Anyone know anything about art4life.com?

[RWatkins]

I noticed that a few of my images are on www.art4life.com with the same captions that I have used on Alamy and there are others I recognise from other contributors.

 

Does anyone know what is the deal with this web site?

[Guest Azure-images]

...

[RWatkins]

Oh Yeah, I even looked at the FAQ. Must be because its nearly my bed time. Thanks.

Presumably I get only get paid if someone buys a product with my image on.

[John Mitchell]

Does anyone know more about how this partnership works? Any reported sales?

[spacecadet]

I've checked some of mine and they only have RF. I'm guessing that when they make a sale they buy a license for the smallest file size they can get away with for the print size ordered. No watermarks so it's official. There's a lot there that shouldn't be RF of course- Eiffel Tower, the usual suspects, but 'twas ever thus.

Perhaps Alamy could confirm.

[John Mitchell]

I imagine that any sales made thru this outfit would be considered distributor sales(?), so the proceeds for us would be pretty small.

 

I don't think that the RF/RM designations apply to images sold as personal prints. Do they? However, I hope that art4life.com credits the photographer as the copyright holder when they sell prints. It is very easy to order a small print, scan it, and then sell it as one's own work.

[spacecadet]

I don't think that the RF/RM designations apply to images sold as personal prints. Do they?

I mention it because they only have images of mine from the days when I still put up RF. In one case where my RF and RM would come up under the same search term, they only have the RFs.

You might be right but I wonder what category a licence could come under and be of unlimited duration. The cheapest RM licence would be very expensive considering they're selling prints for a few decabucks. I imagine we can whistle.for a credit.

[John Mitchell]

 

I don't think that the RF/RM designations apply to images sold as personal prints. Do they?

I mention it because they only have images of mine from the days when I still put up RF. In one case where my RF and RM would come up under the same search term, they only have the RFs.

You might be right but I wonder what category a licence could come under and be of unlimited duration. The cheapest RM licence would be very expensive considering they're selling prints for a few decabucks. I imagine we can whistle.for a credit.

I know very little about this type of thing, but I'm not sure that an image sold as a personal-use print fits into any traditional "license" category. When someone buys a print to hang on his/her wall, it can stay there until the house collapses. From Alamy's POV, this kind of usage might even be considered a "Novel Use," I suppose. Anyway, I'm not waiting for sales to pop up any time soon. I know from experience with selling prints on my own and through other POD websites, that it's a very competitive market.