Are These Photos Royalty Free, or Not?

[John Mitchell]

"is it a wise idea to mark all unreleased RM images that contain anything that could conceivably be owned by someone or some organization, etc. as needing a property release for commercial use?"

 

 

 

That is my approach

 

property being both physical (objects/things) and intellectual (designs/logos).  A person may own an object (say, a car) but not the IP in that object.

 

 

 

km

 

Don't know what "IP" is, but I remain perplexed. Can anyone give an example of something that conceivably could not be owned by someone or an organization, etc. other than birds, rocks, trees, etc. in the wild?  Then again, most of the wild is supposedly "owned" as well.

[Martin P Wilson]

IP - intelectual property - copyright, patents, trademarks etc. You can own a car, a book or a photo print but not own the patents, copyright or trademark (IP) and therefore not be  able to sign a property release. Car manufacturers, I believe, have gone after people who tried.

[Guest]

 

"is it a wise idea to mark all unreleased RM images that contain anything that could conceivably be owned by someone or some organization, etc. as needing a property release for commercial use?"

 

 

 

That is my approach

 

property being both physical (objects/things) and intellectual (designs/logos).  A person may own an object (say, a car) but not the IP in that object.

 

 

 

km

 

Don't know what "IP" is, but I remain perplexed. Can anyone give an example of something that conceivably could not be owned by someone or an organization, etc. other than birds, rocks, trees, etc. in the wild?  Then again, most of the wild is supposedly "owned" as well.

 

 

Intellectual property. The idea that simply because something belongs to somebody, they have rights over the images of it is pure nonsense. Take a house in San Fran, in the country that likes to sue...a judge decided (not a forum but a real judge) that there was no standing for a lawsuit...... the owner couldn't stop the images of the house being used commercially.

 

Even products often have few if any rights, especially over their likeness. Manufacturers rights are few and far between, trademarks are easy to check......copyright rarer.

 

Sticking with RM is a poor decision in commercial terms these days. Commercial agencies are very hot on IP rights and using their guidelines on what they allow is a far better guide than a forum...

[John Mitchell]

IP - intelectual property - copyright, patents, trademarks etc. You can own a car, a book or a photo print but not own the patents, copyright or trademark (IP) and therefore not be  able to sign a property release. Car manufacturers, I believe, have gone after people who tried.

 

It's all a bit complex for my non-legalistic brain, I'm afraid, but thanks for the clarification.

[Lastrega]

 

"is it a wise idea to mark all unreleased RM images that contain anything that could conceivably be owned by someone or some organization, etc. as needing a property release for commercial use?"

 

 

 

That is my approach

 

property being both physical (objects/things) and intellectual (designs/logos).  A person may own an object (say, a car) but not the IP in that object.

 

 

 

km

 

Don't know what "IP" is, but I remain perplexed. Can anyone give an example of something that conceivably could not be owned by someone or an organization, etc. other than birds, rocks, trees, etc. in the wild?  Then again, most of the wild is supposedly "owned" as well.

 

 

 

A river?  People can own the fishing rights to a river, but can they own the actual river? The water authority can lay claim to the water, but do they own the river bed ? And the fishing rights can be owned by someone other than the landowner of the land the river is passing through, I think.

 

I've always found that to be an odd thing, but perhaps someone else knows the definitive rules on that.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

"is it a wise idea to mark all unreleased RM images that contain anything that could conceivably be owned by someone or some organization, etc. as needing a property release for commercial use?"

 

 

 

That is my approach

 

property being both physical (objects/things) and intellectual (designs/logos).  A person may own an object (say, a car) but not the IP in that object.

 

 

 

km

 

Don't know what "IP" is, but I remain perplexed. Can anyone give an example of something that conceivably could not be owned by someone or an organization, etc. other than birds, rocks, trees, etc. in the wild?  Then again, most of the wild is supposedly "owned" as well.

 

 

 

A river?  People can own the fishing rights to a river, but can they own the actual river? The water authority can lay claim to the water, but do they own the river bed ? And the fishing rights can be owned by someone other than the landowner of the land the river is passing through, I think.

 

I've always found that to be an odd thing, but perhaps someone else knows the definitive rules on that.

 

 

I think Heraclitus had something to say about that: "You can never step into the same river twice."

