Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Soooo...if you list as RF but tick the editorial only box, does that mean we can avoid the dreaded Personal Use?

I would think maybe, but then they can say it's for a presentation or whatever.

 

What do you think? Isn't the Personal use the one they can supposedly hang on the wall?

 

Betty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question has been whether people are buying personal use, "cards, prints, etc" for cheaper and using them for editorial. There's been so much discussion about this, and when some have questioned Alamy why the image seemed wrong for personal use, nobody ever got a satisfactory answer.

"People thought they were buying what was in the picture", yeah, right. A bloody innerd, or whatever. Or an answer..."we couldn't reach anyone to ask, so we're closing this out."

 

I'd just as soon do without the $19.99 as I think we're being ripped off. I know we can opt out, but then we lose distributors. Alamy could fix this, but then they'd end up with very few of our images for that purpose. I guarantee the stampede would be on.

 

That's why I wonder if "RF editorial only" is a way to opt out of personal use and keep the distributor sales.

 

And yes, $19.99 is more than a lot of the distributor sales, I realize. But at least those are honest, albeit cheap, deals. And sometimes they are good prices. I just don't like a door being opened that shouts "steal me for $20 instead of $30-200" or whatever. I'll bet 75% of those Personal Use sales are to cheats that are grinning their little pointed heads off.

 

Rant over. ;)

 

Betty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And yes, $19.99 is more than a lot of the distributor sales, I realize. But at least those are honest, albeit cheap, deals"

 

Not to sound paranoid, Betty, but how do we know this?

 

Remember all those "spot use" sales to far-flung corners of the globe? Who knows how images sold through some distributors actually get used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see my role in the stock business, with Alamy, as a producer of material. Sales and price are Alamy's part of the arrangement.

 

I've never been under the impression that this is a co-op agency. Of course I'm unhappy with falling prices. We all are. In 2016 I had twice the sales at Alamy as I had in 2015 . . . but my earnings were almost exactly the same. My belief is that this is not Alamy being mean to me. It's the shifting state of the stock industry. 

 

Who licenses my images and for what purpose? I couldn't care less. I spend my time planning shoots, shooting, doing PP, and tagging. I'm a shooter. 

 

The original premise of this post was "RF editorial." I would love to hear some thoughts about that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you call up an RF editorial image ( my HNBJ8P for example ) the message " Available for editorial and personal use only ... " appears.   Hovering over the ? at the end brings up a more detailed explanation that again clearly states that the image is available for personal use.

 

The rest of the initial phrase " Get in touch for commercial use " I find interesting.  This probably means that Alamy will contact the photographer to see if the required model and/or property releases can be obtained for commercial use.  But could RF editorial also be used on an image that fully qualifies for RF in the first place  ( no required releases or releases already available ) to keep RF pricing available for editorial but require a separate pricing scheme for commercial use?

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 Edo and Philippe.

 
In actual practice RF and RM are already merged everywhere, but the terminology hangs on and confuses everyone in the chain.
 
Alamy says clients prefer RF, other stock libraries say the same, stock photography pundits and pollsters say the same. I believe them.
 
I have a friend who in the business of buying large volumes of stock photos, and they have instructions from on high to only buy RF. It is not over price. For buyers, it is because they do not want the additional complication of tracking usage. They are concerned that with RM they will get in trouble when someone launches a copyright lawsuite if they inadvertently reuse, or their clients reuse, an RM image 5 years in the future. They have to think in the short term. They want to buy rights to this image to use it for this client, now and in the future. Staff can change, clients can change, the rights usage information rots. They need some stability over what rights they have purchased. These people are not crooks. They are honest people well aware of, and sympathetic to, artists rights. That is because they are artists themselves.
 
For about 6 years I have wanted to convert everything to RF. With the new Image Manager I have done so. If I have an RF image that requires a property or model release for commercial use, then I check the editorial only checkbox.
 
