How should I pick the license type?

[Arletta]

Back to the original question: Why sell RM?

 

I assume that everyone here wants to maximize their long-term income from their images. If you believe RM does that better than RF can you please explain how?

 

You have the answer in your question

RM will bring the long-term income ... because it's RM.

Explanation:

Anna is buying your image as RF and she uses it everywhere she wants, forever. Pays you once and never come's back for the same image. You can multiply it for xxxx clients.

Maria is buying the image as RM specific license and she uses it once in detailed way. If she wants to use it again next year or next project, she must comes back and pay again... You can multiply the scheme for xxxx clients.

 

Let's say in both cases the number of clients who buy your file is limited to the same number... Can you see the difference in long-term income now?

Edited November 20, 2015 by Arletta

[Robert Brook]

deleted

Edited November 20, 2015 by Robert Brook

[Robert Brook]

 

 

Stock is my ONLY income and I ONLY sell RM (and when I look in the mirror in the morning, I don't look too undernourished)

All the full-time pros I know personally, all sell ONLY RM and - as you know - many do here as well.

 

Back to the original question: Why sell RM?

 

I assume that everyone here wants to maximize their long-term income from their images. If you believe RM does that better than RF can you please explain how?

 

Or do you sell RM for some purpose other than maximizing income? If so, what is the purpose and how does RM as implemented at Alamy serve it?

 

If you think the answer is obvious please don't assume I know it! Or, if your answer is just, "Well, all the other pros do, but I don't know why," that's fine (though not particularly informative).

Yes and no - it's not rocket science (but not obvious either). In the past RF was associated with very generic types of low level commercial work, and particular styles of imagery that Getty was promoting: endless happy couples and that sort of thing. Inevitably this is going to have a short shelf life. Fashions change, clothes change, styles change. Commercial buyers now want much more 'authentic' imagery, and the cliched happy couple of old became dated, and then taken up by the the micros. Then we have conceptual imagery. A lot of early conceptual imagery was too simple and obvious. Micro shooters quickly caught onto that and became the main suppliers of clched concept imagery. On the other hand press and documentary photography (which normally comes with an RM licence) is much more likely to have historic value. So it would appear that RM has a much longer shelf life than RF, but all this means is that some genres of photography outlast others. Nowadays some of the best imagery being produced is sold as RF, including documentary work, and the trend towards RF isn't going away. RF licenses are now being designed specifically for editorial work, and Alamy is behind the curve here in not doing this. They left it to the guy who created Shutterstock to pioneer this with a new agency that sells all kinds of work at very good prices. I know - I've had sales via distribution. There is no reason why, if an image is powerful, original and makes a statement it will not last for decades.

 

Take a look at this:

 

http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?pseudoid={EDF2ED3D-6230-4C30-97E9-87B7FB771580}&name=Monty+Rakusen&st=0&mode=0&comp=1&ps=90&pn=1&cbstore=0&qt=&qt_raw=&tbar=0&qn=rakusen#BHM=foo%3Dbar%26st%3D0%26pn%3D1%26ps%3D90%26sortby%3D2%26qt%3D%26qt_raw%3D%26qn%3Drakusen%26lic%3D3%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26aoa%3D1%26creative%3D%26videos%3D%26nu%3D%26ccc%3D%26bespoke%3D%26apalib%3D%26ag%3D0%26hc%3D0%26et%3D0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3D0%26loc%3D0%26ot%3D0%26imgt%3D0%26dtfr%3D%26dtto%3D%26size%3D0xFF%26blackwhite%3D%26cutout%3D%26archive%3D1%26name%3DMonty%252520Rakusen%26groupid%3D%26pseudoid%3D{EDF2ED3D-6230-4C30-97E9-87B7FB771580}%26userid%3D%26id%3D%26a%3D%26xstx%3D0%26cbstore%3D0%26lightbox%3D%26resultview%3DsortbyPopular%26gname%3D%26gtype%3D%26apalic%3D%26tbar%3D0%26pc%3D%26simid%3D%26cap%3D1%26customgeoip%3DGB%26vd%3D0%26cid%3D%26saveQry%3D%26editorial%3D1%26t%3D0%26edoptin%3D

 

(Wrong link I posted before)

 

This is photography that is commercially enabled, but also has huge editorial appeal. I can't see any reason why this will become dated anytime soon, compared with 'real' photography (whatever that is).

