Royalty Free or Rights Managed?

[Tawna Brown]

Is there a different in the fee charged if the license is RF vs RM? I would expect so (The RF would be higher).  Just reaching out to get some perspectives on this.... I read in Alamy's instructions guide that they recommend RF, but I have personal (bad) experience with a client that has this right, and I wish they didn't, as they've used my image over and over and over, AND even have the right to distribute to others who promote tourism of the same area (this was a term I will never accept in an agreement again, unless the fee is reflective of this!)

 

In any case, I see the RF is the default, and so for all of my images, they are set at RF for now.  There are a few that are my stronger more important images, and i'll be sure to go in and change those to RM.  But i'd like to get a better idea on the difference between the fees for each, and if it would be a bad thing for me to change many of my images to RM (which is what I personally prefer to work with).

 

Thanks!

 

TB (just finished uploading about another 200+ images over the past month or so- boy it sure is time consuming for an analytical, detail-oriented perfectionist like myself!)

[meanderingemu]

i have seen no evidence of difference in pricing between the two.  

 

You can change the default to RM.   In AIM top right there is a cog wheel tool pull down that allows you to change your default fro future submissions. 

[GeoffK]

1 hour ago, Tawna Brown said:

Is there a different in the fee charged if the license is RF vs RM? I would expect so (The RF would be higher).  Just reaching out to get some perspectives on this.... I read in Alamy's instructions guide that they recommend RF, but I have personal (bad) experience with a client that has this right, and I wish they didn't, as they've used my image over and over and over, AND even have the right to distribute to others who promote tourism of the same area (this was a term I will never accept in an agreement again, unless the fee is reflective of this!)

 

In any case, I see the RF is the default, and so for all of my images, they are set at RF for now.  There are a few that are my stronger more important images, and i'll be sure to go in and change those to RM.  But i'd like to get a better idea on the difference between the fees for each, and if it would be a bad thing for me to change many of my images to RM (which is what I personally prefer to work with).

 

Thanks!

 

TB (just finished uploading about another 200+ images over the past month or so- boy it sure is time consuming for an analytical, detail-oriented perfectionist like myself!)

 

The distinction between RF and RM is very much blurred these days, both here and at other, non MS, agencies.  I see RF looking licenses for RM images and vice versa.... the client gets what they want these days and agencies are happy to oblige with hybrid licensing all day long.

 

If you want to control licensing, do it yourself...setting an image to RM will not stop perpetual rights across a wide spectrum of uses from one client. Even RM only agencies will give perpetual licenses to clients now. Photographers are ten a penny, clients are much more treasured. Only way to control end use is for you alone to license your material, don't allow a third party agency to have the rights management unless you are prepared to sacrifice expectations.

 

What I set images to, in terms of rights model, is only relevent to my images, your mileage will vary depending on genre etc.

Edited March 10, 2021 by GeoffK
terrible typo

[Steve F]

Almost all of mine are RM, but I agree with what Geoff has written above, the boundary is very much blurred these days...

[Tawna Brown]

50 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

i have seen no evidence of difference in pricing between the two.  

 

You can change the default to RM.   In AIM top right there is a cog wheel tool pull down that allows you to change your default fro future submissions. 

WOW! I would totally have expected a difference in fee, as my understanding is RM is more restrictive (specific uses and for specific time period), whereas RF lets the client use it over and over and over again forever.  I license my own images based on end use, time, size of image, etc.... and if unlimited, then they do pay a higher price (and it is a huge savings to them because paying $375-400 for an image one time, rather than a bunch of individual fees such as $150 for 1/2 page, $400 for a cover, $250 for a promotional campaign, etc.... is a significant savings!   If there is no difference in fee, than I will likely be changing all over to RM.....

[Tawna Brown]

22 minutes ago, GeoffK said:

 

 

What I set images to, in terms of rights model, is only relevent to my images, your mileage will vary depending on genre etc.

So what do you mean by my mileage will vary depending on genre? If there is no difference in fee, I prefer the RM model for all images....I do license my own images directly with clients already, and this is probably the main source of my photography income....while i am putting many of those images on Alamy as well, I will take my chances as to whether they will find my images available for potentially a lower fee on Alamy than I charge myself.  But I will be mindful of this.  

 

I can't reach the world on my own, and my website isn't geared towards stock photography at all (all of my galleries are for fine art prints), and likely won't be in the future (although it has the capability for me to easily add image downloads, etc).....  so I am expanding my reach by sharing my niche images with Alamy, since there isn't much coverage as it is.  The intention of me adding to Alamy was never to compete with myself (with existing clients going to Alamy), but rather by getting my images out there and accessible to people around the world... I couldn't do that on my own.

[John Mitchell]

Most Alamy licenses are hybrids now -- a mix of RM and RF. The majority of my images are RM, but I make some of the more generic microstock-like ones RF. I'm not sure if it has made them any more attractive to buyers, though. The few RF sales that I see are low, with a couple of rare exceptions.

Edited March 10, 2021 by John Mitchell

[Betty LaRue]

I did license a RF this year for $245. My highest license of the year. I need to shoot more food. 😉 The best paid ever also was food, but RM.

The other RF licenses this year were mediocre.

[GeoffK]

1 hour ago, Tawna Brown said:

So what do you mean by my mileage will vary depending on genre? If there is no difference in fee, I prefer the RM model for all images....I do license my own images directly with clients already, and this is probably the main source of my photography income....while i am putting many of those images on Alamy as well, I will take my chances as to whether they will find my images available for potentially a lower fee on Alamy than I charge myself.  But I will be mindful of this.  

 

I can't reach the world on my own, and my website isn't geared towards stock photography at all (all of my galleries are for fine art prints), and likely won't be in the future (although it has the capability for me to easily add image downloads, etc).....  so I am expanding my reach by sharing my niche images with Alamy, since there isn't much coverage as it is.  The intention of me adding to Alamy was never to compete with myself (with existing clients going to Alamy), but rather by getting my images out there and accessible to people around the world... I couldn't do that on my own.

 

Genre will often dictate clients or market - certain markets, often specialised, were and still are overwhelmingly RM users. It's not because RM is a better model for them any more, they just deal primarily with agencies that have stuck with RM with some twists. I am with one that is solely RM but will give one off 'special licenses' for trade users - an industry that rarely would venture to using Alamy or other more general posrtals even though they may be able to supply them. Many reasons for that.

 

If you look at commercial (non-MS) stock, the biggest of the aggregator agencies are gone and others have changed away from RM even though five figure licenses were monthly occurances within the agencies five plus years ago.  I think virtually all I dealt/deal with are now just RF for the most expensively produced stock (time or/and money wise). The biggest portal selling this stock is now RF for that type of work, dictated by the market.  So RM or RF, if done without sentiment, has many factors which should dictate which license model is used. So what type of work you produce will make youir experience and license model factors different from mine.  My CGI work can realistically only go as RF, most of my specialist work sits happily as RM.... genre dictates license.......

 

What I meant by selling your own is that you have to accept that any agency is going to produce sales that you would never allow yourself - you appoint them to make that decision for you. It's best, if you go the agency route, to buy a pack of popcorn and sit back and enjoy the show......

[Tawna Brown]

On 10/03/2021 at 14:27, Betty LaRue said:

I did license a RF this year for $245. My highest license of the year. I need to shoot more food. 😉 The best paid ever also was food, but RM.

The other RF licenses this year were mediocre.

I just don't really understand why someone would have some of their images available as RF vs RM.... especially if there isn't much of a diff. in fee. If RM licenses are not a deterrent to clients, than I certainly would prefer having my images as RM.....   @Betty LaRue what made you decide to have some of your images as RM and some RF?  ps- that's a great license for $245 on a stock site:)  I have to be sure I'm aware of what clients would pay for the equivalent of an unlimited use of an image (which i assume is a RM license)..... so that i know what Alamy charges vs. what I charge directly.... (which is usually CAD$400 for unlimited use, and I'll discount that if the client has 10+ images).  Clearly direct licensing is much more profitable, but you've got to do all the ground work and find the clients!  

[Tawna Brown]

On 10/03/2021 at 16:20, GeoffK said:

I think virtually all I dealt/deal with are now just RF for the most expensively produced stock (time or/and money wise).

A bit technical for me, but i think what you're saying is that for my more valuable images, those would be best at RM... The majority of the images i've uploaded would have been very very expensive for anyone else to produce.  Each trip I took up north (remote north- to the Arctic Ocean!) to take these images cost thousands of dollars for flight, accommodation, also involved private helicopter over a very long distance, etc.... and having photographed that historical project of national significance over a 4 year timeframe, my collection is quite valuable... so I'm leaning towards RM for those reasons.  And for the rest of my northern images, I'll likely stick with RM also, because there is less of this stock available, seeing as fewer people venture up this way.... so again, I'd likely stick with RM.   When I go into other countries and the typical "travel photography" type of stuff, then maybe I'd go for RF.....   I just know why I'd do that though.... why not all RM?   Something for me to consider!

[Tawna Brown]

On 10/03/2021 at 14:11, John Mitchell said:

Most Alamy licenses are hybrids now -- a mix of RM and RF. The majority of my images are RM, but I make some of the more generic microstock-like ones RF. I'm not sure if it has made them any more attractive to buyers, though. The few RF sales that I see are low, with a couple of rare exceptions.

But if they are hybrids, then why is there choice btwn setting our images for RM vs RF?  

[Tawna Brown]

On 10/03/2021 at 13:05, meanderingemu said:

i have seen no evidence of difference in pricing between the two.  

 

You can change the default to RM.   In AIM top right there is a cog wheel tool pull down that allows you to change your default fro future submissions. 

I just found the difference in pricing.....When you go to look at a given image (pretend you're selecting one), you'll see the prices listed, and then at the bottom of the prices, there is "choose a Royalty-free license" and then there is a new price list below that...(the RF licenses have various different sizes of the image available, priced from lowest to highest of course).

[John Mitchell]

3 minutes ago, Tawna Brown said:

But if they are hybrids, then why is there choice btwn setting our images for RM vs RF?  

 

Good question. Theoretically, RF requires less negotiating on Alamy's part, so I suppose that is why they prefer it. In reality, though, a lot of RF licenses end up looking like RM ones and vice-versa. Perhaps Alamy should just stick to "custom licensing" -- which they are very good at. -- instead of RM and RF.

[meanderingemu]

2 hours ago, Tawna Brown said:

I just found the difference in pricing.....When you go to look at a given image (pretend you're selecting one), you'll see the prices listed, and then at the bottom of the prices, there is "choose a Royalty-free license" and then there is a new price list below that...(the RF licenses have various different sizes of the image available, priced from lowest to highest of course).

 

 

but most clients don't pay the book prices. 

 

my last two PU.

 

RM 13.02

RF 11.69

 

everything else similar

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, Tawna Brown said:

But if they are hybrids, then why is there choice btwn setting our images for RM vs RF?  

 

if the image is also offered elsewhere on a RF basis, you cannot offer it RM at Alamy, so to get access to those images, Alamy needs to offer the option.

[Allan Bell]

All my images are RM but I have had one or two, maybe more, that seem to have been licensed on terms that are akin to RF.

 

Allan

 

[GeoffK]

11 hours ago, Tawna Brown said:

A bit technical for me, but i think what you're saying is that for my more valuable images, those would be best at RM... The majority of the images i've uploaded would have been very very expensive for anyone else to produce.  Each trip I took up north (remote north- to the Arctic Ocean!) to take these images cost thousands of dollars for flight, accommodation, also involved private helicopter over a very long distance, etc.... and having photographed that historical project of national significance over a 4 year timeframe, my collection is quite valuable... so I'm leaning towards RM for those reasons.  And for the rest of my northern images, I'll likely stick with RM also, because there is less of this stock available, seeing as fewer people venture up this way.... so again, I'd likely stick with RM.   When I go into other countries and the typical "travel photography" type of stuff, then maybe I'd go for RF.....   I just know why I'd do that though.... why not all RM?   Something for me to consider!

 

Value is in the client's eye, not in yours. What I wrote was that the most expensive to produce genres of images are now mainly RF.  That's business, lifestyle and concept. The cost of your travel is irrelevent to a client in stock.  Plenty of people travel to remote areas for adventure holidays so that stock is not as valuable as it was twenty or thirty years ago.

 

What you need to know is the type of client that wants to use what you produce and what type of license they prefer. This is all about what the client wants, not what the photographer wants. You can research trends via the net, plenty of info out there.

 

Main reason for the trend from RM to RF is the client. RF means lower license management costs, easier and more adaptable for modern digital end use and no chance of legal issues from photographers. Sadly none of that is a positive for photographers but that's where we are now.  What photographers and what agencies want is becoming a small spec of irrelevance in the stock world. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by GeoffK

[geogphotos]

Sadly the state of the stock photography market today means that the importance of secondary rights and copyright infringements claims can rival that of actual stock image licensing. With RM you at least have the information to take advantage of this. 

 

Any image that is RF on Alamy could be RF on micros - no RM image will be. 

 

Alamy Exclusive RM seems to me to offer the best prospects these days. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by geogphotos

[Allan Bell]

5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Sadly the state of the stock photography market today means that the importance of secondary rights and copyright infringements claims can rival that of actual stock image licensing. With RM you at least have the information to take advantage of this. 

 

Any image that is RF on Alamy could be RF on micros - no RM image will be. 

 

Alamy Exclusive RM seems to me to offer the best prospects these days. 

 

I am exclusive RM too.  That includes images that go onto wall art sites too as that is allowed.

 

Allan

 

[Ed Rooney]

All my snaps are RM and excessive with Alamy. I'm trying to be pure of heart. RF is not as bad as those Neo-Nazi parties, but it borders on being evil.

[meanderingemu]

5 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

All my snaps are RM and excessive with Alamy. I'm trying to be pure of heart. RF is not as bad as those Neo-Nazi parties, but it borders on being evil.

 

yet, you upload images of a baseball cap from the evil empire  😉

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, GeoffK said:

 

Value is in the client's eye, not in yours. What I wrote was that the most expensive to produce genres of images are now mainly RF.  That's business, lifestyle and concept. The cost of your travel is irrelevent to a client in stock.  Plenty of people travel to remote areas for adventure holidays so that stock is not as valuable as it was twenty or thirty years ago.

 

What you need to know is the type of client that wants to use what you produce and what type of license they prefer. This is all about what the client wants, not what the photographer wants. You can research trends via the net, plenty of info out there.

 

Main reason for the trend from RM to RF is the client. RF means lower license management costs, easier and more adaptable for modern digital end use and no chance of legal issues from photographers. Sadly none of that is a positive for photographers but that's where we are now.  What photographers and what agencies want is becoming a small spec of irrelevance in the stock world. 

 

Useful perspective on RM and RF. Alamy certainly seems to bend over backwards in order to accommodate clients' needs, even with traditional RM "editorial" images.

[Ed Rooney]

3 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

yet, you upload images of a baseball cap from the evil empire  😉

 

Joe DiMaggio was my childhood hero. I may have been the only Yankee fan in Brooklyn. It forced me to learn to fight. 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Ed Rooney

[Betty LaRue]

22 hours ago, Tawna Brown said:

I just don't really understand why someone would have some of their images available as RF vs RM.... especially if there isn't much of a diff. in fee. If RM licenses are not a deterrent to clients, than I certainly would prefer having my images as RM.....   @Betty LaRue what made you decide to have some of your images as RM and some RF?  ps- that's a great license for $245 on a stock site:)  I have to be sure I'm aware of what clients would pay for the equivalent of an unlimited use of an image (which i assume is a RM license)..... so that i know what Alamy charges vs. what I charge directly.... (which is usually CAD$400 for unlimited use, and I'll discount that if the client has 10+ images).  Clearly direct licensing is much more profitable, but you've got to do all the ground work and find the clients!  

When I started here, I listed everything RM.

A few years ago, Alamy began suggesting clients preferred RF. I dipped my toes in the water. Deciding which to list as RF was hard.

I mainly do it this way. If it is of a subject commonly and easily found by the thousands on Alamy, and there is nothing unique or special that sets my image apart, I might list it RF. Some of these may be plants. Sometimes if I know I have quite a few of a subject already in my portfolio as RM, and shoot this subject again, (think new image filter) I might list that batch as RF. So I have that subject covered, RF & RM, to make a client happy. I have some RF birds and butterflies, too. I have a lot of Painted Lady butterflies. Most are RM because that’s what I was using, then. Now, I can’t help myself shooting more of them, but I’m offering RF unless it is absolutely stunning.

If I shoot something really special, whether subject, lighting or whatever, it will always be RM. Something around 1/4 to 1/3 of my portfolio is RF. I probably have licenses that correspond to that ratio.

Nearly ALL of my storefronts are RM. I think I may have listed a few RF-editorial. Anything with people...RM. not saying there could be a few RF-editorial, but not many.

What I don’t do, (and Alamy frowns on) is list a subject from the same shoot as RM and RF. In other words, don’t split the shoot. I you have three (same) butterflies taken on a shoot, decide what you want and list all three the same. If you choose RM, you can go out the next day, take more of the same kind of butterfly and choose RF. Different shoot.

Re your comment on why I would use both RF and RM...if a buyer wants a closeup of a yellow rose, RF license, he will use RF as a perimeter in his/her search. Your yellow RM rose won’t be seen at all. But if I had a RF yellow rose, it would potentially be seen. If that client searches for a Painted Lady butterfly, RF, he-she will see some of mine. If that search is for an RM image, he-she will find others of mine.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Betty LaRue

[John Mitchell]

I do much the same as Betty. If the subject of an image is generic (i.e. nothing special) and contains no "property" or isolated people, I often make it RF. For instance, with plants (especially flowers), if there are lots of similar images available, I'll make it RF. However, if it's a relatively rare plant or if I think the composition is exceptional in some way, I stick with RM. Does this strategy work? I have no idea. I've had a few high $$ and $$$ plant licenses, and they were all RM.