This does not necessarily restrict the image to editorial use. Yesterday I received an email from Alamy sales. I had restricted a RF image to editorial use because of no property release. The large company that owns the property wants my permission to make commercial use of the image.
 
Of course I said yes. The system works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you call up an RF editorial image ( my HNBJ8P for example ) the message " Available for editorial and personal use only ... " appears.   Hovering over the ? at the end brings up a more detailed explanation that again clearly states that the image is available for personal use.

 

The rest of the initial phrase " Get in touch for commercial use " I find interesting.  This probably means that Alamy will contact the photographer to see if the required model and/or property releases can be obtained for commercial use.  But could RF editorial also be used on an image that fully qualifies for RF in the first place  ( no required releases or releases already available ) to keep RF pricing available for editorial but require a separate pricing scheme for commercial use?

 

Robert

You just answered my question, Robert. Thank you. The core question was does RF editorial block Personal Use. Your answer is a resounding NO. So I don't have the work of going back to all the images I've marked RF and ticking the Editorial only box.

Although I would've if it blocked PU. Lol, notice the meaning for PU. ;) where is Pepe LePew, anyway?

Oh my, LePew rhymes with LaRue. Where's my lilac perfume?

 

I find the rest of the remarks enlightening. Keep 'em coming.

Betty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned in another conversation, I would consider converting more images to RF editorial if Alamy started providing enough info with RF licenses to allow me to file my annual DACS claim. My DACS payment is now several hundred dollars per year, and I'm not in the mood to give that up. Any thoughts on this downside to switching to RF editorial?

 

Also, my feeling about editorial RF is that it benefits the buyer and the agency more than it does the creators (i.e. us). We've taken some really big hits in recent years. Isn't RF editorial just another one? What am I missing? Please help me change my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned in another conversation, I would consider converting more images to RF editorial if Alamy started providing enough info with RF licenses to allow me to file my annual DACS claim. My DACS payment is now several hundred dollars per year, and I'm not in the mood to give that up. Any thoughts on this downside to switching to RF editorial?

 

Also, my feeling about editorial RF is that it benefits the buyer and the agency more than it does the creators (i.e. us). We've taken some really big hits in recent years. Isn't RF editorial just another one? What am I missing? Please help me change my mind.

Yes, it helps the buyer the most. Bill's post explains why they are preferred. If that is the case, it seems to me that RM licenses, while available right now, will eventually be a thing of the past.

I would think, though, that if one has images that are very good, and unlike anything else offered, RM (for now) would be the way to go. Then down that road I speak of and when the weather changes, they can always be converted if the sales of those images dry up.

Betty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting statistic to have would be the percentage of searches on Alamy that are RF only.  Or letting you know in your daily update how many searches you missed out on because the client was searching RF only.

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As mentioned in another conversation, I would consider converting more images to RF editorial if Alamy started providing enough info with RF licenses to allow me to file my annual DACS claim. My DACS payment is now several hundred dollars per year, and I'm not in the mood to give that up. Any thoughts on this downside to switching to RF editorial?

 

Also, my feeling about editorial RF is that it benefits the buyer and the agency more than it does the creators (i.e. us). We've taken some really big hits in recent years. Isn't RF editorial just another one? What am I missing? Please help me change my mind.

Yes, it helps the buyer the most. Bill's post explains why they are preferred. If that is the case, it seems to me that RM licenses, while available right now, will eventually be a thing of the past.

I would think, though, that if one has images that are very good, and unlike anything else offered, RM (for now) would be the way to go. Then down that road I speak of and when the weather changes, they can always be converted if the sales of those images dry up.

Betty

 

 

Oh yes, I agree, RM licensing will probably become obsolete. However, I would like to see RF editorial "mature" a bit more before I jump onto the bandwagon. Traditional RM editorial still has a lot of benefits for photographers IMO -- easier tracking, secondary rights (e.g. DACS), license extensions, reuses, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As mentioned in another conversation, I would consider converting more images to RF editorial if Alamy started providing enough info with RF licenses to allow me to file my annual DACS claim. My DACS payment is now several hundred dollars per year, and I'm not in the mood to give that up. Any thoughts on this downside to switching to RF editorial?

