If you have them RF on Alamy, you can put them wherever else you like.

Legally this is OK. Morally it's very dubious to sell the same images at very different price points. I think selling same images at Alamy and micro sites is very bad for the whole stock business because it devalues the Alamy(/macrostock) collection.

Legally this is OK. Morally it's very dubious to sell the same images at very different price points. I think selling same images at Alamy and micro sites is very bad for the whole stock business because it devalues the Alamy(/macrostock) collection.

I agree but alamy allow it, so people will do it.  They should of started their own microstock site years ago, I think this has damaged them and I have never understood why they allow it.  Some people argue that their license is more like an EL, so the prices aren't so different but I don't go with that.  Buyers don't need an EL every time they buy an image, some of the microstock sites allow all sorts of uses without an EL.  If a buyer finds the same image on a microstock site, they will probably save themselves lots of money.

Quote from: Perry on January 25, 2010, 08:27

Legally this is OK. Morally it's very dubious to sell the same images at very different price points. I think selling same images at Alamy and micro sites is very bad for the whole stock business because it devalues the Alamy(/macrostock) collection.

Not really.

http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the-right-value-for-your-money/

I still disagree with you. It's only a very small number of uses that would require an EL, and the EL's are also cheaper than Alamy pricing.

I agree but alamy allow it, so people will do it.  They should of started their own microstock site years ago, I think this has damaged them and I have never understood why they allow it.  Some people argue that their license is more like an EL, so the prices aren't so different but I don't go with that.  Buyers don't need an EL every time they buy an image, some of the microstock sites allow all sorts of uses without an EL.  If a buyer finds the same image on a microstock site, they will probably save themselves lots of money.

I'm thinking the same way. I just sold a RF image at Alamy, and my share was about $190. I don't ever remember getting such sales at any microstock site. (The closest one is something like $90 at iStock, and that was in 2006-ish, nowdays propably something in the $20...$30 area)

sljocke, please tell me exactly when are images bought from Alamy cheaper than microstock images?

(Maybe some web-sized images for resale?)

I think it's very obvious that Alamy images are more expensive in 99% of cases, even if you can't see it

sljocke, please tell me exactly when are images bought from Alamy cheaper than microstock images?

(Maybe some web-sized images for resale?)

I think it's very obvious that Alamy images are more expensive in 99% of cases, even if you can't see it

I'd like to license a small sized image that I can allow my 10 designers access to as we create future brochures.
Alamy - $49
iStock - approx $8 + EL for multiple seats at approx $90 = $100 or so

I'd like to license a medium sized image to print 10,000 posters I am going to sell.
Alamy - $230
iStockphoto - approx $15 + (approx $150 EL X 5 = $750) = $765

etc....

I'm only putting the dead earners on there on microstock. I've deleted them so they are dead in the water after 90 days then have to wait the ...I believe 180 days for them to completely remove them. They don't sell there so I might as well put them on microstock. I don't have a whole lot on Alamy and I'd really like to clean out the closet to repalce with new.

I think the extended licences are quite bogus, by definition Royalty-Free means that you purchase once and use the image in any way you like. (that is not the case in microstock world)

That is absolutely not true.  You license an image to the terms of the site or person you license it from.  "RF" is a vague definition that covers the basic idea of the licensing scheme, but it certainly isn't the end of the equation.  The licensing terms per site are clearly stated.

Your discussion was about cost to purchase, not about royalty to contributor: "sljocke, please tell me exactly when are images bought from Alamy cheaper than microstock images?" .

As I said, individual cases may vary.  Just because you got a payout of $190 from Alamy doesn't mean I've never gotten that from iStock.  And I have, so you haven't proven anything.

Legally this is OK. Morally it's very dubious to sell the same images at very different price points. I think selling same images at Alamy and micro sites is very bad for the whole stock business because it devalues the Alamy(/macrostock) collection.

I kind of agree and kind of disagree. Call this a mixed response. Everyone can decide their own moral conclusion. Personally I don't sell the identical images on Alamy as Microstock sites. What you say, you can see that I do in a very small number of cases?

Here's the way I satisfy my personal moral dilemma.

Alamy gets full size files, micro gets 4mp or smaller versions.  Alamy gets virtually all my Editorial images, Microstock gets some that Alamy doesn't. Not the racing photos which are all big and only on Alamy, but one cropped down image that could never make Alamy size is on SS. Back to the size as my way of dividing. If something can't ever make Alamy size with the necessary quality, I'll consider it in Micro format.

In case it slipped past for someone reading this. No mixed licenses. If it's ever RF anywhere it's always RF everywhere. Someone cannot license something RM on one site and RF on another.

Reading the examples that some have given and how the lowering of Alamy prices have come down to match the raising EL prices on Micro. I'd say the price point is fairly even between the two depending on specifics in each case.
 
I used to feel it was unethical to offer something for $200 on one site and 25 cents on another. Size and license considerations, as people have pointed out here, have alleviated that personal inner conflict.

Here's the way I satisfy my personal moral dilemma.

Alamy gets full size files, micro gets 4mp or smaller versions.  Alamy gets virtually all my Editorial images, Microstock gets some that Alamy doesn't. Not the racing photos which are all big and only on Alamy, but one cropped down image that could never make Alamy size is on SS. Back to the size as my way of dividing. If something can't ever make Alamy size with the necessary quality, I'll consider it in Micro format.

EDITED

my thought exactly, which you've already qualified.

p.s.
I was wondering when you would be coming in here with your comments, Race 

I'm trying to write less. I've self imposed a ban on commenting about how ridiculous and absurd joining new sites is, as it dilutes the market and drives prices down as they fight to undercut the good popular agencies that produce income. I'm not writing about low sales, rejections, inconsistencies (hey that's micro?) or the usual complaints. I'm not going to comment on cutting down to four sites, other than as of Jan. I'm on four micros and Alamy and two of those are on the watch list to see what the new owners do with them. (that's kind of obvious which those two are isn't it?)  In other words, I'm trying to remove myself from beating a dead horse topics... which is futile and useless.

I don't cross market the same images at significantly different prices. It's a personal choice. I have no intention of telling other people how they should live, it's none of my business. In other words, it's just my personal opinion, you can take it or leave it, there are no expectations that anyone will pay attention at all.  I have enough to keep myself busy, managing my own life, income and whatever else, without thinking I should tell others how to live theirs. Making a 50c sale isn't worth selling out my integrity or ethics. Maybe for someone else making a half dollar is?

I do intend to keep producing my own brand of "Crapstock" hobby shots to be amused and entertained. (and upload them to Microstock) If I get some spare change for doing that, I'm pleased. Serious editorial shots go to Alamy. That's it, KISS. (keep is simple stupid) My personal viewpoint and marketing strategy.

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 25, 2010, 14:18

Here's the way I satisfy my personal moral dilemma.

Alamy gets full size files, micro gets 4mp or smaller versions.  Alamy gets virtually all my Editorial images, Microstock gets some that Alamy doesn't. Not the racing photos which are all big and only on Alamy, but one cropped down image that could never make Alamy size is on SS. Back to the size as my way of dividing. If something can't ever make Alamy size with the necessary quality, I'll consider it in Micro format.

EDITED

my thought exactly, which you've already qualified.

p.s.
I was wondering when you would be coming in here with your comments, Race 

I'm trying to write less. I've self imposed a ban on commenting about how ridiculous and absurd joining new sites is, as it dilutes the market and drives prices down as they fight to undercut the good popular agencies that produce income. I'm not writing about low sales, rejections, inconsistencies (hey that's micro?) or the usual complaints. I'm not going to comment on cutting down to four sites, other than as of Jan. I'm on four micros and Alamy and two of those are on the watch list to see what the new owners do with them. (that's kind of obvious which those two are isn't it?)  In other words, I'm trying to remove myself from beating a dead horse topics... which is futile and useless.

I don't cross market the same images at significantly different prices. It's a personal choice. I have no intention of telling other people how they should live, it's none of my business. In other words, it's just my personal opinion, you can take it or leave it, there are no expectations that anyone will pay attention at all.  I have enough to keep myself busy, managing my own life, income and whatever else, without thinking I should tell others how to live theirs. Making a 50c sale isn't worth selling out my integrity or ethics. Maybe for someone else making a half dollar is?

I do intend to keep producing my own brand of "Crapstock" hobby shots to be amused and entertained. (and upload them to Microstock) If I get some spare change for doing that, I'm pleased. Serious editorial shots go to Alamy. That's it, KISS. (keep is simple stupid) My personal viewpoint and marketing strategy.

