People kept sending definitions of the legal term "Royalty Free." I am aware.
I was talking about the standard use of the words "royalty" and "free."

I still think that (prior perhaps, to the recent popularity of this term, and its entry into common usage) "royalty" had a clear meaning: the money you had to pay to use something designed or created by someone else.

Under consumer law, a seller must make the fact that he or she is selling something clear. If I stand in the street holding out a brochure and people take them from me and then I say "that will be ten pounds/dollars" then those people are within their right to refuse to pay, because I had not made it clear that I was selling. The seller is bound to make it clear in a way that the buyer can reasonably understand.

While there is a legal term "Royalty Free" (that is perhaps now becoming standard colloquial English?), there was also at that time and now a standard English term "royalty" which means the payment that one pays to someone for using something.

There are 145 hits for "pay a royalty to use (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22pay+a+royalty+to+use&hl=en&start=10&sa=N)" and many of them are synonimous with "pay a fee to use."

Again there is a standard English expression "X-free" as in "sugar free," which means "There is no X" involved.

Hence visitors to the site in question, reading the words "royalty free" in a standard (not legal) English way, seem to me to be reasonable and fair in assuming that "there is no fee to use" the image, that the image is free of charge.

If some reads "royalty free" as "there is no royalty," or "there is no fee to use this image," then they are not being obtuse, they are just reading the phrase in a standard literal way.

As it happens this abstruse, nay contradictory, phrase means as we all now know "there is no repeat fee to use, but the first time there is a charge."

But when using English in this, a manner contrary to its standard usage, and when that standard usage describes the fact of being free of charge, then the onus is upon the seller to make it clear, in standard, not legal, English, in a way that their customers can reasonably understand, that they are in fact making a charge.

If the seller do not make it plain in a reasonable way that they are making a charge, and then try and enforce a charge (without giving the unwilling/inadvertent customer the chance to return the goods) then I think that the seller is behaving in a reprehensible way.

But perhaps now, the phrase ‘Royalty Free’ has spread though the public mind enough to make it standard English? Is that the case? I certainly use the term freely and without issue.

At the time of writing the above - three years ago - before the rise of istockphoto etc, I do not believe that was the case. I think that people who are not familiar with the Internet or the image selling industry are still likely to be mislead by the phrase above which means effectively the REVERSE of its common English usage.

I did pay the company in question. I have since bought and sold many royalty free images (although only with companies that make it clear that they are charging).

I regret paying that company (I should have just ceased and desisted) because I believe that their manner of selling was akin to the person that stands on the street holding out merchandise in a way that gives the impression that it was free, and then afterwards demands a charge.

I should stress that image (which cost me $69 dollars) was downloadable, without a watermark, without entering any credit card details, and without any warning that one was entering into a commercial transaction other than the words “Royalty Free” which as I argue above, has a legal meaning quite opposite to its meaning in standard English. As far as I am aware, the seller is obliged to speak in a way that that the buyer can reasonably be assumed to understand, and not in way that the buyer will be mislead by.

Timothy

You are reaching into a great abyss....

Good thing to remember: NOTHING.... absolutely NOTHING is free. Someone, someplace, somehow pays for everything.

I don’t buy your argument… Even if I went to a site and it said, “All images on this site are FREE.” I would still question the legality of the download. If you were confused, you should have emailed the site in question and see if the images were free....

People have different business models. Open source software is free to download and use, but open source software providers make money by providing support, bespoke development and training.

Often people are give free samples by companies in the hope that people go on to purchase the product. This was the business model that i though that the company in question was using.

> I don’t buy your argument… Even if I went to a site and it said, “All images
> on this site are FREE.” I would still question the legality of the download.

Hmm....Do you think you have a legal, financial responsibility to do so in that case? Do you think that if someone offers you something free, and then asks you for money that you should pay?

If some one says it is free to download this software, do you still email first to check? I often do not, despite the fact that the product is often more value (at least in terms of the cost of production) than in the case of an image. The variable cost in both cases is close to zero (or rather only the cost of bandwidth).

>If you were confused, you should have emailed the site in question and see if the images were free....
I was not confused. The image said that they were free (in plain English), there was no notification of a sale, or requirement to input my credit card numbers. I took the company at their word.