Edited November 20, 2015 by Robert Brook

[dbooksta]

 

Back to the original question: Why sell RM?

 

I assume that everyone here wants to maximize their long-term income from their images. If you believe RM does that better than RF can you please explain how?

You have the answer in your question

RM will bring the long-term income ... because it's RM.

Explanation:

Anna is buying your image as RF and she uses it everywhere she wants, forever. Pays you once and never come's back for the same image. You can multiply it for xxxx clients.

Maria is buying the image as RM specific license and she uses it once in detailed way. If she wants to use it again next year or next project, she must comes back and pay again... You can multiply the scheme for xxxx clients.

 

Let's say in both cases the number of clients who buy your file is limited to the same number... Can you see the difference in long-term income now?

 

 

Yes!  That makes sense.  (But only if somebody (actually, has to be a sufficient number of clients) come back for the same image, and if the RM pricing is done so that in the long run they pay more than they would have if they bought it once RF.)

[MircoV]

Dont forget one thing about RM.

 

There are many clients out there that needs a exclusive image. This is with RF as goods as impossible.

 

Mirco

Edited November 20, 2015 by MircoV

[dbooksta]

Dont forget one thing about RM.

 

There are many clients out there that needs a exclusive image. This is with RF as goods as impossible.

 

Mirco

 

Interesting.  But that would really only be guaranteed to the client if you list it as RM-E, right?

[Arletta]

No. You keep control over the RM usages (actually Alamy does) and client can see the history of the image, where and when it was (or will be) used. If he wants to use your file as E, than he can ask for the option, but it's not usual, it's very rare, that's why you should pick only RM, not RM-E to increase your chances for sales - I don't know anyone who sold E ever.
And more, client can buy E for only some fields of usage - how and when it will be E. After the period image can be standard RM again. Try imagine huge campaing and the situation where two king brands meet together in the same time with the same image in project on their billboards... Brand A next to his competitor, brand B That's why they pay more for RM (E)

Edited November 20, 2015 by Arletta

[Robert Brook]

"Anna is buying your image as RF and she uses it everywhere she wants, forever. Pays you once and never come's back for the same image. You can multiply it for xxxx clients.
Maria is buying the image as RM specific license and she uses it once in detailed way. If she wants to use it again next year or next project, she must comes back and pay again... You can multiply the scheme for xxxx clients."

 

While a lot of my sales of RF are to Anna, Maria also buys a lot under an editorial license.  Unfortunately Anna rarely, if ever, buys my RM (she's mean like that) but generous Maria buys the same - a small compensation for the smaller fees, though.  In an ideal world, Maria should have a much bigger budget, so she can pay generously, even buy exclusive licenses, but sadly her clients or paymasters are mean too.

 

"Try imagine huge campaing and the situation where two king brands meet together in the same time with the same image in project on their billboards... Brand A next to his competitor, brand B That's why they pay more for RM (E)". 

 

I'm trying to imagine Alamy having any king brand clients, but I suppose they have a few.  This is a good point, though, and one of the reasons why RM still has an important role.  Unfortunately the market for big brand RM is dominated by a couple of players, and we know who they are.  Basing any strategy of standard Alamy imagery landing on billboards might not be wise.

 

Anyway, I have stated what I think is the case, based on some evidence.  But I am more than happy that most want to be exclusively RM.  In fact I am delighted.

[Martin Carlsson]

No. You keep control over the RM usages (actually Alamy does) and client can see the history of the image, where and when it was (or will be) used. If he wants to use your file as E, than he can ask for the option, but it's not usual, it's very rare, that's why you should pick only RM, not RM-E to increase your chances for sales - I don't know anyone who sold E ever.

And more, client can buy E for only some fields of usage - how and when it will be E. After the period image can be standard RM again. Try imagine huge campaing and the situation where two king brands meet together in the same time with the same image in project on their billboards... Brand A next to his competitor, brand B That's why they pay more for RM (E)

I've sold the same RM image as an exclusive twice through Alamy (both times the same buyer I'm pretty sure, but 3 years apart). Both times Alamy contacted first me to check that exclusivity was possible for a certain usage. After my "yes" they sold the image exclusively and applied the appropriate restrictions. Price was very good, it was actually like what the calculator suggests and without the heavy discounts we commonly see.

 

The only difference between RM and RM-E is that with "normal RM" Alamy would have to check the possibility with you first (so that you can put on appropriate restrictions elsewhere) before going ahead with the sale. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by Martin Carlsson

[Duncan_Andison]

 

Back to the original question: Why sell RM?

 

I assume that everyone here wants to maximize their long-term income from their images. If you believe RM does that better than RF can you please explain how?

You have the answer in your question

RM will bring the long-term income ... because it's RM.

Explanation:

Anna is buying your image as RF and she uses it everywhere she wants, forever. Pays you once and never come's back for the same image. You can multiply it for xxxx clients.

Maria is buying the image as RM specific license and she uses it once in detailed way. If she wants to use it again next year or next project, she must comes back and pay again... You can multiply the scheme for xxxx clients.

 

Let's say in both cases the number of clients who buy your file is limited to the same number... Can you see the difference in long-term income now?

 

 

Anna see's you image as RM, she may need to use it more than once. It is a common subject and there are plenty of images of a similar subject matter. Your RM or someone else's RF... the RF wins as it has the flexibility of reuse as many times as she wants.

 

Anna see's you image as RM, she may need to use it more than once. It's a hard to find subject matter and there isn't really a suitable image elsewhere that matches her requirements. Your RM wins and you protect it from over use and get an extra licence laster on down the line.

 

Use both systems to your own advantage.... Otherwise, RM could also mean NO income   

Edited November 21, 2015 by Duncan_Andison

[Guest]

The reality is that RM is no longer the easy cash cow it once was. Clients are more and more demanding and using RF at the majors and this is a general trend in stock.

 

If you want an old hand's take on this Jim Pickerell http://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=0d26695e-3f5c-481d-9f16-d4c9e9860103 You will have to get credits for the full article.

[Arletta]

So now I know 3 people who sold E, great! Looks like it works.
I have about 50/50% RM and RF images and I sell around 50/50% RM and RF. I don't see that much difference as you say between two of the licenses.
About the pricing differences, it's exactly like above - 50/50%. RF and RM are in similar $.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Arletta

[MircoV]

Also as far as i know an RM-E image a client can still buy it as non-exclusive. The next buyer will know about it and can still decide to buy the RM-E or not as exclusive. The key is just on the point that they dont need to wait for your approval but can get it right away. If you have your photos on Alamy only i think RM-E is the best choice. People like to get products right away. If they have to wait they could jump to an other choice.

 

Mirco

[Robert Brook]

The reality is that RM is no longer the easy cash cow it once was. Clients are more and more demanding and using RF at the majors and this is a general trend in stock.

 

If you want an old hand's take on this Jim Pickerell http://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=0d26695e-3f5c-481d-9f16-d4c9e9860103 You will have to get credits for the full article.

 

Thanks geoff.

 

I think it is probably a bit early to have this debate - it will be a lot clearer in a couple of years time.  From an Alamy-centric position it is not at all obvious which is the better choice, partly because contributor RF fees are so low.  I am clear about it in my own mind, because, as well as looking at the evidence, I have watched RM RPI falling and falling, while RF RPI has been climbing and is still climbing, but that's not here.  I only have RM here. 

 

Actually my RM here has been falling faster than anywhere else - but that is another story.

 

Or is it?

[Guest]

Also as far as i know an RM-E image a client can still buy it as non-exclusive. The next buyer will know about it and can still decide to buy the RM-E or not as exclusive. The key is just on the point that they dont need to wait for your approval but can get it right away. If you have your photos on Alamy only i think RM-E is the best choice. People like to get products right away. If they have to wait they could jump to an other choice.

 

Mirco

 

Not so sure Mirco. I had an email yesterday from one agency asking to make sure that there were no conflicting rights for a calendar in Germany for 2017 - non-exclusive use. The mail was already hours in my inbox as I was out working - clients who have spent a lot of time/effort in sourcing the image (IME of many instances) are quite happy to wait a few hours or days to make sure there are no problems.

