Do RF images sell?

[Guest]

 

 

 

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!

 

 

You mentioned the very use, if you want the advantages of RM i.e. the possible exclusive use, then you have to take the downside which is being able to offer exclusivity for use.... you can't do that if the image has been sold as RF.

 

And to the OP, yes RF does sell and sells well, although not as marked a difference as in some other traditional outlets - nature of Alamy's client base.

[wiskerke]

 

 

 

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

 

 

Well spotted! I must have overlooked. This one should be in the FAQ.

 

wim

[Marianne]

Licensing has gotten so weird these days with some of those 25-year RM licenses pretty close to RF. I had a microstock agency license one of my RF images recently for $750 as a one-year exclusive use - but that image was with them exclusively so they could, though it doesn't really stop those who licensed it previously from using it. Then again, the RF uses on microstock agencies are really not true RF - there are limits such as print run unless a buyer purchases an extended license. Conceptually, with RM Alamy should be able to license our images exclusively since restrictions on use such as time and location are the point of RM, but by allowing us to have our RM images elsewhere - also as RM - it really doesn't allow for all of those possibilities. Of course, if an image is elsewhere as RM and Alamy asks you to license it exclusively, you can take it down from another site. 

 

I try to choose some more generic shots as RF so that I can license them on other traditionally priced agencies where RF is the only option. Some of those agencies have prime collections with prices in the $250-700 range (with 70% to the photographer), so it makes sense to me. I also have some RF concept shots that are on Alamy and the micros but most of my RF on Alamy is only available on higher-priced niche agencies, since I don't want to compete with myself. It's hard deciding which license will earn you more and where to place certain types of images for the best return. And once an RM image is on the internet, you really have no control over duration of the license. I guess that's why Alamy is moving toward these hybrid iQ licenses for some sales. 

 

I have noticed that my average RM prices seem to be going up since early 2015, I'm guess this is because RM means the image isn't all over the micros, and that's still how I place the bulk of my work both on Alamy and other traditionally priced agencies.  

[dov makabaw]

Interesting topic Lorenz.

 

Have gone over my history and my stats are as follows

 

My portfolio split is RM 60% - RF 40%.

 

RM sales vs portfolio 3.3% - RF sales vs portfolio 4.6%

 

Average sales value RM $77 - RF $86

 

In my early days I incorrectly categorised a number of pics as RF so these figures may not be totally reliable.

 

 

dov

[Lorenz]

Many thanks to everyone who share his experiences on the topic! It provides a sound glimpse about  what one could expect with RF and RM images here. ..So sales for RF are present, although in any case a small percentage of RF/RM images are sold and it seems that a big portfolio (in order of the thousands) is a must to see some revenue..

[Marianne]

Just had a sale show up today RF image $100 but it's like an RM as it shows it's for a magazine, 5 years, quarter page, limit on print run etc. For magazines, calendars and similar places that are used to the RM model and need a photo for a specific use, I wonder if RF/RM makes much difference to them? They may have chosen these limits to keep the price down even though it's an RF image, but I'm just speculating. 

[John Mitchell]

Just had a sale show up today RF image $100 but it's like an RM as it shows it's for a magazine, 5 years, quarter page, limit on print run etc. For magazines, calendars and similar places that are used to the RM model and need a photo for a specific use, I wonder if RF/RM makes much difference to them? They may have chosen these limits to keep the price down even though it's an RF image, but I'm just speculating. 

 

Keeping the cost down would be my guess as well. However, it is a bit odd that an RF image would be leased as what sounds to be RM. But I guess that if RM images can be sold as what amounts to modified RF (as often is the case these days), then the opposite also makes sense -- i.e. the flexible "hybrid" leasing model can go either way.

 

It seems that a lot of publishers still feel more comfortable with RM licensing. Personally, I hope that this situation doesn't change because I too still prefer the RM model.