Timtak - what made you come back and respond to a 3 year old post anyway? hehe.

I'm not coming down on you and I can certainly understand confusion on the part of those new to the industry. To be honest I was confused about it as well back when I first saw it (forget where that was, but I remember not getting it).

Obviously you said you were not confused, so perhaps that is the wrong word, but I recall being confused and looking it up... after all, if it was really free, I expected it to simply say "free" - but with the "royalty" on there, it seemed to me as though there would be a cost, only without an additional 'royalty' cost.

Anyway, it was odd to me that you would resurrect such an old post to pick up the argument where you left off three years ago (next week) and I thought I would relate my story. I definately see how you could have... felt as though there was no cost at first glance. Could these sites/companies be clearer? Of course, and I'm sure they have had enough issues with it to warrant the brainstorming of ideas to clarify it - but then again, they would lose out on collecting your $69 that they may not have gotten otherwise ;)

Dear PlaneWalker

I just happened back here and happened on the thread.

I did not seem to be making myself clear in the old thread. People kept on going on about the meaning of the jargon. I was taking about the plain english words "royalty" and "free" and the duty of sellers to talk in plain english, not in industry jargon, or at least not in jargon that has a meaning that contradicts standard English.

I think that the problem is that in US English the singular of the word "royalty" is almost dead, and "royalty" is used to mean "royalties" which is the word I would use to describe the percentage of cost paid for repeat use. I think that in a sense the phrase would be more communicative (if cumbersome) as "Royalties Free," because that is what it means. A "royalty" is not "royalities (plural)". It is just a payment for use, not repeat use.

As far as I know - and I would like confirmation either way - the following is a normal conversation:

Buyer: Do I need to pay a royalty to use this image on my web site?
Seller: No you do not need to pay a royalty on this small image. Please use it free of charge. You can use it cost free; we just hope that you come back and purchase a larger image.

Tim

Royalty and payment for purchases are two completely different things. Royalty free means you do not need to pay a licensing fee each and every time an image is used. This has nothing to do with a purchase fee that allows you access to an image in the first place.

To put this into context, radio stations have to pay royalty to artists every time they play a song on the air. If a record label declared radio stations no longer had to pay royalty fees for broadcasts, this would not mean people could now walk into stores and take the artist's CD for free!

Now, if you were told an image was "free" (without the royalty part), or no price was given up to the time where you received the image, and you were charged for it after having received it, that's an issue you need to take up with the provider. But royalty fees have nothing to do with this.

You are reaching into a great abyss....Sorry, but I have to agree.

Royalty and payment for purchases are two completely different things.

Ths is where I disagree, but perhaps you are right.

Royalty free means you do not need to pay a licensing fee each and every time an image is used. This has nothing to do with a purchase fee that allows you access to an image in the first place.

In other words, Royalty does not apply to the first time, but only to each an every time subsequent time? This is not my understanding. I think that royalty is the payment that one makes for use, and this is any use.

No need to answer just yet. Lets go to your specific example and some others.

To put this into context, radio stations have to pay royalty to artists every time they play a song on the air. If a record label declared radio stations no longer had to pay royalty fees for broadcasts, this would not mean people could now walk into stores and take the artist's CD for free!

As far as I am aware, a royalty is the payment that one makes to use someone else's design, music, image, patent, technique. Of course, if I where told that I do not need to pay a royalty to use some music, I would not think that I could have the CD.

However, if I were the radio station and I phoned the agent and said "Do I need to pay a royalty to XYZ song on the air" and the agent said "No" then I would assume that I am able to use the song for free, without payment of a royalty.

Similarly if I am creating a shop sign say, and I see a fancy design and I say to the artist, "Can I use your design? Is there a royalty? Do I have to pay a royalty to use this?" And he says "NO" then I will assume that I do not need to pay a royalty to use his design.

Similarly, when I went to that online web site, and had they said "There is no royalty required" "you do not need to pay a royalty to use this image" then I would have assumed that i do not need to pay a royalty to use the image.

