Author Topic: Advise needed re selling Rights Managed. (Read 11835 times)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2013, 14:33 »

Quote from: aspp on February 10, 2013, 12:12

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 11:58
Surely you realise editorial is not 'a way to slip something past that has no release'? It's a different sort of image, where reality is key, not some bland generic entity with suggestions of reality omitted or cloned out.

That is not true either. Not inherently. Editorial is just and only a type of non commercial use. Any image can potentially be used editorially. As in my previous example about the studio images of cocaine abuse which Stockmarket were selling in the late 80s. You are confusing editorial use with an intent which would be, broadly, reportage. Or content which is produced for specific editorial use.

Now it is certainly true that specific collections have rules about what they will accept into their editorial collections. If they have editorial collections. That is a completely different issue. Alamy does not have an editorial collection.

Did someone say that Alamy had an Editorial collection?

Why you need releases for people and property

To maximise the potential to sell your images for “Commercial use”.
To sell your images Royalty Free.
If a person can recognise themselves in an image. Examples when you need a model release also include, crowd scenes, team sports, and scenarios when the face is not visible such as parts of the body, or silhouettes. For a picture of two people shaking hands, where only the hands are in shot, you need two model releases.

Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“.

Editorial Only is NOT for commercial use. OK? Is that easy enough to understand?

News Editorial can't have the content altered to remove or add or distort.

Stop saying what you can do and consider what you can't do. That was kind of the original intent of explaining editing restrictions on News Editorial, which is what SS expects their images to be, because they require a Dateline. Alamy, see above.

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 14:32

Quote from: KuriousKat on February 09, 2013, 09:07

Secondly, I notice on Alamy that images that would perhaps sell as editorial on the Micros are clearly photoshopped more than an editorial image should be. One example I saw was very similar to an image I have, and was clearly taken from the same position, but mine has power cables cutting across it and the processed one on Alamy had the cables removed. I am used to just tidying up images for editorial - exposure/contrast/curves, etc. Is this kind or treatment acceptable for Alamy/RM?

Thanks

Can I just check that you know that RM is only a type of license?
You can sell highly manipulated, or even totally computer generated, commercial images at Alamy, and many other sites, as RM.

'Commercial' doesn't equate only to RF, though Alamy has chosen to make images without releases, (even if you don't actually need the releases as the 'people' are only pixel blurs), as RM.

True

Also the whole debate over RM vs RF Editorial and the license, can be seen as imperfect in many ways. It's only a problem for Exclusive or restricted use content that's RM. But that's a whole different question.

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** February 10, 2013, 14:47 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:33

Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“.[/b]

Trouble is, there is no restriction called 'Editiorial use only' at Alamy, so that's just misleading.
It seems that most of us get it wrong when we set restrictions. Even though I had read about the restrictions, I got an email from Alamy saying the restrictions I had set combined to mean that the image couldn't sell at all - and that is very common.
So we are told that if there's a pixel blur representing a person, or a tiny part of a person, we must indicate that a person is present and we don't have a release. And if there is something in the photo that might need a property release, we indicate that, and that we don't have a release, then it's up to the buyer to decide if a photo is suitablefor their use.

Why do they say, "set restrictions for 'editorial use only'", when there is no such labelled description? Presumably for the same reason as they say,
"Exact match
Tells the search engine to only find results where the search terms are an exact match for the keywords.
Syntax: Double quotation marks “ ”.
Example: “Golden Gate Bridge”.
Outcome
This image is only found for searches where the phrase in double quotes is an exact match for the customer search terms, so in this example this image will not be found for a search for ‘Gate’.
Benefit
When customers search for proper names ‘John Smith’ ‘Statue of Liberty’ ‘The World Cup Final’ images keyworded in this way will be found earlier in the search results."
when word is that the double quotation syntax for indicating and exact phrase has never worked on Alamy.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #27 on:** February 10, 2013, 14:59 »

Got it. I was assuming that their guide for photographers and licenses the specific instructions were actually in use. I've always gone by the button when I submit that says "editorial use only" and never recognized that they didn't provide that for buyers.

