Reporting in on RF

[Cryptoprocta]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

1) The choice is not meaningless to me. Some people like to pretend that these licences are virtually RF because it suits their spin - but there ARE restrictions by industry sector and type of editorial use.  

Usage: Single company - multiple use editorial only
Industry sector: Media, design & publishing

It's just easier to gloss over that and pretend that there is no point with RM etc.....

 

2) If you have exclusive RF contracts what is the problem as those pics won't be on Alamy?

1) When I sell RF elsewhere, the licence is limited to a single desk, not just a single company, and there are aggregated print run restrictions etc., which are actually more restrictive than this one from Alamy. Also editorials there can't be used for advertorials, which seems to be OK with Alamy (judging by in-uses I've found).

 

2) The contract is not image-exclusive, it's artist-RF-exclusive, meaning no RF sold elsewhere.

Why do you so frequently make pronouncements about that which you do not know?

[Cryptoprocta]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

As I said to start with: Isn't it great that Alamy allows us both to choose our own paths. 

You have made your decisions. 

 

I'll stay with RM non-exclusive.

And as I said, my choice with images on Alamy was RM, defacto exclusive.

But Alamy has now disallowed that choice.

 

For developing empathy, consider how you'd feel if Alamy said all RM images were to be exclusive to Alamy.

I realise that's very unlikely, but until this week, I'd have said it was more likely than that they would force RM into effective-RF.

 

Strange that Alamy would force people to choose: most people in my position do much better there than here*, and you wouldn't think they'd want all that body of work to be deleted from here and go to the opposition, but it's their business.

*but have chosen now to preferentially supply here because of the big G's shenanigans; but actually, Alamy are n ow pulling some unlikeable shenanigans of their own, (like not charging properly for unreported uses), so maybe it's moot.

[Cryptoprocta]

5 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Can't you end your contact with the restrictive conditions and be free to do what you want with YOUR images?

Of course, but then I'd be earning much less there, and I've always earned much less here - my total earnings from Alamy are about the same as those on my best year there, but things have gone downhill because of G's mismanagement and oversaturation as everywhere.  I'm now not convinced that Alamy won't be doing more things I don't like in the future, so my 'moral' decision for focusing solely on Alamy (over the past 16 months) and preferentially (for over five years before that) is on shaky ground, at best.

 

The Alamy unlimited images are RM in name only, and as I pointed out have fewer restrictions than those I sell RF.

[Bill Brooks]

“RF, RM And Model Releases
“By Jim Pickerell | 996 Words | Posted 11/27/2017 | Comments
“Must all Royalty Free photos be model released?” This question came from a stock agent who is considering converting his collection from RM to RF. The answer is NO. An increasing number of images are being offered under a Royalty Free License for Editorial Use Only. What the Editorial Use Only means is that “we don’t have a model release for this image,” and thus it can not be used for commercial purposes.”

 

The above from this website. http://www.selling-stock.com

 

RF marches ever forward, and I wonder who that “stock agent” is?