Jump to content

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

 

Yes, but not vice versa. 

On the other hand, some RM licences are so wide as to be virtually RF.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Graham Hardy said:

So there is no underlying principle to be found

RF can be RM

RF is cheaper than RM, except when it's not. 

RM might as well be RF cos why would you limit your buyer to one time use.  

Just find any RF file on Alamy and look at the pricing, then it will all become clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Just find any RF file on Alamy and look at the pricing, then it will all become clear.

 

That assumes that the amount actually paid bears some resemblance to the pricing! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This month, my best sale amount is $250. RF.  So, not necessarily cheaper than RM. And the search was for RF, so all of the RM images of this subject would not have been viewed.

A lot, if not most, searches don’t specify, so RM and RF are competing.

Betty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prompted by this discussion I just did a quick summation of my sales over the last year.  52% of my images are RM, 48% are RF.

% of Sales

RM   69%

RF    27%

RFE   4%

 

Average sale value

RM - $28.67

RF -  $32.74

 

Highest Sales

RM -  $  94.70

RF   - $130.00

 

Lowest

RM -  $1.40

RF  -  $5.91

 

So I sell more than twice as many RM as RF, but for an average lower price, although my most valuable seller was RF, and I received least for RM. 

I've no idea what implications  this has for using RM or RF in the future, or for adjusting previous uploads.  I am, as ever, confused, but will muddle on I guess, trying to make the best judgement I can, but I cant help thinking that the final decision should be a negotiation between the buyer and Alamy.  How on earth can we second guess what a buyer is looking for and what licence they may want? (Except for certain obvious unique events/situations). Perhaps we need a third option, one that leaves the license open for discussion?  Maybe, in practice that is what happens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That is my view. We need a new combination licence that meets the needs of buyers and gets rid of this outdated legacy RF/RM nonsense.

 

It already exists on the world's major stock site when it comes to their Editorial section. Pics are simply referred to as Editorial and the buyer has an option of the Standard Licence or a Custom one.

 

One agency I work with has come up with a "good to go" license. I don't want to mention it on here due to the t&cs but you can google that phrase + stock agency.

 

They describe it as a "new customer licensing experience for buying images and video is a much simpler, more streamlined process, adapted to the needs and capacities of our clients with fast moving deadlines." 

 

Perhaps just marketing-speak and I'm curious how it works in practice. 

 

Edited by Brasilnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Not only the faith of the recent convert but also the miracle cures.:D

 

You are misleading yourself, but no one else. Bill Brooks is not a recent convert to RF.

For the record Bill Brooks has been selling RF since the year 2000. Bill Brooks first came to Alamy in 2004 as exclusively RF. The old image manager forced Bill Brooks to declare images with no releases, and with people or property, as RM. Bill Brooks always wanted these images to be RF.

The new image manager allows for RF editorial only. That is when Bill Brooks converted his forced Alamy RM to Alamy RF editorial only.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Keith Douglas said:

 

That assumes that the amount actually paid bears some resemblance to the pricing! 

 

I wasn't thinking about the pricing. I was really thinking about Graham saying:

"So there is no underlying principle to be found

RF can be RM

RF is cheaper than RM, except when it's not. 

RM might as well be RF cos why would you limit your buyer to one time use. "

I only understood this when I looked at the RF page to see the hybrid licence, then it became clear.

RM-RF.jpg

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a particular photo of mine that I'm planning to license as RM. Not because the subject matter is rare (it isn't) and there certainly wasn't anything difficult or challenging about the shooting conditions. It's a photo of a landmark in my home city. I'm deciding to go with RM in this case because it was one of the top 27 photos in a photography competition that were selected for an exhibition and sold for over $700 in that exhibition. So that's my justification for choosing RM. Not sure if I'm right or wrong. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2017 at 10:30, Brasilnut said:

 

On here, a buyer can license an RF image as RM on a one-time use basis. So, making it RF gives the buyers more options / flexibility. Going RF instead of RM can be detrimental though as others have pointed out above.  

