If you're selling an image as RM on one site, and RF on another, you're likely to encounter legal problems.  RM goes with the image, not the site.  A possible and hypothetical scenario:  I'm a buyer, and I want a particular image, but I don't have the budget to hire a photographer, model, MUA, stylist, etc.  I don't want an exclusive, but neither do I want to use an image that has been used or that could be used by one of my competitors, so I look through a RM collection, find just the right image that fits that criteria, and I purchase the rights to that image in a way that precludes that image from being used in a similar fashion (i.e., that image can't be used in association with a competitor's product).  Later, I discover that the same image was purchased and used on a RF basis by a competitor.  I'm furious because the image was presented to me under false pretenses, so I sue everyone involved - the RM site, the RF site, the photographer, and anyone else who even remotely could be held responsible or accountable.  I have a strong case to present in court, and I'm seeking punitive damages plus compensation for lost income, lost market share, attorneys' fees, etc.  As a photographer, if I were to offer an image as RM, I certainly wouldn't offer it as RF on another site because of just such a likely scenario, and I would limit the RM image(s) to one site.  How could the rights be tracked and managed otherwise?

Is that correct? If I sold an image as RM on Alamy, and the same image as RM on Panthermedia, then there is no linkage in terms of managing usage between those two sites. I don't believe that the basic RM license on Alamy allows anyone to purchase in a way that the image could not be used by a competitor say. If it was exclusive RM on Alamy, then OK, but not in any other circumstances.

Steve

So much talk about micro and macro images. But what's the difference, really?

I've struggled with that difference. It is clear that there are licensing choices that companies (and the photographer can make), but I don't think that is the same as "micro" and "macro." Wikipedia defines microstock as:

What defines a company as a microstock photography company is that they (1) source their images almost exclusively via the Internet, (2) do so from a wider range of photographers than the traditional stock agencies (including a willingness to accept images from "amateurs" and hobbyists), and (3) sell their images at a very low rate (anywhere from $.20 - $10) for a royalty-free (RF) image

However, the point I wanted to make was slightly different and it goes back to the discussion a few posts back about the apparently new line in the Alamy terms and conditions where they state that the license should be the same as the license offered for similar images on other stock sites.

I was posing a question on a different thread about copyright of a statue - we all agreed it was complicated, although there are some documents that I am going to plough through to get to the answer. But, assuming I hadn't done that and just uploaded to Shutterstock et al, some of the sites would have accepted it and others would have rejected because of no property release (as has happened). I then go to Alamy and complete their upload form where I am specifically asked if the image needs a property release and if I have one. As I am not 100% sure, I say that I think it needs one and I don't have one. That defaults the image to RM. Bottom line - even though I may think I have done some research and am "sort of" sure that it doesn't still have copyright, the subject is so complex that no photographer can be really sure, so I err on the side of caution with Alamy. I then end up, with no ulterior motive, with the file as RF on some sites and RM on Alamy.

Steve

Well, the sculptor died in 1954, which means that I'm not yet at the 60 years point! I will put it on Alamy as well, and fill in the pieces about not having a property release, but this year is the 150th anniversary of the battle that took place at this site and so I was hoping for some more general interest in it. I know that would be editorial in almost all cases, but I have had some downloads recently from Shutterstock of other views of this battlefield, so who knows.

I'll see how it gets on at the various sites - I know Graphic Leftovers will reject it (and April over there was very helpful with the explanation!)

Thanks for all your comments - the 70 year rule applies in the US as well, I believe, so I will make that the basis for my decisions in future.
Steve

I'm really getting to like Veer. After an OK month on the other sites, I checked Veer tonight and found a sale (for three different licenses) of this image for $56. I think that is the third time in the past couple of months. Whatever they are doing, I hope it continues!



Steve

Quote
2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites.

I wonder if the second sentence is relatively new. I certainly recall the first one, but the second one is definitely a surprise. Good job I am now using the RF option when I upload images!

Steve

There has been a ton of interest in this book (in terms of the number of hits), but no purchases, which means one of two things. Either it is rubbish  , or I have priced it too high. Making the kind assumption that it is the second, I have reduced the price to only $4.99. A steal...

http://www.backyardsilver.com/stock_photography_ebook/

Steve

Quote from: steheap on Today at 10:31
At the time I uploaded this, I don't think Alamy had their Royalty Free license option - they just had Rights Managed, but that basically meant, as I understand their approach, that the buyer licensed the image for a particular purpose. There was no implication that it was exclusive to Alamy, or that Alamy could describe where or when the image had been used before, or that I, as the photographer, had to explain where it had been used - it was just a way of licensing to that buyer for that purpose. So this image went in as a RM image on Alamy. Now that they have RF, I would put this one as RF if I uploaded it today.

Steve

It states that your image was taken on 3rd October 2009. I don't know if you tampered with the EXIF or intentionally entered that date but ever since I started uploading at Alamy in 2005 I was able to select between RF and L and L exclusive. They didn't call it RM back then.

You are right - it was taken in 2009, and I did enter it as Licensed at that stage. My brain must be going, because I don't recall the RF option then, although I do remember lots of debates about the ethics of choosing Licensed on Alamy when it was RF elsewhere. My mistake.. sorry.

Steve

I'm not sure it is about ethics or morals at all, as I think about this. Here is a photo that I sold on Alamy, and it is on all the other stock sites:


Pretty reasonable image of Washington Cathedral that can be used to illustrate an article about Washington DC. It sold for $32 on Alamy for low res web use for a 12 month period. The buyer obviously had something specific in mind and this image met his/her requirements. Perhaps they don't use many images and have always used Alamy. What is the ethical problem with me putting this image in the buyers hands through Alamy even though they could have bought it from Shutterstock for $5, say? I see no problem, at all, in uploading the same images to both sites.

Steve

I know this particular topic has been a never ending debate about the ethics of offering the same product at different prices on different sites. I've always taken the view that my images are sold at widely different prices on the various microstock sites, and there is nothing intrinsically "micro" about my images. I try to get the best quality and most original view that I can. As a result, I just upload all my images to Alamy. If I have model releases (or they don't need one), I mark them as "Royalty Free" in Alamy. If they don't have a release, but they need one, I mark it as "Rights Managed." I've sold images on Alamy that have ended up in a UK Photography magazine, and the same image is on Shutterstock, but I think I have given the buyer what they want - the image they were seeking on the stock site they chose to use.

Steve

I've had a free downloadable book on my web site for some time, and about 200 people have downloaded it and hopefully found it useful. Over the past months, I've been working on greatly expanding that, adding sections on using keywording, model releases, Lightburner, Deepmeta as well as summaries of the various tips and tricks that seem to work on each of the stock sites. It currently runs to over 40 Letter (A4) size pages, and I guess it represents all the learning I have gained over the past four years - some from this great site and more from just making mistakes and learning from them.

I've decided to take a chance this time and sell the book at a very reasonable $9.99, and so have worked a shopping cart into my Wordpress blog so that the transactions can all occur transparently. You will be able to see from some of my longer blogs what sort of writing style I have, and also how much I manage to make from stock photography - my hope is that a day's earnings from a newcomer to this industry is not too much to ask for the book!

Here is the link to the introductory post about the book: http://www.backyardsilver.com/stock_photography_ebook/
Steve

Lisa

Good question. I think the main things that changed were an improved auto correction module for lenses (similar to Photoshop CS5 where the program automatically corrects for distortion and color aberrations. They also improved the noise reduction a lot, such that I rarely use the plugins I have in Photoshop. Then they added a "publish" feature that keeps a distant web site synchronized with a collection in Lightroom and included Flickr, SmugMug and Facebook. When you create this publish link, any changes you make in Lightroom are automatically carried over to the distant site and any comments are downloaded into Lightroom. I think they improved the Raw engine as well, but that may be in your version.

Better image watermarking, better support for tethering and the import process was improved.

All in all, it was a reasonable set of upgrades!

Hope that helps

Steve

It is the mainstay of my processing. You import all the images into the program (whereas Bridge is just a file viewer), and then you can properly set white balance, exposure, contrast, clarity, saturation, add gradients to darken the sky, add vignettes, reduce noise etc. I only go into Photoshop if I need to do some complicated cloning to get rid of a brandmark, or a power line. I then add the keywords to the files that are going to be uploaded (you can flag the good files with an easy ranking system), add titles and descriptions, and all that gets saved to the metadata in the file. I then export the images as JPEGs of the correct size (it resizes on export if required) and then do my normal uploads.

I don't use these features as much, but there is a pretty good web site creation module, a print module to create contact sheets etc.

Hope this helps. I did a long version of how I use Lightroom on my blog if you want more detail. http://www.backyardsilver.com/2011/03/my-work-flow-for-stock-photography/

Steve