When i started at Dreamstime und also during the last 25 month i never ever thought that any customer would buy the whole rights at any image. I always thought that this was a concept mistake by Dreamstime done in the beginning without any market relevance.
Well, yesterday it happened. Someone bought a SR-EL-Licence from me. I can't believe it.
Does this happend to anyone else or is this the exception what approve the rule?

Congrats on your sale! I sold 2 SR-EL-Licence during the last 4 years.

Congrates to you. I never thought this could be happen. Interesting to hear it does. Thank you for your replys.

. Before that I had my SR-EL prices set to $3000 on average which I would never expect a buyer to pay for an image,

Why not? $3000 is totally doable.

In my case it was a 800$ sale, i earned 400$.  That's a good deal for the buyer and also to me. The image earned 120-150$ in front. I spent more time than it is now sold, but, as an illustration i can do it again. Now knowing it will be sell. (i only offer pictures out of the second line to DR, 590 online, well 589 now).
The Image was only accepted by 3 agencys, they earned well and now this single image is gone.
I would never think about offering my images to 20 agencys..i offer to seven and this is a lot of wasted time at the last two.

3.000$ is, in my opinion, a price out of the 80's last century. For shure some image are worth that...but nothing what i produce.

Congrats on the sale.  Glad it worked out for you

I've been asked to sell the rights a number of times over the years, but since it always involved images with models in them, I wouldn't consider it.  

If it was an object or if I did illustrations I might sell the rights, but the price would have to be right depending on the difficulty of creating it.  

The concept in RF doesn't make a lot of sense.  If it was a rights managed site, where the image might only have been sold a few times to specific markets, there could be value to buying it.   But if somebody buys out an image that has already sold many times on an RF site, what value do they really get? 

No new user in future will have it, but there might be lots of existing uses of it kicking around on all kinds of websites, etc.   The buyer has no assurance of any kind of meaningful exclusivity, since the RF seller can't retrieve it from all the previous users.

The concept in RF doesn't make a lot of sense.  If it was a rights managed site, where the image might only have been sold a few times to specific markets, there could be value to buying it.   But if somebody buys out an image that has already sold many times on an RF site, what value do they really get? 

No new user in future will have it, but there might be lots of existing uses of it kicking around on all kinds of websites, etc.   The buyer has no assurance of any kind of meaningful exclusivity, since the RF seller can't retrieve it from all the previous users.

Buying it from microstock channels for exclusive use doesn't really make any sense, so one must conclude it is for another reason.  My thought is that it would make sense for someone who might have a need to acquire additional licenses in the future and wants to guarantee availability...  For example, if the Extended print license gives you license to print and sell 10,000 items, and you thought you might exceed that.  On DT it is 50 credits for the P-EL, so if you had a need for 5 P-ELs (to be able to sell 50,000 items) it would seem logical to just buy the image outright if it was for sale for anything close to $250.  Even $800 isn't that much to add to an item's unit cost if you are making 10,000+ units.  And you eliminate the risk of the image been taken down in the future and come close to preventing anyone else from using the image.  Further, you get all the benefits of ALL the extended licenses for one price.

At some point, one would hope the buyer would just hire a photographer or designer to do their project so they do truly have something unique they can market.

It's mainly so they can have exclusive use of the image. But is a bit of a mis-sell as people that have already bought it RF will probably still be using it in future. All they're really getting is an assurance that you wont sell it to anyone else in future.
Funnily enough I had an email from DT today telling me someone wanted me to SR to an image, but it sells quite well so I refused.

I would never think about offering my images to 20 agencys..i offer to seven and this is a lot of wasted time at the last two.

You never know what the arrows in the right menu chart here at MSG will show in three years from now, so I like having my foot in the door with as many sales channels as possible. The main reason I keep adding new agencies to my list though, is because I feel a strong urge to support fair paying agencies even if I never get a sale there. Call me overoptimistic but I actually feel like I'm making a difference that way and it makes me feel good. There are still agencies that I choose not to submit to, like Vectorstock. And DepositPhotos will probably not get more from me as the RPD is low (and the brand / connection to DepositFiles gets me worried).
Unfortunately recent commission cuts at IS and FT has forced me to submit to agencies I didn't really want to cooperate with in the first place, like Crestock.

3.000$ is, in my opinion, a price out of the 80's last century. For shure some image are worth that...but nothing what i produce.

It all boils down to how much earnings potential the image has, in my opinion. I would feel bad charging $3000 for an image that earned me just $10 as RF in three years. Then again I would lose sleep if I sold an image for $3000 with an earnings potential of $5000+

Zeus > I know simple images can be of good value and I wouldn't charge according to the complexity / simplicity of the illustration, rather on it's earnings potential. Afterall it's about the artist being properly compensated. However simple images have to be unique to have value. Vector star bursts are very easy to replicate and there are probably tens of thousands out there to this date. It was absolutely not worth $3000 if you ask me.

You could also go ahead and offer computer generated fractals for $3000, but the person sitting next to you is offering the same images for $100. And the person sitting next to him is offering them for $50. Because it still pays off.
And the buyer would just go ahead and find a similar fractal for $50. So there's the concept of supply and demand that kicks in when images aren't unique. That's why I think images should be priced according to their earnings potential-