 

For better or worse, I foresee the stock photography industry moving towards predominately RF usage, even for editorials. The client is king!

 

Quite right. Traditional RM will probably become too niche, thus not not profitable enough, to be commonly available through larger agencies/libraries. Specialists yes, individuals yes, but overall it will continue to diminish. So if one is intent on sticking to RM will probably find themselves looking for new homes and new avenues. Adapt or die. The client is unfortunately king, whether we like it or not, whether we agree with the changes within the industry or not. IMHO of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Hmmm. Slightly tangential, but reading that the Muddle is now buying from Alamy again, I was curious to see whether it was solely RF (as they seemed to think that RM meant RF before), so I looked up one of the images mentioned on my phone. Looking from my phone, there was NO way of telling whether the file was RF or RM (I hadn't filtered on the search). Underneath the bit I photographed there is only the black bar with all the site info, no option for 'choose another RM use' or 'choose RF'. The same file on my desktop also doesn't clearly indicate RM/RF, but it's hinted at by the 'choose another rights-managed licence'. But the buyer would need to be well clued up to pick up on that. I don't think it's clear enough for a buyer who doesn't know the difference. Not knowing how Alamy targets and educates buyers, I'll make no further comment on that, other than we don't come out of the womb knowing that stuff!

 

So the answer is that they are buying RM and RF, as another I checked was an RF file, Live News as far as I could see. I hope that:

1. The price they pay for RF reflects the fact that they can (in my personal experience - I'm probably blacklisted by them now :P) use the same file >40 times over their group.

2. They have developed some way of indicating to all their staff which are RF and which are RM

 

I was also perplexed by the difference in pricing, and wondered why there was a mobile price hike; however I checked on my desktop in a different browser with all history/cookies/cache removed and the price is the same as on the mobile, so presumably (?) the price is automatically lowered for logged-in searchers.

FF-Ph.jpg

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Surely if you wanted to shoot for RF you knew that releases were needed?

 

 

 

 

 

Of course I do and always have, but try to get releases from 100 people on a beach, or a corporate headquarters.

Ian I thought you would know that with the new Alamy Image Manager images containing unreleased property or people can be RF editorial only. You must have missed that point somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

This seems to be getting close to Social Darwinism.

https://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm

 

 

Let's not be overly dramatic. A lot of signs pointing towards an everly increasing RF market share and a diminishing RM market share. As I said, individuals and specialist libraries might continue with traditional RM, but I do foresee it being phased out by medium to large libraries pretty soon - do they even now check that the associated stipulations are even followed (ehh no that is us doing that IMHO or us paying for the services to do that).

 

Perhaps this potential shift will cause enough upheaval/demand/pressure to finally create the "new licensing form" - something fitting for the Web 2.0-3.0 etc. - we're still selling licenses like at Camden Market, at the dirty end, in the 80s. I said it before, there are impression based technology that is ready to be implemented into a licensing form - finally a RM 2.0 i.e. PAYG, pay for actual use, pay for actual exposure - making licensing images cheap as chips for the dedicated school kid doing his project, and way more expensive when used as a hero image by a multi-national behemoth company in worldwide campaign.

 

For the long term economic health and viability of the industry and for full time stock photography professionals the industry has to get with the times - we can't work against technology, against customer wishes. I don't put all my eggs in the same basket, mainly for creative stimulation purposes (besides the point), but I would like there to continue to be an opportunity for others to do so - the demand says it should be possible, the monies involved in the industry says it should be possible, but two things need to be addressed - oddly enough catered by the same technology - dependable image tracking, (1) tackling misuse/theft and (2) actual use/impression tracking built into new licensing form. It's not drastic or fantasy, a combination of Google Adsense (budget constraints) and Spotify (exposure remuneration).

 

As always, just verbalised HOs (Humble Opinions) and no need to drag Darwin and associated awful connotation into it all ;) 

 

PS.

