Author Topic: Submitting to other sites while IS exclusive (Read 12427 times)

aeonf · « **on:** October 08, 2010, 06:36 »

I know we can submit to Alamy files as RM for example.
Are there other sites that we could upload our port to without breaking the exclusivity agreement ?

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** October 08, 2010, 06:41 »

You can submit anywhere so long as you are not offering an RF license.

aeonf · « **Reply #2 on:** October 08, 2010, 06:46 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 08, 2010, 06:41

You can submit anywhere so long as you are not offering an RF license.

Yes I know this, I was asking for examples...

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** October 08, 2010, 07:05 »

there are many sites that allow you to upload RM content. myloupe, stockfood, getty, corbis, imagesource etc..

Alamy is different though in that it allows basically anyone to submit and doesn't control the images for content. The other sites are hard (or impossible) to get into and have strict review guidelines.

dirkr · « **Reply #4 on:** October 08, 2010, 07:09 »

There's Zoonar. They allow you to choose if you want to sell RM or RF.

molka · « **Reply #5 on:** October 08, 2010, 07:38 »

The same image as RF and RM might end you up in a lawsuite

dirkr · « **Reply #6 on:** October 08, 2010, 07:51 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 07:38

The same image as RF and RM might end you up in a lawsuite

No. That depends on what exactly the RM licence says. Alamy's RM licence (at least their "L" licence) does not include any exclusivity terms and no need to provide any image usage history.

molka · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2010, 08:35 »

Quote from: dirkr on October 08, 2010, 07:51

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 07:38
The same image as RF and RM might end you up in a lawsuite

No. That depends on what exactly the RM licence says. Alamy's RM licence (at least their "L" licence) does not include any exclusivity terms and no need to provide any image usage history.

My previous longer message just got lost due timig out, so i'm gonna cut it shorters at phase on now:

That's not gonna a problem if the case is handed over even to a semi-decent lawyer. RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time, and if its up as RF, that's likely to be breached. One my realtives is contract lawyer in LA, and they easily handle cases far more obscure than that... and then I'll skip explanation, coz I'm pissed over lossing it previously : )

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** October 08, 2010, 08:40 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:35

Quote from: dirkr on October 08, 2010, 07:51
Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 07:38
The same image as RF and RM might end you up in a lawsuite

No. That depends on what exactly the RM licence says. Alamy's RM licence (at least their "L" licence) does not include any exclusivity terms and no need to provide any image usage history.

My previous longer message just got lost due timig out, so i'm gonna cut it shorters at phase on now:

That's not gonna a problem if the case is handed over even to a semi-decent lawyer. RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time, and if its up as RF, that's likely to be breached. One my realtives is contract lawyer in LA, and they easily handle cases far more obscure than that... and then I'll skip explanation, coz I'm pissed over lossing it previously : )

omg. Know what you are talking about before you post. "RM" makes no promise of exclusivity over anything. Unless that's something that is part of the specific license you purchase.

dirkr · « **Reply #9 on:** October 08, 2010, 08:42 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:35

RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time

Please be so kind and point to the legal wording in the Alamy RM-L licence where any kind of exclusivity is granted.

It is true that grant of exclusive usage rights as well as a record of usage history has been (and still is) a feature of many RM licences provided by many agencies.
It is untrue that "RM" is a clearly defined licence type that in all cases where an agency sells licences it names RM includes these rights.

molka · « **Reply #10 on:** October 08, 2010, 08:44 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 08, 2010, 08:40

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:35
Quote from: dirkr on October 08, 2010, 07:51
Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 07:38
The same image as RF and RM might end you up in a lawsuite

No. That depends on what exactly the RM licence says. Alamy's RM licence (at least their "L" licence) does not include any exclusivity terms and no need to provide any image usage history.

My previous longer message just got lost due timig out, so i'm gonna cut it shorters at phase on now:

That's not gonna a problem if the case is handed over even to a semi-decent lawyer. RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time, and if its up as RF, that's likely to be breached. One my realtives is contract lawyer in LA, and they easily handle cases far more obscure than that... and then I'll skip explanation, coz I'm pissed over lossing it previously : )

omg. Know what you are talking about before you post. "RM" makes no promise of exclusivity over anything. Unless that's something that is part of the specific license you purchase.

Ok, so it's basically RF, someone just mistyped a letter : )) You people are kinda funny : )

molka · « **Reply #11 on:** October 08, 2010, 08:47 »

Quote from: dirkr on October 08, 2010, 08:42

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:35
RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time

Please be so kind and point to the legal wording in the Alamy RM-L licence where any kind of exclusivity is granted.

It is true that grant of exclusive usage rights as well as a record of usage history has been (and still is) a feature of many RM licences provided by many agencies.
It is untrue that "RM" is a clearly defined licence type that in all cases where an agency sells licences it names RM includes these rights.

If it's not that clearly defined it's just worse for the average guy. Beleive me a lawyer will be just a slightly bit more likely to come up with a reading that favors his/her client than you.

dirkr · « **Reply #12 on:** October 08, 2010, 08:53 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:47

If it's not that clearly defined it's just worse for the average guy. Beleive me a lawyer will be just a slightly bit more likely to come up with a reading that favors his/her client than you.

