Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Novice consulting predecessors a problem:

In order to improve our income,How to choose the RM and RM - E ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd forget about the RM-E licence option. If an Alamy customer would like exclusive rights  - and will pay for it - you will most probably be contacted by Alamy immediately.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in almost 35 years of selling stock I have never made an exclusive sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You upload pictures of the RM is more choose?RM - E or more choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At present, all the photos I choose is RM - E, also don't know right or wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you choose RM-E, then you will not be able to sell your images anywhere else. This will most likely decrease your income over time. It's better to stick with RM. It will give you more flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget about RM-E...it's anyway an act of masochism trying to improve your income by starting today editorial stock photography...I'd rather look for a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick survey of random pictures from members on this thread and everyone seems to use RM exclusively, why does no one use RF? Or when do you use RF and when do you use RM? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that it would be desirable to be able to choose "RF if fee greater than X" when determining rights. Releases, if one is to chase after them, should be worth the bother.

Edited by DDoug
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a quick survey of random pictures from members on this thread and everyone seems to use RM exclusively, why does no one use RF? Or when do you use RF and when do you use RM? 

 

I don't often use RF because I like to have some information about image use (e.g. for the annual DACS claim). Also, there isn't really a lot of difference between RM and RF licensing on Alamy these days. I guess it comes down to a matter of personal preference and whether or not your images are available as RF elsewhere, in which case you can't make them RM here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only once been asked for exclusivity on an image with Alamy and it was said that I would receive a premium price for this. This was a customer request - unfortunately the sale didn't go through in the end. I am doubtful that you would get a premium if the image was exclusive to Alamy.

 

With regard to RF I have used this quite a lot under the historical belief that it would result in a premium sale value. This has not proved to be the case for me.

 

 

dov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

For the OP, not worth setting work as exclusive to Alamy, if clients need it, they can buy exclsuivity. Still going on, just a few months out of a $4k deal for one industry sector, for one year.

 

As to RF, it's almost become the default for commercial. See mission statement from GI VP a few years ago. The ancillary costs are too high with RM and that includes, sadly, the threat of action on expired licenses. I set all work as RF for commercial agencies unless the image has real RM qualitities...not just.... I would like it set as RM. The majors are much less likely to take the low value RM that they would a few years ago. I have a few hundred here that I would now set as RF if I could, but they are also with RM-only (Rm just because they were historically) agencies.

 

Volume can be very good with RF on trad sites or aggregators...nearly 40 sales from one last month with just over 100 images....vast majority set as RF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always considered RF to be a "throwaway" licensing model, but obviously I'm behind the times. Nonetheless, I still think that RM is the best model to choose if you want to conserve the long-term value of editorial images. Commercially oriented "creative" imagery is -- by the sounds of it -- another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nor so much whether imagery is 'creative' or not, but what market sector is most likely to be where the buyers are.  Editorial goes four ways: consumer, trade, academic and corporate.  Similarly commercial includes consumer advertising, B-to-B, NGOs and charities, and niche areas such as fiction covers.  For secondary consumer, generic RF imagery is bought by the truck load.  My commercial sales tend to be B-to-B, and very occasionally the voluntary sector, and very infrequently fiction.  As far as I can see, RM is still strong here. But these are niche areas, and images are very unlikely to be sellng more than a few times.  The big advantage of RF for the photographer, is that the license model is simple and portable, and therefore very easy to distribute, and it is possible to get real world exposure at the main regional agencies as well as the big commercial ones. But for an image that is too specialised, whether by treatment or content, and is unlikely to ever sell more than a handful of times, then I would still go with RM.  I have mistakenly chosen RF for some images, but inspite of the extra exposure, do not see any extra sales for meaningful fees.  With others, the advantage is obvious, with regular monthly sales sometimes being reported.

Edited by Robert Brook
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nor so much whether imagery is 'creative' or not, but what market sector is most likely to be where the buyers are.  Editorial goes four ways: consumer, trade, academic and corporate.  Similarly commercial includes consumer advertising, B-to-B, NGOs and charities, and niche areas such as fiction covers.  For secondary consumer, generic RF imagery is bought by the truck load.  My commercial sales tend to be B-to-B, and very occasionally the voluntary sector, and very infrequently fiction.  As far as I can see, RM is still strong here. But these are niche areas, and images are very unlikely to be sellng more than a few times.  The big advantage of RF for the photographer, is that the license model is simple and portable, and therefore very easy to distribute, and it is possible to get real world exposure at the main regional agencies as well as the big commercial ones. But for an image that is too specialised, whether by treatment or content, and is unlikely to ever sell more than a handful of times, then I would still go with RM.  I have mistakenly chosen RF for some images, but inspite of the extra exposure, do not see any extra sales for meaningful fees.  With others, the advantage is obvious, with regular monthly sales sometimes being reported.

 

Great summary. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My eyes have now been opened up to RF. I'm assuming landscapes, flowers and the like would be best for RF. May mark a few images RF in my next submission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My eyes have now been opened up to RF. I'm assuming landscapes, flowers and the like would be best for RF. May mark a few images RF in my next submission. 

Maybe good to mention also something …..

I know that i have also lots of RF but i was thinking already a time ago that RM has also the good addition that people directly know that this photo is not available on Micros and chance is bigger that your image will be licensed directly. RF on Alamy means that some buyers will first wait to check if the file is maybe available on Micro. This reduces the chance of a sale. Even if they don’t find your photo on micro they perhaps will see something similar and buy it there. RF buyers don’t need something exclusive so for them doesn’t matter if they buy something else for cheaper.

 

By putting your photos as RM you already show that looking at Micro first doesn’t make any sense. Also there is for example Arterra/Philippe here in the forum that has many nature photos including flowers that are all RM. I am sure he makes regular sales from them since I can recall that he mentioned it before.

 

Mirco

Edited by MircoV
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, just like Mirco says - RM images will save client's time on searching for the same image on micros. And it's not only imagination, wishes... clients REALLY search for the same viewed or zoomed images in micros and buy them where it's cheaper. Not all of them obviously, but many... Many enough to cut this line and stop loosing money ;)

People who sell on micros always ask me and can't understand why I removed my images from 30 micro agencies once it was uploaded already. This ^^ is why. To start earning and stop loosing.

 

 

 

Edit. Typo fixed.

Edited by Arletta
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things;

 

1. RM pricing will vary depending on library/agency just like RF do, perhaps just not as much.

2. RF is usually distributed deeper and it could pay off to shop around, but just because something is RF doesn't mean it is on the micros.

3. RF is more and more the preferred licensed for commercial uses, but is also making headway in the editorial market. 

 

So the conundrum is that one license doesn't fit the bill for everything from both the photographers' and buyers' point of view. Many images lends itself to both editorial and commercial use. There is an absolute need for a new modern license, less complex than RM, almost as simple as the current RF and at the same time caters to both photographers and buyers. Alamy's hybrid license is the answer to some of the issues, but only here at Alamy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We where not mentioning that all RF are on Micro. It is about that “it could be”. This will be on the back head of many buyers. They don’t know that you have it only available on traditional agencies. They have to find out themselves. This is all extra work. This is one reason why RF is not always the best choice. It all depends.

 

Mirco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We where not mentioning that all RF are on Micro. It is about that “it could be”. This will be on the back head of many buyers. They don’t know that you have it only available on traditional agencies. They have to find out themselves. This is all extra work. This is one reason why RF is not always the best choice. It all depends.

 

Mirco

 

I didn't miss that, just expanded a bit. My point was that it is not totally different with RM - it is not like all traditional RM libraries have price fixed, but I agree with you, bigger chance to find elsewhere cheaper if RF or not - that really is our choice depending on whom we let sell our images. Anyway, hopefully price-sensitive customers go to a library that fits their wallet straight away, to stop them wasting time.

 

The biggest "issue" with RF is not price, how easy or complex it is to purchase, but that usage is for perpetuity.  Change it to one time usage or 1-5 usages and it would be a lot more appealing/rest easier with the my mind.

 

Daydreaming/thinking out loud a bit, it is about time that a modern standardised license developed that took away all the headaches/choices for photographers and buyers. What happened to PLUS?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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.