500px Prime goes live, photographers now get 70% not 30%

The biggest reason this is never gonna make you money is that nearly as I can tell you cannot submit to it. they curate images from the 500px website. This means you have to be publishing full res images to 500px for either no reason or just on the off chance your image will be selected. It takes 1000s of images in a collection for a photographer to draw regular income from stock. If they dont allow photographers to submit images to be reviewed and added to the collection it will never include enough of any one photographers work to make any money. Relying on the off chance that a 500px employee finds your image and selects it is never going to get you anywhere. also it is clear that they dont understand the stock industry as they are mostly selecting pretty pictures. instead of pictures of people doing things.

The way to make money in stock is to shoot images of people that you have model released expressly for the purpose of stock. people working. people engaged in outdoor activties

Mar 11, 2014permalink

cont. people using smart phones and tablets and mobile devices. but who is going to shoot this kind of work if there is no guarantee anyone is even going to look at it and consider adding it to the collection

Mar 11, 2014permalink

HeyItsJoel

It's their company. They'll run it as they see fit. Don't like it? Start your own.

If they don't select your image, that just means you're not good enough. If you make a little money, great. If you don't, tough s***. Go try being an actor. See if going to hundreds of auditions work out better.

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Esteban Mac Allister

HeyItsJoel: You will not be an employee of 500px?

Mac.-

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Joel i did a few searches of what i honestly thought were softball keyword. Doctor, office, family, camping, smart phone ect. no results, results that had little to do with what i was looking for. the kind of images that stock agency needs are never gonna be shot with no garuntee of even being considered for the collection. This is half baked. Landscapes and cityscapes and flowers does not a stock collection make. they can do what thye want. But I am just asserting my belief this wont catch on with image buyers or photographers. i can do that if i want too

Mar 12, 2014permalink

HeyItsJoel

Most of you people in here actually believe your worth as a photographer is more than you think. The reality is, you're not that important. