Lorenz Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Hi, I'd like to ask about sales of RF pictures here on Alamy, if some contributor would kindly share his experience, just to have a small generic insight. Are there some sales with RF images? Do someone have mixed RM and RF portfolio and can tell differences in number of sales related to different licenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Seward Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I have 4 x as many images on sale as RM than RF. My gross sale amount for all RM images is, however, only 2 x that of my RF collection. Looking at that, I might have to consider setting more images as RF in future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorenz Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Thank you Adam;) ..I do plan to build a mixed portfolio of RF and RM. I've always done mainly RF. Your words are encouraging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Seward Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 You're welcome. It's a tricky one but it was interesting for me to see the results of those calculations earlier. Of course it's possible that my RF images might just be better than my RM ones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 The very short answer is Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 About one-third of my images are RF and they account for way more than half of my sales (if old Novel Use sales are counted) and, even ignoring those NU sales, they account for more than one-third of my sales, so they sell better than my RM images. I think that my "better" photos are RM so being RF may well make them more salable. This is based on 80+ sales since 2009, so not sure how statistically significant it is. My repeat sellers are a mix of RM and RF. I agonize over which license to choose a lot of the time and started adding more RF images as my early sales seemed to show that they did better, and back then went for higher prices. When I review sales for the past year, however, RM is outselling RF. In any case, as Michael said, the short answer is yes, they sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Sorry to be longwinded, but... some years ago, I made a deal with a winery for a couple of photos, $1,000 each and they could use them in perpetuity. (I had unlimited use of any outtakes also.) Another photographer was turned down for the same assignment because he wanted more money. He came by my studio and the conversation centered not around whether RF (as we now call it) was wrong in principle, but what the rate should be. I recently had my first RF sale on Alamy, in which the distributor got the largest bag of peanuts. Klein vieh macht auch mist*, as they say around here, but it seems to me that RF should go for more money than RM, not less. I would like to have the option of "RF if fee greater than X" when designating usage. *Small barnyard animals also poop, a variation on every little bit helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Hi, I'd like to ask about sales of RF pictures here on Alamy, if some contributor would kindly share his experience, just to have a small generic insight. Are there some sales with RF images? Do someone have mixed RM and RF portfolio and can tell differences in number of sales related to different licenses? I was looking at your images, and assuming you are used to selling on microstock agencies, your images with people's hands have to have releases to sell as RF on Alamy. And when filling in the "How many People" option in Manage Images, you have to count parts of people, not just recognizable people. So your the images you have with hands need to be changed to RM and marked as having 1 person in the photo. Only Alamy can do that, so you need to contact Member Services and they will change them to RM for you. Jill (who accidentally posted this in the wrong thread so is moving it to the correct one now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorenz Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 Hi, I'd like to ask about sales of RF pictures here on Alamy, if some contributor would kindly share his experience, just to have a small generic insight. Are there some sales with RF images? Do someone have mixed RM and RF portfolio and can tell differences in number of sales related to different licenses? I was looking at your images, and assuming you are used to selling on microstock agencies, your images with people's hands have to have releases to sell as RF on Alamy. And when filling in the "How many People" option in Manage Images, you have to count parts of people, not just recognizable people. So your the images you have with hands need to be changed to RM and marked as having 1 person in the photo. Only Alamy can do that, so you need to contact Member Services and they will change them to RM for you. Jill (who accidentally posted this in the wrong thread so is moving it to the correct one now) Thank you I'll fix that asap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I've yet to lease a single RF image on Alamy, but then I have very few RF images on Alamy. I keep meaning to add more RF, but almost all my images seem to contain something that might be owned by someone, so I end up sticking with RM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Lanciani Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 It looks like the real question is maybe: what makes an image RF-friendly or RM-friendly for a client. Yet, can the same image be interesting as RF for a client and as RM for another? And which one would sell more, given that we have to chose? Reading similar posts my intension was to go only RM. I'm new here. I'm still building my collection on Alamy, and I would like to know your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDoug Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I think there are two reasons for designating an image as RF: 1) it's something generic such as a flower where lots of images are already available online which are RF. Presumably, the client would prefer RF over RM if all else is equal. 2) you've gone to the trouble of getting the necessary releases and you think the image has commercial potential and would bring in higher fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Out of 3928 images, I have 93 RF. I have sold 5 of those starting in 2012. Low of $10.13, high of $125 just this month. The remaining 3845 are RM, and since 2012 I have a high price of $700, one for $500, and many more in the 150-200 range. Although some sub $25, even sub $10. Percent sold of my RF is 18.6% RM is 18.1% Yet the RM prices have been clearly higher, a $700 against a $125. No brainer for me. I'll continue to offer a very few RF, but will mainly stick with the RM model. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Hi, I'd like to ask about sales of RF pictures here on Alamy, if some contributor would kindly share his experience, just to have a small generic insight. Are there some sales with RF images? Do someone have mixed RM and RF portfolio and can tell differences in number of sales related to different licenses? I was looking at your images, and assuming you are used to selling on microstock agencies, your images with people's hands have to have releases to sell as RF on Alamy. And when filling in the "How many People" option in Manage Images, you have to count parts of people, not just recognizable people. So your the images you have with hands need to be changed to RM and marked as having 1 person in the photo. Only Alamy can do that, so you need to contact Member Services and they will change them to RM for you. Jill (who accidentally posted this in the wrong thread so is moving it to the correct one now) So you're saying Member Services should change the license from RF to RM even when the same images are RF somewhere else? I would at least tell MS that I have them somewhere else as RF. AFAIK it's simply not allowed to have images as RM here but RF at some place else. However I cannot find that rule. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I think there are two reasons for designating an image as RF: 1) it's something generic such as a flower where lots of images are already available online which are RF. Presumably, the client would prefer RF over RM if all else is equal. 2) you've gone to the trouble of getting the necessary releases and you think the image has commercial potential and would bring in higher fees. OTOH a buyer might go for an RM image of a flower on Alamy simply because there are so many heavily used RF images of flowers available elsewhere. My one and only sale of a flower on Alamy was RM, but then I'm not much of a flower photographer. The same RM flower shot has been zoomed this month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Hi, I'd like to ask about sales of RF pictures here on Alamy, if some contributor would kindly share his experience, just to have a small generic insight. Are there some sales with RF images? Do someone have mixed RM and RF portfolio and can tell differences in number of sales related to different licenses? I was looking at your images, and assuming you are used to selling on microstock agencies, your images with people's hands have to have releases to sell as RF on Alamy. And when filling in the "How many People" option in Manage Images, you have to count parts of people, not just recognizable people. So your the images you have with hands need to be changed to RM and marked as having 1 person in the photo. Only Alamy can do that, so you need to contact Member Services and they will change them to RM for you. Jill (who accidentally posted this in the wrong thread so is moving it to the correct one now) So you're saying Member Services should change the license from RF to RM even when the same images are RF somewhere else? I would at least tell MS that I have them somewhere else as RF. AFAIK it's simply not allowed to have images as RM here but RF at some place else. However I cannot find that rule. wim If that is the rule, and I believe you are right, what is a photog to do as also under Alamy rules, it isn't allowed to be sold RF if there is a piece of a person in it. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Lanciani Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Don, Betty, John, thank you. John what you say is exactly what I was thinking about. So many RF photos of, say, flowers: it is possible there might be a client looking for an unique RM photo of a flower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Hi, I'd like to ask about sales of RF pictures here on Alamy, if some contributor would kindly share his experience, just to have a small generic insight. Are there some sales with RF images? Do someone have mixed RM and RF portfolio and can tell differences in number of sales related to different licenses? I was looking at your images, and assuming you are used to selling on microstock agencies, your images with people's hands have to have releases to sell as RF on Alamy. And when filling in the "How many People" option in Manage Images, you have to count parts of people, not just recognizable people. So your the images you have with hands need to be changed to RM and marked as having 1 person in the photo. Only Alamy can do that, so you need to contact Member Services and they will change them to RM for you. Jill (who accidentally posted this in the wrong thread so is moving it to the correct one now) So you're saying Member Services should change the license from RF to RM even when the same images are RF somewhere else? I would at least tell MS that I have them somewhere else as RF. AFAIK it's simply not allowed to have images as RM here but RF at some place else. However I cannot find that rule. wim If that is the rule, and I believe you are right, what is a photog to do as also under Alamy rules, it isn't allowed to be sold RF if there is a piece of a person in it. Jill Get a release or choose between outlets probably? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexandre Fagundes Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Alamy is my first experience with RM, but I´ve been selling RF for 8 years now in a microstock agency. There it sells, a lot, but very cheap. I´ve had since the begining more than 19.000 sales. But for that price, I think its worth better go for RM. What would be the RF price here in Alamy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Lanciani Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I do am in a microstock agency. There I started just a few weeks ago. Since then I had 6 downloads out of 35 images, € 0.25 each. Here I want to show better quality and I hope things will get better too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Don, Betty, John, thank you. John what you say is exactly what I was thinking about. So many RF photos of, say, flowers: it is possible there might be a client looking for an unique RM photo of a flower. Or at least an image that hasn't been downloaded a million times from a microstock agency. No doubt many of the generic RF images on Alamy are also available at those "other" places, which we won't name of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 AFAIK it's simply not allowed to have images as RM here but RF at some place else. However I cannot find that rule. wim You made me look for this rule on Alamy's pages, too, but I cannot find it neither. Why doesn't Alamy state this clearly any more? This is really not our job.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 It's a piece of logil even if it's not explicitly stated. Alamy can't prevent any conflict in an RM licence if an image is offered as RF elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprocket Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 AFAIK it's simply not allowed to have images as RM here but RF at some place else. However I cannot find that rule. wim You made me look for this rule on Alamy's pages, too, but I cannot find it neither. Why doesn't Alamy state this clearly any more? This is really not our job.... Alamy Contributor Contract: 2.2 You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty-Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites. http://www.alamy.com/terms/contributor.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 AFAIK it's simply not allowed to have images as RM here but RF at some place else. However I cannot find that rule. wim You made me look for this rule on Alamy's pages, too, but I cannot find it neither. Why doesn't Alamy state this clearly any more? This is really not our job.... It's nonsensical but I can't see any reason why you shouldn't. Just different licenses with different conditions - exclusivity would be a different matter! Edit: But, of course Sprocket has found the relevant rule so please ignore me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.