Licencing

[FOTOLINCS]

My images 'used to' be royalty-free but a sale to the BBC AP21NC  (dust cover for one of David Attenborough's books) was also used for all or anything associated with this book which was fair enough except the sum I was paid was paltry and so after that I changed all my images to 'rights managed'. 

I am today still wondering which is the best option?

[Ognyan Yosifov]

6 minutes ago, FOTOLINCS said:

My images 'used to' be royalty-free but a sale to the BBC AP21NC  (dust cover for one of David Attenborough's books) was also used for all or anything associated with this book which was fair enough except the sum I was paid was paltry and so after that I changed all my images to 'rights managed'. 

I am today still wondering which is the best option?

As I know, once RF - forever RF, you must not change RF sold image to RM 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Ognyan Yosifov

[FOTOLINCS]

Once the image has been sold you can change it to rights managed because it doesn't affect the original sale/contract otherwise Alamy would not have allowed me to change it.

[Ognyan Yosifov]

2 minutes ago, FOTOLINCS said:

Once the image has been sold you can change it to rights managed because it doesn't affect the original sale/contract otherwise Alamy would not have allowed me to change it.

Ok, you've asked ...

[spacecadet]

Just now, FOTOLINCS said:

Once the image has been sold you can change it to rights managed because it doesn't affect the original sale/contract otherwise Alamy would not have allowed me to change it.

Alamy does not actively prevent it, so you can, but you shouldn't. You have no way of knowing whether the RF use will conflict with any RM licence.

Alamy's guidance used to tell you not to do it. I don't know if it still does, or if it's still relevant, because a lot of RM licence seem very RFy nowadays.

I have only changed to RM if there's been no sale, as per the guidance, so I have very few RF left.

[spacecadet]

6 minutes ago, Ognyan Yosifov said:

Ok, you've asked ...

I think he's assumed it's OK because it's technically possible. But it isn't- see above.

[Ognyan Yosifov]

7 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I think he's assumed it's OK because it's technically possible. But it isn't- see above.

"OK" was said meaning "since you know why asking and don't accept opinions". And I totally disagree to be right to change RF sold image to RM...

Edited February 27, 2023 by Ognyan Yosifov

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, FOTOLINCS said:

My images 'used to' be royalty-free but a sale to the BBC AP21NC  (dust cover for one of David Attenborough's books) was also used for all or anything associated with this book which was fair enough except the sum I was paid was paltry and so after that I changed all my images to 'rights managed'. 

I am today still wondering which is the best option?

Pardon me for not reading your first post.

If a new RM licence for that image conflicted with any of the uses by the BBC, you would be potentially be personally liable.

Edited February 27, 2023 by spacecadet

[FOTOLINCS]

My real question is; is royalty free or rights managed best sales-wise?

[Cal]

Don't think anyone really knows.

 

No one person has a sample size large enough. Personally my highest licences have come from RM images but then ~90% of my port is RM anyway.

 

Whether or not there is much real distinction between RM and RF remains to be seen. An in-perpetuity licence is surely RF by definition, though I still get the odd RM sale which would not be possible to enforce under the RF only model, and for me they usually make staying majority RM worth it.

 

My personal take is to stick mostly to RM, especially as Alamy is one of a dwindling number of sites which still offers it.

[Brian Yarvin]

My experience is that license type doesn't affect Alamy revenue. The "paltry" amount you were paid is pretty typical for stock photography as a whole these days.

[John Mitchell]

I find that my RM images images license for higher fees than my RF ones. My RF sales are usually low ($ or low $$, with the occasional nice surprise). However, this might have a lot to do with subject matter. Most of the images that I make RF are subjects that generally don't attract higher paying customers. I make them RF because I think -- rightly or wrongly -- that they will have a better chance of licensing. I continue to make the majority of my images RM, but I think it's good to have a mix these days.

Edited February 27, 2023 by John Mitchell

[Michael Ventura]

23 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

I find that my RM images images license for higher fees than my RF ones. My RF sales are usually low ($ or low $$, with the occasional nice surprise). However, this might have a lot to do with subject matter. Most of the images that I make RF are subjects that generally don't attract higher paying customers. I make them RF because I think -- rightly or wrongly -- that they will have a better chance of licensing. I continue to make the majority of my images RM, but I think it's good to have a mix these days.

 

This is pretty much my experience too.

[M.Chapman]

9 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Pardon me for not reading your first post.

If a new RM licence for that image conflicted with any of the uses by the BBC, you would be potentially be personally liable.

 

I think I disagree... Surely that would only be in the special case of Alamy granting an exclusive licence (which they have to ask the contributor to agree to anyway).

 

As you say, it's all rather academic now anyway, as some of the "RM" licence terms we see granted are effectively RF anyway.

 

Mark

Edited February 27, 2023 by M.Chapman

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

 

This is pretty much my experience too.

 

Then again, nothing makes much sense any longer. I had an RF image license for high $$ last month, and it has sold again not once, but twice this month for $ in both instances. Mind you, the first sale was a full-size file, and the second ones are much smaller. Still, that's a big price difference. Perhaps I should have gone with RM for this particular image. 😕

[FOTOLINCS]

21 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I think I disagree... Surely that would only be in the special case of Alamy granting an exclusive licence (which they have to ask the contributor to agree to anyway).

 

As you say, it's all rather academic now anyway, as some of the "RM" licence terms we see granted are effectively RF anyway.

 

Mark

I am most certainly no legal whiz but I would imagine if the client paid out (whatever sum) for the rights to an image for, let's say 10 years, the fact that I have now changed to RM would have no bearing on their original contract. The exception would be if it was sold on some kind of exclusive agreement but it wasn't.   

Thanx for all your replies folks, it has been very interesting.

[Cal]

1 hour ago, FOTOLINCS said:

I am most certainly no legal whiz but I would imagine if the client paid out (whatever sum) for the rights to an image for, let's say 10 years, the fact that I have now changed to RM would have no bearing on their original contract. The exception would be if it was sold on some kind of exclusive agreement but it wasn't.   

Thanx for all your replies folks, it has been very interesting.

 

I would check your caption on 2J5E5X2 and maybe some of the others in that set... gave me a giggle!

[Betty LaRue]

A few years ago, Alamy was suggesting RF is what clients wanted. I did change some unsold images to RF, and from then on, uploaded a mix of RF & RM, depending on the image. Fact was, at that time, it seemed I was getting more money from the RF sales than the RMs. Not always, but definitely leaning that way.

Now with our RMs selling somewhat like RFs, that’s not been the case for awhile. And the RFs that used to get me nice $$, are sold for a few dollars like everything else. With things changed once again, plus we seem to personally have more risk, I changed them back to RMs, the ones I could, which is the bulk of my port.

I still do have some RFs, those that sold, & some innocuous ones that nobody could sue me for. Like plants including weeds, trees, etc. some homemade food, birds, butterflies. Still, most of everything I upload now I list as RM.

[John Mitchell]

4 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

A few years ago, Alamy was suggesting RF is what clients wanted. I did change some unsold images to RF, and from then on, uploaded a mix of RF & RM, depending on the image. Fact was, at that time, it seemed I was getting more money from the RF sales than the RMs. Not always, but definitely leaning that way.

Now with our RMs selling somewhat like RFs, that’s not been the case for awhile. And the RFs that used to get me nice $$, are sold for a few dollars like everything else. With things changed once again, plus we seem to personally have more risk, I changed them back to RMs, the ones I could, which is the bulk of my port.

I still do have some RFs, those that sold, & some innocuous ones that nobody could sue me for. Like plants including weeds, trees, etc. some homemade food, birds, butterflies. Still, most of everything I upload now I list as RM.

 

 

I did the same and have since changed some images back to RM, but I'm still experimenting with RF. Unfortunately, the whole licensing thing has become super confusing, and I have a feeling that things will get even worse now that AI has arrived on the scene. Life used to be so much simpler in the good old days... 🙄

[Gorilla Dave]

10 hours ago, Cal said:

 

I would check your caption on 2J5E5X2 and maybe some of the others in that set... gave me a giggle!

 

I did a quick search on the interesting alternative spelling of Yorkshire featured in FOTOLINCS’ caption and found 35 images !

As a Yorkshireman I am personally and deeply and profoundly upset and feel I should be able to claim compensation from somebody for the trauma this has occasioned !!!

(Well – not really !)

Although I have a sneaking suspicion that some Lincolnshire folk do make this spelling mistake ‘on purpose’ quite a lot!

[M.Chapman]

A couple of peripheral benefits to sticking with RM

 

1) Alamy sales report contains extra info on RM sales (e.g. book or magazine use) that can help when compiling DACS submissions.

 

2) Spotting infringements - I've now reported a couple of repeat uses of RM images which haven't been licensed (i.e. the original licence was for one use only). I've reported these via Alamy's unauthorised use form and notice that this month they've been invoiced at reasonable fees. Again that wouldn't have been possible without the extra usage info RM sales provide (especially the licence dates) and also RF would have allowed unrestricted uses anyway. Hopefully the customers will pay up.

 

Mark

 

 

[FOTOLINCS]

30 minutes ago, Gorilla Dave said:

 

I did a quick search on the interesting alternative spelling of Yorkshire featured in FOTOLINCS’ caption and found 35 images !

As a Yorkshireman I am personally and deeply and profoundly upset and feel I should be able to claim compensation from somebody for the trauma this has occasioned !!!

(Well – not really !)

Although I have a sneaking suspicion that some Lincolnshire folk do make this spelling mistake ‘on purpose’ quite a lot!

So you should be upset Dave!  Hell, I never noticed that typo. I have only seen the one typo and have just corrected it, if I find anymore I will correct them. I only live in Lincolnshire by the way, but I was born in Hampshire.

[Steve F]

2 minutes ago, FOTOLINCS said:

but I was born in Hampshire.

 

I was born in Yorkshire and live in Hampshire...

[Gorilla Dave]

2 hours ago, FOTOLINCS said:

So you should be upset Dave!  Hell, I never noticed that typo. I have only seen the one typo and have just corrected it, if I find anymore I will correct them. I only live in Lincolnshire by the way, but I was born in Hampshire.

 

These two images are interesting....   D7DTBC or D7DTB6

The keywords include the both the usual and the 'slightly rude alternative' spellings for Yorkshire Terrier.

Maybe this contrib has found an unusal way to boost his discoverability bar !!!

Edited February 28, 2023 by Gorilla Dave

[FOTOLINCS]

I don't seem to be that contributor this time Dave and D7DTB6 doesn't seem to exist?

[Gorilla Dave]

27 minutes ago, FOTOLINCS said:

I don't seem to be that contributor this time Dave and D7DTB6 doesn't seem to exist?

 

oops, my mistake!

if you search for D7DTBC OR D7DTB6 instead of using an ampersand i think you'll get them both.

 

But i never much liked those little dogs so i can understand someone giving them an alternative name !