Does Alamy understand RM licensing?

[Jools Elliott]

Dear @Alamy

 

May I ask? Do you actually understand the concept of Rights Managed? That the clue is in the naming of said license?

 

You've just sold two of my images with a period of "In Perpetuity" meaning the licensee has the right to use them forever.

 

So, again, let me introduce you to the concept of what rights managed is. It means that an image is licensed for a specific period of time. It is NOT licensed FOREVER!!!

 

Seriously fed up. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Jools Elliott

[Gordon Scammell]

1 hour ago, Jools Elliott said:

Dear @Alamy

 

May I ask? Do you actually understand the concept of Rights Managed? That the clue is in the naming of said license?

 

You've just sold two of my images with a period of "In Perpetuity" meaning the licensee has the right to use them forever.

 

So, again, let me introduce you to the concept of what rights managed is. It means that an image is licensed for a specific period of time. It is NOT licensed FOREVER!!!

 

Seriously fed up. 

Wrong question.  You should be asking ' Do you actually care.......'

 

The answer is - they don't.  Selling RM images for $1.50 'in perpetuity' stinks.

[Robert M Estall]

of course, it's not just Alamy. The concept of managing usage went out the window some time back More's the pity!

Many years ago I recall Tony Stone explaining to a group of assembled photographers and agencies his approach to marketing photo licenses: Minimizing rights while maximizing fees; the least and the most. He sold out to Getty and the ship set sail. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Robert M Estall

[geogphotos]

Trouble is millions of photographers have accepted the RF concept of rights in perpetuity in return for a few cents.

 

So that is what buyers have become accustomed to. 

 

Easy to blame Alamy but not much point.

 

How is Alamy supposed to somehow stand firm when photographers themselves have agreed to give away rights for pennies?

 

[Jools Elliott]

7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Trouble is millions of photographers have accepted the RF concept of rights in perpetuity in return for a few cents.

 

So that is what buyers have become accustomed to. 

 

Easy to blame Alamy but not much point.

 

How is Alamy supposed to somehow stand firm when photographers themselves have agreed to give away rights for pennies?

 

 

How?

 

Because we are given the choice with @Alamy to sell our images as either Rights Managed or Royalty Free. That's why Alamy should be respecting the license model.

[geogphotos]

11 hours ago, Jools Elliott said:

 

How?

 

Because we are given the choice with @Alamy to sell our images as either Rights Managed or Royalty Free. That's why Alamy should be respecting the license model.

 

I agree with you Jules. I only sell RM. That's why I stopped supplying Getty Creative when they moved to 100% RF.

 

But Alamy do have to meet the needs of their buyers who have plenty of other buying options. This 'in perpetuity' deal has been around for a long time now so I can't see Alamy changing it any time soon. 

[Michael Ventura]

I may be wrong but I thought the term “in perpetuity” came about mostly due to online articles that, essentially, live forever on the web…not to own and reuse photos, for other purposes, forever and ever.  At least I hope that is the case.

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

I may be wrong but I thought the term “in perpetuity” came about mostly due to online articles that, essentially, live forever on the web…not to own and reuse photos, for other purposes, forever and ever.  At least I hope that is the case.

 

That's right. I first saw this term popping up in newspaper and magazine contracts in the late 90's. Dreaded "all rights" and "in perpetuity" clauses eventually became the norm in the newspaper world (in the US and Canada anyway), and they often covered both text and accompanying photos ("art"). This is one of the main reasons I stopped doing freelance travel writing.

 

[John Mitchell]

4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

I agree with you Jules. I only sell RM. That's why I stopped supplying Getty Creative when they moved to 100% RF.

 

But Alamy do have to meet the needs of their buyers who have plenty of other buying options. This 'in perpetuity' deal has been around for a long time now so I can't see Alamy changing it any time soon. 

 

"In perpetuity" seems to have replaced "archival rights," which didn't sound quite as ominous for some reason. Fortunately, true RM licensing does still exist (more or less) on Alamy. I have several sales this month with five-year durations. It all depends on the type of buyer. Some don't need archival -- i.e. "perpetual" -- rights and are comfortable with a fixed duration. 

[Marianne]

On 26/08/2022 at 21:05, Jools Elliott said:

 

How?

 

Because we are given the choice with @Alamy to sell our images as either Rights Managed or Royalty Free. That's why Alamy should be respecting the license model.

+1