Rights Managed vs. Royalty Free

[Gina Kelly]

Forgive me if this topic has been covered before, but I've searched the forum and haven't been able to find much on the subject and I'm still slightly confused by it. Mainly I'm curious if selling my images as royalty free will increase sales? I have the majority of mine listed as rights managed and having over 14,000 in my collection I feel like I should be making more sales than I am. I see that a lot of people with fewer images are making more sales. I know that a lot of things can factor into this, I'm just trying to determine if part of it is that mine are rights managed?  

[William Caram]

Hi Gina i am interested in the  RF Verses  RM licence as well...I can't give an opinion as i am all RM, and i notice like others that RM has been licensed like RF these days..Some photographers have a   50 /50 ratio of both RF and RM....I'm sure some more experienced sellers can add their take on it.....some will say it depends on your subject matter...Mmm  

[Marianne]

If I look back at all my licenses here, about 5/8ths are rights managed, but if I just go back the past two years, it's split half and half, so the percentage of royalty free images being licensed has gone up slightly, but that may be because I made several images, especially editorial images that had not been licensed before, RF, so the percent of RF images in my portfolio went up. Not a great difference between 5/8ths being RM over the past 12 years and 1/2 being RM over the past 2 years, given that the number of RF in my portfolio increased in that time...then again, I still have more RM than RF images and if they are being licensed at the same rate, maybe RF has an advantage? I don't think I can really reach a solid conclusion but these are my observations for what it's worth. Alamy tells us clients prefer RF, but they license many RM images as though they are RF, so not sure  the fact that your images are all RM is holding you back. 

 

You have lots of nice images . I know Alamy has pushed us to make more images RF and I imagine it's easier for clients, but if they are RM, clients who want images that aren't on all the micros know they worn't have to worry about that, if they worry about such things....

 

So, take it all with a grain of salt. I have RM images that are licensed here again and again, I don't think it really hurts you at all. 

[Sally]

I have as many images as you and the majority are RM. I tend only to make the nature ones RF as there are so many of the same subject. However I get a decent number of stock (as opposed to news) sales so I’m not sure it makes much difference. Whether the difference is more to do with being based in the USA or the UK... I don’t know.

 

There are so many factors that can make a difference to sales that it’s impossible to say if one makes a difference. Subject matter, keywording, photo quality etc and I suspect these factors are more important than whether an image is RF or RM.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Sally

[M.Chapman]

On 14/02/2020 at 00:15, Gina Kelly said:

Forgive me if this topic has been covered before, but I've searched the forum and haven't been able to find much on the subject and I'm still slightly confused by it. Mainly I'm curious if selling my images as royalty free will increase sales? I have the majority of mine listed as rights managed and having over 14,000 in my collection I feel like I should be making more sales than I am. I see that a lot of people with fewer images are making more sales. I know that a lot of things can factor into this, I'm just trying to determine if part of it is that mine are rights managed?  

 

A benefit of RM is that Alamy provides additional data on the sale. This is useful for

  a) filing a DACS claim (if you make your own claim)

  b) identifying and pursuing image infringements (which can be quite lucrative)

Mark

Edited February 18, 2020 by M.Chapman

[Jools Devon]

 

 

 

Alamy describe RM and RF as follows

 

Quote

There are two image license types you can choose from:

• RM stands for Rights Managed. With this license, the customer only pays for what they’re using the image for. Rights Managed licenses can define how, where, when or for how long an image is being used.
• RF stands for Royalty Free. Customers pay a one–off fee to use the image with no restrictions on how they use it, or how long they use it for. RF images can be used across multiple projects, forever.

 

All my images  are listed as RF

 

All my sales show "Royalty Free" as the licence......

 

But the details vary - and to me they look like they are sold as Rights Managed?

 

This looks like a Royalty free sale

 

Quote

86 MB
4480 x 6720 pixels 
2 MB compressed
All media, worldwide, in perpetuity, including in-context promos.

 

But this looks like its sold as if it was Rights Managed (and the fee reflects the use!)

(Newspaper use in the Guardian)

 

Quote

7 MB
1260 x 1890 pixels 
One use in a single editorial article used within web versions of titles from the same group. Digital usage includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article. Country: United Kingdom 

 

So - I don't think listing them as RF stops them being sold as RM.....

 

Jools

 

[domf]

Isn't the default position that if there are people and no model releases and/or property without releases then the image should be RM? The vast majority of my images are RM because most of my images have either people or property in them. 

[meanderingemu]

56 minutes ago, domf said:

Isn't the default position that if there are people and no model releases and/or property without releases then the image should be RM? The vast majority of my images are RM because most of my images have either people or property in them. 

 

not sure why that would be, and i do not see any such requirements in Alamy's guideline.  Can you point to it?

[Chuck Nacke]

I only do RM.  Do not like to concept of RF at all.

Chuck

[John Mitchell]

About 500 of my images are RF, and I've had very few RF sales. I suspect that this has to do with subject matter -- i.e. the types of images that I've chosen to make RF -- more than anything else. The few RF sales that I've made have licensing terms that look more like RM.

 

If buyers choose one of the cheap and cheerful "Buy this stock image now" options and download an image, it will get licensed as RM even it is RF.

[Ed Rooney]

On 14/02/2020 at 00:15, Gina Kelly said:

 I know that a lot of things can factor into this

 

Yes, Gina, that is very true. Your images look great. But the locations and subjects that are open to you are what they are.

