However, RF sellers were none too happy about the lower prices, too. This is when the pendulum swung entirely in the other direction, and is what gave the impression that RF was undercutting prices for RM. In fact, the prices dropped so low that those who didn't follow the RF found that they were now more expensive than RF.
Yet, as the buyers flocked to RF license schemes, it introduced a lot of competition in the space, causing a natural drop in prices. But in those early days, those who sold rights-managed images didn't complain because RF was still more expensive. The time period in which RF images were more expensive was very short-lived. RF proved to be quite popular among buyers who were willing to pay the higher fee in exchange for lower administrative overhead. Originally, the license fee wasn't lower, it was just more permissive for ongoing use. when royalty-free images were first introduced, the idea was that you pay for use of the image once, after which there were no more royalties due. For example, a license may permit use for a book or a music CD, where royalties are paid based on the ongoing sales of units beyond the first year. after which, continued use of the image involved a royalty payment based on the nature of the use. Short history lesson: Long ago, images were licensed in a way that involved a base payment for a limited time frame, say a month, a year, or whatever. The difference is really just the details of the terms of those agreements, and that is the part that has no clear-cut definition. Both still involve legal license agreements hence, both have restrictions. Both are just marketing terms that are more suggestive about what you think you're buying. RF isn't "really" royalty-free, nor is RM a truly "rights-managed". This question isn't so easily answered because, despite the efforts of the internet rumor mill, "RF" and "RM" are not clear-cut definitions as their names would suggest. Some agencies focus on only one or the other, but other agencies do both, leading people to wonder which of RF and RM can be more proftiable. Usually, the thread of discussions goes like this: someone asks, "What's the best stock photo agency to join?" And this leads to the discussion between RF (royalty free) and RM (rights managed) image licensing. This is usually the result of people reading impassioned arguments on stock photo discussion groups online. Once again, the discussion or RF (royalty-free) and RM (rights-managed) photography takes center stage in a small flurry of emails I've received recently.
0 kommentar(er)