 

Also, my feeling about editorial RF is that it benefits the buyer and the agency more than it does the creators (i.e. us). We've taken some really big hits in recent years. Isn't RF editorial just another one? What am I missing? Please help me change my mind.

Yes, it helps the buyer the most. Bill's post explains why they are preferred. If that is the case, it seems to me that RM licenses, while available right now, will eventually be a thing of the past.

I would think, though, that if one has images that are very good, and unlike anything else offered, RM (for now) would be the way to go. Then down that road I speak of and when the weather changes, they can always be converted if the sales of those images dry up.

Betty

 

 

Oh yes, I agree, RM licensing will probably become obsolete. However, I would like to see RF editorial "mature" a bit more before I jump onto the bandwagon. Traditional RM editorial still has a lot of benefits for photographers IMO -- easier tracking, secondary rights (e.g. DACS), license extensions, reuses, etc.

 

 

There's still room on the bandwagon.  Don't miss the parade.  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned in another conversation, I would consider converting more images to RF editorial if Alamy started providing enough info with RF licenses to allow me to file my annual DACS claim. My DACS payment is now several hundred dollars per year, and I'm not in the mood to give that up. Any thoughts on this downside to switching to RF editorial?

 

Also, my feeling about editorial RF is that it benefits the buyer and the agency more than it does the creators (i.e. us). We've taken some really big hits in recent years. Isn't RF editorial just another one? What am I missing? Please help me change my mind.

 

If it's an RF sale, does the buyer even have to enter the sort of information we need to support a DACs claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As mentioned in another conversation, I would consider converting more images to RF editorial if Alamy started providing enough info with RF licenses to allow me to file my annual DACS claim. My DACS payment is now several hundred dollars per year, and I'm not in the mood to give that up. Any thoughts on this downside to switching to RF editorial?

 

Also, my feeling about editorial RF is that it benefits the buyer and the agency more than it does the creators (i.e. us). We've taken some really big hits in recent years. Isn't RF editorial just another one? What am I missing? Please help me change my mind.

 

If it's an RF sale, does the buyer even have to enter the sort of information we need to support a DACs claim?

 

 

Good question. I have no idea.

 

All that is really needed is the type of publication -- book, magazine, etc. -- and region. Doesn't seem too difficult to provide. Or is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As mentioned in another conversation, I would consider converting more images to RF editorial if Alamy started providing enough info with RF licenses to allow me to file my annual DACS claim. My DACS payment is now several hundred dollars per year, and I'm not in the mood to give that up. Any thoughts on this downside to switching to RF editorial?

 

Also, my feeling about editorial RF is that it benefits the buyer and the agency more than it does the creators (i.e. us). We've taken some really big hits in recent years. Isn't RF editorial just another one? What am I missing? Please help me change my mind.

 

If it's an RF sale, does the buyer even have to enter the sort of information we need to support a DACs claim?

 

 

Good question. I have no idea.

 

All that is really needed is the type of publication -- book, magazine, etc. -- and region. Doesn't seem too difficult to provide. Or is it?

 

 

If the user is buying RF, why should they state the usage? Don't buyers prefer RF because it's simpler and they don't need to track what they've used it for?

 

I'm like you, I've currently left the vast majority of my images as RM because I value the DACs payment and need the Alamy info that comes with them. I've only been able to find* the actual usages for about 25% of the images sold via Alamy which are eligible for inclusion on my DACs claim, so I rely heavily on the Alamy sales report. *Images found using Google reverse image search, Pixsy and the "Found Images" thread on the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As mentioned in another conversation, I would consider converting more images to RF editorial if Alamy started providing enough info with RF licenses to allow me to file my annual DACS claim. My DACS payment is now several hundred dollars per year, and I'm not in the mood to give that up. Any thoughts on this downside to switching to RF editorial?

