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

[VIDRA]

 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.

[meanderingemu]

sadly this is regular use now with Alamy, nothing to do with any of their alternative offerings. 

[VIDRA]

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.

 

 

[Jill Morgan]

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

[meanderingemu]

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.

 

[John Mitchell]

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.  🪐

[meanderingemu]

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. 

[John Mitchell]

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...

[John Mitchell]

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." 😖

 

 

[Graham]

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