photo credit: alexanderdrachmann

Hoo boy….

There’s one “L” of a debate :) going on over at the Alamy stock photography forums (link to the debate at the bottom of this post). It seems that some contributors are placing the same image at two separate libraries with a simultaneous RM and RF license.

They are placing the same image as Rights Managed on Alamy and Royalty Free on the micros :o

So why is this so wrong and can you do this within Stock Agency terms and conditions?

First off, if you’re not clear what a rights-managed and/or royalty-free licence type is then read these posts first:

What is a rights managed licence?

What is a royalty free licence?

In the rights-managed tutorial I said the following in answer to the question of RM and RF licences co-existing on the same image at the same time:

Why can’t I have the image as Royalty Free on one library and Rights Managed on another?

* Because a rights managed image has something very attractive to buyers that a Royalty Free image never has. A history of its usage. Most stock libraries will not allow you to place an image as Rights Managed if it has ever been sold as Royalty Free. This is to protect their buyers from buying an image with an unknown history. You are effectively managing the rights in your work with an auditable history trail.

But, it would seem, that many non-exclusive stock image libraries just don’t care.

Traditionally, before the rise of the internet based library the photographer and/or his/her agent would have said audit trail of image use history. An enquiring buyer would be able to find out the history of that image.

RM still offers a history but its now harder for the photographer and/or his/her agency to get the whole picture.

Why is this?

Many non-exclusive agencies don’t reveal who the client is so you only know sector, industry etc.

Your image may be RM at a number of agencies so each agency would have to refer the potential sale to you, as only you know the other locations where the image is placed for sale.

…and how many times do they call you to ask that??

Alamy’s own EULA that the buyer agrees to gives no warranty that the image is RM and can be bought RM only. They can’t, they are a non-exclusive agency and have no control over other placements.

PP thinks this is very wrong. Why?

The RM model is selling managed rights. The RF model is not selling managed rights. By their very defintion to any rational person they cannot co-exist for the same image.

It would be like hiring a car for a weekend for $100 then finding you could have bought the whole car for $10 for unlimited use at a place down the road.

If I was a buyer I would be more than annoyed if I had just spent $500 on a RM image only to find it for $200 RF on another site.

If I was a buyer I would be absolutely furious if I had just spent $500 on a RM image only to find it for $2 RF on a microstock site.

So what’s the way forward?

Well, as with everything in life, if it isn’t regulated someone will find a loophole. The stock shooters who currently think its fine to sell RM on Alamy and RF on the micros are merely exploiting the traditional agency’s failure to react to the emerging microstock licensing model. The failure to tighten up their own terms & conditions to prevent this. That, and (in PP’s humble opinion) the contributors lack any morals and respect for how the industry works on a professional level.

So what could Alamy do?

Being non-exclusive means they can’t make a contributor only sell with them (else that would make them exclusive like Getty – which is why, coincidentally, Getty don’t have this problem). but they could insist that:

a) any images for sale on their library as RM will not be also offered for sale simultaneously on their library as RF

b) any images for sale on their library will not be also offered for sale elsewhere in a different licensing model

b) any images for sale on their library as RF will not also be offered on a microstock agency as RF

The new kid on the block, Photoshelter, an agency in the mould of Alamy (but still finding its feet) have implemented a) after an outcry on their forums. That is to be applauded.

So PP says:

Come on Alamy, get your finger out and protect your buyers, protect your contributors with morals, and put an end to the micro-creep once and for all before it rears its head up and bites you in the…..

If you feel strongly about this issue why not leave me a comment below or go and

join in the lively debate over at Alamy.

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Selling on Alamy: Royalty Free or Licenced? (5)
• Alamy go all ‘microstock’ with ‘Limited Use’ scheme (2)
• Breaking news: Alamy allow 2 week Novel Use opt out from 10th June 2008 (2)
• Understanding licensing types: Royalty Free image licences (1)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Managed image licences (0)

photo credit: anyjazz65

Never in the field of internet forums has this thorny question arisen so frequently. Often asked by those with only a Royalty Free (RF) experience of selling stock images (like those coming from microstock) it is a good question. The world of Rights Managed (RM) stock selling is all very new to them. By the way, Alamy refer to RM as L (for Licenced).

So how should you place your images on Alamy? RF or L? Read on to find out more.

As always, if you’re new to the whole arena of image licensing and you’re not sure what a photography licence is or does, then please read this post first.

Ok, you’re back.

So, you’ve passed Alamy Quality Control with your new submission. Your images are queued up in your “Manage my Images” screen and you now need to decide how you are going to sell them.

Lets look at the options.

