Royalty Free or Rights Managed?

[Scott Gese]

I'm new to Alamy and this is my first post to this forum. 

 

I've been trying to do my homework by reading up on different topics. The two license types, Royalty Free and Rights Managed have me baffled as far as which one is better to use . By looking at the images of several contributors, I've noticed there are definitely two camps when it comes to license types. I can't seem to get a good handle on why one person prefers RF while another prefers RM.

Does one have a distinct advantage over the other or is it just personal preference? 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if the RF contributors are possibly amateurs using the "shotgun" approach by throwing thousands of images online and playing the numbers game.

The RM contributors may be more professional and selective about what they post. They may treat their images more like art and feel their work is worth using the RM license.

 

 I started out using RM but switched to RF. Now I'm wondering if that is what I really want to do. 

 

I'm trying to make an informed decision here and would love to hear from anyone interested in putting in their two cents worth. 

 

Thanks

Scott

[Cryptoprocta]

One reason  many people choose RF is because they have these files RF on other agencies (which only sell RF), and need to keep the same licence on Alamy. That indicates that they don't want their image to be exclusive to any agency, not necessarily a preference for RF per se.

From previous threads on this forum, there doesn't seem to be any real advantage in setting files RF otherwise. RF files can be sold RM with the correspondingly lower 'rack rate' fee (check out any RF file page) and some RM sales terms seem hardly different from RF (but at least IME with a pretty low $ rate, because of a 'deal').

[Joseph Clemson]

An image sold as RF can be used by that buyer as many times as they want with no further royalties paid. An image sold as RM can only be used for one specific purpose and its licence fee is set in accordance with the type of use. The upshot of this is that, Alamy tells us, customers tend to prefer RF as it gives them maximum flexibility and value, while many photographers, myself included, prefer RM as it gives the possibility of repeat sales to the same customer (and I have had a few like that).

 

Most of my images are shot as soft editorial, images intended to be of use to a newspaper editor, book publisher, documentary maker etc. Each image tends to be very specific in subject and I don't expect to make multiple sales of any individual image so I set them all as RM in the hope of making the most of each sale that does come along. If I was producing generic illustrative imagery which could be used many times in many ways by a purchaser, I would probably set it as RF and hope my picture found favour against the thousands of similar RF images out there. 

 

I do have an archive of RF images on microstock dating from the days when I was unenlightened and contributed to such places (and I should say with due respect, learning something of my trade there). However, it pains me greatly when I see such  images used over and again, having been sold for a few cents. In some cases I have sold many  instances of the same RF image, but all for a few cents each. I get more satisfaction today from a single RM image and, despite the reduced RM licence fees we are seeing these days, still significantly more cash in the hand than RF microstock sales. 

 

I remain an RM, soft editorial, enthusiast through and through.

[Cryptoprocta]

2 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

An image sold as RF can be used by that buyer as many times as they want with no further royalties paid. An image sold as RM can only be used for one specific purpose and its licence fee is set in accordance with the type of use. The upshot of this is that, Alamy tells us, customers tend to prefer RF as it gives them maximum flexibility and value, while many photographers, myself included, prefer RM as it gives the possibility of repeat sales to the same customer (and I have had a few like that).

But Alamy have made some RM sales with the possibility of reuse within a time frame, e.g. multiple reuses over five years, which I've certainly had (and found at least one reuse within the timescale).

My files here are all RM, but in reality here, the distinction is fuzzy.

[Joseph Clemson]

3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

But Alamy have made some RM sales with the possibility of reuse within a time frame, e.g. multiple reuses over five years, which I've certainly had (and found at least one reuse within the timescale).

My files here are all RM, but in reality here, the distinction is fuzzy.

 

RM sales with multiple reuses do occur, but they do still tend to be somewhat more restrictive than 'anytime, anywhere, any publication, for ever and ever, amen' which is what one gets with an RF licence sale.

[giphotostock]

16 hours ago, Scott Gese said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if the RF contributors are possibly amateurs using the "shotgun" approach by throwing thousands of images online and playing the numbers game.

The RM contributors may be more professional and selective about what they post. They may treat their images more like art and feel their work is worth using the RM license.

Thanks

Scott

Wrong.

 

If you shoot secodary-editorial material, you will not likely to see pricing difference between RM and RM on Alamy, IMHO.

 

There are plenty of RM licenses where rights granted are largely equivalent to RF.

 

GI

[Scott Gese]

3 hours ago, giphotostock said:

Wrong.

 

If you shoot secodary-editorial material, you will not likely to see pricing difference between RM and RM on Alamy, IMHO.

 

There are plenty of RM licenses where rights granted are largely equivalent to RF.

 

GI

giphotostock

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Scott Gese]

9 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

One reason  many people choose RF is because they have these files RF on other agencies (which only sell RF), and need to keep the same licence on Alamy. That indicates that they don't want their image to be exclusive to any agency, not necessarily a preference for RF per se.

From previous threads on this forum, there doesn't seem to be any real advantage in setting files RF otherwise. RF files can be sold RM with the correspondingly lower 'rack rate' fee (check out any RF file page) and some RM sales terms seem hardly different from RF (but at least IME with a pretty low $ rate, because of a 'deal').

Cryptoprocta

Thank you for your reply. It helps.

[Scott Gese]

8 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

An image sold as RF can be used by that buyer as many times as they want with no further royalties paid. An image sold as RM can only be used for one specific purpose and its licence fee is set in accordance with the type of use. The upshot of this is that, Alamy tells us, customers tend to prefer RF as it gives them maximum flexibility and value, while many photographers, myself included, prefer RM as it gives the possibility of repeat sales to the same customer (and I have had a few like that).

 

Most of my images are shot as soft editorial, images intended to be of use to a newspaper editor, book publisher, documentary maker etc. Each image tends to be very specific in subject and I don't expect to make multiple sales of any individual image so I set them all as RM in the hope of making the most of each sale that does come along. If I was producing generic illustrative imagery which could be used many times in many ways by a purchaser, I would probably set it as RF and hope my picture found favour against the thousands of similar RF images out there. 

 

I do have an archive of RF images on microstock dating from the days when I was unenlightened and contributed to such places (and I should say with due respect, learning something of my trade there). However, it pains me greatly when I see such  images used over and again, having been sold for a few cents. In some cases I have sold many  instances of the same RF image, but all for a few cents each. I get more satisfaction today from a single RM image and, despite the reduced RM licence fees we are seeing these days, still significantly more cash in the hand than RF microstock sales. 

 

I remain an RM, soft editorial, enthusiast through and through.

Joseph

Thank you for your reply. I now have a better understanding of how I want to proceed. I appreciate it.