KODAKovic

RM vs RF usage...again!

Recommended Posts

..again, i'm sorry!

I apologise for debating this again and again but i was looking at your ports, people who confirm daily in "slow month" or "post your positive results" or "which is your <month>---something" they're good sellers.

For the following categories i've noticed some of you use RM, some RF (maybe Editorial) and i really couldn't find a reason to stay relaxed on that or to say to my mind "now i' see the light!!!" :D

- Food

- Landscapes without people or brands

- Wildlife / Animals

- Not branded objects

 

How could you explain the RM vs RF usage then?

Technically and legally speaking, each of the above category pictures could go in the RF market, but.... many uses RM (as i do).

Which are your thoughts? Thanks in advance to share these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kodak,

 

I took this from another thread:

 

I wrote the following which I'll stick to with, in my opinion, 1-4 having an equal weight of 25% each. 

 

Quote

I believe that RM should be reserved for only the most premium of images, with the more generic images being RF.

 

What is 'premium", in my opinion?:

 

1. Images which took considerable expense or time to capture and/or post-process;

2. Unique lighting condition;

3. Unique editorial of a 'story' which isn't sufficiently covered by other contributors; 

4. Niche images (medical, science, biology, chemistry);

5. Model and property released images to me are automatically considered 'premium' 

 

Hope that helps, it was highly debated at the time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

Hi Kodak,

 

I took this from another thread:

 

I wrote the following which I'll stick to with, in my opinion, 1-4 having an equal weight of 25% each. 

 

 

Hope that helps, it was highly debated at the time :)

 

Love "KODAK" alias :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my RF sales, of which there aren't many, tend to be for peanuts so I'm not encouraged to go down that route unless I have several similar and very generic images which are nothing special.

 Pearl

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pearl said:

All my RF sales, of which there aren't many, tend to be for peanuts so I'm not encouraged to go down that route unless I have several similar and very generic images which are nothing special.

 Pearl

+1

 

2.1% of my images are RF at the moment - I dont intend to change that anytime soon

 

Kumar (the Doc one)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I pointed out to Brazilnut it would take considerable time and expense for me to produce pics of Brazil but it wouldn't if I lived there!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As I pointed out to Brazilnut it would take considerable time and expense for me to produce pics of Brazil but it wouldn't if I lived there!

 

I would qualify that statement to mean images which include but are not limited to the following:

- High altitude expeditions (think Andes, Himalayas) 

- Deep desert

- North or South pole expeditions

- Extreme jungle

- Deep caves

- Underwater tropical 

- Interstellar

 

Of the above I've only really done 2 which would qualify

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

 

I would qualify that statement to mean images which include but are not limited to the following:

- High altitude expeditions (think Andes, Himalayas) 

- Deep desert

- North or South pole expeditions

- Extreme jungle

- Deep caves

- Underwater tropical 

- Interstellar

 

Of the above I've only really done 2 which would qualify

 

 

 

 

To me that is simply crazy. RM is a type of image licence particularly appropriate for editorial users who generally want`a ´one use´ deal.

 

RM is not some sort of a National Geographic endurance award.

 

I honestly think that you have swallowed too much micro-babble.

 

Or maybe you were being humourous?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many here uses RF when:

- there are no licensed people

- there are no visible brands

- subject is not location-based (like generic food, not "italian typical food" for i.e.)

- subject is a detail and is generic (see the point above). A knife for i.e. or a glass of water on a beach

 

In the example above (glass of water on a beach) if i blur the background it will be RF, while if i use a small aperture (F8) and on the background i see a Brasil typical beach it will be RM, right?

 

Am i wrong?

Edited by KODAKovic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KODAKovic said:

I think many here uses RF when:

- there are no licensed people

- there are no visible brands

- subject is not location-based (like generic food, not "italian typical food" for i.e.)

- subject is a detail and is generic (see the point above). A knife for i.e. or a glass of water on a beach

 

Am i wrong?

Hi,

 

You are not wrong... here on Alamy i think most indeed use, if RF, then for that however RF can be also used for unreleased editorial images with logos and people. It is a difficult question to answer. I have several RF sales for 150+ dollars. 

 

You could always test it yourself and place a group of photos as RF (commercial and editorial) and see how it goes with zooms and sales. 

 

Mirco

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RF editorial is only a few months old on here and I guess most people are still getting used to it. 

 

Nevertheless, Alamy seems to have made things rather confusing by mixing up RM/RF with commercial/editorial. Put RM and no need to mention its editorial usage when there's identifiable people/places?

 

They need to sort out this mess they've created or explain it in a clearer way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MircoV said:

I have several RF sales for 150+ dollars. 

 

Welcome back Mirco :)

Do you mean on the old port or new one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KODAKovic said:

 

Welcome back Mirco :)

Do you mean on the old port or new one?

I guess for the next period i will only talk about my old port :D.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brasilnut said:

 

I would qualify that statement to mean images which include but are not limited to the following:

- High altitude expeditions (think Andes, Himalayas) 

- Deep desert

- North or South pole expeditions

- Extreme jungle

- Deep caves

- Underwater tropical 

- Interstellar

 

Of the above I've only really done 2 which would qualify

 

 

 

I agree with the fact the more difficult an image is to be captured the more RM it should be.

This is in-line with what Geog said about "one-time" use of RM images.

I believe in their mind the thinking was: "anyone could produce a tomato shot in white background, let's call it RF (micro pricing dropping for this kind of shots), while in the opposite a few could go to a nordic vulcano or in deep jungles and sell these images because they're much more specific than the tomato shots and much less on demand by buyers so allow what's-so-call-RM to be high prices-one shot".

Basically, Alamy can't sell a tomato shot for 100$ (or a glass of water on a generic beach) : it's simply out of the market.

But it can sell a deep jungle shot for 250$.

The good news for us is we are all sorrounded by "difficult" subjects. For i.e. i'd like to publish a beautiful romanian church just 15km from my house which is completely NOT covered on any site.

In this example, for me it's not difficult to take this shot but this subject is very specific and not much photographers are thinking to it...result....i'd put it RM.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KODAKovic said:

..again, i'm sorry!

I apologise for debating this again and again but i was looking at your ports, people who confirm daily in "slow month" or "post your positive results" or "which is your <month>---something" they're good sellers.

For the following categories i've noticed some of you use RM, some RF (maybe Editorial) and i really couldn't find a reason to stay relaxed on that or to say to my mind "now i' see the light!!!" :D

- Food

- Landscapes without people or brands

- Wildlife / Animals

- Not branded objects

 

How could you explain the RM vs RF usage then?

Technically and legally speaking, each of the above category pictures could go in the RF market, but.... many uses RM (as i do).

Which are your thoughts? Thanks in advance to share these.

 

I'll add my 2¢ worth here.  Back when I had my photography business everything I licensed was for a defined period, defined size, or defined production run (publications etc), in other words I licensed my images as "rights managed".  Now, if someone wanted unlimited exclusive use, the fee was very, very high.  I never licensed an image for unlimited exclusive use though.  Most clients understood they would probably not want to use the image past a certain time frame or for other unspecified uses.

 

Wikipedia defines it thus: " Rights Managed, or RM, in photography and the stock photo industry, refers to a copyright license which, if purchased by a user, allows the one-time use of the photo as specified by the license. If the user wants to use the photo for other uses an additional license needs to be purchased."

 

My understanding of royalty free is; unlimited use in any media or all media for a flat fee.  The fact that an image may be licensed for editorial use only, in my mind, really doesn't factor into this.  One can license a royalty free image for editorial use only.

 

To me, all of this is rather moot.  One of my sales this year was sold thus:  

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Television (editorial)
Print run: Unlimited transmissions
Placement: Use within body of show
Start: 20 September 2017
Duration: In perpetuity All rights, all media in context, in perpetuity including in context promos

 

It sold for $125.  Now, I have several different image licensing programs and one of the best quotes over $1,200 for a one year license.  So, in essence the buyer received a royalty free license, (unlimited use, worldwide, in perpetuity, all media).  For a single fee, on my own, I probably would have charged a couple thousand dollars, in a good market, but alas, I fear those times are lost.

 

My point, to me it really doesn't matter what you choose, but for principle, I choose RM.  ;-)

 

Rick 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rick Lewis said:

 

I'll add my 2¢ worth here.  Back when I had my photography business everything I licensed was for a defined period, defined size, or defined production run (publications etc), in other words I licensed my images as "rights managed".  Now, if someone wanted unlimited exclusive use, the fee was very, very high.  I never licensed an image for unlimited exclusive use though.  Most clients understood they would probably not want to use the image past a certain time frame or for other unspecified uses.

 

Wikipedia defines it thus: " Rights Managed, or RM, in photography and the stock photo industry, refers to a copyright license which, if purchased by a user, allows the one-time use of the photo as specified by the license. If the user wants to use the photo for other uses an additional license needs to be purchased."

 

My understanding of royalty free is; unlimited use in any media or all media for a flat fee.  The fact that an image may be licensed for editorial use only, in my mind, really doesn't factor into this.  One can license a royalty free image for editorial use only.

 

To me, all of this is rather moot.  One of my sales this year was sold thus:  

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Television (editorial)
Print run: Unlimited transmissions
Placement: Use within body of show
Start: 20 September 2017
Duration: In perpetuity All rights, all media in context, in perpetuity including in context promos

 

It sold for $125.  Now, I have several different image licensing programs and one of the best quotes over $1,200 for a one year license.  So, in essence the buyer received a royalty free license, (unlimited use, worldwide, in perpetuity, all media).  For a single fee, on my own, I probably would have charged a couple thousand dollars, in a good market, but alas, I fear those times are lost.

 

My point, to me it really doesn't matter what you choose, but for principle, I choose RM.  ;-)

 

Rick 

 

Alamy says that their clients prefer RF. Evidence of that is tough to come by, though.

 

I'm sticking with RM for the most part. At least we get some usage details. Also, I have yet to license an RF image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Alamy says that their clients prefer RF. Evidence of that is tough to come by, though.

 

I'm sticking with RM for the most part. At least we get some usage details. Also, I have yet to license an RF image.

 

I think Alamy is right.  Most buyers, of course would want to license RF.  I think @Bill Brooks covered that brilliantly in a previous post.  If I were a buyer I would want to purchase RF as well. To be honest, how can you blame them.  It certainly is to their advantage.

 

I'm just glad Alamy is still around.  I think they are doing a very good job in an extremely challenging business.  My hope is the industry comes to its senses and sees the benefit of rewarding good photography and good photographers.  Probably fleeting dream though.  

 

Rick

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rick Lewis said:

 

I'll add my 2¢ worth here.  Back when I had my photography business everything I licensed was for a defined period, defined size, or defined production run (publications etc), in other words I licensed my images as "rights managed".  Now, if someone wanted unlimited exclusive use, the fee was very, very high.  I never licensed an image for unlimited exclusive use though.  Most clients understood they would probably not want to use the image past a certain time frame or for other unspecified uses.

 

Wikipedia defines it thus: " Rights Managed, or RM, in photography and the stock photo industry, refers to a copyright license which, if purchased by a user, allows the one-time use of the photo as specified by the license. If the user wants to use the photo for other uses an additional license needs to be purchased."

 

My understanding of royalty free is; unlimited use in any media or all media for a flat fee.  The fact that an image may be licensed for editorial use only, in my mind, really doesn't factor into this.  One can license a royalty free image for editorial use only.

 

To me, all of this is rather moot.  One of my sales this year was sold thus:  

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Television (editorial)
Print run: Unlimited transmissions
Placement: Use within body of show
Start: 20 September 2017
Duration: In perpetuity All rights, all media in context, in perpetuity including in context promos

 

It sold for $125.  Now, I have several different image licensing programs and one of the best quotes over $1,200 for a one year license.  So, in essence the buyer received a royalty free license, (unlimited use, worldwide, in perpetuity, all media).  For a single fee, on my own, I probably would have charged a couple thousand dollars, in a good market, but alas, I fear those times are lost.

 

My point, to me it really doesn't matter what you choose, but for principle, I choose RM.  ;-)

 

Rick 

 

Rick,

this is EXACTLY my thought.

I can make an exception with some studio shots which can be easily done by others, not for Editorial shots.

The problem i'm facing now is video started from the beginning with RF-style fees, but this is out of this topic :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To mix some multi-lingual metaphors.

 

The customer is king. But what is good for the goose may not be good for the gander. Geld moet rollen. (Money has to roll.)

 

In the long term it is not in anyones interest (customer nor supplier) if the price reaches a point where supplying is a financial noose.

 

BTW That also applies to our own consuming behaviour... what goes around comes around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, KODAKovic said:

 

Rick,

this is EXACTLY my thought.

I can make an exception with some studio shots which can be easily done by others, not for Editorial shots.

The problem i'm facing now is video started from the beginning with RF-style fees, but this is out of this topic :)

 

This is inevitable if photographers convince themselves that they should offer RF.

 

It is entirely self-fullfilling. I suppose that is why I dislike these sort of statements from Brasilnut that basically God has decided that everything except miracles must be RF.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I dislike these sort of statements from Brasilnut that basically God has decided that everything except miracles must be RF.

 

If that is what Brasilnut said, I think Brasilnut is correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 14:20, KODAKovic said:

 

Welcome back Mirco :)

Do you mean on the old port or new one?

Like one RF I just licensed,  IQ $250. The highest of 8 sales.

RM $11.74

RF $50.72

RM $80

RM $12.62

RM $119

RF $250

RM 50

RM $44.91

Edited by Betty LaRue
Add text
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Like one RF I just licensed,  IQ $250. The highest of 8 sales.

RM $11.74

RF $50.72

RM $80

RM $12.62

RM $119

RF $250

RM 50

RM $44.91

 

RF Editorial Betty or plain RF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

If that is what Brasilnut said, I think Brasilnut is correct

 

There is nothing as devout as a recent convert who has found the faith and true cause.

 

The beauty is that we are all entitled to think and do what we want.

 

The trouble always seems to come when others want to proselytise about their religion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now