If you sell images on Alamy that are also on microstock, make sure to make them RF, not RM, since, briefly, Alamy prohibits selling image with one type of license there and another type elsewhere.

Also, a photo with unreleased people (and/or unreleased property that requires release when used in non-editorial way) is automatically *RM at Alamy, so you can't upload them there if you have them on microstock, where they're *RF editorial.

Though I wouldn't sell the same image on Alamy and microstock, (not a real option, anyway, with largely editorial port), there are people who do, especially, as I understand it, if they first have lots of images on micro and then become aware of/ interested in Alamy.

This is really interesting topic. I recently also uploaded part of my portfolio to Alamy (RF illustrations, so no issues with releases).
I was for several years quite hesitant about this, because the differences in prices.

During years, I came to conclusion, that the border between micro/mid/macro is very blurry,
when considering RF images. And more and more of same images are both on micro and macro sites.
Also, with few older test files, I had only several novelty sales for around 1-2 USD.

But on the other hand... When I look at actual normal RF price there, I must admit, the difference is huge.
So I am still unsure about this. It would be sure better to have different set of images for Alamy.

I sold two RF pictures there on Friday. The price was $56 for each.  I see iStock posting higher prices than that.

Also consider the Alamy RF EULA when comparing prices. For longer print runs and particular uses you would normally need to buy an extended licence at Shutterstock and Istock. Alamy RF is uncomplicated and relatively unrestrictive by comparison. And yes - often much less expensive.

Certain newspapers are allowed to download on an "honesty" system where they self-report sales. It is certainly a big flaw in the system there, since lots of publishers' accounts departments seem to work on a "we can get away with it" basis - or, at least, editorial forgets to notify them of the source of an image. I shudder to think how many unpaid usages slip past unnoticed.