[Robert Brook]

I do quite a bit of RF work these days - not here though.  One of the advantages of this licensing system is that it makes work very distributable, but this is not a feature that Alamy exploits (doesn't distribute to any places known for selling much, let alone the bad boys). 

 

Clause 1.3.7 of the Contributor Contract states: "Only if you are an Agency Contributor you may set your own prices for your Royalty-Free Images (but not for Rights Managed or Novel Use Licences)."  What this means is that prices for agency work are usually much higher. 

 

So on three counts, Alamy may not be a very good choice if you want to sell RF Imagery (that's the two above + the requirement that contributors make a statement they are not qualified to make). 

 

Or put it another way:  there is a much better and more lucrative way of placing RF material with Alamy than uploading to Alamy.

[Lastrega]

Ahhh, the old "You can't sue me because it's not the same river" defence?   Brilliant!

[John Mitchell]

Ahhh, the old "You can't sue me because it's not the same river" defence?   Brilliant!

 

Yup, that's the one. Trust those wily ancient Greeks to come up with it.

[John Mitchell]

A case in point, the current Vancouver cityscape on the Alamy homepage. It would obviously need model releases for commercial use. But how about property releases?

[Robert Brook]

A case in point, the current Vancouver cityscape on the Alamy homepage. It would obviously need model releases for commercial use. But how about property releases?

 

Why obviously?  My guess is that it could be used commercially without any releases.  Perhaps for some high profile uses it would be advisable to have releases.  But that falls short of saying it needs them. 

[John Mitchell]

 

A case in point, the current Vancouver cityscape on the Alamy homepage. It would obviously need model releases for commercial use. But how about property releases?

 

Why obviously?  My guess is that it could be used commercially without any releases.  Perhaps for some high profile uses it would be advisable to have releases.  But that falls short of saying it needs them. 

 

 

Sorry, I should have qualified that -- obviously for Alamy model releases would be needed because there are people visible in some of the windows. My guess is that you are correct about it being useable without releases elsewhere. But would it require property leases for commercial use as far as Alamy is concerned? You can see right into people's condos, and there may be (?) a restaurant sign visible on the street.  I know where this photo was taken, and the photographer did a good job capturing the area IMO.

[Bill Brooks]

Clients want RF. RM is on life support.

 

I think the Alamy policy of forcing certain impossible to release images into RM needs a rethink.

 

Images like this one are forced into RM. This image will be a casualty of that policy.

 

[John Mitchell]

Bill, what evidence is there that RM is on life support? That hasn't been my experience when it comes to editorial clients. Most still seem to want RM -- e.g. textbook publishers, magazines, travel guides, etc. There is a major, high-paying image request service (whose name I won't mention) that will not accept images unless they are RM.

[Guest]

Bill, what evidence is there that RM is on life support? That hasn't been my experience when it comes to editorial clients. Most still seem to want RM -- e.g. textbook publishers, magazines, travel guides, etc. There is a major, high-paying image request service (whose name I won't mention) that will not accept images unless they are RM.

 

I hope you're not thinking of this one http://blog.imagebrief.com/post/102288528206/whats-with-all-the-royalty-free-briefs#.VHRBlslKyM0

 

The evidence for RM changing is everywhere, Getty's major change for one, RF editorial licenses on micro..... just the general trend which would be difficult to miss in the wider market. I don't agree RM is on it's death bed, it's not....it's just that RM now has to justify the extra cost involved for the client...any old rubbish as RM might have worked (worked well I am pleased to remember) years ago but times have changed. Textbook publishers tend to be getting/offering flat rates for RF or RM, they often don't care about the license. Relying on one small segment to buck a trend is not a great plan IMO.

 

The aggregators supplying the majors make it very clear that they cannot get 'ordinary' RM onto the significant sites, that work now has to go as RF. Whilst most of that will be commercial work, i.e. fully released or not requiring releases, it does reflect the biggest area of high value sales and the most profitable stock.

[John Mitchell]

 

Bill, what evidence is there that RM is on life support? That hasn't been my experience when it comes to editorial clients. Most still seem to want RM -- e.g. textbook publishers, magazines, travel guides, etc. There is a major, high-paying image request service (whose name I won't mention) that will not accept images unless they are RM.

 

I hope you're not thinking of this one http://blog.imagebrief.com/post/102288528206/whats-with-all-the-royalty-free-briefs#.VHRBlslKyM0

 

The evidence for RM changing is everywhere, Getty's major change for one, RF editorial licenses on micro..... just the general trend which would be difficult to miss in the wider market. I don't agree RM is on it's death bed, it's not....it's just that RM now has to justify the extra cost involved for the client...any old rubbish as RM might have worked (worked well I am pleased to remember) years ago but times have changed. Textbook publishers tend to be getting/offering flat rates for RF or RM, they often don't care about the license. Relying on one small segment to buck a trend is not a great plan IMO.

 

The aggregators supplying the majors make it very clear that they cannot get 'ordinary' RM onto the significant sites, that work now has to go as RF. Whilst most of that will be commercial work, i.e. fully released or not requiring releases, it does reflect the biggest area of high value sales and the most profitable stock.

 

 

Yup, that's the one. I don't submit very often, so I didn't even know that they now accept RF briefs. Thanks for the link.

 

As discussed in previous threads, most of Alamy's leases are now RM/RF hybrids, so perhaps the RM/RF distinction isn't really a big issue here.

[Bill Brooks]

Bill, what evidence is there that RM is on life support? That hasn't been my experience when it comes to editorial clients. Most still seem to want RM -- e.g. textbook publishers, magazines, travel guides, etc. There is a major, high-paying image request service (whose name I won't mention) that will not accept images unless they are RM.

Here is a link to an article about the high paying image request service you mentioned. As you can see they are doing more RF.

 

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/imagebrief-the-rf-vs-rm-question

 

Here is more info on the trend to RF.

 

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/new-strategy-for-rm-licensors

 

The most successful stock library on the planet has recently had a public offering, is growing by 40% per year, and is 100% RF.

 

RF is not necessarily cheaper than RM. I think RF is in demand over RM because of the simplicity of the RF license. Today marketing is targeted, and usage may expand or contract later. Clients cannot easily define RM usage when they purchase rights to an image. In the past a client may have purchased a 100 images a year. Now they buy thousands. They do not have the inclination or the time to track rights on all those thousands of RM licenses. Hence they need a simple to administer RF license.

 

In Manage Images I would like to answer, for a crowded beach scene as an example, "more than 4 people".  I would then answer "No model release". Then I would like to have the option of declaring the image RF.

[John Mitchell]

 

Bill, what evidence is there that RM is on life support? That hasn't been my experience when it comes to editorial clients. Most still seem to want RM -- e.g. textbook publishers, magazines, travel guides, etc. There is a major, high-paying image request service (whose name I won't mention) that will not accept images unless they are RM.

Here is a link to the place you linked to. As you can see they are doing more RF.

 

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/imagebrief-the-rf-vs-rm-question

 

Here is more info on the trend to RF.

 

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/new-strategy-for-rm-licensors

 

The most successful stock library on the planet has recently had a public offering, is growing by 40% per year, and is 100% RF.

 

RF is not necessarily cheaper than RM. I think RF is in demand over RM because of the simplicity of the RF license. Today marketing is targeted, and usage may expand or contract later. Clients cannot easily define RM usage when they purchase rights to an image. Hence they need a simple to administer RF license.

 

In manage images I would like to answer, for a crowded beach scene as an example, "more than 4 people".  I would then answer "No model release". Then I would like to have the option of declaring the image RF.

 

 

Thanks for the links, Bill.

 

I see where you're coming from, but I still cling to the notion that RM remains (for the time being) the best option for editorial photos, which most of mine are. Alamy's "hybrid" licenses also make sense to me. No doubt they will continue to evolve as markets change. Perhaps RM will eventually disappear altogether, although I'm not sure that it's really all that complex a licensing model when you come right down to it.

 

This said, I intend to experiment more with RF.

[Robert Brook]

From a photographer's point of view it's the fact that RF can be easily and widely distributed that matters.  That means rather than being a Getty photographer or an Alamy photographer or a Corbis photographer, you do the lot, and many more besides.  This brings earnings per image (providing you are doing it right) back to the level it was in those days that some here have expressed wistful nostalgia about.  You will need to find somewhere outside of Alamy to do the distributing however.

[Bill Brooks]

John

 

In the mid 1960's there was a tipping point in the stock industry between selling mainly B&W 8X10 prints, over to mainly colour slides. This was driven by relatively cheap new colour laser digital scanning of transparencies, instead of the old expensive and slow optical colour separation. In addition cheap colour printing from Asia, brokered through Hong Kong, brought the price of colour printing down everywhere. Suddenly you now had much cheaper picture books 100% in colour. The stock industry adjusted to colour after a lot of disruption.

 

 

In the late 1990's there was another tipping point in Stock Photography. Everyone was considering when they should abandon the printed catalogue supplying both film and digital model, and go only digital over the internet. The transition was expensive and disruptive for everyone.

 

Alamy was one of the early disruptive 100% digital ecommerce libraries. No film available. Once the move to 100% digital started, it happened industry wide.

 

I think the stock photo industry is at a similar tipping point as to when clients will want to go 100% RF. This is being driven by the complexity of the client's target marketing, and the simplicity of the RF model. Quality difference between RF and RM stock images, if it still exists, is not apparent to the clients.

 

We all need to think about this

[John Mitchell]

So, Bill, in the future, if RM totally disappears, will there be categories such as RF Editorial and RF Commercial, or just plain RF? If it is only the latter, then there could be some serious legal implications, no?

[Guest]

So, Bill, in the future, if RM totally disappears, will there be categories such as RF Editorial and RF Commercial, or just plain RF? If it is only the latter, then there could be some serious legal implications, no?

 

RM will not totally disappear, there has been a recent uptick in large sales for exclusive uses or buyouts amongst agencies I work with. Some clients will always need to have exclusivity or they will go back to commissioned work. The whole ethos of branding/advertisiing at the high-end means you sometimes need to have an image that nobody else has. It's only a few months ago that I licensed an industry exclusive, for one year, for my best ever sale...... exclusive use was their main requirement and RF would not have been of any use to them.

 

RF editorial already exists, the whole point of RF is that you sell it by file size not by any other measure - you can give as few rights (micro editorial RF or more rights.....micro basic...etc) away as you want. I can write an EULA for RF that you can only use the image on a Thursday in a leap year.....

 

What needs to be taken into account is that, as Martin said, the local church group now buys images as do lots of non-professional image users - they really don't need, or want, the extra time and expense of RM. What photographers need to realise is that the client is quite important in this business (it's often overlooked by many) and if you expand your client-base, you may need to alter how you offer them licensing terms.

 

And yes, I am happy for a local church group to use my RF images for the same price as Google use it for a major ad campaign. I am pretty sure that there are more church groups out there than Googles,  RF works on volume and there's always a trade off with these things.

[Robert Brook]

What probably isn’t sustainable, and will eventually die out, is RM-lite.  An image is placed with two or more agencies, usage is likely to be at the more humble end of the market, the image can only be partially managed because no one agent can track all its uses and can’t offer even a smidgen of exclusivity. 

 

Key to rights management is the possibility that a buyer can have sole use of that image for a specified period together with access to its history.  Even where buyers aren’t asking for either, agencies that have built a reputation on combining full rights management with a distinctive portfolio of work can have a big advantage over supermarket operations at the more picky end of the market. 

 

RF has been around a long time now, and is no longer just the preserve of stock cliches, and simple concepts.  Work of some depth is popping up here and RF in collections, of a sort that previously you wouldn’t have expected to see anywhere in the stock world.  Maybe at Magnum.  A leader of the is trend is, unlikely as it may seem, Shutterstock, in the guise of Offset:

 

http://www.offset.com/

 

If this trend gathers pace, then the likelihood that consumer mags will still be happy to fill their ¼ page slots with RM imagery over the coming years seems doubtful at best.

[Bill Brooks]

Geoff  and Robert +1 and +1. However Robert with all of the copyright theft going on, I think it is next to impossible to guarantee RM exclusivity unless the image in question has never been on the Web.

[Robert Brook]

Geoff  and Robert +1 and +1. However Robert with all of the copyright theft going on, I think it is next to impossible to guarantee RM exclusivity unless the image in question has never been on the Web.

 

Absolute exclusivity, Bill, yes, but good enough for most buyers who want some. 

 

I have just finished reading 'Rain Gods' by James Lee Burke (originally 'Feast Day of Fools' in US).  I note that the cover photo is from Millennium Images, a small agency that sells only exclusive RM material.  As far as book jackets go they are in demand - I seem to see their name on British fiction covers as frequently as GI's.  One attraction would be that the likelihood of the same image appearing, say, on a new edition of a Faulkner novel, is infinitesimally small.  They have been in the business for over a decade and have earned their reputation. 

 

RM will continue to be an important licensing option at many small agencies, as well as the big.