Why RF?

[chrumu]

Why bother about whether to license images as RM or RF?

 

Just put it as RM; if Alamy wants, they will still sell it like RF...

 

Country: Worldwide

Usage: iQ sale: Single company - multiple use editorial only
Industry sector: Education
Start: 08 February 2017
Duration: Unlimited

 

 

Not sure if I should be upset because Alamy doesn't care about my license preferences, or happy that they managed to sell a license of one of my RM pictures to a customer who wouldn't accept RM images.

 

 

Price was okay-ish, but lower than all my previous real RF sales at Alamy.

 

 

Christoph

[Arletta]

Philippe, I agree with you as my feelings are totally the same... It's different agency now. Sad to see how things are changing

[John Mitchell]

Why RF? I guess Alamy's answer would be that their clients prefer it, the implication being that switching from RM to RF will bring more sales.

 

I now have about 200 RF images on Alamy, mainly as an experiment, and none has licensed yet. I'll keep making certain types of images RF to see if the situation improves. However, no big switch from RM to RF (or RF Editorial) in the cards for me. Don't see the point in it given Alamy's flexible licensing model.

[Niels Quist]

I stil choose RM for the vast majority of images and tick the appropriate boxes and leave the responsibility for the use to the buyers.

[AlessandraRC]

I'm fine with them selling the image as they see fit, particularly the RM images that are only on Alamy. 

[Chuck Nacke]

I do not like RF, I allow Alamy to license my images and they have done a wonderful job

improving greatly in 17, keep up the good work Alamy...

[Robert Shantz]

I've recently converted an number of my images to RF  (editorial only when appropriate) to see what, if any, difference it makes. 

 

I had a RM image license on 3/3/17 for $93.75 net that looks like a relicense of the image that licensed for $186.00 net on 1/16/12.   This would seem to be a good argument for RM.

 

However, what I cannot know, is how many sales I may have lost because the buyer went with a RF image that was more or less comparable to my RM images.  Since Alamy now recommends RF, it may well be that they have numbers showing that there is indeed a buyer preference for RF, and also that buyers may be going to other agencies when RF is not available on Alamy.  I seldom see RF specified in a search, but this may only reflect that fact that the buyer will look at RM also in case there is an exceptional image.  But he then almost always buys  RF if an adequate alternative is available. 

 

It would be interesting to know how Alamy sales are distributed between RF and RM relative to the number of images in each category.  Has anyone seen these numbers?  One could, I suppose, argue that the number of images in each category might be biased toward one or the other by legacy images that are ranked so low that they aren't even viewed.

 

Robert

[Betty LaRue]

I have turned many of my bird/butterfly images that are long in the tooth to RF. I'm waiting to see if it makes any difference whatever.

And yes, RM is now licensed quite often as if they were RF.

 

But as Robert pointed out, what we don't know is whether our RM image of a subject was bypassed by a buyer looking for RF. There HAS to be a good reason for Alamy suggesting RF. Possibly feedback from buyers, along with sale numbers.

 

Betty

[John Mitchell]

I have turned many of my bird/butterfly images that are long in the tooth to RF. I'm waiting to see if it makes any difference whatever.

And yes, RM is now licensed quite often as if they were RF.

 

But as Robert pointed out, what we don't know is whether our RM image of a subject was bypassed by a buyer looking for RF. There HAS to be a good reason for Alamy suggesting RF. Possibly feedback from buyers, along with sale numbers.

 

Betty

 

One good reason might be that licensing RF images is a lot easier for Alamy -- i.e. no complex terms to negotiate.

 

Whether or not RF is good/better for contributors remains another question. No?

[Ed Rooney]

All my produce and cooked food images are now RF. I think of it as a test. People dining and food in supermarkets remain RM. 

 

I'm trying to form a point of view on making images RF but saying they can sell for editorial only.    ???

[gvallee]

It would be interesting to know how Alamy sales are distributed between RF and RM relative to the number of images in each category.  Has anyone seen these numbers? 

 

Robert

Alamy used to publish these numbers on a regular basis (monthly? quarterly? can't remember) but they stopped long time ago. That's a shame.

 

Gen

[kimba]

I did not get the RF/RM memo. I still have all of my images at RM.

[gvallee]

I did not get the RF/RM memo. I still have all of my images at RM.

 

It wasn't a memo. Aren't you on the new AIM? It is in the instructions manual.

 

http://www.alamy.com/myupload/help/AIM-InstructionManual.pdf#page=16

[kimba]

Yep, on the AIM but didn't read any instructions ...  I just started using it. 

 

I'll go have a look.

[Arletta]

 

Whether or not RF is good/better for contributors remains another question. No?

 

 

RF can be good for clients, but how could it be good for authors?!  

[Wawa]

"Why bother about whether to license images as RM or RF?    Just put it as RM; if Alamy wants, they will still sell it like RF..."    So is that the norm now?  Just make everything RM?

[Peter Jordan]

Until recently all my images have been RM, but like others here I have experimented by making some RF.  With only about 1% of my images RF, I decided it was too small a sample to be relevant, and thanks to the new AIM, I have been able to easily return them to RM.

 

I want to keep my images as RM, for two reasons, first I do enjoy seeing where images are licensed and for what usage.  This shows how well Alamy does for me, how could I ever have found most of those buyers?

 

Another issue is DACS, while my sale numbers with Alamy is rising, the income is pretty much staying the same, due to the general decline in prices.   My annual royalty payments from DACS cumulate year on year and now amount to about 20% of my Alamy earnings.  To continue to apply for new DACs royalties each year, I need the usage details that are only available with RM licences.

[Jill Morgan]

 

 

 

 

Whether or not RF is good/better for contributors remains another question. No?

 

 

RF can be good for clients, but how could it be good for authors?!  

 

 

Who cares about the authors? I certainly know who doesn't, that's been made abundantly clear.

 

Geoff.

I'm not sure why we think Alamy owes us some sort of allegiance. We aren'the their children, merely their suppliers. They are in it to make as much money for themselves and their stockholders. Period. Just the same as us. Supposedly the more money Alamy makes, the more the contributors make. Of course the contributor pie slices are getting smaller and smaller as the contributor base grows. That is just a fact of life in the age of digital photography.

 

I have suppliers in my dog business, some of them for many years. But if the competition comes up with better prices, better quality, I'll drop the old for new as I am in this to make money for me, not them. My brother-in-law is one of my suppliers and I have even dropped a couple of his lines as I have found better prices elsewhere. Nothing personal, just business.

 

Jill

[Jill Morgan]

Post deleted on request

 

Jill

[spacecadet]

 

 

 

 

 

Whether or not RF is good/better for contributors remains another question. No?

 

 

RF can be good for clients, but how could it be good for authors?!  

 

 

Who cares about the authors? I certainly know who doesn't, that's been made abundantly clear.

 

Geoff.

I'm not sure why we think Alamy owes us some sort of allegiance. We aren'the their children, merely their suppliers. They are in it to make as much money for themselves and their stockholders. Period. Just the same as us. Supposedly the more money Alamy makes, the more the contributors make. Of course the contributor pie slices are getting smaller and smaller as the contributor base grows. That is just a fact of life in the age of digital photography.

 

I have suppliers in my dog business, some of them for many years. But if the competition comes up with better prices, better quality, I'll drop the old for new as I am in this to make money for me, not them. My brother-in-law is one of my suppliers and I have even dropped a couple of his lines as I have found better prices elsewhere. Nothing personal, just business.

 

Jill

 

Alamy doesn't have shareholders. It's a profit-making company, but the profits go into a medical research charity. So the situation is a little different.

[Jill Morgan]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether or not RF is good/better for contributors remains another question. No?

 

 

RF can be good for clients, but how could it be good for authors?!  

 

 

Who cares about the authors? I certainly know who doesn't, that's been made abundantly clear.

 

Geoff.

I'm not sure why we think Alamy owes us some sort of allegiance. We aren'the their children, merely their suppliers. They are in it to make as much money for themselves and their stockholders. Period. Just the same as us. Supposedly the more money Alamy makes, the more the contributors make. Of course the contributor pie slices are getting smaller and smaller as the contributor base grows. That is just a fact of life in the age of digital photography.

 

I have suppliers in my dog business, some of them for many years. But if the competition comes up with better prices, better quality, I'll drop the old for new as I am in this to make money for me, not them. My brother-in-law is one of my suppliers and I have even dropped a couple of his lines as I have found better prices elsewhere. Nothing personal, just business.

 

Jill

 

Alamy doesn't have shareholders. It's a profit-making company, but the profits go into a medical research charity. So the situation is a little different.

 

 

Not really, then the responsibility is to make as much for the charity.  No real difference.

 

Jill

[Arletta]

Guys, may I ask why do you quote all the posts over and over again?

[John Mitchell]

I wasn't really thinking in terms of Alamy owing us their allegiance. Photographers are pretty good at orchestrating their own demise -- e.g. by embracing microstock in droves.

 

BTW, the same goes for writers. I used to do a lot of freelance travel writing for newspapers and magazines, and I watched the whole enterprise go down the tube as writers (including myself at times) gave into horrible, rights-grabbing contracts and miserable pay.

[phomme]

I choose RM for my photos.

[geoff s]

Well since I wasn't exactly making my fortune with my images as RM I decided to change them all to RF in line with the recommendations. 

It can't do an awful lot of damage to my sales figures, unfortunately, and it might even help.

Geoff