and some artists offer different images on both - you forgot that option

I offer different images in micro and macrostock.  But I also find it "immoral" (maybe it's a bit too strong wording though) to offer the same image in both.

Regards,
Adelaide

Offering the same images on both is no more 'immoral' than one petrol station selling petrol at 2.00 per litre and another, round the corner offering it at 1.75 (or whatever).

If the buyer is prepared to pay the price then that's okay.

What is immoral (and illegal in many places) is if all the petrol station owners get together and say "all of us will stick together and sell petrol at 2.50" so the consumer has no choice. (not that this is relevant to the question    )

There's also the fact that, on Alamy (for example) you can get much much bigger sizes than on the micros.

I offer the same images on both as RF, but if it sells on macro it is then removed from the micros and is then only available on the macros. (so far only sales on macros haven't big sellers on micros but it will be a real test when a big seller goes on macro 

Freeze,

Your argument is more or less what I see also in Shutterpoint (and probably all RF licenses in macro), in which the license is much more liberal than in microstock, it's more like a microstock EL license. 

I agree with that argument, except from one thing: we don't really have any guarantee that an image sold in microstock will not be used outside its license terms.  I am a Brazilian selling through American, Canadian and European agencies to anyone in the world.  So if someone buys one of my images for US$3 and uses it to make postcards or publish in a magazine, chances are I would never know.  After 18 months in these agencies, I only managed to track the use of 12 of my images, most of them because users gently gave credit to me.

Suppose for instance that I put my recent Lithuania-Latvia-Estonia travel images, which I currently have only in macrostock agencies, in microstock.  If someone from these countries use these images for whatever unauthorized use, I'd probably never know.  I would cash my cents, maybe dollars, and that's it.  And even if I found out, would I be able to sue them?  Would it be worth the expenses?

I have a few images that I sell in micro also in SP - which is not actually a macrostock agency, as we set our own prices - in this philosphy of selling them for an equivalent EL license.  But in real macrostock agencies, such as TSS/MyLoupe (I am not in Alamny yet), I don't do this overlapping.  And I don't put in microstock anything that I don't want to risk being misused.  I may be losing money (as I may be losing money by not being in SS), but there are some things I don't accept doing with my photos. 

I don't find it "immoral" to sell my images cheap while someone else sells similar images for a few hundred dollars, or vice-versa. There are many Lithuanian-Latvian-Estonian images in microstock, so if someones buys those and not mine who are in macro, ok. This is different people valuing their product in a different manner. What I find "immoral" (though again I think this is a very strong word) is the same person selling the same images in both types of sites.  It's all about how you want to see your name in the market, the respect you want from clients and agencies.  You won't find an Armani store in an outlet mall (ok, maybe it's a bit exagerate, my images are not the Armani of photography...). 

Regards,
Adelaide

I have just been accepted at Alamy and intend to offer them different images to those I have on the microstock sites. Most of them will be UK travel related so they will probably be sold with a RM license.

Reading posts on the various forums there seems to be some animosity towards the microstock photographer.  Although more recently there seems to be a coming together with more and more photographers posting their work to both.

With this in mind do those of you who contribute to both use a different name or pseudonym - one for micro and one for macro?