 

Also, my feeling about editorial RF is that it benefits the buyer and the agency more than it does the creators (i.e. us). We've taken some really big hits in recent years. Isn't RF editorial just another one? What am I missing? Please help me change my mind.

 

If it's an RF sale, does the buyer even have to enter the sort of information we need to support a DACs claim?

 

 

Good question. I have no idea.

 

All that is really needed is the type of publication -- book, magazine, etc. -- and region. Doesn't seem too difficult to provide. Or is it?

 

 

If the user is buying RF, why should they state the usage? Don't buyers prefer RF because it's simpler and they don't need to track what they've used it for?

 

I'm like you, I've currently left the vast majority of my images as RM because I value the DACs payment and need the Alamy info that comes with them. I've only been able to find* the actual usages for about 25% of the images sold via Alamy which are eligible for inclusion on my DACs claim, so I rely heavily on the Alamy sales report. *Images found using Google reverse image search, Pixsy and the "Found Images" thread on the forum.

 

 

Right. Making everything "RF editorial" would more or less mean tossing the DACS baby out with the bathwater, which would be tolerable if it were accompanied by a big jump in sales. But somehow I'm doubtful that this would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned in another conversation, I would consider converting more images to RF editorial if Alamy started providing enough info with RF licenses to allow me to file my annual DACS claim. My DACS payment is now several hundred dollars per year, and I'm not in the mood to give that up. Any thoughts on this downside to switching to RF editorial?

 

Also, my feeling about editorial RF is that it benefits the buyer and the agency more than it does the creators (i.e. us). We've taken some really big hits in recent years. Isn't RF editorial just another one? What am I missing? Please help me change my mind.

 

You wouldn't be giving it up as your past sales would qualify you for that payment. If you went RF from now on it just wouldn't increase if details were not given in the license details (they are sometimes esp in IQ sales)

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stay put, I don't think it matters. The iQ sales will do it, and I can deal with property and people in a much better way with RM as I see it. News and editorial photographers will probably still be on the RM side until a change is forced upon us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The new MI has the default as RF, and as Alamy are always right, that must be the best option. Personally I don't have a clue and wouldn't dare say if I did.

 

 

You can easily change the default setting for future images - I did.

 

 

 

I'm no expert though and unsure which is best.

 

I think none of us are - and none of us are sure. Each of us must determine what to do from what we think we know right now.

 

I sure am in doubt whether it should be is or are here ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to ponder. If we allowed Alamy to claim for us, would they have enough details on RF to claim for those?

 

The problem lies not just with the occasion that the image is purchased with an RF licence. Once the customer has the licence they can use the image where and when and as often as they like. Neither Alamy nor the photographer have a hope of identifying future uses of such images unless we are lucky enough to spot them 'in print' and report them in this forum - and that will be very much the minority of uses.  

 

Everybody loves the RF licence apart from the poor photographer. If we go accept the (almost inevitable) RF route, it is not a massive step before we are in the position of even well-established microstockers who, even now, are bemoaning that their dollar per image is being squeezed to a few cents. Editorial is not the same as commercial stock, few editorial images will ever sell in the vast quantities which can enable a commercial microstock image costing a few cents to bring a worthwhile return.

 

Resistance may be futile but I for one am a stubborn old git.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The new MI has the default as RF, and as Alamy are always right, that must be the best option. Personally I don't have a clue and wouldn't dare say if I did.

 

 

You can easily change the default setting for future images - I did.

 

 

 

I'm no expert though and unsure which is best.

 

I think none of us are - and none of us are sure. Each of us must determine what to do from what we think we know right now.

 

I sure am in doubt whether it should be is or are here ;-)

 

None of us is.

"None" is a contraction of "no one". You would say "one is", so it's "none is".

Don't worry, most British people get it wrong sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.