 

I'm Alamy exclusive. All my images have been RM for some time now. I once tried a test of RM vs RF. I made all my food snaps RF for a year. I had just one $$ sale of them that entire year. My RM sold much better and still sell regularly for $, $$, and $$$. As RM images, my food is selling much better.

 

If Alamy decides to move to only RF, I will go along . . . but not until then. 

 

Good luck.

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Ed Rooney

[Gina Kelly]

Thanks so much everyone for the feedback. Doesn't sound like switching to RF will make much difference, and I'm glad for that, I like having my images RM.

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

I do a rough 50/50 split RF to RM.

 

As an experiment I converted about 400 images to RF of more popular subjects and it didn't make a jot of difference.

 

However what does make a difference is taking exclusive status off some older images and putting them on micro stock sites where they started generating sales as opposed to zero sales on Alamy.

 

As an experiment, I did the same thing with some of my images (mostly non-editorial ones) that have been gathering dust here. Can't say that they are making a fortune elsewhere, though.

Edited February 18, 2020 by John Mitchell

[Betty LaRue]

One third of my port is RF. Last rolling year, 1/7th of my sales were RF.

One must take into account, though, that the images I list as RF are, for the most part, images of more generic subjects that contain thousands of offerings (competition) in Alamy’s database. The unique images are RM, along with my very best, no matter the subject.

Generally you might find this in the average mixed portfolio. 
For instance, if I take a picture of a sunflower this coming summer, I probably will list it as RF.

If I take a picture of a sunflower with a bird hanging upside down off of something to reach the seeds of the sunflower, it will be RM.

Betty

[Jim_Grady]

18 hours ago, domf said:

Isn't the default position that if there are people and no model releases and/or property without releases then the image should be RM? The vast majority of my images are RM because most of my images have either people or property in them. 

Yeah - I thought this was the case as well...I will see if I can find the source of this belief.

[John Mitchell]

48 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

One third of my port is RF. Last rolling year, 1/7th of my sales were RF.

One must take into account, though, that the images I list as RF are, for the most part, images of more generic subjects that contain thousands of offerings (competition) in Alamy’s database. The unique images are RM, along with my very best, no matter the subject.

Generally you might find this in the average mixed portfolio. 
For instance, if I take a picture of a sunflower this coming summer, I probably will list it as RF.

If I take a picture of a sunflower with a bird hanging upside down off of something to reach the seeds of the sunflower, it will be RM.

Betty

 

I have a similar game plan. Unfortunately, though, my generic RF images are just collecting cobwebs here (with a few exceptions). I keep hoping that this situation will change, but I fear that it's a vain hope. It's my editorial RM ones that license here. As a result, I'll probably be sending more images "over there" in small test batches as time goes on.

[William Caram]

Looks like i will leave selling my images as RM unless as Edo says we are forced to change to a RF licence or there is a clear advantage in favour of RF.....I have always preferred the concept of RM over RF anyway....Thanks Gina and other members for your take on it..

[Betty LaRue]

21 hours ago, domf said:

Isn't the default position that if there are people and no model releases and/or property without releases then the image should be RM? The vast majority of my images are RM because most of my images have either people or property in them. 

I do generally list mine with no releases as RM. But I don’t have to. You can list them RF editorial. Bill does. And I actually have a handful or two with unreleased people as RF editorial. Bill, who seems to regularly sell his images has ALL of his images listed RF or RF editorial. His stance is what prompted me to change as many as I have to RF.

Betty

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

I do generally list mine with no releases as RM. But I don’t have to. You can list them RF editorial. Bill does. And I actually have a handful or two with unreleased people as RF editorial. Bill, who seems to regularly sell his images has ALL of his images listed RF or RF editorial. His stance is what prompted me to change as many as I have to RF.

Betty

 

 

images that i can't list as RM (because they are on other RF database) i list as RF with a note that there is people and  i do not have a release, as per my understanding of the guidelines.  The only images I have as editorial are the one with clear prominent work of art as dictated by Alamy, and News ones because that gets added automatically. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by meanderingemu

[Jools Devon]

I'm still confused with this!!

 

Items I have submitted via stock are mostly listed as RF, Items I have submitted as Live News are RM......

 

But...... Most of the images that have been sold - although I have them listed as RF, seem to have been sold with a RM licence

 

When I chack my sales history, all of my sales have "Licence = Royalty Free" (apart from one which was listed as RM)

But the "Details" vary

 

a few examples

 

This one does look like it really is  Royalty Free 

• 86 MB
• 4480 x 6720 pixels 
• 2 MB compressed
• All media, worldwide, in perpetuity, including in-context promos.

Sold for $$$

 

 

 

From the "details" This one looks more like a RM licence

• 7 MB
• 1260 x 1890 pixels 
• One use in a single editorial article used within web versions of titles from the same group. Digital usage includes archive rights for the lifetime of the article. Country: United Kingdom

This was sold for $, and used in a Guardian web article

 

Again another one that looks more like a RM licence

• Usage: Single company, editorial magazine, print and or web, multiple use 5 years

This was $$ used in a magazine.

 

 

 

To me, it looks like if you have listed your images as RM - Then they are only listed and sold as RM

If you have them listed as RF - Then the purchaser can either buy them as RM with restrictions, or as RF

 

Cheers

Jools