So much talk about micro and macro images. But what's the difference, really? Could someone enlighten me, illustrate it for me? Not making fun or anything, just asking same newbie questions. I did go through Alamy and Getty and did find photos to be a bit different, I'd say a bit more natural and when it comes to RM, really conceptual or even arty. And I didn't find many photos with punchy colors (vetta style) either. But that alone can't be it, these are just more or less minor differences

" I then end up, with no ulterior motive, with the file as RF on some sites and RM on Alamy."

But that isn't what you asked in your survey. Your survey asks specificaly for RF rather than RM. You would likely have seen completely different results had you asked if people submit their RF images as RM on Alamy. I certainly don't.

For me it has almost nothing to do with dual marketing, although I don't want to compete with myself when I get $80 commission on Alamy and 25c to 50c on Micro. Anyone can sell at multiple sites if they wish and find they are also wasting time on Alamy because buyers aren't living in a closet and do search for better prices?

The question for me is, do I want to waste time competing with myself and will the same images that sell on micro actually sell on Alamy? Maybe some do, but they are different buyers and a different market, so no I just don't bother.

So, 18 says "yes", and 5 says "no". Very surprised by the poll results so far. I thought most people were against it as I've read many posts over time encouraging not to submit micro images to Alamy. Maybe these people have been more sound than others and I've just misunderstood the situation.
Think I'm going to start reading their agreement and consider selling my images there

If you're selling an image as RM on one site, and RF on another, you're likely to encounter legal problems.  RM goes with the image, not the site.  A possible and hypothetical scenario:  I'm a buyer, and I want a particular image, but I don't have the budget to hire a photographer, model, MUA, stylist, etc.  I don't want an exclusive, but neither do I want to use an image that has been used or that could be used by one of my competitors, so I look through a RM collection, find just the right image that fits that criteria, and I purchase the rights to that image in a way that precludes that image from being used in a similar fashion (i.e., that image can't be used in association with a competitor's product).  Later, I discover that the same image was purchased and used on a RF basis by a competitor.  I'm furious because the image was presented to me under false pretenses, so I sue everyone involved - the RM site, the RF site, the photographer, and anyone else who even remotely could be held responsible or accountable.  I have a strong case to present in court, and I'm seeking punitive damages plus compensation for lost income, lost market share, attorneys' fees, etc.  As a photographer, if I were to offer an image as RM, I certainly wouldn't offer it as RF on another site because of just such a likely scenario, and I would limit the RM image(s) to one site.  How could the rights be tracked and managed otherwise?

If you're selling an image as RM on one site, and RF on another, you're likely to encounter legal problems.  RM goes with the image, not the site.  A possible and hypothetical scenario:  I'm a buyer, and I want a particular image, but I don't have the budget to hire a photographer, model, MUA, stylist, etc.  I don't want an exclusive, but neither do I want to use an image that has been used or that could be used by one of my competitors, so I look through a RM collection, find just the right image that fits that criteria, and I purchase the rights to that image in a way that precludes that image from being used in a similar fashion (i.e., that image can't be used in association with a competitor's product).  Later, I discover that the same image was purchased and used on a RF basis by a competitor.  I'm furious because the image was presented to me under false pretenses, so I sue everyone involved - the RM site, the RF site, the photographer, and anyone else who even remotely could be held responsible or accountable.  I have a strong case to present in court, and I'm seeking punitive damages plus compensation for lost income, lost market share, attorneys' fees, etc.  As a photographer, if I were to offer an image as RM, I certainly wouldn't offer it as RF on another site because of just such a likely scenario, and I would limit the RM image(s) to one site.  How could the rights be tracked and managed otherwise?

Is that correct? If I sold an image as RM on Alamy, and the same image as RM on Panthermedia, then there is no linkage in terms of managing usage between those two sites. I don't believe that the basic RM license on Alamy allows anyone to purchase in a way that the image could not be used by a competitor say. If it was exclusive RM on Alamy, then OK, but not in any other circumstances.

Steve

Quote

If you're selling an image as RM on one site, and RF on another, you're likely to encounter legal problems.  RM goes with the image, not the site.  A possible and hypothetical scenario:  I'm a buyer, and I want a particular image, but I don't have the budget to hire a photographer, model, MUA, stylist, etc.  I don't want an exclusive, but neither do I want to use an image that has been used or that could be used by one of my competitors, so I look through a RM collection, find just the right image that fits that criteria, and I purchase the rights to that image in a way that precludes that image from being used in a similar fashion (i.e., that image can't be used in association with a competitor's product).  Later, I discover that the same image was purchased and used on a RF basis by a competitor.  I'm furious because the image was presented to me under false pretenses, so I sue everyone involved - the RM site, the RF site, the photographer, and anyone else who even remotely could be held responsible or accountable.  I have a strong case to present in court, and I'm seeking punitive damages plus compensation for lost income, lost market share, attorneys' fees, etc.  As a photographer, if I were to offer an image as RM, I certainly wouldn't offer it as RF on another site because of just such a likely scenario, and I would limit the RM image(s) to one site.  How could the rights be tracked and managed otherwise?

Is that correct? If I sold an image as RM on Alamy, and the same image as RM on Panthermedia, then there is no linkage in terms of managing usage between those two sites. I don't believe that the basic RM license on Alamy allows anyone to purchase in a way that the image could not be used by a competitor say. If it was exclusive RM on Alamy, then OK, but not in any other circumstances.

Steve

I believe that, as content does not need to be exclusive to Alamy, they will contact you to ask if any exclusive RM terms can be granted. If the sale goes through (I once had urgent emails asking about a particular image, but the sale didn't go through), it is then up to you to make sure than any other outlet you sell the image knows about any exclusive rights you sold.

