RF or RM?

[Canonist]

Hi, I am new here and don't know the exact difference between RM and RF licenses. I chose RF for my first 8 submissions, but searching for keyword like "Boeing 747" on Alamy I saw that the majority of photos were RM. Which one should I choose for my next photos, which one is better or is there any price difference between them?

 

Thanks,

Canonist

[Matt Ashmore]

The majority of Boeing 747s are painted in the colours of the airline which owns them and these colours would need a property release from the airline. Even the plane itself is a recognisable product owned by Boeing so arguably you would need a product release from Boeing too.

 

So the proper cause of action would probably be to answer the questions...

 

Does this image contain property that needs a release for commercial use?: Yes

Do you have a property release? : No

 

.. and this will then force you to use an RM license.

[Niels Quist]

The releases also goes for people in the images even if you consider them to be unrecognizable - even tiny people or parts of. Otherwise the images should be RM (which they automatically will become if you answer the questions truthfully in the tickboxes when you annotate the images.

 

This is not micro stock - you need to read quite a lot about Alamy's requirements - you may start here: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/model-property-releases-stock-images/?section=7

 

The forum also has valuable information.

 

And by the way, you cannot sell images at Alamy as RM that you sell elsewhere as RF.

 

Niels

[Matt Ashmore]

 

And by the way, you cannot sell images at Alamy as RM that you sell elsewhere as RF.

 

 

 

Presumably once Alamy introduce the 'RF - Editorial' flag they can be sold RF in both places.

I suspect Alamy want this flag themselves so that they can import more images from external collections like EyeEm.

[Jill Morgan]

Of your images so far, the shopping centre shot in Malaysia should be RM, both because it has people (even though unrecognizable) and property that both should have releases.  As well, the images of the 747 and the engine should have property releases.  None of these images should be used for commercial purposes.

 

You can't change the license yourself.  You have to contact member services and have them do it for you.  If you have these as RF elsewhere, they you can't sell them here as RM, and they really should not be RF anywhere.

 

Jill

[Canonist]

Thanks for the answers! Now I understand licenses better. One question: If a photographer can sell his image under RM license easily without any releases, why should he bother and provide release(s) and sell his image under RF license?

 

Thanks,

Canonist

[Matt Ashmore]

Providing releases opens the image up to more buyers.

 

Suppose I upload an image of a man sat in a chair at the seaside. If I don't have a model release then the picture might be sold to someone publishing something like a magazine article about leisure time and the seaside.

But if I have a model release, the image could also be sold to someone creating an advert for suncream, or an advert for financial services (demonstrating what you could be doing with all your free time now that you don't have to worry about money). And it could be sold to someone selling a calendar containing scenes at the seaside.

 

RM vs RF is a preference thing.. RF means that the buyer can use the image tomorrow and again in 10 years time. Or they can use it for multiple different purposes.

RM ties the buyer to a fixed purpose and period but might come with advantages of price or exclusivity.

[Canonist]

Thanks Matt! That is the answer I needed most.