How very strange? I left off my name the image details, but this is all it says.

B468C3 Rights Managed
Model release - NO
Property release - NO
Maximum filesize : 48.2 MB
(Set Preferences)
[Add image to lightbox]    Add to lightbox
[Add image to cart]    Add image to cart
[Calculate price]    Calculate price
[Edit image details]    Edit image
Location :    Chicagoland Speedway Joliet IL
Date taken :    2008
Digitally altered? :    NO

Which makes me ask, why are they including it in the FAQ and making me click the buttons, when the buyers can't see anything?

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 14:47

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:33
Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“.[/b]
Trouble is, there is no restriction called 'Editiorial use only' at Alamy, so that's just misleading.
It seems that most of us get it wrong when we set restrictions. Even though I had read about the restrictions, I got an email from Alamy saying the restrictions I had set combined to mean that the image couldn't sell at all - and that is very common.
So we are told that if there's a pixel blur representing a person, or a tiny part of a person, we must indicate that a person is present and we don't have a release. And if there is something in the photo that might need a property release, we indicate that, and that we don't have a release, then it's up to the buyer to decide if a photo is suitablefor their use.

Why do they say, "set restrictions for 'editorial use only'", when there is no such labelled description? Presumably for the same reason as they say,
"Exact match
Tells the search engine to only find results where the search terms are an exact match for the keywords.
Syntax: Double quotation marks “ ”.
Example: “Golden Gate Bridge”.
Outcome
This image is only found for searches where the phrase in double quotes is an exact match for the customer search terms, so in this example this image will not be found for a search for ‘Gate’.
Benefit
When customers search for proper names ‘John Smith’ ‘Statue of Liberty’ ‘The World Cup Final’ images keyworded in this way will be found earlier in the search results."
when word is that the double quotation syntax for indicating and exact phrase has never worked on Alamy.

Poncke · « **Reply #28 on:** February 10, 2013, 15:05 »

@ Sue

Yeah, exactly. I am just submitting images to Alamy now and do the annotation as they require and then the licence is set automatically. Whether that is editorial news or just editrial because its not released, I dont care. There are 30 million images that are not editorial as in the news sense of the word.

As for keywording, I wish those * quotations would work because I have images that are now keyworded in such way that they will turn up on searches they should not turn up on.

I mean if someone is looking for wedding photos they do not want to see this D31P39

aspp · « **Reply #29 on:** February 10, 2013, 15:54 »

Quote from: RacePhoto link=topic=18273.msg297863#m[quote author=RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:59

I've always gone by the button when I submit that says "editorial use only"

At Alamy ? There is no such button. It does not exist.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:33

Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“.

You .. can not you must. This point has been made clear many times over the years on the Alamy forum.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:59

why are they including it in the FAQ and making me click the buttons, when the buyers can't see anything?

The buyers do see the restrictions which you have set.

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 14:47

Why do they say, "set restrictions for 'editorial use only'", when there is no such labelled description?

It is clearly explained at: http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-restrictions.asp

Quote

Editorial use only

If you need to restrict your images to permit editorial use only, you should apply the following restrictions.

All Countries; Advertising/Promotion; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
All Countries; Consumer Goods; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
All Countries; Direct Mail/Brochures; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries
All Countries; Indoor Display; All Medias; All Industries; All Sun-industries
All Countries; Electronic and web uses – other; All Medias; All Industries
All Countries; Internal business usage; All Medias; All Industries; All Sub-industries

If you think it through you can see that opting-out certain uses makes more logical sense in this context than an editorial-only option. This is self service RM remember. Logically you would need an opt out for other uses, industries, regional locations etc etc. You need to be able to provide the potential for a combination of potential restrictions.

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 14:33

Editorial Only is NOT for commercial use. OK? Is that easy enough to understand?

You continue to miss the point. There are other non commercial uses which are not editorial and which may be acceptable. Internal business is an obvious example. And content sold unreleased CAN potentially be used commercially. As explained in my previous example.