 

Time constraints are generally an Editorial issue, far less so a commercial license issue. IMO, RM-E at Alamy no longer makes any sense. Indeed buyers are quite used to having to wait for commercial clearances since the top commercial collections tend to have many non-exclusive aggregators to deal with, so it goes with the territory.

[chrumu]

What do you think about selecting the license model to fill gaps? E.g., if there's only RM pictures of a given subject on Alamy, why not upload yours as RF? If a customer searches specifically for a picture with a license model only you offer, you might have high chances for a sale.

[MircoV]

A little bit out of track but i am curious how many times Philippe or photographer using his service was stung by taking this photo :

 

Edited November 22, 2015 by MircoV

[Fipp]

On 19/11/2015 at 22:09, Robert Brook said:

 

It doesn't matter what anyone believes, it's facts that matter. The fact, for instance, that most RF license agreements specifically forbid reselling, or enabling reselling to take place illicitly.

 

The crucial thing about RF is that it facilitates commercial sales, but also that it is increasingly the license of choice for serious editorial buyers.  It is now where the money is.  If photography is your hobby, then Alamy's version of RM (RM lite) is fine.  You'll earn enough to buy some equipment, maybe pay for a couple of holidays.  But anyone professionally involved in stock photography, with the exception of press togs perhaps, has to consider RF as the license of choice, and selling through a number of agencies, with RM reserved for personal work, or work aimed at the top end of the market.

 

See Duncan's post above - that's the reality

Hi.

I have read the thread but it is not clear to me if any Alamy license allows buyers to resell images (with or without modifications). I have seen that in sales descriptions, those labeled "Personal Use" are the only ones whose description mentions that  it is "not for resale". So is reselling allowed in the other types of licenses?
I would like a detailed list of licenses or sales models under "Buy this stock image now ..." that allow a buyer to resell the image as such. I don't mean commercial use of the image, which I want the buyer to be able to do. I mean reselling the image as such or with modifications, on other stock image sites for example.
Or to ask it another way, what license should I choose so that buyers of my images are not allowed to resell the image as such?

 

[M.Chapman]

On 08/05/2020 at 22:19, Fipp said:

Hi.

I have read the thread but it is not clear to me if any Alamy license allows buyers to resell images (with or without modifications). I have seen that in sales descriptions, those labeled "Personal Use" are the only ones whose description mentions that  it is "not for resale". So is reselling allowed in the other types of licenses?
I would like a detailed list of licenses or sales models under "Buy this stock image now ..." that allow a buyer to resell the image as such. I don't mean commercial use of the image, which I want the buyer to be able to do. I mean reselling the image as such or with modifications, on other stock image sites for example.
Or to ask it another way, what license should I choose so that buyers of my images are not allowed to resell the image as such?

 

 

Not sure I understand your question, but a full description of licence types and restrictions on buyers is here in the buyer's contract.

https://www.alamy.com/terms/uk.aspx

Clause 3.1.11 - which applies to all licence types says the following.

The Image(s)/Footage may not be sublicensed, resold or otherwise made available for use or distribution separately or detached from a product or web page. For example, the Image(s)/Footage may be used as an integral part of a web page design, but may not be made available for downloading separately or in a format designed or intended for permanent storage or re-use by website users. Similarly, your customers may be provided with copies of the Image(s)/Footage as an integral part of work product, but may not be provided with the Image(s)/Footage or permitted to use the Image(s)/Footage separately.

 

Mark

Edited May 18, 2020 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

How should I pick the lice?

Tweezers?

😁

[meanderingemu]

8 hours ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

Wow 5 year old thread!

If you want to resell alamy images look at the affiliate program

https://www.alamy.com/customer/help/affiliate-program.aspx

 

wow 2015 is 5 years ago...

[Fipp]

@LawrensonPhoto , No, I do not want to resell images. I don't want those who buy my images to be allowed to resell it on sites other than Alamy.

 

@M.Chapman , Thank you.

If I have offended someone by reviving an old thread, sorry. I am used to forums whose policy is you search before opening new threads.

 

Thanks.