You still most likely get LESS money from a micro EL sale than from a regular sale at Alamy.
And what percentage of sold licences are EL? Under 1%? I think the whole question EL vs. Alamy RF is so mariginal it's almost irrelevant.

I think that the percentage of El's on the micros should be higher.  Perhaps this is a good argument for putting the same images on alamy, at least we know then that the buyer hasn't paid less than they should.

When talking about prices, also bear in mind that we are talking about visual art, and the standards are subjective.

Remember, we're talking about the exact same image being sold here, not different images that people are judging at different prices.

Perhaps this tells us why Yuri says he doesn't sell any on Alamy.  Buyers are using his images for things that don't require a wide license.  Likely, ads and web use.

Yuri does sell on Alamy. (unless everything has been pulled from both accounts in the last month)

I meant he's said he has no sales there.

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 27, 2009, 09:16

Yuri does sell on Alamy. (unless everything has been pulled from both accounts in the last month)

I meant he's said he has no sales there.

I don't buy that. I don't see his royalty reports, yet I can absolutely say with all certainty, that he makes sales on Alamy. He has too many images there to not.

Quote from: sjlocke on January 27, 2009, 09:20

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 27, 2009, 09:16

Yuri does sell on Alamy. (unless everything has been pulled from both accounts in the last month)

I meant he's said he has no sales there.

I don't buy that. I don't see his royalty reports, yet I can absolutely say with all certainty, that he makes sales on Alamy. He has too many images there to not.

Well, I don't see them either, but he's the one who said it.

I remember Yuri once said (correct me Yuri, if my memory fails me), that he would resize the images to make the smaller size available on micros and big one on macros. We can speculate another scenario, say, Yuri went to Haiwaii beach with his girlfrend model in 2006 and shot with his Canon 1D Mark II, and then in 2008 again with the same model, at the same spot, with his new Hasselblad. The photos may appear the same or similar to you, but they are not.

So it seems rather judgemental to jump into conclusions and accuse other people of greed or whatever, when you may only know the half truth and probably untruth. Even if you see the same image on micro and macro, it does not mean that they are the same. Again, let the agencies set the prices and the the buyers be the judges. As photographers, we can decide who we want to deal with or not, for ourselves. If there are universal moral standards for photographers, should fairness, open-mindedness and kindness to our colleagues be included?

It does not seem very ethical, for some forum participants, to offer their colleagues the harsh words and moral trials, while we should really examine our own integrity and moral conscience. Alamy, Getty, Corbis certainly are not for everyone, the same as micro. Personally I offer different photos for macro and micro, it's not because of my high moral ground, it's because each agency has its own niche and I am trying to meet their needs. To each according to its own. It's a free world, or I assume it is.

I remember Yuri once said (correct me Yuri, if my memory fails me), that he would resize the images to make the smaller size available on micros and big one on macros. We can speculate another scenario, say, Yuri went to Haiwaii beach with his girlfrend model in 2006 and shot with his Canon 1D Mark II, and then in 2008 again with the same model, at the same spot, with his new Hasselblad. The photos may appear the same or similar to you, but they are not.

So it seems rather judgemental to jump into conclusions and accuse other people of greed or whatever, when you may only know the half truth and probably untruth. Even if you see the same image on micro and macro, it does not mean that they are the same. Again, let the agencies set the prices and the the buyers be the judges. As photographers, we can decide who we want to deal with or not, for ourselves. If there are universal moral standards for photographers, should fairness, open-mindedness and kindness to our colleagues be included?

It does not seem very ethical, for some forum participants, to offer their colleagues the harsh words and moral trials, while we should really examine our own integrity and moral conscience. Alamy, Getty, Corbis certainly are not for everyone, the same as micro. Personally I offer different photos for macro and micro, it's not because of my high moral ground, it's because each agency has its own nitch and I am trying to meet their needs. To each according to its own. It's a free world, or I assume it is.

Again, you are trying to pick at "what if" and create scenarios that are not part of the original premise. Have fun... It was originally stated that people were selling identical images are multiple sites, for greatly different prices. This has nothing to do with what Yuri does or what may happen, or if someone may shoot with two different cameras or downsize. It was a question about identical images, from the start.

If I didn't emphasize enough when I said you can do what you want, but this is my personal opinion. then I give up. Where's the moral trial? Who's that unkind to. Me? 

Some people feel it's OK to use a stolen credit card, download photos and then sell them on other sites. I suppose it's wrong for me to make a moral judgment about that too. Maybe you think it's OK for some unscrupulous vector artists to clone originals and make minor changes and then sell them as their own creations? But I'm not supposed to judge that. I bet you are one of those people who touts diversity and tolerance, except of course when it doesn't agree with your personal view. Then you accuse others of being judgmental and divert from the original points by arguing semantics and creating hypothetical conditions that were not part of the original argument.

