Jump to content

Robert Shantz

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Robert Shantz

  1. If you call up an RF editorial image ( my HNBJ8P for example ) the message " Available for editorial and personal use only ... " appears.   Hovering over the ? at the end brings up a more detailed explanation that again clearly states that the image is available for personal use.


    The rest of the initial phrase " Get in touch for commercial use " I find interesting.  This probably means that Alamy will contact the photographer to see if the required model and/or property releases can be obtained for commercial use.  But could RF editorial also be used on an image that fully qualifies for RF in the first place  ( no required releases or releases already available ) to keep RF pricing available for editorial but require a separate pricing scheme for commercial use?



    • Upvote 1
  2. I've recently converted an number of my images to RF  (editorial only when appropriate) to see what, if any, difference it makes. 


    I had a RM image license on 3/3/17 for $93.75 net that looks like a relicense of the image that licensed for $186.00 net on 1/16/12.   This would seem to be a good argument for RM.


    However, what I cannot know, is how many sales I may have lost because the buyer went with a RF image that was more or less comparable to my RM images.  Since Alamy now recommends RF, it may well be that they have numbers showing that there is indeed a buyer preference for RF, and also that buyers may be going to other agencies when RF is not available on Alamy.  I seldom see RF specified in a search, but this may only reflect that fact that the buyer will look at RM also in case there is an exceptional image.  But he then almost always buys  RF if an adequate alternative is available. 


    It would be interesting to know how Alamy sales are distributed between RF and RM relative to the number of images in each category.  Has anyone seen these numbers?  One could, I suppose, argue that the number of images in each category might be biased toward one or the other by legacy images that are ranked so low that they aren't even viewed.



  3. The advice I read years ago was that the photographer has no idea what use will be made of the photo, and hence doesn't know how well it meets the buyer's needs.   I once licensed a photograph of a running pronghorn for use by an artist for a postage stamp.  It happened to be a good photo both technically and otherwise, but if I had seen that stamp without being told that it was from my photo I wouldn't have recognized it.  In this case, technical quality was not a major requirement to the buyer.  Likewise, I had an image of mine truck licensed by Alamy that was so modified that the buyer was really only using the concept and not the photo.


    The advice I read gave as an example a photograph of a person that had been licensed only for the folded hands on the person's lap.  The overall photo may not have been that great, but evidently the hands were.


    And I suppose it's always possible that they were buying a photo for use in a what not to do article.



  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.