It is clearly defined. No exclusivity. I stated that before, but you chose to ignore that statement and point to your opinion that "RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time".

So, have you read the Alamy licence terms to support your opinion?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** October 08, 2010, 08:54 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:47

Quote from: dirkr on October 08, 2010, 08:42
Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:35
RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time

Please be so kind and point to the legal wording in the Alamy RM-L licence where any kind of exclusivity is granted.

It is true that grant of exclusive usage rights as well as a record of usage history has been (and still is) a feature of many RM licences provided by many agencies.
It is untrue that "RM" is a clearly defined licence type that in all cases where an agency sells licences it names RM includes these rights.

If it's not that clearly defined it's just worse for the average guy. Beleive me a lawyer will be just a slightly bit more likely to come up with a reading that favors his/her client than you.

How is a lawyer going to "come up with a reading", when there is nothing to read in the license about exclusivity.

You may want to refrain from posting, until you understand what you are talking about.

molka · « **Reply #14 on:** October 08, 2010, 09:03 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 08, 2010, 08:54

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:47
Quote from: dirkr on October 08, 2010, 08:42
Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:35
RM is supposed to give exlusivity over the image for a period of time

Please be so kind and point to the legal wording in the Alamy RM-L licence where any kind of exclusivity is granted.

It is true that grant of exclusive usage rights as well as a record of usage history has been (and still is) a feature of many RM licences provided by many agencies.
It is untrue that "RM" is a clearly defined licence type that in all cases where an agency sells licences it names RM includes these rights.

If it's not that clearly defined it's just worse for the average guy. Beleive me a lawyer will be just a slightly bit more likely to come up with a reading that favors his/her client than you.

How is a lawyer going to "come up with a reading", when there is nothing to read in the license about exclusivity.

You may want to refrain from posting, until you understand what you are talking about.

I do not intend to refrain from anything just because you personally don't like it.: ) Contain yourself please.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #15 on:** October 08, 2010, 09:33 »

I thought you might want to be concerned with setting yourself up as someone who speaks without knowing what they are talking of, but I see from this and the other thread that you're not afraid of that.

lisafx · « **Reply #16 on:** October 08, 2010, 09:40 »

Another brilliant gem from Molka in another thread:

I don't get this. If you guys see that so clearly now, why didn't you see it years ago, and simply skip microstock?HuhHuh It would have been understandable if there were almost no other chioces but there were plenty! (Alamy for example... 75% comissions!) Total nonsense..... actually i have to say you can blame yourselves as much as the greedy companies, you made horrible, uneducated chioces with little to no foresight whatsoever.

FD has astutely guessed this is probably the return of Macrosaur

molka · « **Reply #17 on:** October 08, 2010, 10:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 08, 2010, 09:33

I thought you might want to be concerned with setting yourself up as someone who speaks without knowing what they are talking of, but I see from this and the other thread that you're not afraid of that.

yeah you are the all knowing wise man, whatever... be happy with that : ) I guess every genre of forum has it's infantile local little long time bullies

dgilder · « **Reply #18 on:** October 08, 2010, 11:28 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 10:11

I guess every genre of forum has it's infantile local little long time bullies

Interesting.

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** October 08, 2010, 11:41 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 10:11

yeah you are the all knowing wise man, whatever... be happy with that : ) I guess every genre of forum has it's infantile local little long time bullies

And it's ignorant, boring trolls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

sharpshot · « **Reply #20 on:** October 08, 2010, 13:17 »

I'm still not sure if the part in the alamy terms where they say that RF and RM licences shouldn't be used for the same image appleis only to images on alamy or those that are also on other sites. It isn't clear to me and I wouldn't sell licenced there if they have been sold RF elsewhere.

molka · « **Reply #21 on:** October 08, 2010, 18:50 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 08, 2010, 13:17

I'm still not sure if the part in the alamy terms where they say that RF and RM licences shouldn't be used for the same image appleis only to images on alamy or those that are also on other sites. It isn't clear to me and I wouldn't sell licenced there if they have been sold RF elsewhere.

This is what i can tell you, than you decide whether it's useful, or I'm just a fool next to these all knowing wisemen : )
I submitted a batch to alamy, and when batch editing, I punched in RF for all of them. I simply wasn't paying attention, and intended to upload those files elsewhere as RF too. Since you can't just remove stuff from alamy - deleting is a request that takes effect a year later as far as I can remember - I searched around if it's a problem, and found some old time stockers saying that you should never-ever go around selling the same thing as RF and RM. They looked like realiable sources, but I wanted to be thorough, and my realtive, a contratc lawyer knows about my little 'endeavours' and being a loyal nice guy always notes me to contact him if I run into any problem (that mostly means people not wanting to pay : ) ) So i did ask him if it's a problem, ha looked aorund, and said it yes, that definitely can be problem. So I wrtote to alamy if this can be changed, altho it says you can't change it. They responded very quickly, and changed the license, no hassla. Two big thumbs up for them, they seem to be very responsive and nice people.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #22 on:** October 10, 2010, 16:20 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 08, 2010, 13:17

I'm still not sure if the part in the alamy terms where they say that RF and RM licences shouldn't be used for the same image appleis only to images on alamy or those that are also on other sites. It isn't clear to me and I wouldn't sell licenced there if they have been sold RF elsewhere.