That seems to be true and the case, however, since I sell Editorial on Alamy and RF on Micro, I don't really have the same situation.

Someone who puts Micro style shots up on Alamy, should expect to get the same value from them for the same license and materials. There's no magic there.

I put up one large RF image on Alamy and got the usual $200 download, $120 commission. I wonder if I should have uploaded it to Micro and collected my $3 from four agencies. Oh Whoopee, that's exciting.

Even if the coincidence of views on Alamy and sales on micro are true, there's no way to prove it. I just figure if it's good enough for Alamy, that's where it goes. If it's editorial/news it goes on Alamy. If it's smaller and RF, then it goes on Micro. I don't need to compete with myself, with my own images, by selling them for 1/20th of the price, and pennies for commission. As far as views and sales, I have sales on Alamy with no views, no zooms, no searches and no data except someone did find it and did buy a license. Fine with me, the measures data is just for information, not perfect and accurate.

Let me be frank. I'm not willing to sell out and work for spare change by putting up hundreds of images and years of work, to get some payback from micro. The agencies change the rules, change the commission, change anything they please, cancel promises and people are so hungry and owned by Microstock that they are afraid to stand up to the abuse. Oh can't quit, I depend on the income. Oh good, crowdsourcing has now driven commissions down to 15% and worse. I'm not willing to spend a three day weekend shooting from Sunrise to Sunset, driving hundreds of miles to get to events. Gain access to highly selective and restricted media credentials. Spend another night or two culling, editing, identifying and uploading this work?

All so I can sell the photos on some Microstock site and get a crummy quarter or maybe a dollar. (honest IS is still best at $1.50 per download average, and that's going down)

I'm still happier getting less sales volume and getting paid what I feel is a fair price for my work.

Don't get me wrong, sales for me on Alamy have also dropped in the last year. But one sale still beats four years income from a small Micro site. 

 

Lately, my RF sales on Alamy are almost the same royalties as on the Micros.

Regardless of what Alamy pricing is, for my images they ALWAYS offer steep discounts (up to 80%), so even for medium sized RF sales, I get $10.

Maybe that's the Micros effect, but hey, at least I pocketed those $10 that I might have not gotten at all. Who knows.

I fail to see the benefits of choosing RM over RF in any situation. If the image is not even exclusive when being sold as RM, then why pay more for restricted usage - RM - when you can get almost unlimited usage - RF - for less ? Never understood the concept of rights managed. When is it beneficial ? Makes no sense to me

Yes. The reason I do is Editorial which defaults to RM on Alamy. They could be RF but that's not the way it works. Once I click no model release, zap, it's RM Editorial there.

In case anyone has been watching the prices for RF and RM have been coming closer together on Alamy. Also the Micro prices and the discounted Alamy prices have been coming closer together. So cheap RF is cheap (or inexpensive?) everywhere. Things are becoming much more alike all over, so the former debate which I took the side of integrity, over selling out or trying to bilk buyers, is irrelevant now.

Still the example changes when someone here is the buyer or the one paying for something, instead of the one selling it. Odd isn't that?

Person goes to store A and buys a new tent. Pays $399 because it's supposed to be good and the latest. Next week they see, identical tent on a website for $99. Now I want the ones arguing that buyers who can get the same images on Micro for subscriptions or $3 on demand are going to pay $240 for the same image on Alamy and not be pissed off at the artist? Also most semi-intelligent buyers know how to do a search or look at multiple sites and will but the same image from Micro if it's offered there, so then "artist" says, Alamy is crummy for sales, no one buys anything there and I have my best 500 Microstock images up there. Yeah, but "artist" also has those same 500 Microstock style images up on 10 - 20 sites, and the style of work is more suited for Micro than Alamy, so what's the obvious?

Different markets, different buyers much of the time, not just different pricing. Alamy has 24 million images. Consider the competition at a high level. And then add in competing with oneself based on price, there's not going to be a happy success story at the end of all this. 

Opinion, and that's why I don't compete with myself based on Micro pricing and image demands of buyers at the two sources, being different. I don't put the Micro RF on Alamy either. I don't see it being the right marketplace for those. Also I do pocket camera and snapshots on Micro, many are 4-6MP would never make it. Camera is not on the approved list. The choice is even easier.

I do not put the same images on both Alamy and micro.
 

Revenue from last 3 sales at Alamy    $2.49

Is that novel use ... or ...?

I�believe there isnt much differance at all between amounts of RM and RF sales, pretty even, thats what I have heard. For me Alamy is producing better and better, just looked at my June stats and theres already 5, RF sales and some novelty. Uploading is easy and quite fun actually.

All in all they run their business in a professional way. Cant knock that. Slow payouts though.

Quote from: click_click on June 08, 2011, 08:25

Lately, my RF sales on Alamy are almost the same royalties as on the Micros.

Regardless of what Alamy pricing is, for my images they ALWAYS offer steep discounts (up to 80%), so even for medium sized RF sales, I get $10.

So true!  Makes the rest of this discussion pretty much moot. 

Normally I would jump on the "concur" bandwagon but this month has generated a lot of money for me (June=$1400).  Most months are less...sigh!

I believe that, as content does not need to be exclusive to Alamy, they will contact you to ask if any exclusive RM terms can be granted. If the sale goes through (I once had urgent emails asking about a particular image, but the sale didn't go through), it is then up to you to make sure than any other outlet you sell the image knows about any exclusive rights you sold.

right - i had this happen with DT - the buyer got an exclusive license from that day on, and the images were removed from other agencies that had them  - it was a $300 sale, so not hard to decide to remove it from RF