RF editorial

[Niels Quist]

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.

 

 

Yes, thank you. My average knowledge of English grammar also pointed in that direction, but I suddenly didn't like the sound of it when I was writing.

 - Thanks.

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

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.

 

 

Yes, thank you. My average knowledge of English grammar also pointed in that direction, but I suddenly didn't like the sound of it when I was writing.

 - Thanks.

 

I once had a sarcastic dig at someone for their poor "grammer". Of course, spelling "grammar" incorrectly didn't help my case. Since then I've kept my big mouth shut. 

 

Geoff.

Was that after you pried your foot out of your mouth, Geoff?

[John Mitchell]

 

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.

That sums things up well IMO. It seems to me that Alamy's current 25-year and "in perpetuity" RM/RF hybrid licenses should satisfy most editorial buyers, even those who fear inadvertently re-using an image illegally down the road. I also doubt that changing masses of images from RM to RF Editorial will result in a sales boom on Alamy (I may be wrong of course).

 

Consequently, I'm going to remain a 'stubborn old git' as well for the time being. All this is actually somewhat moot for me since I also upload a lot of my images to my PhotoShelter website (and other places), which is set up for RM licensing. I can't offer the same images here as RF editorial and RM elsewhere.

[Betty LaRue]

Ok, up until the last few weeks I only had a handful of RF images. Out of 5000, maybe 75 RF.

Yet in the past rolling year, 13% of my sales were RF.

 

Best price, $89.

In past few years, I've had prices of $89, $125, $81.05, $79.91, and $110. There were a few small sales scattered in, but on the whole, the prices tend to be better percentage wise than RM.

 

Granted, I've not gotten a $150-200 RF sale, but these days, those are very few and far between in RM.

 

I have probably turned a few hundred into RF now. I think it will take a year to evaluate whether it's worthwhile or not. The majority of my port is still RM. if the RF sales outpace the RM, then it will be a no brainer.

 

Betty

[John Mitchell]

 

Ok, up until the last few weeks I only had a handful of RF images. Out of 5000, maybe 75 RF.

Yet in the past rolling year, 13% of my sales were RF.

 

Best price, $89.

In past few years, I've had prices of $89, $125, $81.05, $79.91, and $110. There were a few small sales scattered in, but on the whole, the prices tend to be better percentage wise than RM.

 

Granted, I've not gotten a $150-200 RF sale, but these days, those are very few and far between in RM.

 

I have probably turned a few hundred into RF now. I think it will take a year to evaluate whether it's worthwhile or not. The majority of my port is still RM. if the RF sales outpace the RM, then it will be a no brainer.

 

Betty

 

 

Interesting numbers you quoted Betty, thanks for that information. I'll certainly change more of mine to RF too, maybe using similars so I can have some as RF, some RM. That's actually what I've always done although obviously couldn't with anything needing a release, but that's no long a problem.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Hmmm... not so sure that Alamy likes the idea of RM and RF similars:

 

"Our customers are increasingly asking for broader rights so we’d recommend selling your images as RF but the decision is yours. You can choose a different stock photo license for each image you upload, but we suggest not giving the same or very similar looking images different licence types."

[John Mitchell]

 

Interesting numbers you quoted Betty, thanks for that information. I'll certainly change more of mine to RF too, maybe using similars so I can have some as RF, some RM. That's actually what I've always done although obviously couldn't with anything needing a release, but that's no long a problem.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Hmmm... not so sure that Alamy likes the idea of RM and RF similars:

 

"Our customers are increasingly asking for broader rights so we’d recommend selling your images as RF but the decision is yours. You can choose a different stock photo license for each image you upload, but we suggest not giving the same or very similar looking images different licence types."

 

 

 

I should have been clearer about what I meant. I didn't mean very similar, but images of the same subject. For example I have many swan images but they're all very different. So I have some as RM and some as RF.

 

I avoid uploading very similar images. 

 

Thanks for the quote. I have read it before but it slipped my mind, so I appreciate the reminder.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Got it. But in the case of swan images, wouldn't buyers always go for RF over RM if they had the choice? It is a good way to "test the waters" (so to speak), though.

[Jill Morgan]

 

 

Interesting numbers you quoted Betty, thanks for that information. I'll certainly change more of mine to RF too, maybe using similars so I can have some as RF, some RM. That's actually what I've always done although obviously couldn't with anything needing a release, but that's no long a problem.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Hmmm... not so sure that Alamy likes the idea of RM and RF similars:

 

"Our customers are increasingly asking for broader rights so we’d recommend selling your images as RF but the decision is yours. You can choose a different stock photo license for each image you upload, but we suggest not giving the same or very similar looking images different licence types."

 

 

 

I should have been clearer about what I meant. I didn't mean very similar, but images of the same subject. For example I have many swan images but they're all very different. So I have some as RM and some as RF.

 

I avoid uploading very similar images. 

 

Thanks for the quote. I have read it before but it slipped my mind, so I appreciate the reminder.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Got it. But in the case of swan images, wouldn't buyers always go for RF over RM if they had the choice? It is a good way to "test the waters" (so to speak), though.

 

 

Generally RF sell for more than RM, so a buyer pretty sure they will never need the image again, will probably go for the RM version.

 

Jill

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

Interesting numbers you quoted Betty, thanks for that information. I'll certainly change more of mine to RF too, maybe using similars so I can have some as RF, some RM. That's actually what I've always done although obviously couldn't with anything needing a release, but that's no long a problem.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Hmmm... not so sure that Alamy likes the idea of RM and RF similars:

 

"Our customers are increasingly asking for broader rights so we’d recommend selling your images as RF but the decision is yours. You can choose a different stock photo license for each image you upload, but we suggest not giving the same or very similar looking images different licence types."

 

 

 

I should have been clearer about what I meant. I didn't mean very similar, but images of the same subject. For example I have many swan images but they're all very different. So I have some as RM and some as RF.

 

I avoid uploading very similar images. 

 

Thanks for the quote. I have read it before but it slipped my mind, so I appreciate the reminder.

 

Geoff.

 

 

Got it. But in the case of swan images, wouldn't buyers always go for RF over RM if they had the choice? It is a good way to "test the waters" (so to speak), though.

 

 

Generally RF sell for more than RM, so a buyer pretty sure they will never need the image again, will probably go for the RM version.

 

Jill

 

 

In theory maybe, but in reality do RF images actually sell for more than RM ones on average?

[Betty LaRue]

John, with my small amount of RF images before recent weeks, the RF sales were probably 3/4 decent amounts.

 

RM, though, have many $10-30 sales and less even, you know THOSE cup of coffee amounts, with fewer overall percent what I consider decent. I consider decent $50 and up. The RF sales were some better than decent. $79 and up. With 1/4 for cheap dinner or fast food amounts.

 

I wish someone who has had a bigger port of RF would chime in, because my experience might not be the norm.

Betty

[Bella]

 

+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.

 

 

I came looking for an opinion on this, thank you Bill

[Marianne]

Licenses do seem to be so fluid these days. I've had RF images licensed as one-time use for less than they'd pay for true RF - not sure if it was through Alamy or elsewhere - and I have licensed RF images directly to clients that way too - some publishers have set fees and only want one-time use and don't mind how an image is being licensed elsewhere. And I've had plenty of RM images licensed here as though they were RF. 

 

I think RF editorial makes sense for me mostly because I do well with US editorial images on other sites that are only RF. For example, I had a fair number of images of Hillary Clinton taken over the years, and had put some early ones from a 2006 magazine shoot on the micros because in the old days before reportage and Live News opened up,  I had to upsize a 6 MP image to 48MB and they weren't all going to make the cut. Later on, when file size wasn't an issue, I would have liked to put them here.  - just as I had some on Alamy as RM taken in later years that I would have liked to put elsewhere too, since those types of images were selling well from a US-based site. Now there's no rush to do so, sadly. Personally, I had hoped that the change to RF editorial would have come during the run-up to the election. I'm glad going forward if I shoot any events of interest that I can quickly upload all to both sites and not waste time deciding who should get what, are they too similar, can I only upload to one site, etc. With newspaper deals here, I generally do better elsewhere, but I didn't want to give up on Alamy Live News. I've also had a couple of images uploaded as Live News licensed to magazines and books some years later for $100-150 (both US subjects), and I wonder if that reflects that there is still a strong market for RM? In those instances, I was very glad I didn't have the option of RF editorial since I might have been tempted to upload them outside of Alamy, where they wouldn't have commanded those prices. 

