminta on November 04, 2008, 08:55

Seems quite clear to me that IS do not require exclusivity for RM images: IS allow you to sell ANY photo on RM site.

Since the point of exclusivity is to create a collection with a value due to the limited access of that exclusive content, putting similar images, even at an RM site, would devalue your work as an exclusive.

araminta · « **Reply #9 on:** November 04, 2008, 11:58 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 04, 2008, 11:00

Quote from: araminta on November 04, 2008, 08:55
Seems quite clear to me that IS do not require exclusivity for RM images: IS allow you to sell ANY photo on RM site.

Since the point of exclusivity is to create a collection with a value due to the limited access of that exclusive content, putting similar images, even at an RM site, would devalue your work as an exclusive.

In this case why does IS allow exclusive to sell their images on RM sites?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** November 04, 2008, 12:01 »

Because there's a difference between "similar" and "completely different".

jsnover · « **Reply #11 on:** November 04, 2008, 12:04 »

The notion of similars is quite well understood in stock.

Same model, different clothes and location and props is fine. Same model, same props, same location, different expression is a similar and not OK.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 04, 2008, 12:08 »

Quote from: araminta on November 04, 2008, 11:58

Quote from: sjlocke on November 04, 2008, 11:00
Quote from: araminta on November 04, 2008, 08:55
Seems quite clear to me that IS do not require exclusivity for RM images: IS allow you to sell ANY photo on RM site.

Since the point of exclusivity is to create a collection with a value due to the limited access of that exclusive content, putting similar images, even at an RM site, would devalue your work as an exclusive.
In this case why does IS allow exclusive to sell their images on RM sites?

Different markets. IS is in the RF market, so unless IS in the future expands into RM why restrict people from selling in markets other than the one you're in? You'd have fewer exclusive artists and wouldn't gain much competitively by restricting their ability to sell in the RM market.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #13 on:** November 04, 2008, 13:25 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 04, 2008, 11:00

Quote from: araminta on November 04, 2008, 08:55
Seems quite clear to me that IS do not require exclusivity for RM images: IS allow you to sell ANY photo on RM site.

Since the point of exclusivity is to create a collection with a value due to the limited access of that exclusive content, putting similar images, even at an RM site, would devalue your work as an exclusive.

So the way I'm reading your comments are that it's perfectly acceptable to IS for exclusive contributors to submit similar images (which I'm not planning on doing, I just want to know what is/isn't acceptable) as RM elsewhere

And that the only issue is it might devalue my work (and most likely exclusive work as a whole)?

There's gotta be more to it than that. I can't image IS letting an exclusive contributor submit a similar smiling customer service rep image to IS and RM even if it's from different shoots.

It's always been my impression you shouldn't even submit the same categories of images (sports, beach, etc) to IS and RM.

Sounds like getting an answer straight from IS is the way to go here.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** November 04, 2008, 14:09 »

No, I'm saying that it is probably not in your best interests to submit similar work to both. Like I said, there are no written rules, but I can't imagine TPTB being happy seeing their (and your) exclusive collection similars spread about.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #15 on:** November 04, 2008, 15:38 »

[/quote]

So the way I'm reading your comments are that it's perfectly acceptable to IS for exclusive contributors to submit similar images (which I'm not planning on doing, I just want to know what is/isn't acceptable) as RM elsewhere

And that the only issue is it might devalue my work (and most likely exclusive work as a whole)?

There's gotta be more to it than that. I can't image IS letting an exclusive contributor submit a similar smiling customer service rep image to IS and RM even if it's from different shoots.

It's always been my impression you shouldn't even submit the same categories of images (sports, beach, etc) to IS and RM.

Sounds like getting an answer straight from IS is the way to go here.

[/quote]

PW,

There are only so many ways to shoot a smiling service rep and they all quickly become similar, and yes I would consider them not similar if they had different models in different
wardrobe against a different backdrop (except white). Categories are wide open and I wouldn't worry about shooting within those categories for both RM and RF. As far as devaluing your work by selling similar images through RM venues outside of micros, is laughable. I mean, you decide to sell for many dollars instead of quarters or a few bucks and this devalues your work? If anything it increases the value of it. Also the thought that just because the image is exclusive to iS and somehow you will devalue it selling as RM is just as laughable. You may get a few sales a year if it is really hot. How does this weigh against hundreds or even thousands of sales per year against hot micro images? Remember that just because its RM doesn't mean its exclusive or can have exclusivity licensing attached to it. Go to Getty and see the articles on sistering and their requirements. There it actually counts because they do sell exclusivity. I guess iS likes to have an as exclusive arrangement as possible but besides upsetting them it won't matter a diddle if a similar happened to be sold else where.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** November 04, 2008, 15:44 »

Quote from: Zeus on November 04, 2008, 15:38

besides upsetting them it won't matter a diddle if a similar happened to be sold else where.

Well, let us know how that works for you.

crazychristina · « **Reply #17 on:** November 04, 2008, 16:28 »

Surely this is a non issue. If an image is available on an RM site, and the same image on istock (but no other RF site) at a significantly lower price, why should istock worry? The RM site might though, as someone has already mentioned.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #18 on:** November 04, 2008, 17:09 »

Because iStock markets their _exclusive_ collection as being a set of images that are _exclusively_ available on iStock. Putting the same image or similars on RM sites dilutes that campaign.

hali · « **Reply #19 on:** November 04, 2008, 18:17 »

wow, this gets complicated.

as a newbie it's even more complicated, all this licensing issues.
RF, RM, exclusive..
can you be more specific?
eg. if you have images of a pregnant lady drinking tea looking out the window.
can you make the same pose , with even the same woman, in a different house
drinking tea? drinking coffee?
and use this with say Alamy RM?
the concept is the same. the model is the same. only the setting is not.
or say something that Yuri has lots of . a bunch of ppl in suits.
but the same models in the same pose . but in a different order.
can one be exclusive RF, and the other be RM?
from what leaf says, you can. or else the models will be out of work fast enough.
do i understand you all completely? i am confused too. and yes, i do want
clarification too. not just exclusive RF vs RM, but also RF vs RM.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #20 on:** November 04, 2008, 19:18 »

Start with this:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/rm-vs-rf/

yingyang0 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 04, 2008, 22:51 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 04, 2008, 19:18

Start with this:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/rm-vs-rf/

citing yourself for authority.. tisk tisk. I'd go read Yuri's blog before sean's.

P.S. Post is meant to be jab at Sean, not an actual suggestion.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #22 on:** November 05, 2008, 06:30 »

Maybe I'll have time to make a video on the subject

hali · « **Reply #23 on:** November 05, 2008, 09:36 »

thx sean ! much appreciated
yingyang, quite honestly, i am not a video fan

i will check out yuri's too if i can find the URL again.
(newbie ignorance, sorry)

AVAVA · « **Reply #24 on:** November 08, 2008, 19:02 »

Hey Sean,

Very strong piece on RM / RF and their differences. I think you explained a complicated system very well. If you ever can get around to it I would love to see you add the RR model to your blog. That gets even more complicated and you did such a good job with the first part I would love to use you as a resource to help others with these questions. Thank you for your efforts.

Best,
AVAVA

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Submitting RM While Exclusive at IS (Read 10240 times)

PaulieWalnuts

Sean Locke Photography

leaf

common

PaulieWalnuts

loop

araminta

jsnover

Sean Locke Photography

araminta

Sean Locke Photography

jsnover

yingyang0

PaulieWalnuts

Sean Locke Photography

PeterChigmaroff

Sean Locke Photography

crazychristina

Sean Locke Photography

hali

Sean Locke Photography

yingyang0

Sean Locke Photography

hali

AVAVA

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors