Open ended licences - thin end of the wedge?

[Gordon Scammell]

Had this sale pop up the other day:

 

Country: Worldwide
Usage: iQ sale: Single company - multiple use editorial only
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing
Start: 23 June 2016
Duration: Unlimited for duration of licence

$90.02

 

I have been a contributor to Alamy for a fair length of time and have never seen any image sold with an open ended licence.

 

Has anyone else had this?

 

I wrote to MS pointing out that this doesn’t seem right.  The image was RF.

 

The reply I received:

 

'We do offer licensing of different duration dependent on the client needs. Sometimes they set them way in the future to essentially cover what they call "life of product" this is quite normal if the image is for use in education text books etc.

 

We’re not selling RM images as RF. The license we’re selling controls the usage of the image, it can only be used in an editorial educational context. There are no advertising, broadcast or consumer goods rights associated with this license (unlike a RF license).’

 

I replied saying that they hadn’t really addressed the problem.  

 

Their reply:

 

'We’ve worked with these publishers for many years and their view is that they won’t work with a model where you have to relicense each time, it’s time consuming and can be prone to errors. With this new approach, we’ve upped the price to cover the likelihood of a re-use.

We’ve increased prices by over 60% but the likelihood of a re-use is less than 5% so photographers are better off.  We’ve analysed a history of sales to this market and we know that if we’d had this deal 3 years ago, the contributor would have been significantly better off.’

 

I take their point about the increase in the selling price - but I ask myself what my answer would have been if someone had approached me directly to ask if they could pay $90 to have use of my image for as long as they liked.  I'm afraid my answer would have been a very firm 'No'. If it had been a RF image then they could pay the money and have the image tattooed on their backside as far as I am concerned.  This was a RM image  I would like to see Alamy actually 'manage the rights' of my image  They get paid enough to do it.

 

I would have liked to have been given the option to agree or disagree to accept ‘open ended licences’ as I think it is the thin end of the wedge.

 

 

 

 

[losdemas]

"Has anyone else had this?"

 

Yes: exactly the same.  Along with a personal use license my sales for June included: a Web advertising sale (RM with no releases) for nothing near advertising rates and an 'Internal business usage' poster (same company) for 'Life of Display'.  RM ain't what it used to be....

 

EDIT: corrected link.

 

As a matter of interest, you don't know where this sold, do you (PM, if you wish)?

[John Mitchell]

I've had several of these open-ended licenses in recent history.

 

Alamy's flexible, "hybrid" RM/RF licenses can take many forms.

 

RM definitely ain't what it used to be, but then what is, eh?

[isphoto]

"'We’ve worked with these publishers for many years and their view is that they won’t work with a model where you have to relicense each time, it’s time consuming and can be prone to errors. With this new approach, we’ve upped the price to cover the likelihood of a re-use."

 

So it's "time consuming" for the poor publisher, I think it's time someone told them that it's time consuming and very costly to create the very images they seek to use. Picture libraries are getting a reputation as a pushover when it comes to negotiating, I know, I have been both a contributor and on the buying side for various companies. Alamy are not alone, other library's are also pussy cats when it comes to negotiating, at least other libraries appear to have some level of control left with the big collections who appear to be able to exclude themselves from low level sales.

 

Every customer will say they want this and that, the art of the sales person is to push back, not bend over.

[Gordon Scammell]

"Has anyone else had this?"

 

Yes: exactly the same.  Along with a personal use license my sales for June included: a Web advertising sale (RM with no releases) for nothing near advertising rates and an 'Internal business usage' poster (same company) for 'Life of Display'.  RM ain't what it used to be....

 

EDIT: corrected link.

 

As a matter of interest, you don't know where this sold, do you (PM, if you wish)?

 

 

No idea who it was sold to.  I get the distinct feeling that the longer one stays in this game the more you shafted.  Quite disgusted with Alamy to be honest.  Glad I don't put my good stuff with them.

[spacecadet]

 

 

 

 

  Glad I don't put my good stuff with them.

Gracious of you to favour us with your rejects, then.

Most of us have no choice.

[John Mitchell]

Unfortunately. open-ended sales like these could indeed be the thin edge of the wedge. I wouldn't be surprised to see the notion of "duration" eventually disappear from "RM" licensing. At one time, it was possible to earn as much, if not more, from re-licensing as from new sales, especially to educational publishers. Not any longer, though.

[Bill Brooks]

Quite disgusted with Alamy to be honest.  Glad I don't put my good stuff with them.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes Gord, I agree with your assessment regarding the quality of your Alamy images. Obviously not “good stuff”

[Gordon Scammell]

 

 

 

 

 

  Glad I don't put my good stuff with them.

Gracious of you to favour us with your rejects, then.

Most of us have no choice.

 

 

What I put with Alamy really has very, very little to do with you.  But thanks for the input.  Always valued.

[Gordon Scammell]

 

Quite disgusted with Alamy to be honest.  Glad I don't put my good stuff with them.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes Gord, I agree with your assessment regarding the quality of your Alamy images. Obviously not “good stuff”

 

It's Gordon by the way.  Cheers.

[spacecadet]

It was

 

 

 

What I put with Alamy really has very, very little to do with you.  But thanks for the input.  Always valued.

 

 

 

Far be it for me to stick my nose in, but if you post in a forum, you invite others to make comments on what you write. If you don't wish to receive opinions from others, maybe a forum isn't the best place to make posts.

 

Also this is usually a friendly pleasant place to post but there increasingly seems to be a lot of attitude from some contributors who are determined to wind others up.

 

Regarding your previous comment on your poor images, I actually think your images on Alamy (I only looked at the latest page) are very good, but of course I'm sure you already know that. 

 

Geoff.

 

It was the implication that some of us are on some elevated plane above the rest, imperiously deigning to offer a few stale crumbs to desperate image buyers, that I found unattractive.

It's not up to me to decide what's "best"- that would seem like vanity, or Art, if you prefer. If anyone decides, it's the buyers.

Incidentally I didn't even look at the images until after posting- it wasn't the point.

[spacecadet]

 

 

It was the implication that some of us are on some elevated plane above the rest, imperiously deigning to offer a few stale crumbs to desperate image buyers, that I found unattractive.

It's not up to me to decide what's "best"- that would seem like vanity, or Art, if you prefer. If anyone decides, it's the buyers.

Incidentally I didn't even look at the images until after posting- it wasn't the point.

 

 

I'm not sure if you're taking me the wrong way or not, but I'm in agreement with you. I couldn't think how to express my thought in words, but your first sentence explains it pretty well, and I was thinking the same thing.

 

Geoff.

 

I was agreeing with you. Commenting on what you commented on.

[Gordon Scammell]

 

 

What I put with Alamy really has very, very little to do with you.  But thanks for the input.  Always valued.

 

 

 

Far be it for me to stick my nose in, but if you post in a forum, you invite others to make comments on what you write. If you don't wish to receive opinions from others, maybe a forum isn't the best place to make posts.

 

Also this is usually a friendly pleasant place to post but there increasingly seems to be a lot of attitude from some contributors who are determined to wind others up.

 

Regarding your previous comment on your poor images, I actually think your images on Alamy (I only looked at the latest page) are very good, but of course I'm sure you already know that. 

 

Geoff.

 

 

 

 

 

What I put with Alamy really has very, very little to do with you.  But thanks for the input.  Always valued.

 

 

 

Far be it for me to stick my nose in, but if you post in a forum, you invite others to make comments on what you write. If you don't wish to receive opinions from others, maybe a forum isn't the best place to make posts.

 

Also this is usually a friendly pleasant place to post but there increasingly seems to be a lot of attitude from some contributors who are determined to wind others up.

 

Regarding your previous comment on your poor images, I actually think your images on Alamy (I only looked at the latest page) are very good, but of course I'm sure you already know that. 

 

Geoff.

 

I was enquiring about the open ended licences.  Not interested in any other comments off that topic.  

What I consider my 'best' images are lodged with a couple of exclusive stock libraries.  I don't put what I consider to be my 'best' images with Alamy as the financial returns would be poor compared to what they earn with the 'exclusive' libraries.  I have no interest in implying anything.