And since we have words like "cost-free" I presumed that "royalty-free" meant "you do not need to pay a royalty." (But it does not. Royalty free means "royalties free" - it is a kind of badly formed compound, that gets by because people rarely use royalty in the singular, methinks)

A royalty is a payment made for use.

One the other hand, I understand "royalties," as payments made for repeat uses.

Hence, had they said "You do not need to pay Royalties." Then I would have understood them. Had they said "Royalties Free," I still would have understood them. But as far as I am concerned, a royalty is something that can be paid once, for one use.

What happened to the use of royalty in the singular? Does it not exist? I claim it does.

If the radio station says "Do we need to pay a royalty to use this song?" are they misusing the word?

Tim

Ths is where I disagree, but perhaps you are right.I can assure you with great confidence I am correct ;)

Having worked in the broadcast industry for a reasonable period of my life, I can answer your questions/analogies.

However, if I were the radio station and I phoned the agent and said "Do I need to pay a royalty to XYZ song on the air" and the agent said "No" then I would assume that I am able to use the song for free, without payment of a royalty.You're able to use it in an ongoing manner without paying additional fees if you have already purchased it. You still need to make the initial purchase in order to have acquired it.

Similarly if I am creating a shop sign say, and I see a fancy design and I say to the artist, "Can I use your design? Is there a royalty? Do I have to pay a royalty to use this?" And he says "NO" then I will assume that I do not need to pay a royalty to use his design.If the artist is generous and wants to give away his design for free, he can do that. But asking about royalties doesn't mean the design costs nothing. It only means you're able to use it in as many instances as you'd like without being accountable multiple times. There's still an acquisition fee.

What happened to the use of royalty in the singular? Does it not exist? I claim it does.Back in the 12th century, when you purchased room and board, you were literally served dinner on a board, often propped up between two chairs as a makeshift table. Hence the term "room and board."

When I went to college, one of the charges on my tuition bill was for "room and board," but no one ever served me dinner on a wooden plank propped up between two chairs.

The point is that over time and within an industry, terms take on new forms and meanings. Royalty fees have been used hundreds of years to describe the fees paid for multiple use of a single creative work. A royalty is a payment for use, and has no bearing on whether there is or isn't a charge for acquisition. That's the long and short of it.

Similarly, when I went to that online web site, and had they said "There is no royalty required" "you do not need to pay a royalty to use this image" then I would have assumed that i do not need to pay a royalty to use the image.You are correct. There is no royalty necessary to use the image. But there's still a cost associated with acquiring it in the first place.

A royalty is a payment made for use.You're getting the hang of it :)

Often times, when you are asked to pay royalties, the first use is covered in the acquisition fee, and then you pay $X per use after that. But if there are no royalty fees, you need only acquire the item in question for whatever fee is involved, and you're free to use it as much as you'd like after that.

If the radio station says "Do we need to pay a royalty to use this song?" are they misusing the word?No, they are using it properly. If they play the song once, they have to pay a royalty for having played it. This is in addition to what they paid to purchase the song in the first place. Again, how do you think the radio station came to be in possession of the song in the first place? Short of the song being given to them by the artist/producer, they would either have to pay for it at a store, or break the law and shoplift it. Royalty fees are not the same as purchase fees.

And since we have words like "cost-free" I presumed that "royalty-free" meant "you do not need to pay a royalty."Correct! There are other terms that describe items that are completely free, as you have pointed out, and "royaly-free" describes something different - not having to pay a royalty. ;)

It's not a matter of whether we agree or not. It's a matter of whose information is accurate. Sorry, but when I said "royalty and payment for purchases are two completely different things," I wasn't expressing an opinion ;)

Cool! You have more confidence about the English language than I do sir. However, perhaps I should have confidence too. From reading your response, my confidence grows.


Having worked in the broadcast industry for a reasonable period of my life, I can answer your questions/analogies.


An important point is that I am not talking about the use of the broadcast industry. I fear that your awareness of how "Royalty Free" is used in the broadcast industry is clouding your awareness of how the word "royalty" is used in English in general.

Just to take one example, I have seen royalty used on the Internet to refer to the one-off (once only) payment of a fee to use a surgery technique. I also used the example of a shop sign.

