Jump to content

RM photo sold as RF, “Novel use” effect?


Recommended Posts

 Several of my rights managed photographs have been sold under an indefinite, perpetual or unlimited time license, in contravention of the contractual agreements that reserve this formula for royalty free images. Even if the effect of the novel use, from which I came out, this practice is at least incorrect.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were the case it would be a full violation of contractual agreements, legally punishable even with a class action by all the photographers involved.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Alamy has what I call these 'hybrid' licenses, they aren't RF as they still have to stay within the definition of the use of the image.  If RF, they can use it any way they want with no restrictions (except possible commercial uses). So officially it is still in the realm of RM.

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

Although Alamy has what I call these 'hybrid' licenses, they aren't RF as they still have to stay within the definition of the use of the image.  If RF, they can use it any way they want with no restrictions (except possible commercial uses). So officially it is still in the realm of RM.

 

Jill

 

RM is still contractually defined, so is the argument that "In perpetuity" is a "Specific licence period" ?  

 

“Rights Managed Licence”
referred to on the Alamy Websites as "Rights Managed" or "RM"
means any licence to use the Content for specific rights and for a specific purpose limited by territory, licence period, media, industry, print run and any other relevant criteria as deemed appropriate by you or Alamy.

 

 

 

 

 

also for RF with limitation, hybrid,  this is  contractually defined, but you need to have allowed Alamy to licence RF 

 

  1. Where you grant Alamy the right to issue Royalty Free Licences in respect of the Content, Alamy may vary the licence it grants from a Royalty Free Licence to a Rights Managed Licence or Royalty Free editorial licence. If you notify Alamy that you do not agree to such variation, then Alamy may at its sole discretion either continue to grant Royalty Free Licences in respect of the Content or delete that item of Content from the System.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

It appears that "in perpetuity" is a licensing period. I suppose it actually is when you think about it, but then I'm not a cosmologist.  🪐

But is it a "limiting licensing period".  I guess @VIDRAmay be able to find a lawyer who would argue that fact. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

But is it a "limiting licensing period".  I guess @VIDRAmay be able to find a lawyer who would argue that fact. 

 

I was being a bit facetious.

 

Yes, I'm not a lawyer either, bit it seems to me that "in perpetuity" is definitely not a "limited licensing period."

 

It would be interesting to hear Alamy's justification...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

Although Alamy has what I call these 'hybrid' licenses, they aren't RF as they still have to stay within the definition of the use of the image.  If RF, they can use it any way they want with no restrictions (except possible commercial uses). So officially it is still in the realm of RM.

 

Jill

 

Yes, RM is still RM if the contributor has marked an image as such. Perhaps Alamy needs another another designation for "hybrid" licenses.

 

As it stands, RM actually stands for "Rights Mangled." 😖

 

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All my images are RM, but notwithstanding this, recently one of my RM images was explicitly licensed on RF terms.  This was the licence summary:

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Advertising and promotion, Royalty Free, all media, in perpetuity
Media: Promotional brochures/ leaflets/inserts
Image Size: Any size
Start: 28 March 2022
Duration: Unlimited

 

I complained to Alamy.  Their response was to the effect that they are entitled to do that under the Novel Use terms. I disagree, but it’s not worth arguing over one image the net receipts of which were under $1, even with the RF licence terms. It confirmed, however, that I should opt out of NU, which I did as soon as I could in April.

 

Graham

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.