I'd agree. If it has ever sold RF anywhere, it's always RF. Also the twins here keep telling us we don't know Jack, but never give a straight answer how it doesn't apply? If that was true, it's the same thing with different letters and the license means nothing? HUH?

Here's the other one that never gets a straight answer, just tossing out letters and claims.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 03, 2010, 05:13

They already have sorted it out. The L (traditional) license does not provide any guarantees about former usage, only their RM license has that sort of restriction.

Also, traditional licenses are not more expensive than RF licenses, they are much cheaper. The reason for this is the same as the reason why it is cheaper to buy a bottle of milk for use today than it is to buy a lifetime supply of milk.

The micro model vastly undervalues the RF license and I'm pretty sure the micros are only RF because it would have been impossibly expensive to monitor whether images were being reused (or maybe it was just a designers dirty little desire to pay once and have forever). I hadn't thought of it before but it would really make more sense to sell anything at the micros that is going to Alamy on the L license, as that would reduce the price disparity between Alamy and Micro RF.

BTW, the micros are all RM as well, they are "royalty-free rights-managed" to be precise. Why? Because they place a list of restrictions on the permitted use and that means they are managing the rights.

OK BaldricksTrousers please explain the L on Alamy and RM and why it's not a problem to sell these same images that are RF on pone site as L on another. Please make it clear why there are different kinds of licenses, if none of them matter?

L on Alamy is RM with a different name.

aeonf · « **Reply #23 on:** October 10, 2010, 16:32 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 10, 2010, 16:20

Quote from: sharpshot on October 08, 2010, 13:17
I'm still not sure if the part in the alamy terms where they say that RF and RM licences shouldn't be used for the same image appleis only to images on alamy or those that are also on other sites. It isn't clear to me and I wouldn't sell licenced there if they have been sold RF elsewhere.

I'd agree. If it has ever sold RF anywhere, it's always RF. Also the twins here keep telling us we don't know Jack, but never give a straight answer how it doesn't apply? If that was true, it's the same thing with different letters and the license means nothing? HUH?

Here's the other one that never gets a straight answer, just tossing out letters and claims.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 03, 2010, 05:13

They already have sorted it out. The L (traditional) license does not provide any guarantees about former usage, only their RM license has that sort of restriction.

Also, traditional licenses are not more expensive than RF licenses, they are much cheaper. The reason for this is the same as the reason why it is cheaper to buy a bottle of milk for use today than it is to buy a lifetime supply of milk.

The micro model vastly undervalues the RF license and I'm pretty sure the micros are only RF because it would have been impossibly expensive to monitor whether images were being reused (or maybe it was just a designers dirty little desire to pay once and have forever). I hadn't thought of it before but it would really make more sense to sell anything at the micros that is going to Alamy on the L license, as that would reduce the price disparity between Alamy and Micro RF.

BTW, the micros are all RM as well, they are "royalty-free rights-managed" to be precise. Why? Because they place a list of restrictions on the permitted use and that means they are managing the rights.

OK BaldricksTrousers please explain the L on Alamy and RM and why it's not a problem to sell these same images that are RF on pone site as L on another. Please make it clear why there are different kinds of licenses, if none of them matter? L on Alamy is RM with a different name.

I don't really care how it is called. you can call it "goat rights" for all I care. as long as it is OK with Alamy and IS as well (as an exclusive) I am fine with it too.

What other sites besides Alamy aare we allowed to sumbit to ? (maybe macro sites ?)
I know zazzle and presscaffe are also options.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** October 10, 2010, 20:18 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 10, 2010, 16:20

L on Alamy is RM with a different name.

There is no RF or RM. What there is, is an infinite number of people and agencies who have the individual terms they license content under. In general, "RF" has come to be known as a set of terms that include perpetual and wide ranging permissions. "RM" has come to be known as a set of tighter, more restrictive set of permissions.

If you need a narrowly defined set of permissions only, an smaller defined set of permissions will likely save you money ($15 for a one time 1/4 page use in a 5,000 circulation magazine). If you need exclusivity, you would need to pay for a service that has a tracked history of permissions granted. If you need perpetual, wide ranging permissions, the typical "RF" license might save you money. It all is just shopping for what you need at a place that offers it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Submitting to other sites while IS exclusive (Read 12427 times)

aeonf

gostwyck

aeonf

leaf

dirkr

molka

dirkr

molka

Sean Locke Photography

dirkr

molka

molka

dirkr

Sean Locke Photography

molka

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

molka

dgilder

lisafx

sharpshot

molka

RacePhoto

aeonf

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors