MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => Newbie Discussion => Topic started by: Apegz on October 20, 2015, 00:30

Title: Alamy, new contributer silly question...
Post by: Apegz on October 20, 2015, 00:30
So... I contributed an image to alamy...
I had a play with it in Lightroom afterwards and made a high key version....
Then made it black and white....
I submitted the edited images also...
Then realised I shouldn't have if I want the image to have an RM license?
So I guess I should choose one of the three and delete the other two?
Thanks in advance, I think I know the answer I just want to know what others do in this situation..
Title: Re: Alamy, new contributer silly question...
Post by: ShadySue on October 20, 2015, 03:03
You can manipulate an image which will be RM on Alamy, provided you indicate that it's digitally altered when you set the file's attributes.
Title: Re: Alamy, new contributer silly question...
Post by: Apegz on October 20, 2015, 04:06
Thank you for your reply....
I understand about declaring the image has been altered but really wanted to know if u should delete two of the three if I wish to sell RM?
Thanks
Title: Re: Alamy, new contributer silly question...
Post by: ShadySue on October 20, 2015, 05:37
Thank you for your reply....
I understand about declaring the image has been altered but really wanted to know if u should delete two of the three if I wish to sell RM?
Thanks
Why would there be a difference if selling RM? RM is a different way of selling images, nothing more or less. RM can be released, posed images, it doesn't have to be editorial.

I've often wondered if I should put two versions up of certain  of my editorials, one 'cleaned up', e.g. litter, chewing gum, bird droppings etc, marked 'digitally altered' and one 'as was', not marked altered, but I'm not sure if there's really a heavy market for totally unaltered images in secondary editorial. Probably yes, if hot news.
Title: Re: Alamy, new contributer silly question...
Post by: Apegz on October 20, 2015, 08:25
Shadysue, thank you for your reply.. I thought the selling RM would be relevant to the question because I understood (maybe incorrectly) that when a buyer purchases RM they purchase exclusive rights to the image within set time and usage criteria.. so, then if one of the three images is sold, then another one of the three is sold,  the buyer then wouldn't get what they are paying for ? as I explained I am new, so may have it completely mixed up, thanks for you r patience :)
Title: Re: Alamy, new contributer silly question...
Post by: steheap on October 20, 2015, 08:41
Hi

I wrote a blog post about this whole area of confusion a little while back. It might help

Steve
http://www.backyardsilver.com/2015/07/rf-versus-rm-versus-editorial-versus-commercial/ (http://www.backyardsilver.com/2015/07/rf-versus-rm-versus-editorial-versus-commercial/)
Title: Re: Alamy, new contributer silly question...
Post by: Apegz on October 20, 2015, 09:01
Thank you both..
I think I have completely misunderstood the meaning of rm..
I forwarded my enquiry to alamy and there's no problem..
I will look at the blog links thank you
Title: Re: Alamy, new contributer silly question...
Post by: ShadySue on October 20, 2015, 11:48
The only issue there might be would be if someone wanted exclusive rights to an image. But that apparently happens very rarely at Alamy.
Title: Re: Alamy, new contributer silly question...
Post by: Apegz on October 20, 2015, 13:06
ShadySue, that's what I was thinking, but didn't realise it was a rare occurance.. Alamy are aware and are fine, so my conscience is clear..
thanks again :)