Quote from: ShadySue on June 10, 2011, 05:13

Quote from: ThomasAmby on June 09, 2011, 04:29

I fail to see the benefits of choosing RM over RF in any situation. If the image is not even exclusive when being sold as RM, then why pay more for restricted usage - RM - when you can get almost unlimited usage - RF - for less ? Never understood the concept of rights managed. When is it beneficial ? Makes no sense to me

You would buy rights for an image if you didn't want your book cover to have the same photo as someone else's (posted on a different thread last week):
...
Similarly if you didn't want your calendar cover image to be the same as someone else's, or your photo used in an advert and also used in a rival's advert etc.
If you buy specific RM rights the photographer and agency has a reponsibility to assert that the image (and probably any 'significantly similar') has been used before in a conflicting use.
The more 'managed' you want your end usage to be, the more you pay. For example, you'd pay significantly more to buy rights to 'all uses, worldwide' for an image for five years than you would if you paid for 'advertisements, print, magazine, plumbing industry, Luxembourg, one month'.
It can have surprising benefits to the consumer too: a friend was trying to choose an itinerary for a trip to New Zealand and showed me that "all the different tour operators use mostly the same photos" (presumably sent out free by the New Zealand Tourist Board. She eventually chose one where the company showed 'different' images, not the  'obvious' ones most used.

If I am correct, that can still happen on RM. Because RM is not exclusive. RM exclusive is. So that bookcover can still be sold to many.

The question was "Why pay more for restricted usage?"; restricted could be a form of exclusive, e.g. 'book cover, five years' or whatever.

Alamy should allow the contributors to make some images exclusive.

You can:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-licences.asp, though I've never noticed that as an option when uploading.

Later: maybe you can't do it at the moment, though it was previously allowed. There's been an official Alamy post since I wrote the above, saying, inter alia:
"The RM-E model may be revisited at a later date as has been raised by many of you over the recent white paper discussions; it may be an option to identify images that are genuinely Alamy Exclusive.
However at this point we are treating any images listed on the site as RM-E exactly the same as RM.
If a customer requests exclusivity, rest assured we will clear this with you first."

I really need some opinions - is it okay to submit micro images to Alamy ? Can it be justified by the different (and possibly wider) licensing terms ?

I've always restrained myself from joining because I wouldn't want to be that buyer who found the image on a micro site the next day. On the other hand, maybe some buyers are staying with Alamy because they like their service and licensing terms - well aware of all the micro alternatives out there. Maybe they're seeing some professionalism / extra security there that they won't find on the micros - I have no idea.
What do you think, do you have any qualms submitting micro images to Alamy as RF?

It's probably not going to change my opinion on this, but I guess if everyone else is doing it and it's not against the Alamy contributor agreement, I might consider jumping on the bandwagon.

I wanted to make a poll for better "measurement" of opinions, but don't know how to.

ETA: There it was.

Yes because Alamy accepts anything and I understand that the buyers on there are very different from microstock buyers