that´s 10 times what they will earn with the DF.... lol.
i wait a bit and will have a FF camera with 4K video for that price... when 4k is really mainstream and usable. :)
until then im happy filming with my full HD DSLR for my (and other peoples) full HD TV.
babart: Besides photography, I also work as an illustrator. There is the same conflict in professional artwork. But among illustrators, selling the rights to future use in any form exacts a much higher price than work done for specific project or client in which the artist retains rights to the work.
To me, this offer seems a bit suspicious, as does anything that seems too good to be true. $175 is a decent price for a photo, but I suspect that many photographers will save their best images for selling more than once.
who told you you can only sell it once?
i get teh impression many people here don´t know how microstock works and what royalty free license means.
designdef: With Art Directors, Clients and Account Managers thinking they are photographers anyway.. does anyone actually BUY images anymore? Is there somewhere we can see worldwide sales figures of images compared?
to be clear those images that might sell well on 500px.. i would not sell under 500px terms. :)
well i do fineart in cooperation with two local galeries.
that way i get 100-150 euro for an image and still have all rights.
i doubt that the typical flickr or 500px user will sell much.because the quality.. lets be honest.. sucks.
as i said when your work stand out you may sell.but i see more lame images at flickr or 500px then outstanding images worth licensing....
and when you look at the downloads at fotolia you see a lot of images that have ZERO downloads.my images are downloaded because they are special (3D images, business images and unusual subjects). but if you want to sell butterflys, landscapes and birds you better be one of the best. there are millions of such images in the database already..... and their usefulness is limited.
welll i can tell you that i make the most money on websites who offer subscription for the customers (shutterstock, fotolia etc).small amout of money per download....but many downloads.
sites like alamy are the worst from an income point of view.in fact alamy is the worst (income wise) from all the agencys im a member of.on shutterstock i may earn 100 dollar from an image via many downloads while nobody would buy it at alamy for 140 euro or more.
i do a lot of 3D stuff so it may depends on your kind of work.
i think to sell at 500px your images have to be really outstanding.nothing a webdesigner may need for a page and would buy for a few dollar.
microstock is sure nothing to get rich fast... not today.
but face it... most people here at dpreview will not sell a singe images ever because of their own websites. pros will.... but most amateurs (and that´s the majority here) will not.so microstock is a way to make at least a bit of money from your photos.
GPW: Unlimited, NOT a chance. The photographer gets a one time cut of $175, while 500px gets a cut every time their clients use your photo.
GPW you obviously have nop clue how it works so read before you dare to comment
the license is per user forever.. not for 500px.
so every time a user license your pic you get the money.
you must be stupid to get in bed with getty these days.
vFunct: This can make money for the photographer if the photographs are newsworthy, which tend to get millions of hits.
If the photos are more of the godawful crap you see on that godawful 500px site, then no, you're not going to make money as no one cares about those ugly godawful 500px photos.
newsworthy photographs go through other channels then microstock agencys who need often 7 days to validate an image and put it into the collection.
vFunct: You actually would make money if they monetized this via embedded advertising.
oh i know what makes money at microstock... im on 8 agencys.
and istock is the worst of them, i can tell you that.that´s why i don´t upload new stuff there anymore.
but you seem to have no clue what microstock is mostly about.
editorial images are only a small part of it.there are other agencys, specialised on NEWS images.it takes way to long for newsworthy images to go through the validation process on istock, shutterstock and co.
millions of hits.. aha... great and how do i get money from these hits?
how will the photographer make money when it´s free?
getty will make money from advertising on websites but not the photographer.
in the past if you want to have a food photograph on your editorial blog you had to pay for it. now you get it for free.how is that making the photographer money?
as getty wrote, the images are stolen and used anyway. so why should people who see the images on blogs etc. suddenly start licensing the images? they have not done so in the past... why now?
those who license images are on getty and co . anyway.those who steal images will not change their behavior.
this is all about the embedded viewer and the advertising and information getty gets for free.
all getty does is trying to profit from copyright violation.if you can´t beat it try to participate.
i really doubt that photographers will benefit from this.
Henry M. Hertz: no money for the photographer from the advertising.but money when your image is licensed.
well you know what this advertising space is worth.companys who produce nothing are worth billions today because they reach millions of people (facebook and co).free advertising on dpreview if they use the embedded viewer.
and getty will gather all kind of infos from this move.the google of the photography world.
so for getty it´s not about the images they give away for free.
it´s about the embedded viewer you place on your website.that´s what makes getty money.
Astrotripper: I'm not sure I get it.
So the photographer takes a picture. Getty gives it away for free for non-commercial use and earns money from it through ads. Photographer gets nothing.
Doesn't seem like a good incentive for photographers. Why would one want to give their work away, so that some corporation can profit off it?
But the general idea of making photos available for free and monetizing them is an interesting one, especially today, when 'theft' of images is rampant. But without photographers getting their fair share, it just looks sleazy.
It kinda seems to me that photographers are taken for granted more and more. How often do you hear stories about some corpo wanting to use your work without compensation? Or offering a non-paid 'job' and calling that an opportunity?
it´s all about getting information and connectivity.
when the Carlyle Group has done what they are after they will drop the microstock business or sell it.
this is about getting information and making money from advertising. the possibility to place ads on all embedded images.
nitroman: Don't Getty realise that if they cut off the hands that feed them, they will eventually go hungry.
Getty has almost single handedly destroyed the traditional stock industry and continues to hammer nails into the coffin ... Thanks again Getty.
you seem to think that the Carlyle Group is interested in stock photography.
they are not.
no money for the photographer from the advertising.but money when your image is licensed.
and the real reason would be not making money with these embedded images but gathering INFORMATION.
this sounds plausible:
Henry M. Hertz: as far as i read on istock this is for getty editorial images only.
forget it was wrong info.... the "use" must be editorial.
you mean when someone licensed that pic because it was shown as embedded picture on a website? yes.
but im not sure if getty will let you participate on the money they get from showing the embedded pictures.and when then it´s maybe 1-5 cents.
lucrative when you have millions of images like getty but not for a sinlge photographer selling at getty.