You're able to use it in an ongoing manner without paying additional fees if you have already purchased it. You still need to make the initial purchase in order to have acquired it.

If someone in an industry, not only the broadcast industry asks if there is A (note the singular) royalty to be paid for the use of something once, then they are asking "How much does it cost to use this."

Someone in your industry may be aware of fact that there is also always an aquistion fee to be paid. But someone outside of the industry has no reason to be aware of this. And the site is selling to the general public.

If the artist is generous and wants to give away his design for free, he can do that. But asking about royalties my emphasis

Note that I am not asking about "royalties," but about a (singular) "royalty".

doesn't mean the design costs nothing. It only means you're able to use it in as many instances as you'd like without being accountable multiple times. There's still an acquisition fee.

Why do you assume that there still an aquisition fee? Is this based upon your elite knowledge of an industry, or your awareness of the standard English language?

Why should a general member of the public assume that there is an aquisition fee? This seems to assume that the buyer is someone that uses things repeatedly (such as someone in the broadcast, or publishing industry), but in the case of a web site selling images to the general public, then this assumption seems gross. I only wanted to use the image once. Am I unusual? I wanted to know how much the royalty to use the image was. And there emblazened above the image was the word "Royalty Free."

Take the example of the surgeon who is discussing whether he should have to pay a royalty to use a surgery technique. The quote was something like "I don't think that doctors should have to pay a royalty to use a surgery technique." By that, I am confident, he meant, "I don't think that doctors should have to pay a fee to use this technique." He did not mean, I am confident, "I think that we should have to pay an aquisition fee, but not a royalty for repeat use."



The next quote from your post is crucial because you are talking about how a term can have a meaning that is different from it original meaning. This is precisely what I wanted to talk about.

I do not mean to say that this the following quote proves my point, but it highlights the critical issue: Has the use of the word "royalty" like the word "board," come to mean something that it did not originally mean to potential buyers?



Back in the 12th century, when you purchased room and board, you were literally served dinner on a board, often propped up between two chairs as a makeshift table. Hence the term "room and board."

When I went to college, one of the charges on my tuition bill was for "room and board," but no one ever served me dinner on a wooden plank propped up between two chairs.

The point is that over time and within an industry, terms take on new forms and meanings.


Yes. I agree entirely.

Furthermore, in the case of the word "board," the term has indeed come to mean something different from its original use; it now means "dinner" or "food" and NOT ONLY to those in the industry (hoteliers) but to the buying public in general.

The important issue is for me, whether the word "royalty" has also come to mean something different to what it originally meant (the fee for a use) to the purchasing public?

I agree that the word "board" has lost its original meaning. No one, certainly not those in the industry, and also more importantly in the purchasing public, understands the word as a plank of wood.

However, the word "royalty" is still in common parlance (by the doctor I quoted for instance) to mean the price that one pays to use something once.

Royalty fees have been used hundreds of years to describe the fees paid for multiple use of a single creative work.

It seems to me that during those same hundreds of years, "royalty" has continued to be used as a term to mean the price that one has to pay to use something, NOT repeatedly.

A royalty is a payment for use, and has no bearing on whether there is or isn't a charge for acquisition. That's the long and short of it.

Here I agree again. But this again highlights an important point. When selling images on the internet, is it fair to assume that ones buying public want to "aquire" an image? If the buying public work in the broadcasting or publishing industry and are in the business of creating repeat transmissions, then it is indeed fair to assume that they want to not only use but aquire the image.

At the same time there are also a great number of people with blogs, with shop fronts, with a desire do make ONE birthday card, that want to purchase an image. These people have no desire to aquire the image for two reasons
1) It is within their legal right to download a copy of an image freely available on the internet (as said image was) for their personal viewing. They only need/desire to purchase a use.
2) They have no wish, as non-broadcasters, to use the item repeatedly.

Is it fair to assume that the buying public are publishers, or repeat-use-desiring broadcasters?

The image selling industry used to be able to assume this. However, with the massive growth of homepage owners, who often wish to use an image once, I don't think that this is a fair assumption at all.

No, they are using it properly. If they play the song once, they have to pay a royalty for having played it. This is in addition to what they paid to purchase the song in the first place.

I agree that in the case of songs, I am not aware of a web site that sells them for use and not for aquisition.

Itunes sells songs for aquisition. I know of no site that sells songs for use.

But, I think that the analogy with songs breaks down mainly due to my point (1) above - in the case of an image that is displayed freely on the web, one is within ones right (indeed it is unavoidable) to download that image. Aquistion for personal use is in this case freely available.

The image was displayed freely without a watermark on the site in question. I had already downloaded to my hard drive the moment it was displayed. I was, as far as I know, within my right to view that image repeatedly.

I only desired to use the image, since I had already aquired it. I only desired to use it once.

Correct! There are other terms that describe items that are completely free, as you have pointed out, and "royaly-free" describes something different - not having to pay a royalty. ;)

Well....It seems to me that the issues are:
1) Is it reasonable for a image seller to assume that the purchaser wishes to "aquire"?
2) Has the use of the word "royalty" come to refer to repeat use, as opposed to still refering to the charge placed upon a (singular) use?
3) Has the phrase "Royalty Free" come to be understood by reasonable members of the buying public, or is it still understood, by some reasonable members of the buying public, to mean (that which you rightly say it does not mean to INDUSTRY MEMBERS) "not having to pay a royalty"?

I hold that in all cases the answer is no, at least for many people that are accessing the Internet and the site in question. Hence, those selling "royalty free" images on the open Internet, need to keep watermarks or warnings on or near the images, and require a confirmation screen before download, as many sites do, if they are not to confuse and mislead people.

I think that reasonable people with an awareness of how the English word (not the jargon) "royalty" is used, are going to continue to be mislead for some time to come. The onus is thus upon sellers to make their jargon understood.

Tim

Just to take one example, I have seen royalty used on the Internet to refer to the one-off (once only) payment of a fee to use a surgery technique.Whoever used the term royalty to describe a one-time payment used the term incorrectly. I'm sorry you were confused by this.

If someone in an industry, not only the broadcast industry asks if there is A (note the singular) royalty to be paid for the use of something once, then they are asking "How much does it cost to use this."No. If someone wants to know how much something costs and they ask about royalties (or a royalty), that person who is making the enquiry is using the wrong language. Period. If you want to know how much something costs, you ask how much it costs. If you want to know whether there are ongoing costs on a per-use basis, you ask about royalty fees.

Why do you assume that there still an aquisition fee? Is this based upon your elite knowledge of an industry, or your awareness of the standard English language?I don't assume anything, except that the expression of whether or not there is such a fee has nothing to do with the expression of whether any royalties are involved. The point is that they are different fees.

It seems to me that during those same hundreds of years, "royalty" has continued to be used as a term to mean the price that one has to pay to use something, NOT repeatedly.Part of the problem we're having here may be attributed to culture/geographic location. I should mention I'm speaking about American english and use within American industry. My original area of expertise is in journalism, and within broadcast, print, magazine, film and Internet media, my definitions are accepted industry usage.

So, let's go back to your actual situation, and let's see where you're seeing royalty equated to a one-time fee. Just for kicks, I just now checked on seven stock photo sites to see how they present "royalty-free." I started with Getty, Corbis and iStockphoto. All three allowed searching royalty-free images (istockphoto only stocks royalty-free), and all three give pricing options. Fotolia is royalty-free, you just pay one-time fees. Ditto for bigstockphoto.com. Shutterstock is royalty-free, and you pay a subscription fee to use their services. SXC.hu is actually free photos, and they call themselves "the leading FREE stock photo site!" - nothing about royalties (or royalty).

I mean, you can argue the point all you'd like, but wanting "royalty" to mean something, or wanting "royalty" to be interpreted a certain way it doesn't change reality. It doesn't change what it means or how it is used. Ok, you don't agree with the use of the word...but that doesn't change the fact that this is how it is used :) Royalty fees or a royalty fee are/is paid based on number of uses. Royalty-free means costs will be calculated in a different way. If you're lucky, there won't be any costs at all, but the term "royalty-free" tells you nothing one way or another about other types of fees, only that royalty fees are not applied.

Please post a link to the photo site from which you downloaded your image. I would like to see their wording and see whether they neglected to mention charges at all. If so, you definitely have a case against them, because they have misrepresented their selling price, regardless of whether they are royalty-free or not.

In the meantime, here's some reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty_free

Royalty-free describes material (typically graphics such as stock photography and icons, but also sound such as music loop samples) that may be used for profit, without paying royalties. Royalty-free media is usually acquired for a 'one time only' fee, although public domain imagery and many works created under a copyleft license are also usable without paying royalties or an initial fee.[the_pm's note: note royalties and initial fee are separate issues]

...

There is also "royalty-free" stock photography. This does not mean that an image may be used without payment. What it means is that a one-time fee or subscription gives the right to use an image in a publication according to the terms agreed upon, with no license fees being paid for further use.

I'm not trying to bust on you here. I'm trying to get you to understand precisely what royalty means in the exact context you've provided. If you continue to believe a royalty is something other than what it is, you're going to end up paying for more stuff in the future for which you don't think you should pay. You're not going to change how the terminology is used or what it means by not agreeing with it, so get on-board with it and you'll save yourself a whole lot of agony, frustration and bad surprises the next time!

Thank you very much for your concern, the_pm.

It really is okay though. I have the industry use off pat.

Whoever used the term royalty to describe a one-time payment used the term incorrectly. I'm sorry you were confused by this.

You may well be right. I am loosing confidence after failing to find any conclusively one off uses on the Internet.

I am British. The British dictionaries charge for use but Cambridge has this in its learner dictionary
royalty
noun [C usually plural]
a payment made to writers, people who have invented things, owners of property, etc. every time their books, devices, land, etc. are bought or used by others.

This is very inclusive since it mentions "every time"(suggesting repitition) in the same sentence as the word "bought" (& I am not clear how something can be bought more than once) and of "land." I think that the origin of the word may be the charge for the use of crown land, an not necessarily repetatively (would that be "per season"?). That suggests to me the possibility of a one-off-use-fee. Perhaps, even if it existed, it is now archaic.

I really, really do understand the use of the word and phrase now in the industry in question, there really is no need to mention the industry definition again. All we disagreed about was the use in general, and whether it ever refered to a fee for one-off use, a fee for use simpliciter.

I would rather not state the name of the site, but it is one of the ones that you mention. Upon registration it had a page with an un-watermarked (I now realise to be "comp," preview) image below the words "Royalty Free" and some links to download larger versions for a fee on the right. I presumed, incorrectly, that the image on the right was use-fee-free image, i.e. a free to use image. I had arrived at the site after seeing their images used on blogs on many places on the net, I now realise, illegally.

So, you may well be right. I have sent a question to wordsmith "The Straight Dope (http://boards.straightdope.com)" if I am lucky enough to recieve an answer, I will post it here.

Cheers,

Tim

I presumed, incorrectly, that the image on the right was use-fee-free image, i.e. a free to use image. I had arrived at the site after seeing their images used on blogs on many places on the net, I now realise, illegally.That's an easy inference to make, and I can see why you would. The site in question really should use measures to prevent hotlinking.

I can also see how you'd infer one-off from that definition, because it says "bought or used by others." The complication in this definition is that a single purchase that pays a royalty to the originator is actually one of many "uses" when you move up the payment food chain. The only truly one-off sale that takes place in media is the transfer of copyrights from one entity to another. Ugh - this is very hard to explain...

...ok, each time something is bought, even a one-time purchase fee at a store, for instance, the copyright is used once. The royalty that gets sent to the originator is a fee for having extended the license to one additional person through their purchase. I'm not really sure that makes it any clearer. Please tell me if I'm making sense to you!

And please let us know what your source says about the word. Can you link to it, or was this a PM or post in a members-only forum?

Yes, that does make sense. I can see that the creator would derive royalties/ a royalty, from every sale.

[QUOTE]And please let us know what your source says about the word. Can you link to it, or was this a PM or post in a members-only forum?
The members only forum incurs a fee. I sent the question to the webmaster Cecil, and I guess he is inudated with questions.
Hopefully
Tim