 

I guess going forward I'll treat it as I do my other RF images. I have some that are spread among several agencies that I expect to see licensed often so that small sales add up quickly, and others that I consider to be rarer that only go to Alamy or similar mid-traditional stock agencies. 

 

I like the RM model much better. What photographer wouldn't? But I have local media clients who can't wrap their head around the concept of RM and figure if they've sent me on an assignment and paid me for the photo, they can use it again and again, despite my refusal to ever sign a "work for hire" agreement. So I compromise and they get to reuse the images, but so do I, and I keep my copyright. That, they understand. They often hire local portrait photographers who are just happy to see their work in a local magazine as free advertising, so I need to stay flexible, and make it worth their while to pay me. We all have to adapt to changing circumstances and figure out the best way to maximize the profit from the photos we've taken. 

[John Mitchell]

It seems to me that with its custom editorial RM licenses,  Alamy has done a very good job of adapting to the market's demand for flexibility.

 

Why not just leave things the way they are rather than switching wholesale to RF editorial, which really doesn't do a lot for photographers?

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as the saying goes.

[Niels Quist]

It seems to me that with its custom editorial RM licenses,  Alamy has done a very good job of adapting to the market's demand for flexibility.

 

Why not just leave things the way they are rather than switching wholesale to RF editorial, which really doesn't do a lot for photographers?

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as the saying goes.

 

+1

[Marianne]

Excellent point John! +1

 

However, I also appreciate Bill's experience. Some buyers might be directed by their bosses or clients to only search for RF, not knowing they can get a hybrid license from Alamy. In the past, I always had more RM sales than RF, but last year RF images accounted for 2/3rds of my sales and they only account for 1/4 of my images. 

 

It's not an easy decision, but I think for spot news I'm leaning toward the RF model so it can get out on as many channels as possible. 

[Betty LaRue]

Excellent point John! +1

 

However, I also appreciate Bill's experience. Some buyers might be directed by their bosses or clients to only search for RF, not knowing they can get a hybrid license from Alamy. In the past, I always had more RM sales than RF, but last year RF images accounted for 2/3rds of my sales and they only account for 1/4 of my images. 

 

It's not an easy decision, but I think for spot news I'm leaning toward the RF model so it can get out on as many channels as possible.

 

Similar to me, with the proportion of RF sales better than how many RF images I actually had. Meaning 13% of sales were RF but my RF images were far less than 13% of my port.

Not now, since I've made a lot more RF recently.

Betty

[Betty LaRue]

"This randomness makes sense, because if all your photos showed up based on your pseudonym's rank, how would that rank ever change if it was low? I think that there are two things going on here, highly ranked pseudos (and possibly those with a good total CTR) are given an edge, but this is tempered by some randomness in the algorithm to let those gems hidden in average and below average pseudos get seen. That's why if you've got the highest rank of the many photographers who shoot a certain subject, the entire first page isn't made up of just your images. They are spread out. If a buyer doesn't like one photographer's style, they might look elsewhere rather than scrolling to page two, so Alamy makes sure they have a variety of choices. This makes good business sense for Alamy and also encourages photographers to keep shooting, knowing they have a chance for their rank to change, and for their photos, even of popular destinations such as London and NYC, to be seen. - Marianne"

 

This makes perfect sense. I think I attempted to say something similar in another post but wasn't nearly so clear! Something maybe about the images being mixed up on a regular basis. Who knows, I've slept since then! (An old saying softening the fact that I forgot).

[Robert Shantz]

Alamy historically has included a Diversity Algorithm in the display order, and I would think that they still do.  What I have never seen is how much weighting it has compared to other factors in the rank.  Too high a weighting and the search results become basically random.

 

Likewise, I've never seen anything from Alamy about how CTR enters into the display order.  That is, is a CTR of 0.49 almost the same as a 0.51, or is there a step at 0.50 that causes a much higher ranking for the 0.51?  If there aren't steps, then how much difference is required before the higher CTR gives a noticeably higher position in the searches.

 

We also don't know how often any of the factors change  ( not a re-ranking ), but a change in the Diversity Algorithm that tends to shuffle the deck for pseudonyms of similar rank.  Or a change in the order or influence of date added  -- this is probably tied to the Diversity Algorithm or else your earlier images would never be seen.

 

Without all the information, I've come to the conclusion that trying to understand search results may be intellectually challenging, but probably rather futile.

 

Robert