And so on.

ShadySue · « **Reply #30 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:04 »

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 15:05

As for keywording, I wish those * quotations would work because I have images that are now keyworded in such way that they will turn up on searches they should not turn up on.
I mean if someone is looking for wedding photos they do not want to see this D31P39

General thought in the forums is that it will never work because there are just too many files in Alamy for them to enforce that.
Did you miss my famous example where my photo of the Head Office of a political party showed up in a search for 'office party'?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #31 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:14 »

Head Office and you didn't get a bathroom on a ship?

Sorry but I can't blame Alamy for this one Poncke:

D31P39 Rights Managed
Blissful Wedding

When someone searches for Wedding what should they get? Surely the word Wedding in the title would be a good match? Or do you think that titles should be exempt from searches? Besides that, what does it hurt for someone to see your image, it is of a wedding related nature.

I'm changing my Pseudo on Alamy for illustrations to "Art Vector"

Quote from: ShadySue on February 10, 2013, 16:04

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 15:05
As for keywording, I wish those * quotations would work because I have images that are now keyworded in such way that they will turn up on searches they should not turn up on.
I mean if someone is looking for wedding photos they do not want to see this D31P39
General thought in the forums is that it will never work because there are just too many files in Alamy for them to enforce that.
Did you miss my famous example where my photo of the Head Office of a political party showed up in a search for 'office party'?

Poncke · « **Reply #32 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:27 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 16:14

Sorry but I can't blame Alamy for this one Poncke:

D31P39 Rights Managed
Blissful Wedding

When someone searches for Wedding what should they get? Surely the word Wedding in the title would be a good match? Or do you think that titles should be exempt from searches? Besides that, what does it hurt for someone to see your image, it is of a wedding related nature.

Race, thats not the point. That piece of art is called "Blissful Wedding", Between quotes it wouldnt be found if someone is looking for wedding, now it would. It would show up and it affects my CTR in a negative way.

But the only pre is that everyone has that problem.

Poncke · « **Reply #33 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:28 »

@ Sue, not sure if I have been around long enough to know about that one

RacePhoto · « **Reply #34 on:** February 10, 2013, 16:45 »

Only if you believe that CTR affects anything significant. Kind of like the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. You shouldn't really worry about someone searching for Wedding and getting Wedding. You should worry about someone searching for Blissful Wedding and getting mashed potatoes and gravy because the food artists has... a blend of blissful flavors, the wedding of which makes these mashed potatoes a true marriage of fine spices.

Honest, do you think CTR is that big of a deal? Maybe rather than hijack this train wreck, (of agency chaos, naming editorial, rules, rights and editing variances) we could start an opinion pole on the right forum for Alamy and ask?

Wanna do it, or should I? You see, everyone and I mean "everyone!" gets bad hits, so it's the same for all of us. The search finds what people search for, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes I'd like the brackets and quotes and plurals and phrases and all of that to work on Alamy. The excuse that too many would have to change is kind of like why someone doesn't fix potholes in the roads. There will just be more next year. Drive around the ones we have?

Before someone mentions CV, it's a good concept. Someone left the cake out in the rain, now it's soggy and half baked.

Quote from: Poncke on February 10, 2013, 16:27

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2013, 16:14

Sorry but I can't blame Alamy for this one Poncke:

D31P39 Rights Managed
Blissful Wedding

When someone searches for Wedding what should they get? Surely the word Wedding in the title would be a good match? Or do you think that titles should be exempt from searches? Besides that, what does it hurt for someone to see your image, it is of a wedding related nature.

Race, thats not the point. That piece of art is called "Blissful Wedding", Between quotes it wouldnt be found if someone is looking for wedding, now it would. It would show up and it affects my CTR in a negative way.

But the only pre is that everyone has that problem.

Milinz · « **Reply #35 on:** February 10, 2013, 20:02 »

aspp can you explain what means editorial?

iStock "Editorial images illustrate and reflect the issues, themes, and events (both big and small) of our world today.

The people and things in these images are not released. For that reason, they cannot be used to sell anything. Editorial imagery is for non-commercial, non-promotional use only.

Editorial images portray specific people, places, things and events that provide context for newspaper and magazine articles, blog posts, websites and other non-commercial presentations.

Every image from iStock can be used for editorial purposes under the standard content license. The difference with editorial images is that they can only be used in this way." can only be used this way.

Alamy Remember, if you don’t have a release for certain content, you can sell it as Rights Managed (RM) and set restrictions to “Editorial use only“. We set restriction but the downloader can't see it.

Shutterstock "Editorial images should never be digitally altered. Scaling and cropping slightly is acceptable (sometimes you must crop a newsworthy editorial image), but you should never add or remove elements to make an image sell more, such as adding smoke at a protest or removing background elements.

What you could do simply in a darkroom is generally acceptable with Photoshop. However, changing key elements of the image to your advantage is not ethical. The best editorial image is the full frame image. If you must crop it, the “message” of the image must not change at all. It is of utmost importance to maintain the editorial integrity of the image in every way."

You say alright to edit and editorial can be used for commercial, they say no you can't. If IS has image editorial can we use it commercial? How does buyer on Alamy know if images are editorial?

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** February 10, 2013, 20:21 »

Quote from: Milinz on February 10, 2013, 20:02

You say alright to edit and editorial can be used for commercial, they say no you can't. If IS has image editorial can we use it commercial? How does buyer on Alamy know if images are editorial?

Both sellers and buyers must follow the rules of the forum they supply/buy from.
The rules aren't the same across agencies.

You can't use an iS editorial image commercially. That is clearly set out in the popup which appears if you click 'read more' in the pink box near the top right of an editorial file's 'home page'. Unfortunately, I can't seem to get it to stay up long enough for me to copy and paste.
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1096&isource=EN_EDITORIALARTICLE gives dos, don'ts and examples, including the sentence you yourself quoted, "Every image from iStock can be used for editorial purposes under the standard content license. The difference with editorial images is that they can only be used in this way." which is surely the answer to your question.

The buyer on Alamy can clearly see if releases are available by clicking on an image. [1] No images on Alamy are restricted to editorial use only - but it is very much on the buyer's responsibility. So, for example, an unlicensed image of Masai dancers performing at a Kenyan tourist lodge, bought from iStock, couldn't be used in an advert for the Kenya Tourist Board. However, if a similar were bought from Alamy, the buyer might sensibly decide that the lodge or dancers would be extremely unlikely to sue over such a use. A sensible buyer might consider it unwise to use the image in an advert for a rival lodge.

[1] Also, the pop up of the image when clicked on will indicate if any other restrictions are in place, which could be business-related, industry type, media or geographical. So if rights had been purchased for use in the US and Canada for five years, then geographical restrictions would be place on that file for that duration (I think the seller would have to remember to change that manually when the five years were up, I don't think there's a way of doing that automatically.)

In fact, even if no release is needed, e.g. an open landscape of publically owned land, with no pixels smudges of people, Alamy still shows No Release for both MR and PR. Such images used to be automatically be excluded if a buyer had filtered that they needed releases, but IIRC, they discovered that many buyers left these filters on permanently, so they changed the default so that if images don't need releases, they are seen. That doesn't help the buyer when the photographer has either lied or made a mistake and ticked that they have, for example, 200 pipers all signing releases in an Edinburgh Tattoo performance, but that would be the artist's responsibility, for not having ticked the appropriate box.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #37 on:** February 11, 2013, 12:04 »

Love your 200 pipers example. Can we use an electronic release on Alamy? You would need an army of assistants, collecting names and signatures and even then, how do you know you don't have 199 and not all 200, the the one you missed thinks he's that fuzzy blob down in the corner... and wants to sue?

That was a great answer all the way through.

Doesn't mean I understand, because every agency has their own version of the rules and their own interpretation of the laws. But it was the best I've seen for covering the question with specifics.

Yeah, I know I'm stuck in the news reportage mode. My own way of playing it safe. But that's what I do.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #38 on:** February 11, 2013, 13:53 »

Hi All,

Just my own experience but RM is another great way to sell the images that you already produce with property releases and model releases for commercial use. I would not necessarily chase the editorial side to much unless you are serious about editorial. If you are a paparazzi or you travel the world to capture the news that is needed today these are two of the biggest money makers in editorial especially paparazzi's. Your images that are not property or model released that are placed into editorial can still make money just not nearly as much as commercial sales. I think the best bet for all of you creatively focused image makers is to continue your craft and upload some content to several RM agencies and see what works.
The biggest concern for most agencies that sell RM is that the image has to be exclusive to their company so they can track the sales results and information so the next buyer knows where the image has been used or can control the use of the image for a duration of time with assurance that the image will not be used by other parties at the same time ( this is just one example of RM use but it is where the biggest sales come from ).
Say Sony wants to use an image from RM they can make sure by paying more that no one in the electronics industry can use that image for a purchased period of time, once Sony's contract of the image is complete it is placed back into the agencies collection.
There are a couple of agencies that have multi distributed RM so you can upload to them and they will distribute your work to all the top agencies around the world this way they can track the sales and pull any images that a buyer wants to have control over for a period of time or a region or several other issues by removing the use from all their other distributors while that image is being used by a specific buyer, the buyer needs assurance the same image will not pop up somewhere else. Once the contract of that image deal is finished the image goes back live to all the sites it is multi distributed through.
Selling the same RM image through several agencies is going to be tough because it keeps the model for RM from working and most agencies will not accept an RM image that is being sold elsewhere through another competitor. Multi distribution is one way to get your RM images out to the entire market place and still be able to offer the buyer the protection they want. Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Jaak Nilson · « **Reply #39 on:** February 13, 2013, 02:53 »

Hi all,

AGE Fotostock started some time ago to send their RM exclusive and non-exclusive images to Getty and Corbis. Industry leaders Getty and Corbis handle them under a non-exclusive contract. If you are an AGE Fotostock contributor then you can participate in AGE forum. It is on Yammer platform and AGE`s CEO Alfonso Gutierrez sharing sometime very interesting information.

It means that exclusivity is overpriced today and an exclusive sales are very rare. Yes, a one agency sold 2010 an one image over 50 000 USD and last year an one image over 60 000 dollars. It is a price per one image and it was probably an exclusive sale. There may be some great sales more.

Photographers must think before they sign an exclusive contract. There are lot of Pro and Cons. If you are an exclusive then you can not sell same images. Only an agency can. Of course a good agency can generate a revenue what a photographer can not generate itself with direct sales. Just try to find an info and think what suits to you. It is not easy to find out a best solutions.

All the best
Jaak Nilson

wordplanet · « **Reply #40 on:** March 21, 2013, 10:24 »

I was at a meeting at Alamy's offices a couple of years ago with their owner and various employees and other photographers - primarily news/reportage photographers. The Alamy folks mentioned that photos which we would normally think can only be used editorially (which is more than just news as Sue pointed out) are sometimes used commercially - it's up to the buyer - and some buyers may like an image enough that they figure they'll pay whoever complains to purchase a model release if it's needed (i.e. if a person in the image complains) - they are willing to take the chance. On the other hand, some buyers will ask Alamy to contact the photographer and obtain specific language in their release (even if it is already released) to be sure they have no issues. It's up to the buyer. If you are honest about whether you have a release and whether the photo has been altered, then it is up to the buyer to determine the legal ramifications of their use of the image. They control the use.

So, that's the deal, straight from the horse's mouth. Be honest. Let the buyer decide.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Advise needed re selling Rights Managed. (Read 11835 times)

RacePhoto

ShadySue

RacePhoto

Poncke

aspp

ShadySue

RacePhoto

Poncke

Poncke

RacePhoto

Milinz

ShadySue

RacePhoto

Jonathan Ross

Jaak Nilson

wordplanet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors