Author Topic: RM usage in perpetuity ? (Read 6184 times)

Ron · « **on:** November 14, 2013, 02:32 »

Someone sold this RM licence on Alamy

Rights Managed Country: Worldwide
Usage: Editorial
Media: Editorial website
Placement: Single Placement
Image Size: up to full area
Start: 13 November 2013
End: 13 November 2016
Educational app for retail. Use includes tablet platforms, in perpetuity.
Single placement includes use in navigation buttons.

Isnt that defeating the whole purpose of an RM licence? Is that where RM meets RF? It puts RM in a whole different aspect. And Alamy as well.

It was sold for under 50 dollar as well. Not sure if it was gross or net, but still...

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2013, 03:31 »

Hi Ron,

That does sounds a bit strange, but alamy isn't the clearest when describing the deals with the clients. While it's nice that it tries to gives us details on the deal most of the times is very confusing.

I may be wrong, but considering that the image is being used in an app, and that the app will be used for as long as someone wishes maybe the license is granted for as long as the app exists and someone uses it, therefore in perpetuity... Or, not...

If that's the price mentioned in the "Summary of Images Sold" then it's gross.

To see the net value you need to go to the Balance of Account, or Net Revenue pages. In the later you must put the current date to have the items sold in the current month.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2013, 03:35 »

One more thing. RM usually sells for lower values than RF in average.

At least that's been the case for me in alamy since I'm there. Of course there's always the possibility to sell one RM image for a huge amount when the RF may be at most 300 or 400 us dollars.

Ron · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2013, 03:42 »

Thanks, I know how to see if its gross or net, but the person who sold the license didnt mention that.

Well, if the image is used in an app, forever, shouldnt it bring in more then 50 pop? Alamy has slashed their pricing by 80% discounting the heck out of images. It seems buyers get a very special deal, while in the mean time they are taking back more and more royalties from the artist to compensate for that. And to fund their US office, whilst giving away 90% of the profits to charity, which sits in the family of the owner of Alamy. LOL

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2013, 04:41 »

Alamy quotef price is gross. Look at your balance to see if you got 50%, or if it was distributor. RM could be in perpetuity if that's the rights which were sold. The sale you quote isn't RF, as they don't have the right to use it in any other way than specified. And IME, prices are generally sub-$50 (gross) nowadays. Difficult to hold out for more given the cut-price competition.

Ron · « **Reply #5 on:** November 14, 2013, 04:44 »

Its not my sale !

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #6 on:** November 14, 2013, 05:19 »

It also has a three year expiry date for usage. I don't see how they can sell two different time limits on a single license, there must be something obscure about the in-perpetuity aspect.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #7 on:** November 14, 2013, 05:30 »

Quote from: Ron on November 14, 2013, 04:44

Its not my sale !

I didn't realize that you were reporting someones else's sale.

Anyway, I had discounts of 98% in the past and many times over 90%, until I stopped bothering to compare the sale price with the calculator. I think that today things are much worse.

As for what price should an image be licensed... I can only say that from 2008 to 2012 I saw an 77% drop in the average sale price. And since 2010 the increase in the number of sales was unable to compensate for the price drop.

This year I'm seeing for the first time since 2008 an increase in the average sale price and I'm a little over what I used to earn per sale in 2011. But the volume plummeted almost 50% so I'm earning about half of what I earned in 2011 and 2012.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #8 on:** November 14, 2013, 11:59 »

Quote from: Ron on November 14, 2013, 02:32

Isnt that defeating the whole purpose of an RM licence? Is that where RM meets RF? It puts RM in a whole different aspect.

Not at all. You are managing what specific uses and what time period - that's a specific set of rights. You can argue about the price being wrong, but just changing the term of a license from 3 years to perpetuity doesn't turn it into royalty free where you get any number of uses (within the set allowed).

In the case of a very tightly proscribed set of uses, you could argue that an RM license should be cheaper than RF

Ron · « **Reply #9 on:** November 14, 2013, 12:04 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 14, 2013, 11:59

Quote from: Ron on November 14, 2013, 02:32

Isnt that defeating the whole purpose of an RM licence? Is that where RM meets RF? It puts RM in a whole different aspect.

Not at all. You are managing what specific uses and what time period - that's a specific set of rights. You can argue about the price being wrong, but just changing the term of a license from 3 years to perpetuity doesn't turn it into royalty free where you get any number of uses (within the set allowed).

In the case of a very tightly proscribed set of uses, you could argue that an RM license should be cheaper than RF

That makes sense

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #10 on:** November 14, 2013, 12:20 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 14, 2013, 11:59

In the case of a very tightly proscribed set of uses, you could argue that an RM license should be cheaper than RF

Exactly. A RM image used in a few hundred flyers for promotion of a local restaurant doesn't justify very high prices. In this sense a High-Res RF image should cost much more considering that the buyer will be able to use it forever in every amount and support he wishes.

Ron · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2013, 12:29 »

I think the RM argument for higher prices is that the image is not widely used, so you pay for a level of exclusivity/uniqueness

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #12 on:** November 14, 2013, 13:13 »

Quote from: Ron on November 14, 2013, 12:29

I think the RM argument for higher prices is that the image is not widely used, so you pay for a level of exclusivity/uniqueness

Not quite. Rights-Managed isn't a synonym for exclusivity, despite being the licensing format that allows it if requested.

In RM there should be a record for the number of times the image has been licensed, to whom/where, for what purposes and for how long and when. It's due to this data that a RM image MAY be licensed as exclusive.

There's nothing in the RM license that stops the multiple licensing of an image to multiple clients simultaneously unless it has been previously licensed to a client that requested and paid for that exclusiveness. But that is something made case by case.

Ron · « **Reply #13 on:** November 14, 2013, 13:24 »

I know all that, thanks for chiming in though. Maybe my point wasnt clear.

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** November 14, 2013, 19:13 »

Quote from: StockPhotosArt on November 14, 2013, 03:31

I may be wrong, but considering that the image is being used in an app, and that the app will be used for as long as someone wishes maybe the license is granted for as long as the app exists and someone uses it, therefore in perpetuity... Or, not...

I believe it is something like that. The buyer can only use it for 3 years (until 13 November 2016), but it may be in the sold copies of his product forever.
What is confusing to me is "Media: Editorial website" vs "Educational app for retail"

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: RM usage in perpetuity ? (Read 6184 times)

Ron

StockPhotosArt.com

StockPhotosArt.com

Ron

ShadySue

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

StockPhotosArt.com

Jo Ann Snover

Ron

StockPhotosArt.com

Ron

StockPhotosArt.com

Ron

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors