|
Page 6 of 14
Conflicting Uses
Rights Managed, with its tracking of usage rights, has traditionally provided image users with information on competitive uses and the option for “exclusives”. In contrast, clients who use Royalty Free images are exposing themselves to potentially embarrassing usage conflicts as there is no information on licensing history as well as a much higher volume of uses. A recent example is two major computer companies using similar RF images for their Back-to-School promotions. The Inquirer headline read:
“This young lady going back to college appears to have a bit of trouble deciding whether she wants a Gateway or a Dell PC”.
It is hard to understand the appeal of Royalty Free to major companies who invest millions to build their brand identities. For them, neither the RF bargain rates nor the unlimited usage would appear to be sufficient incentive to gamble with the potential consequences of conflicting uses by anyone else who can pay a few hundred dollars for an image, let alone a chief competitor. Another issue arises from the particular appeal of Royalty Free images to those clients with “sensitive” products such as certain pharmaceutical products, sexual aids, tobacco and weapons. While these are all lawful uses, RM brands often have “sensitive subject policies” in place so that images cannot be licensed if they are unacceptable to the photographer or talent.
As a result, these types of clients are particularly attracted to Royalty Free. The consequence of this “benefit” to one kind of client is the embarrassment to another as in the following case reported by the Cincinnati Enquirer:
“The black-suited man in the print ad wears a wide, satisfied smile. But is he selling computer software - or a sexual aid? Actually, both.”
When the billion-dollar software company learned that the Royalty Free image it had licensed for a major ad was the same image used on the cover of a sales brochure for erection-enhancement tablets, they pulled the ad and complained that they wouldn’t have used the photo if they’d known its history. The response from the RF company spokesperson summed it all up accurately:
“The upside of a royalty-free image is unlimited use. It’s also less expensive. The downside - and we make it very clear to our customers - is that it can be used by any company in any number of uses with no restrictions.”
It appears that the terms of the “simple” RF model are not so clear to some of the top users of stock imagery and who may only have seen the benefits and not considered the liabilities. As more cases of conflicts arise, we expect client frustrations to increase.
|
