Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This morning one of my RF images was sold.  I don't have many RF images but those are the ones that I put as RF at the beginning of my Alamy history.

 

My first sale ever many years ago was in fact a RF (39MB) which was sold for $295.00.  Over the years, I sold a few RFs in the range from $87.31 (1MB) to just under $300 but again the price was declining.  I looked up my sales history and last year a RF(69MB) was sold for $134.07.

 

This morning I was rather bemused to see the sale of this RF (69MB) for $29.00 because the following details were attached to this sale.  Is this a RF or a RM sale?  Or is it just another ingenious but contradictory way of lowering prices?

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: Non-Editorial Electronic and web uses, Use on a website, worldwide for 5 years.
Media: Corporate website, single design
69 MB
6016 x 4000 pixels
2 MB compressed
Image Size: Any size
Start: 25 July 2014
End: 25 July 2019

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

RF with details usually means a scheme or client who uses RM and RF for same price but as one offs...a hybrid. They usually also get full-sized dls but I doubt they use them as such. Seen loads of these over a number of years with Alamy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RF with details usually means a scheme or client who uses RM and RF for same price but as one offs...a hybrid. They usually also get full-sized dls but I doubt they use them as such. Seen loads of these over a number of years with Alamy.

 

Hope it is one off, not becoming a norm....  Is it now the beginning of the end of RF? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 Is it now the beginning of the end of RF? 

 

Nope.

 

 

Don't know, but the line between RM and RF seems to be getting fuzzier and fuzzier.

 

 

Certainly I have never seen it before.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 Is it now the beginning of the end of RF? 

 

Nope.

 

 

Don't know, but the line between RM and RF seems to be getting fuzzier and fuzzier.

 

 

Certainly I have never seen it before.  

 

 

I guess it must be this totally awesome deal (see below), which now seems to be offered next to both RF and RM images:

 

"Website Use on a website, worldwide for 5 years. $29.00"

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy started offering RF/RM same price/usage in schemes four years ago by my sales. I have side by side sales for RM and then RF same price, the RM being listed as a newspaper.

 

First hybrid actually listed is a bit later

15 December 2011 Royalty-free Usage: Magazine, editorial print and digital use, repeat use within a single issue

 

So nothing new and hardly the death of RF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"So nothing new and hardly the death of RF."

 

Maybe not, but it certainly is confusing. The beginning of the death of RM perhaps?

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

"So nothing new and hardly the death of RF."

 

Maybe not, but it certainly is confusing. The beginning of the death of RM perhaps?

 

Tony Stone IIRC offered RM at one price for any size in a magazine many decades ago. There have always been various offers for RM and now RF.

 

RM will be 'killed' by the overwhelming of blandness which turns off buyers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"So nothing new and hardly the death of RF."

 

Maybe not, but it certainly is confusing. The beginning of the death of RM perhaps?

 

Tony Stone IIRC offered RM at one price for any size in a magazine many decades ago. There have always been various offers for RM and now RF.

 

RM will be 'killed' by the overwhelming of blandness which turns off buyers.

 

 

So, RM images are by nature blander than RF? Don't follow your reasoning.

 

Why would you need various offers for RF? Isn't traditional RF already open to a variety of uses? I thought that was the main idea behind it.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"So nothing new and hardly the death of RF."

 

Maybe not, but it certainly is confusing. The beginning of the death of RM perhaps?

 

Tony Stone IIRC offered RM at one price for any size in a magazine many decades ago. There have always been various offers for RM and now RF.

 

RM will be 'killed' by the overwhelming of blandness which turns off buyers.

 

 

So, RM images are by nature blander than RF? Don't follow your reasoning.

 

Why would you need various offers for RF? Isn't traditional RF already open to a variety of uses? I thought that was the main idea behind it.

 

 

Not blander but nowadays the expectation for clients to pay out significant monies for RM which may be bland is perhaps what may cause problems for the perception of RM and it's demise.....over the top sentiments but basically, it's what's starting to happen. Naturally a generalisation but seems to be the pathway.