I’m now going to introduce you to two of my very English friends (note the olde English hyphenated surnames)

Barry Rights-Managed and his good friend Brian Royalty-Free :) These guys have both passed Alamy QC at the same time with identical sets of images that they took whilst out shooting together.

Barry Rights-Managed has decided to sell all of his images as RM (remember Alamy calls this “L”). He wants to sell his images on more than one stock library and does not want to give any agency exclusivity. He has some images with releases and some without. He has a mix of people and places.

Brian Royalty-Free has decided to sell all of his images as RF. RF cannot have any exclusivity so he can sell his images on more than one stock library. Like Barry, he has some images with releases and some without. He has a mix of people and places.

We’re underway

Barry Rights-Managed sets all his images as L for “licenced”. He knows that he will sell his images based on the usage by the end user.

Brian Royalty-Free sets all his images as RF. He knows that he will sell his images based on file-size and not on usage.

(PP note: really sorry if this is sounding like Thomas the Tank Engine for photographers but bear with me…. it’s better than me prattling on about the minutiae of licencing options….I am basing this on real world examples!)

Both Barry RM and Brian RF have some images of people. Barry RM does not have model releases but he can still sell his images for editorial use only by placing restrictions on his licenced images to that effect. Brian RF has model releases for his people shots. Without model releases he cannot sell those images as RF if the people are recognisable*

* this could take a chapter on its own – suffice to say if the model could recognise themselves or a body part in your image then you need a release to sell as RF. Why? Because RF allows all uses – you cannot restrict to just editorial.

A while later…………the boys get some sales

Mr Picture Edtor is looking for a shot of Anywhereville for a magazine article. He wants a photo to run half a page inside the magazine. He does a search and up pops two images from Barry RM and Brian RF.

Mr Picture Editor only wants to run the image once. He has a small magazine and does not have much budget to play with. He prices up both images. Barry RM’s image can be had for $100. But to get an identical image from Brian RF at the file size he needs for the half page size it would cost $200.

He buys Barry RM’s $100 image for one use only.

Point to note: RF is not always cheaper than RM. Especially where single uses in small run circulations for editorial use are concerned. RM is nearly always going to be cheaper in these circumstances.

Mr Small Designer searches for an image of a pretty girl. He has a client that wants some leaflets and brochures made up and is on a tight budget. The images used will be very small, perhaps 2″ across. He does a search and up pops two images from Barry RM and Brian RF.

Mr Small Designer wants to run the image on 10,000 brochures and on his clients web page. He will probably use the image again on some other promotional material later in the year, possibly next year. He prices up both images. Barry RM’s image can be had for $600. Advertising usage is much dearer than editorial. But to get an identical image from Brian RF at the file size he needs for the small size it would cost only $99. He is so pleased he buys another of Brian RF’s images for $99 too.

Point to note: RF is almost always cheaper to buy than RM when it comes to advertising use. Especially where multiple uses in large run promo material is concerned. RM is nearly always going to be dearer in these circumstances.

Mr Large Designer searches for an image of a guy walking fast along a road with a briefcase. He has a large client that has a European ad campaign underway and has a good budget to play with. Mr Large Designer will use the image he chooses very small, perhaps 3″ across but in a number of different media types across Europe including small ads in magazines, brochures and TV. He does a search and up pops two images from Barry RM and Brian RF.

Mr Large Designer does not like RF. It has no history. He does not want nor need exclusivity for this assignment but wants to know that the image he chooses hasn’t been round the block several times either. He feels safer with a rights-managed image. He will not buy Brian RF’s image for this reason, even though it would only cost him $150. He rings the agency and asks them to confirm if any existing licences are in force on that image. There are none. He does a deal and buys the usage he needs for Barry RM’s image at $1850.

Point to note: RM is sometimes chosen because it has a traceable history. Especially where large budget uses for advertising use are concerned. RF is always going to be cheaper in these circumstances but can lose out because its usage history is unknown and it is likely to have been sold multiple times.

(PP note: OK, enough I’m getting bored now…!)

So, given the release situation is the same, the choice is yours. Open the box or take the money. I can’t steer you either way. I have a mix of both. Depends on subject matter and your hunch as to whether your image can attain a good RM commercial fee one day or regular RM editorial sales.

Some images will sell better as RF and some as RM and vice-versa. Sometimes that “typical RF” shot goes for a record RM fee. All depends. That’s the beauty of this game – its so unpredictable.

You have the likelihood of more sales with RF (though Alamy’s own figures show RM sells more than RF on their particular agency) but at a lower average value per sale than RF; or less sales (or more if on Alamy!) as RM with the delightfully tasty unknown that one day you may sell an RM for a whopping great licence fee.

Oh, and I should mention repeat business. Of course, with RF there’s no repeat business from the same buyer because they’ve got unlimited use. With RM you’ll sometimes find a buyer re-licencing an image several times over a period of months or years (depends on the length of use they buy initially) so RM can actually be more profitable in the long run than an RF sale.

p.s. there’s a lot more Pro’s and Con’s (exclusivity, restrictions etc) to RM and RF than I’ve been able to write here. These individual licence types are covered in more detail in the following posts:

Understanding RM licences

Understanding RF licences

I never said any of this was easy….. ;)

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Stock Photography: Can you sell an image as RF and RM at the same time? (3)
• Alamy go all ‘microstock’ with ‘Limited Use’ scheme (2)
• Breaking news: Alamy allow 2 week Novel Use opt out from 10th June 2008 (2)
• Understanding licensing types: Royalty Free image licences (1)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Managed image licences (0)

At first the prospect of hiring professional models will seem daunting. So many people cut their teeth by shooting the people around them. Their wife or girlfriend, their kids, their parents etc. The added bonus being that they are always going to sign a model release aren’t they? ;)

Just do a search at the many stock libraries around on the net and you’ll see them a mile off.

Nothing wrong with that at all. But in their eagerness to make sales many fledgling shooters are unaware what their images may be used for. Its not all honey and roses out there in the world of publishing and advertising but there is a way to ensure that your loved ones don’t end up advertising something you’d rather not see..

The Sensitive Issues restriction

Over and above any defamatory uses of your images which would be upheld by law, many people are unaware that their images could be legitimately used in various industry sectors which they may find offensive. Such industries as:

• Tobacco advertising
• Alcohol advertising
• Datelines
• Chatlines
• Sexual products and manuals

Lets face it. These industries advertise and need model released imagery as much as the next image buyer. They also buy stock. Next image bought could be yours.

Its only a matter of time before somebody spots a shot of their teenage daughter smiling on the beach advertising on a tampon or cigarettes in (insert country where you can show tobacco advertising in the media) or their teenage son on a new range of condoms. Its going to happen eventually.

Worse still, is that if the image is model released and royalty free there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it.

If its not defamatory use (implied drug abuse, alcohol abuse or anything likely to be unflattering to the model depicted) its fair game.

So if its a shot of your daughter smiling at the camera and its used in such a way that it does not imply association with…. its fair game.

Even worse than worse still is if you sold that image of your loved one on a microstock site for a measly $1.

Think about it for a second. It might be a long shot but do you want to take that chance?
So many people are quick to shoot but don’t realise the ramifications of unlimited use royalty free images with their unrestricted nature. Especially the beginners who often cut their teeth on microstock sites.

So can anything be done? What are my options?

• Yes. License your people images as rights managed. Not only could a model released rights managed people shot pull in a large licence fee but like any rights managed image, you can add restrictions for sensitive issues use!

Back to Alamy again and a shot of the add restrictions dialogue in the edit image screen:

I’ve set this to restrict all sensitive uses – click to see the detail

And that’s all there is to it. Your image is now restricted from use by those industries which may cause embarrassment.

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Stock Photography: Adding exclusive usage restrictions to your RM or RP images (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Protected or Exclusive image licences (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Managed image licences (0)
• Stock Photography: Can you sell an image as RF and RM at the same time? (3)
• Selling on Alamy: Royalty Free or Licenced? (5)

Hang on…. why would anyone want to restrict the saleability of their images? Isn’t that nuts? Are you insane PP?

There are some very good reasons why you may need to restrict sales. Lets take a look at one of them:

The rights protected or exclusivity restriction

Let’s assume you have a rights managed image that you have placed with three non-exclusive** stock photo libraries. You have indicated that you are happy to sell exclusivity on the image if a buyer requests it and each library offers its customers exclusivity (some don’t).

**non-exclusive in this sense means a library that does not demand exclusive sale rights for your image so you are free to place them elsewhere on other libraries

One day you are checking the sales notifications of one of your libraries and hey presto, one of them posts a rights protected exclusive sale:

Here are the details:

Country: Germany
Usage: Advertising/Promotion
Media: Consumer Magazine – Advertising
Industry: Leisure/Entertainment/Sport
Sub-Industry: Gaming and Gambling
Print run: up to 25,000
Image Size: 1 page
Start: 09 November 2006
End: 09 February 2007

The library has indicated that the buyer has bought exclusivity in their industry sector for consumer magazine – advertising for the duration of the licence.

Great news on the RP sale. But why does that affect me?

• If you have sold exclusivity then you can’t sell the same rights to another client else there would not be exclusivity!

So what do I have to do?

• You’ll need to add restrictions to the image you sold exclusive rights for on all your other libraries that are selling that image (whether they offer rights protection or not). This will ensure your buyer gets the exclusivity they have paid for.

Most online libraries dealing with rights managed images will have a part of their administration screen where you can add restrictions to cover the exclusive rights and lock out other buyers.

In our case above we sold exclusive rights for:

Advertising use in the Leisure Entertainment and Sport industry in German consumer magazines for 3 months

For example: On Alamy you can add the restrictions via a series of drop down menus on the edit image screen here:

I have filled in the boxes to reflect the exclusivity we sold on our licenced sale - click to see detail

Notice there is no time period to select. You will need to keep a note of the time the exclusivity expires so you can go and lift the restrictions using the same screen.

**You’ll need to do this if you sell exclusive rights via your own website direct to a buyer too. Any time you sell exclusivity on a rights managed image you must add restrictions wherever the same image is for sale to prevent other buyers from using the image for the type, industry and period of the restriction**

Next post will deal with Sensitive uses restrictions.

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Stock Photography: Adding Sensitive Issues restrictions to your RM or RP images (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Protected or Exclusive image licences (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Managed image licences (0)
• Stock Photography: Can you sell an image as RF and RM at the same time? (3)
• Selling on Alamy: Royalty Free or Licenced? (5)

So what does a rights managed stock image license mean?

As the copyright holder of an image you are able to sell a licence to reproduce your work. If you are not sure what a photography licence is then I suggest you read this post here and then return to this page.

A rights managed licence (sometimes referred to as RM or L(for licenced)) specifies the media type, territory and duration of the use of your image. It allows you to price the cost of the licence based on usage alone.

The greater the usage, the greater the cost of the licence.

Stock libraries like Getty Images, Corbis, Alamy, Age etc. all have images that are rights managed. They are the premium sellers of their collections for a number of reasons and can make the photographer far greater returns than any Royalty Free images.

So do I have to have a super unique image with high production values to sell it Rights Managed?

• No. You can sell any image as rights managed as long as it has never been sold under a Royalty Free licence.

Why can’t I have the image as Royalty Free on one library and Rights Managed on another?

• Because a rights managed image has something very attractive to buyers that a Royalty Free image never has. A history of its usage. Most stock libraries will not allow you to place an image as rights managed if it has ever been sold as Royalty Free. This is to protect their buyers from buying an image with an unknown history. You are effectively managing the rights in your work with an auditable history trail.

When you sell a rights managed image through a stock library (or from your own site) you will know who you sold it to, the market sector of the end usage, the media it will be used in, the territories it will appear in, the duration it will appear for, what size it has been used at.
Here’s a typical report of a rights managed stock image sale from stock library Alamy:

Country: Netherlands
Usage: Editorial
Media: Consumer Magazine
Industry: Retail books/magazines/newspapers
Sub-Industry: Miscellaneous
Print run: up to 1 million
Placement: Inside
Image Size: 1/2 page
Start: 13 July 2007
End: 13 July 2007

The pricing of a rights managed image is incredibly fluid and is based purely on the media usage of the image and dependent upon all the factors in the list above. Change any one of those and the price of the image will go up or down.

If you are having trouble understanding this concept then here’s a link to a site where you can plug in some figures, then change them, and see the prices move: Stock Photo Price Calculator

Advantages for the buyer of a rights managed image

• image history is known so checks can be made to see if the image has been used in advertising by a competitor or already run by a rival magazine etc.
• pricing based purely on media usage so if a spot (tiny) use in a small circulation magazine is needed it can be more cost effective than buying a Royalty Free image that will never be used again
• added exclusivity can be bought on a rights-managed image turning into a rights-protected image to lock out competition from using the same image

Advantages for the seller of a rights managed image

• fair price paid for your work based on the usage – the more its used the more you earn! Your image may sell for £100 or £1000 or more – there’s no limit.
• ability to earn extra fees by offering image exclusivity as a rights protected image
• ability to control the usage of your image by placing restrictions on types of use you do not want to allow(useful when images of people are to be restricted from sensitive subjects i.e. tobacco advertising, sex industry etc etc.) – this can be a media sector, a country or a media type

Hopefully that’s given you an overview of how to sell images as rights managed and what that licence type means for your images.

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Understanding licensing types: Rights Protected or Exclusive image licences (0)
• Stock Photography: Adding exclusive usage restrictions to your RM or RP images (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Royalty Free image licences (1)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Ready Image licences (0)
• Stock Photography: Can you sell an image as RF and RM at the same time? (3)