-
Posts
-
How are different people handling the RM issue? My understanding of RM is the images are typically licensed for a specific client/region/time … Are you setting standard rates based on a number you’d be happy with per quarter/year/region or have you set the RM images to generate a query where the prospective buyer fills in their data to receive a quote?
I haven’t downloaded Premium yet so I’m not sure what the options/mechanisms are that are currently available.
I know I have some images that I have never/will probably never make available as RF (art images for the most part) but would license for RM, limited print runs, special edition products and the like. However, I don’t think I want to set a blanket rate. I’m curious how the “big kids” are handling this type of thing.
Diana
My RM images are all only available through Alamy and I use the AJT Alamy Plugin to direct customers there.
http://ajotte.com/alamy-plugin/Steve
http://www.softlightstock.comThat’s a nice option. I signed up for an Alamy account ages ago but never got around to uploading anything to them.
I’m very interested in licensing RM as well for some images. Unfortunately the licensing setup as it now stands doesn’t accommodate this very well. Even though I don’t mention the terms RM or RF on my site I am licensing images as a one-time use which is effectively RM. For multiple uses the client would have to contact me for pricing. Not ideal.
Instead I’d like to see a very easy to use and understand pricing calculator. Something like the one Picturengine is using would be good (http://www.picturengine.com/app/stock_photo_detail/Puppets_in_Market/image-Mul0123312998.html). I think this setup and pricing came from the Plus coalition. On the backend the calculator contains basic pricing which the contributor can adjust by selecting +/- a certain percentage to move prices up or down from the standard.
A huge plus side to this is that it would open up the symbiostock network to a large pool of talented photographers who wouldn’t participate without RM pricing.
Yes, I closed my account on Alamy so I would like to see the RM licence on Symbiostock to be improved so it can be used. Its not set up correctly the way its implemented now. I hope Leo can look into this. But we need to come with a plan on how we would want to see it.
I’ve been thinking about this and it seems like for RM you need to have a ‘quote request’ function where the prospective buyer specifies region, time frame, etc so that you can quote and ensure that the request doesn’t interfere with other active licenses.
Or (more complicated I think)
An ability for the user to check off various regions, select a time period, misc terms and instantly it quotes the fee. You would need a way to remove specific regions (already licensed) from the available license.
I think the second would be more complicated and be more likely to risk license conflicts. The second seems like it would require more seller time, but would reduce the likelihood of selling a competing license through a malfunction in software.
I could create 4 different RM licences. On Alamy they have a quick calculator with 4 options. That could suffice. I will set that up and see how it looks and works.
Rights managed licensing can be as complicated or simple as you want it to be. The truth of the matter is while it would be ideal to know exactly who and what industry you are licensing to so that you can avoid conflicts, most RM is licensed non-exclusively. A couple months ago getty licensed an image of mine for over $5,000 gross (haven’t seen one of those for a looooong time) for a major advertising use. The image was licensed non-exclusively. The big price came from the extensive worldwide use they were looking to use it for, not exclusivity.
Ron, I’ll be interested to see how you approach the licenses as I’d be interested in doing something like that too. I originally tried to set up the licensing in symbiostock to have many multiple licenses. It ended up looking like a confusing mess because the licenses wrapped around rather being neatly displayed each on it’s own line.
I’ve taken a slightly different approach. I’ve implemented a few licences that can be bought as standard and then specified what it can and can’t be used for. Special RMs need to be negotiated in person and I can then work out an agreement for the file.
Jo
The whole licencing system is a mess. It needs an upgrade for sure. First of all licences need to be made editable. I just created 4 RM licences and they are not working as expected so now I need to delete 4 licences and create 4 new ones.
However, assigned 4 RM licences to this image and the layout is a mess. It doesnt look good, nothing is aligned and its all over the shop.
Also, the text I gave with the licence in the box Onpage description: is no where to be seen.
Its unclear what Purchasable upgrade means. When I set it for No, the pricing is not applied when choosing the RM licence.
http://semmickphoto.com/image/alice-by-mick-minogue/
Ok, so now I am going to try another setting on the licences. Sigh, its cumbersome.
Ok, 4 new licences with option purchasable upgrade YES seems to work. I have set the image price to 0 and a licence is chosen per default and then when you toggle the image size it gives you a price. Still looks messy
Its still not clear what each licence is for, so some sort of text or box needs to be created where the buyer can quickly see the licence.
I am also afraid that if defaulting one of the RM licences is not working the image can be obtained for nothing.
I dont think its complicated to fix some issues, it could work, but it definitely needs an overhaul. And I am hoping this gets attention sooner rather then later as this has been an issue from the introduction of the licence system.
Also why do we indicate if we have a release or not when that info is nowhere on the image page. That needs a fix too
Ron – That’s pretty much what I came up with too and ended up pitching the whole thing out. Your right, we need to be able to edit the licenses and they need to look much nicer when there are more than two.
To add to your point of releases not showing on the image page, I’d like to add that when a licenses is added or a price is changed via the bulk editor there needs to be a way to change just that item and not the rest of the settings on the image page. Every time I bulk edit anything it screws a bunch of the settings up on images and I have to go back a fix them.
@crackerclips wrote:
Ron – That’s pretty much what I came up with too and ended up pitching the whole thing out. Your right, we need to be able to edit the licenses and they need to look much nicer when there are more than two.
To add to your point of releases not showing on the image page, I’d like to add that when a licenses is added or a price is changed via the bulk editor there needs to be a way to change just that item and not the rest of the settings on the image page. Every time I bulk edit anything it screws a bunch of the settings up on images and I have to go back a fix them.
Yes I agree, more people mentioned that including me. The batch editor needs to show actual settings of the image not default settings
@Semmick Photo wrote:
Also why do we indicate if we have a release or not when that info is nowhere on the image page. That needs a fix too
There is a workaround fix. I could not get it to work with dragonfly so far though but I think it looks good, take a look at one of my single image pages, if you like it I will find the thread when I am back at computer
http://kerioakimaging.com - trying to reopen
http://nail-art-at.kerioak.com - Art and Nail Art
The forum ‘Archives’ is closed to new topics and replies.