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)

So what does a royalty free 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 royalty free licence (sometimes referred to as RF) is the complete opposite of a rights managed licence. It is not concerned with the usage of the image and is regularly priced based on file size alone.

The initial idea of a royalty free licensed image was to allow image buyers to pay once and be able to use the image wherever and whenever they wanted - completely devoid of the normal royalty payments expected from the use of a traditional licence.

No time limits, no territory limits and no further payments to the photographer or agency once the initial royalty free licence has been bought.

Lets clear up a couple of misconceptions about royalty free images:

• they are not free – they are priced based on file size
  
• the image buyer does not own the copyright; only a licence to use the image – the buyer is not buying the rights to resell the image as their own

Why would any photographer want a part of this?? Sounds like a bad deal compared to Rights-Managed images.

Volume, pure and simple. Whereas a rights managed image may sell fewer times for a far greater sum per sale, a royalty free image will hope to sell more times for less return per sale.

This is great for anyone running an agency. Not so great for an individual photographer unless they make up in volume what they lose against a normal rights-managed sale.

Here’s a typical report of a royalty free stock image sale from stock library Alamy:

53 MB
5250 x 3511 pixels
2 MB compressed

As the RF file is sold by size and not usage this is all the information you get. You will have no idea of who bought it or what its going to be used for.

So, to recap:

Royalty free image licences turned photography into a commodity item. Regardless of content the price was the same, based on file size, and there is no restriction on usage, bar resale of the actual image itself.

Advantages for the buyer of a royalty free image

• no usage restrictions
• cheap prices (microstock agencies take this to a new level)

Disadvantages for the buyer of a royalty free image

• no usage history (can you be sure your competitor is not using it?)
• no exclusivity allowed (so you could be using an image that is already in use in your market sector….)

Pretty much favours the buyer…..

Advantages for the seller of a royalty free image

• volume – a good generic image with wide appeal may repeat sell

Disadvantages for the seller of a royalty free image

• low price per image sale – if it doesn’t sell in volume it may earn less than if sold as rights managed
• once sold as RF (even for $1 microstockers) cannot be sold as any other licence type ever…
• no restrictions on use by the buyer (so that shot of your teenage daughter could end up on some pretty unsavoury websites…alcohol, tobacco, sex industry etc etc…)
• prices of RF falling like a stone courtesy of the microstock business.

Hopefully that’s given you an overview of how to sell images as royalty free 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 Ready Image licences (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)