Question for people in iStockphoto

[adam_buteux]

OK

Only just signup up and want to know. Can I put the images I have on istock

onto other micro-stock websites?

 

Planning on joining rights managed site asap. 20c for a image is not what i'm

about. Sure you can make lot of money, but photography is just about the $.

but since I'm selling myself cheap on some of my images - might as well have

them on as many pleaces as possible.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Make sure there aren't image and similars exclusivity clauses in your contracts.

[Jim_Tardio]

Yes, you can put your images on other microstock sites. On iStockphoto, once you reach 500 downloads, you have have the option to become "exclusive". This means you can no longer place your images on other royalty free sites. But it's your choice. You don't have to accept being "exclusive". However, being exclusive nets you a larger payment. Remember that 20 cents is the minimum payment. Larger fees are common, but still small compared to tradition stock houses.

[Jim_Tardio]

Forgot to add that even if you go "exclusive" with iStockphoto, you are free to license your images anywhere else as long as they are sold as "rights managed" images and not "royalty free" images.

[qtluong]

Licensing as RM images that are on a microstock site ???

[Jim_Tardio]

Not sure if your asking me a question, Quang, but yes, on iStock, you are free to market your RM images anywhere you like, as long as they are not the same RF images that you have on iStock.

<p>

And, again, you can place the SAME royalty free images on several sites as long as you have not agreed to be exclusive to any of them.

<p>

Click on <a href="http://www.fintastique.com/guide.htm">THIS LINK</a> for a good guide to these microstock sites.

[fraser_harding]

This thread has contributed some confusing comments regarding the

difference between Royalty Free (RF) and Rights Managed (RM).

 

Either way, you are licensing the rights to reproduce images.

 

RF licenses are cheaper, because you are not restricting the uses, so you need to sell huge multiples of the RF license.

 

If you choose to sell your images via an RM license, the value in the licenses is that you are restricting the use to fewer licensees (by territory, industry, duration, media etc), and therefore protecting the uniqueness of the image.

 

Therefore if you sell an image as RF, you can never go back to selling it as RM. You also need to be very carefull about selling similars as RM, if there are already thousands of people reproducing 'almost the same' image... No RM library will allow you to sell a previously RF image or similar as RM, as they cannot guarantee to their licensee that the image hasen't been used by a competitor or has built up negative connotations.

 

You need to assess the intrinsic value of each and every image; based on its uniqueness, artistic merit, expense of aquiring, etc etc, some images need to be RM to cover their cost of aquisition, others can never be RM because they are already common and easily obtainable as RF.

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>Therefore if you sell an image as RF, you can never go back to selling it as RM.</i>

<p>

That's not true. The only time it may be is if you've offered some form of exclusivity with an image. However, I agree that RF images can become "oversaturated" for lack of a better term.

<p>

<i>You need to assess the intrinsic value of each and every image; based on its uniqueness, artistic merit, expense of aquiring, etc etc, some images need to be RM to cover their cost of aquisition, others can never be RM because they are already common and easily obtainable as RF.</i>

<p>

I totally agree. That's the beauty of microstock sites. They offer a great platform for generic shots.

[fraser_harding]

Jim, I am possibly missing your point;

 

Because there is no record of how the RF licensee has used the image (remember they could have used it 50 different ways in 50 different countries), the RM library cannot offer the image as RM.

 

The whole point of RM is to keep track of the licenses so that maximum value can be provided to the licensee. If the RM licensee needs to know where the image has been used before, they can find out from the RM library.

 

The RF library has no way of recording this. So you can't put an image that has been RF'd into a RM database, as the explicit uses have not been recorded.

 

If an image has been offered as RF, but not licensed to anyone, it may be possible to sell it as RM.

 

If it has been sold under an "exclusive" license through an RM library, it can still be sold as RM in a territory, industry or time period not listed on any past or existing "exclusive" licenses (Depending of course on the level of exclusivity guaranteed by the license).

 

If the image has been offered as "exclusive" by an RF library, there is still no real way to know what it has been used for - what industry, territory, time period, or specific uses it has been put to.

 

Read the terms and conditions of the RM libraries - all the ones I have read require that the images have not been sold as RF previously.

 

They also require to know all prior rights licensed with regards to each image.

 

Imagine for example the "anywhere girl" scenario, Lots of companies liked the image, licensed it royalty free, and then used it for all sorts of diverse "below-the-line" and "above-the-line" marketing, in all sorts of territories, including web.

 

There is no formal record of how the image has been used, so no RM license can subsequently be applied either morally, or as determined by the contributor terms and conditions of the RM library.

 

By the by, I'm not sure what the advantage of selling RF images "Exclusively" is to the photographer, as the revenue generated this way is still a tenth of what it could be by licensing RM...

 

Assuming the image is valuable of course....

[Jim_Tardio]

Sorry for the confusion, Fraser. Somehow I read your response (the part that I quoted) with the terms reversed. That's why I added this sentence, <i>I agree that RF images can become "oversaturated" for lack of a better term.</i> Of course you are correct.

<p>

Good Lord this can be confusing.

[Jim_Tardio]

To correctley summerize (I hope)...if you contribute to iStock your images are considered "Royalty Free" or "RF". You are free to place the same images that are on iStock with other "RF" agencies, like Shutterstock and Fotolia. This is true only if you do not agree to become "exclusive" to any single "RF" agency.

<p>

Joining an "RF" agency does not restrict you in any way from placing <i><b>different</b></i> images with traditional "Rights Managed" or "RM" agencies.

[adam_buteux]

After reading this thread on their site I am leaving iStock

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38581&page=1