Offering something as RM (here) doesn't safeguard its ability to be (proper) RM elsewhere - RM images evidently have been sold virtually on RF terms many a times - to the point that it is almost meaningless what we choose at the moment for such reasons (IMHO). Ian - you know that I'm no RF fan, but I'm also not a traditional RM license fan in 2017 - something need to change, at the moment we're losing control, losing revenue and losing out on opportunity. The stock industry as a whole need to change from this Wild West to something more sustainable. Preferably the change would be driven by artists, but let's face it - there are hardly a more unruly group of professionals (semi-professionals and amateurs a like) so I don't see that happen - instead the first library harnessing this new tech in a workable and appealing to both customers and artists fashion will become a dominant force for a long time. 

 

Anyway, I'm rambling - sorry.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thought on this topic.  Alamy have made it clear that their clients want more, and more rights, apparently with more liberal terms.  Hence this statement on their on-line guide:  "Our customers are increasingly asking for broader rights so we’d recommend selling your images as RF but the decision is yours."  

 

Would Alamy make this recommendation if it were detrimental to their business model?  I don't think so.  I am no fan of RF.  I am totally against it, actually.  But, as in the music industry, times are changing.  It is happening right before our eyes.  When you license an image (RM) for worldwide, unlimited use, all media, in perpetuity, as has recently happened to me, the lines blur when it comes to types of licensing.

 

I get it.  I don't like it, but the genie is out of the bottle.  It will be impossible to put that genie back in it's place.  I do believe Alamy is trying hard to get us the best licensing terms, as it benefits them too, but the definition of "best" will undoubtedly change over time.

 

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

But it doesn't mean that it is  necessarily 'best' for us as contributors. 

 

This is a little tricky....

 

Most important is best for buyers. They do the buying. If on Alamy is not the license that is best for buyers the buyers will go to the other agency that has the best for buyers. An Agency can create the best license for us contributors but if buyers dont want it it will not let us survive.

 

Mirco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

For me it is not tricky. It is making an individual assessment of what is good for ourselves. No agency can do that for us.

 

I notice that Alamy wants more RF and can understand why. But I can't offer my images as RF because they are RM elsewhere. If Alamy can unlock that problem I can offer them my images. In the meantime I would lose too much so can't provide what they and the buyers want.

 

The major place where I have my RM images has partially removed the term RM for editorial. They use the term 'Standard Editorial Licence' and if the buyer wants more they buy a 'Customised Licence'. 

 

Standard Editorial Rights
  • Worldwide editorial use for 15 years (does not include commercial use rights or print cover use).
  • Unlimited seats. No limits on impressions and print runs.
  • No monetary limits on indemnification

 

As you say any new licence must be based on what buyers want, and also must reward creators adequately. 

 

 

Totally understand your point now. Sorry for misunderstanding. A new license in that case would make sense. Alamy comes often with new ideas... so who knows.

 

Mirco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that Alamy even offered traditional RM licenses any more - the current RM rate structure is no different than RF (except the rates are lower for RM than they are for RF).  I guess this is why my RM sales have dropped so much this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently took a photograph which depicts a lightning storm over a habour at night. The habour area would likely be recognisable to locals and could be regarded as a landmark more or less (though it is a very distant view.) I doubt most people elsewhere would recognise the location The lightning strike itself is quite dramatic - it is clearly the most impressive strike that I captured from the entire evening. I'm trying to decide whether to submit this image as RM and have it exclusive to Alamy or choose RF and make it available on the micro sites too. I'm unsure which direction to take. 

 

If it happened to be a lightning strike over a really well known, visually identifiable landmark such the New York city skyline or the Sydney Opera House (or lightning striking a tree) I guess I would probably steer towards RM. 

Edited by Patrick Cooper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask the advice of people more experienced than me on the macrostock market, and particularly Alamy's.
My images are mostly of contemporary art and architecture, plus some travels and some creatives.

My idea is that:

 

Clearly editorial images (which will published presumably on books, magazines, and newspapers) should be RF editorial (since they arguably won't be republished often by the same publisher, and due to the marginally better prices and easier licensing system of RFs)

 

Creative images which don't need releases (for example, a particular view of a French Riviera village), arguably editorial but also suitable for advertising, posters, t-shirts and so on, should be RM

 

More ordinary images of a subject publishers can find easily elsewhere, could be RF

Edited by riccarbi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, riccarbi said:

Clearly editorial images (which will published presumably on books, magazines, and newspapers) should be RF editorial (since they arguably won't be republished often by the same publisher, and due to the marginally better prices and easier licensing system of RFs)

As you wish, but I've several times had images reused by the same buyer*, even on the same day (including one pic yesterday bought with two uses by the same buyer). I've had over 40 uses of one file by the same newspaper publishing group (though I had to chase up over 20 of them) and 14 uses of another. That is arguably the BEST thing about RM, RF wouldn't have earned much, if any more (anecdotally from the forum, we all know that files seldom garner the amount suggested on the calculator), then they have permission to reuse. If the price was a lot higher for RF, it might make sense.

 

*Once I had two near-identical sales of a file used for 'educational book' - someone on  the group suggested that might have been a use on a pupil textbook and a use in the Teacher's Handbook. Again, one sale on RF.

 

Choose RF if you like (e.g. if you are selling the same content on RF-only sites), but make sure you are clear about your reasons. RF is best for the buyer, and there are almost certainly buyers who check to search through RF files only (so RM providers would lose these sales); but not for the photographers.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Choose RF if you like (e.g. if you are selling the same content on RF-only sites), but make sure you are clear about your reasons. RF is best for the buyer, and there are almost certainly buyers who check to sarch through RF files only (so RM providers would lose these sales); but not for the photographers.

 

That's makes sense, definitely. So your suggestion is to always choose RM for valuable editorial images because it's not known if and why a publisher will re-use them multiple times (i.e. in different books). Let's make an example, this is one of my best-selling editorial images, do you suggest to change it from RF editorial to RM, am I right?

 

Messner-Museum-Corones-Zaha-Hadid-Inexhi

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, riccarbi said:

 

That's makes sense, definitely. So your suggestion is to always choose RM for valuable editorial images because it's not known if and why a publisher will re-use them multiple times (i.e. in different books). Let's make an example, this is one of my best-selling editorial images, do you suggest to change it from RF editorial to RM, am I right?

 

Messner-Museum-Corones-Zaha-Hadid-Inexhi

 

 

 

 

 

I would definitely make that RM.

 

I sold an image of a train in the Alps with someone leaning out of the carriage window taking a photo of the snow covered mountains. It has been sold 29 times to the same company for use in a brochure, which I found by accident! It was a couple of years ago now and some months they would buy the same image 3 or 4 times for different amounts. This went on for the life of the brochure, about 9 months, and I made a total of $1550. If it had been RF, I might have got one fee of, at most, $100.

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 12:11, Images West said:

I wasn't aware that Alamy even offered traditional RM licenses any more - the current RM rate structure is no different than RF (except the rates are lower for RM than they are for RF).  I guess this is why my RM sales have dropped so much this year.

Only one of my last 24 sales was what I would call editorial RF, but sold as RM. I do agree that the old models are not working; they haven't since suppliers started  marketing CDs full of photos, which required the invention of RF so those images would be useful to the buyers of the CDs. 

Edited by KevinS
Clarify what was a poor sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 12:46, geogphotos said:

 

Eh? 

 

The invention of RF was a business opportunity not a requirement of technology. 

 

Honestly when I read these threads I do wonder about what people's heads get filled with at micro stock sites.

 

Let's see how many 'reds' that deserves :D

No reds from me. Perhaps I misunderstood you some years ago when you kindly explained the history of micro stock to me on the forum where our websites are hosted. You explained the photo sharing that was started by designers and morphed into istockphoto. Then I thought you went on to say that the CDs being marketed at the time required something new in the way of licensing so the buyers could use the photos on them over and over. Seems I misunderstood. Where did RF license come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.