Stock Photography: Can you sell an image as RF and RM at the same time?
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
[…] Source and Read More: thephotographybiz.com […]
[…] at Thephotographybiz site PP discusses the issue of submitting the same images to one non-exclusive agency as RM and to […]
“That, and (in PP’s humble opinion) the contributors lack any morals and respect for how the industry works on a professional level.”
I think that statement of yours sums it up.
It is up to us contributors to not only have a high standard of image making to be truthful to our own creative needs, but also a responsibility to our buyers.
This , as they say, separates the “dabblers” from the “pros”.
Many micro contributors are of the former breed, ie. just to finance their next camera or lenses, or worst, to show the world their “photography”. They have little interest in making it a career,
thus, little fear of the consequences to being “double-ended”.