I don't care what you do with your photos. It's none of my business. I find it unethical to try to screw people by charging a grossly different price for licensing the same item. I have volume customers who get a different price than someone walking in off the street. Distributors get a different discount. But I don't see someone who needs something delivered next day and I'm the only one with that part in the country, so I jack up the price to six times list price to take advantage of them.

Ethics, like integrity, come from inside and how you were raised, not from someone writing a message on a forum. Nothing I write will change anyone, and it's not intended to.

In fact you are doing exactly what you say you are against. 

I find it unethical to try to screw people by charging a grossly different price for licensing the same item ....

... But I don't see someone who needs something delivered next day and I'm the only one with that part in the country, so I jack up the price to six times list price to take advantage of them.

Ethics, like integrity, come from inside and how you were raised, not from someone writing a message on a forum.

You must live in a very different world to the rest of us then.

Ever tried to buy one of the last seats on an airplane or a hotel room at short notice? It's called 'Yield Management' and it is standard practice in many industries. Here's an excerpt from our friends at Wiki;

Yield management, also known as revenue management, is the process of understanding, anticipating and influencing consumer behavior in order to maximize revenue or profits from a fixed, perishable resource (such as airline seats or hotel room reservations). This process was first discovered by Dr. Matt H. Keller. The challenge is to sell the right resources to the right customer at the right time for the right price. This process can result in price discrimination, where a firm charges customers consuming otherwise identical goods or services a different price for doing so. Yield management is a large revenue generator for several major industries; Robert Crandall, former Chairman and CEO of American Airlines, has called yield management "the single most important technical development in transportation management since we entered deregulation."

That last quote says it all __ what you call 'unethical' is regarded as an 'important technical development' by others.

Good discussion.   I got caffeinated and dived in: http://www.zymmetrical.com/blog/

Seems to me that the way the industry is going these types of discussions are almost moot.  Alamy and other trad agencies are lowering their prices at the same time as the micros are raising them.

For example - my sales so far on alamy range from $48 - $103 before fees deducted.  Considering their RF license is comparable to a micro EL, that is right in line with what the micros are getting for similar usage.  EL's on istock range from $50 to $100, and many people on Fotolia have their EL's set to $100 or more (mine are at $60). 

Getty doesn't accept micro images so its not an issue with them, but I could swear I read that some istock exclusives who have images on Getty have gotten commissions as low as 8 cents(?) for images sold through the photodisk collection, and Getty has also advertised (small size) RF images for $49. 

So where's the big price difference?  I haven't been on alamy long, but so far I haven't seen it. 

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 27, 2009, 15:23

I find it unethical to try to screw people by charging a grossly different price for licensing the same item ....

... But I don't see someone who needs something delivered next day and I'm the only one with that part in the country, so I jack up the price to six times list price to take advantage of them.

Ethics, like integrity, come from inside and how you were raised, not from someone writing a message on a forum.

You must live in a very different world to the rest of us then.

There is nothing on Alamy that says you can't sell the same images there as you do on Micros, for 25 cents. The CEO of the company says he has nothing against it, it's a free market. You can't sell something RF and then later list it as RM on other sites. Once it's RF, it's always RF. You can't sell your RM images RF at the same time in two places.

I think it's in poor taste to offer a photo for a much higher price, say $100 on any site, and then sell it subscription for a quarter. Personal Opinion, I don't do it. That's the point of personal integrity, not the things that people keep popping up with, to start arguments.

What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach... 

I'm taking a vacation. See Ya everyone. You've convinced me to leave behind my personal ethics and morality and turn to the dark side. You win.

...I find it unethical to try to screw people by charging a grossly different price for licensing the same item...

I don't set the prices. I license my images through whatever profitable sites will take them. If you don't like the pricing, take it up with the agencies. Besides, where do you draw the line? Wherever it is convenient for you? One could argue that selling an image for $0.25 at SS and then selling it at istock for more than 20 times that price could be considered "grossly different."

I'm screwing people? Really? Who am I screwing? Do you seriously believe that there are people who think Alamy is the only place in town to get stock images, and they've somehow never heard of istock or any of the many microstock agencies? Come on.

You call it screwing people, I call it offering my images to another segment of the market. You've made the choice not to sell images to Alamy buyers, and that's your choice. But let's not get all high and mighty about it. Ethics have nothing to do with this. It's a business decision. Period. You can't draw the line at Alamy as the "grossly different price" or anywhere else you choose. They market is full of grossly different pricing, and making an ethical argument for one price point over another is ridiculous.