 

It's what's happening at Getty - stuff goes as RF, clients don't want to pay lots of money for basic stuff. The editing (where it occurs) is now setting something of a barrier for basic in RM. Any commercial work  that goes via a Getty edit now has to have something about it that will make a client say yes to the sales staff saying..."you will need to pay xxxx..."

 

The mission statement was a few years ago and it really swung in to action in past number of quarters. Stock is now buyer led, a massive turnaround from when I started when we got great money for frankly dodgy stuff.. supply and demand etc.

 

There will still be areas that are less affected by RF but these are also areas/genres which don't pay the best prices so less price pressure..

 

I kind of agree with Getty even though I certainly have been well rewarded in past for producing some rather uninspiring work.

 

Gs dominant position does affect many, especially those third parties who see it as their major reseller.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"So nothing new and hardly the death of RF."

 

Maybe not, but it certainly is confusing. The beginning of the death of RM perhaps?

 

Tony Stone IIRC offered RM at one price for any size in a magazine many decades ago. There have always been various offers for RM and now RF.

 

RM will be 'killed' by the overwhelming of blandness which turns off buyers.

 

 

So, RM images are by nature blander than RF? Don't follow your reasoning.

 

Why would you need various offers for RF? Isn't traditional RF already open to a variety of uses? I thought that was the main idea behind it.

 

 

Not blander but nowadays the expectation for clients to pay out significant monies for RM which may be bland is perhaps what may cause problems for the perception of RM and it's demise.....over the top sentiments but basically, it's what's starting to happen. Naturally a generalisation but seems to be the pathway.

 

It's what's happening at Getty - stuff goes as RF, clients don't want to pay lots of money for basic stuff. The editing (where it occurs) is now setting something of a barrier for basic in RM. Any commercial work  that goes via a Getty edit now has to have something about it that will make a client say yes to the sales staff saying..."you will need to pay xxxx..."

 

The mission statement was a few years ago and it really swung in to action in past number of quarters. Stock is now buyer led, a massive turnaround from when I started when we got great money for frankly dodgy stuff.. supply and demand etc.

 

There will still be areas that are less affected by RF but these are also areas/genres which don't pay the best prices so less price pressure..

 

I kind of agree with Getty even though I certainly have been well rewarded in past for producing some rather uninspiring work.

 

Gs dominant position does affect many, especially those third parties who see it as their major reseller.

 

 

Interesting observations. Now I have a better idea of what you mean even though I know precious little about that other big agency's workings.

 

Getting back to the OP's concerns, it is easy to see why Alamy would modify RM licenses to give them more flexibility (i.e. create a hybrid license) in today's market, but the necessity of turning an RF sale into what looks like an RM license is more difficult to fathom. I guess, as you suggest, it's probably about pleasing the buyer in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

It's just a way to simplify the whole buying process for large users of imagery - one of the successes of RF is not the imagery, it's the buying process/accounting process. It's too easy to forget that clients have costs over and above the basic cost of the image. It's for that very reason that RF drew in new buyers, non-image professionals which ultimately led to micro and it's virtual vending machine for images.

 

So large users of Alamy images are getting a license process which means they use any RF or RM image (within a scheme) and just have to record the image - not detail a 'use'. Add in they get set fees or a set overall charge and their record keeping/accountancy costs are much less. It's become fairly widespread across many agencies, both big and small.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

It's just a way to simplify the whole buying process for large users of imagery - one of the successes of RF is not the imagery, it's the buying process/accounting process. It's too easy to forget that clients have costs over and above the basic cost of the image. It's for that very reason that RF drew in new buyers, non-image professionals which ultimately led to micro and it's virtual vending machine for images.

 

So large users of Alamy images are getting a license process which means they use any RF or RM image (within a scheme) and just have to record the image - not detail a 'use'. Add in they get set fees or a set overall charge and their record keeping/accountancy costs are much less. It's become fairly widespread across many agencies, both big and small.

 

So the "scheme" rather than the type of license -- i.e. RM or RF -- is determining the usage details of individual images. Hence an RF lease can look like an RM one and vice versa depending on the terms of the scheme. Makes sense, sort of. No doubt this approach is better than succumbing to the vending machine model.

Link to post
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
×
×
  • 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.