New search toggle option - "Show Editorial RF"

[Martin Carlsson]

Discovered an additional toggle box underneath RF today, giving buyers the option to include or exclude "editorial RF". 

 

[Martin Carlsson]

6 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

Interesting. Thanks for pointing it out Martin. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing really? I'm still unsure if using RF editorial is better or not, and with all the going's on lately I can't trust Alamy's advice on this as being the best option for me personally. So I set some as RF, some not, and plan to see how it goes over the next year or so. It seems there is no difference between RF and RM anyway. Same fees, same terms, etc..

 

Geoff.

 

Neither do I and it bugs me greatly not knowing what is best for ME personally at what increasingly feels like a junction. Well aware of what agencies and buyers are telling us what is best for them - money talks very loud unfortunately.

[Martin Carlsson]

11 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

One thing to consider if you are non-exclusive, or may want to be in the future, is where else can you place your RF editorial images compared to the options you have if they are RM.

 

True. Don't feel forced to answer, but are you contemplating the RF Editorial route?

[Keith Douglas]

5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

One thing to consider if you are non-exclusive, or may want to be in the future, is where else can you place your RF editorial images compared to the options you have if they are RM.

 

Just out of interest, what is the reason behind not selling an image both RF and RM at the same time? There appears to be no restriction anymore at Alamy on selling an image RM this week and RF next week or vice versa. Indeed, Alamy appear to be actively encouraging contributors to change images from RM to RF.

[Keith Douglas]

14 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 As far as I know agencies still have rules that don't allow an image to be RF and RM at the same time. Alamy are indeed encouraging contributors to switch from RM to RF. But that doesn't mean that other agencies will accept your images as RM if they are RF elsewhere. I can think of a few agencies that will accept non-exclusive RF images but I wouldn't want to be with them ( mainly micros or low performing agencies). All my pics are RM and they are distributed to several agencies and multiple sub-agencies through distribution networks. I couldn't simply change an image to RF on Alamy without that triggering all sorts of problems.

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply. I'm not familiar with the terms at other agencies, but I accept that some may impose restrictions on images that are sold elsewhere. In fact Alamy themselves require that images are sold as either RF or RM but not both at the same time. My question is why do agencies impose these restrictions? Is it to simplify things? Is it because they want to position themselves in a particular way? Are there some more fundamental legal issues?

 

I'm relatively new to the stock industry so I didn't see the development of the RF model of selling images. However, it seemed to me that the separation into RM and RF mixed up two things : I) The payment terms for a licence and ii) The status, or requirement for property or model releases.

 

At least as far as Alamy is concerned, it appears to me that we are now seeing a disentanglement of these two. 

 

[regen]

Great post Ian.

 

So nice to have what I really knew explained in such a logical fashion

 

Regen