Justin Case Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Hi everyone,I am new here. I just started uploading to Alamy a few weeks ago.I do mostly video, but in the last couple of months I decided to give a try to still image as well.I still don't know if the kind of subjects I do are in demand here, but I guess with time I will get an idea of subjects in demand.As a videographer I upload to the usual suspect agencies, but regarding photo I am not sure if it is worth doing microstock and maybe I could upload only to Alamy, at least for a part of my images.Is there any benefit in declaring an image exclusive to Alamy, I mean in term of better percentage, or increased exposure?I have read in a few thread people recommending not to upload the same image to microstck because customers could shop around. But I suppose this could be solved by using a different pseudo, right?Anyway, as I said for me uploading still images to other microstock is not a must.Also, what about uploading images as RM? I am thinking specially to editorial ones (of course exclusive to Alamy).I have never done any RM. Is there any interest in doing it? I believe Alamy suggests for some reasons to only upload as RF.Many thanks for your replies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Hi Justin, In my opinion there is no advantage at all in choosing the RM Exclusive licence type. You will limit your own opportunities for no extra income. If an Alamy customer wants to buy an image as exclusive you will be contacted by Alamy and asked if this is possible and they will require the images deleted from anywhere else. The other question about RM or RF is more delicate. After the new AIM (Alamy Image Manager) was introduced Alamy gave the choice of RF Editorial for images that earlier would be RM with the correct boxes ticked about unreleased property and persons in the image. We are a great deal that keeps on using the RM and correct ticked boxes model - some are experimenting with both. You will hear many opinions on this. For the time being I stick to the RM model and leave the responsibility for a correct use of the image to the buyer. Niels PS If you sell an image elsewhere as RF Editorial you will have to stick to the same licence type at Alamy - you cannot mix the licence types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I have read in a few thread people recommending not to upload the same image to microstck because customers could shop around. But I suppose this could be solved by using a different pseudo, right? Using a different pseudo will NOT help, it's the easiest thing in the world to locate your images and to find out where they are being licensed at the lowest rate. If you sell the same image both here AND on microstock, where do you think that the buyer will purchase the rights?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Case Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 Thank you for the replies.Let's see if I have got it right:- There is no interest at all in ticking the Exclusive box.- For all the non-editorial images (which are by far the majority of what I do) RF.- In case of editorial I can use RM if the image is nowhere else, otherwise RF editorial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 It looks like it. Just be aware that Alamy's interpretation of when releases are necessary for property or people is a bit tighter than at micro sites. So an image passing as RF at a micro site would not always be suitable for this licence type at Alamy, but should be RF Editorial. And I may have misunderstood the situation. Up to now there has been a licence type called RM Exclusive - I cannot find it on the term pages any longer. If you think of the clicking the "Only available on Alamy" box in "Optional" - this is much more a practical information you can tick and untick, I think. It may be valuable for Alamy to know whether the image is only sold via Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Case Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 It looks like it. Just be aware that Alamy's interpretation of when releases are necessary for property or people is a bit tighter than at micro sites. So an image passing as RF at a micro site would not always be suitable for this licence type at Alamy, but should be RF Editorial. And I may have misunderstood the situation. Up to now there has been a licence type called RM Exclusive - I cannot find it on the term pages any longer. If you think of the clicking the "Only available on Alamy" box in "Optional" - this is much more a practical information you can tick and untick, I think. It may be valuable for Alamy to know whether the image is only sold via Alamy. My mistake, when I was asking about ticking the Exclusive box, I was actually meaning the "Only available at Alamy" one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.