I am sure you are not the only one who feel this way.
The silence is defeaning, RacePhoto,
and to steal a quote off of Sir Thomas More, "silence mean consent". cheers

Quote from: RT on January 25, 2010, 11:52

As God is my witness this month (Jan 2010) some of the image licenses I've sold RF on Alamy where for:
77.89
76.00
77.89
62.32
74.78
107.10
152.00

Looks about right to me, Richard, on the numbers.  Although I have nothing near your sales volume there. 

This month I have had three sales:
$70.10
$152.00
$74.99

Two out of three would have sold for higher (for similar licenses) on the Micros.

Sorry, even if I did think it was my job to sit in judgment of other people's morals, I would want to make sure I had my facts straight.  But that's just me.  I hate looking like an a$$.

Here's where you folks are losing me. And by the way, no I don't care if someone sells their photo for $1000 on site X and 10c on site Z, that's not what I'm asking.

People are saying that they sold photos on Alamy for (see above)  RF with a bunch of nice numbers. And then saying it's the same or worse than micro. But let me point out my last sales on SS for this month 25c, 25c, 25c, 25c... on IS .69c, 59c, 63c, 2.28, 29c All RF. And then say they "would have sold for higher (for similar licenses) on the Micros."

You may, but two things. They don't sell with the same licenses, they sell from subscriptions or on demand, so the hypothetical, would have sold with the same license, doesn't seem to apply.

I'm not trying to start a battle but when people license things from a micro, we get a buck or two, here and there. So the "same license" kind of throws me. I'll add that the last three EL on SS were $28 (all RF) and the last three editorial sales (none RF) on Alamy were $80 commission. That's not the same?

Last of all, Alamy is NOT microstock. It's a different market, different buyers, different concentrations of content, different photo sizes. I don't know how come this keep coming up like they are comparable situations? My Honda is not a Hummer. I get better mileage, it cost me less, it is less expensive to insure, if I try to drive offroad, I'll tear the bottom off my car, and yes they are both transportation, but it's ridiculous to compare them to each other as they are functionally different.

That's the way I feel about Micro sales vs Alamy sales. Yeah, they both sell photos...

So is it just me, or do some people who have thousands of good images, suddenly find that they are getting extended licenses on Micro that equal or exceed Alamy, but the rest of us, don't see this phenomenon? Maybe it's that I don't shoot models with releases for micro?

The point is, I find none of the same commissions or licenses on micro that I do with Alamy. Can someone explain how this happens?

Yes, it's a good guess and makes some good sense. If they are going to sell to British newspapers for $8, it's already here. True about the grey areas. Didn't Getty try some $50 limited license and there was an uproar? Fine for the Trads. who were screaming breach of contract, they got what they wanted. Now Getty has multiple Micro sites and is cherry picking Flickr and the people who balked at the changes, have their full price images sitting unused because of the prices.

I thought Alamy tried some special license which failed miserably. That was the one that people called Microstock and they said it wasn't the same. Oh yes, it was called novel use in June of 2008: "Limited Use has been devised to let your images compete in the low cost �micropayment� market without undermining your existing revenue streams on Alamy." Put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.



My second best selling Microstock image is on Alamy RF (full size not 4MP) and it has never sold. In fact it may have never been searched or viewed or zoomed. Different horses for different courses.

Taking RM and editorial aside, financially speaking, the biggest difference between Alamy and microstock sites in general  are SUBSCRIPTIONS hence where the  25c-69c are from.  At SS a buyer needs to pay $249.00 a month to subscribe for very limited licenses.  

Last month I had a few Alamy RF sales at $8.05 each which I made $4.83 each with a broader license then a $28.00 EL on SS. This month I had one Alamy RF sale at $313.86 and another one at $150.00. This is not a matter of one site selling low and another one selling high, this has become a matter of the same site selling low and high making boundaries grayer.

How long do you think before Alamy start doing subscriptions for their RF collection?  I use to like Alamy the way it was, but I think because of economics, evolution and this capitalistic world that it is just a matter of time for the Alamy RF collection to get closer to the microstock sites model. However I do believe that editorial and very specific RM subject matters will still have a place with Alamy for a long time to come.  

I think that all their RF collection will eventually become similar to micro sites with subscriptions while editorial and RM become a separate entity within Alamy. This is only a guess. Denis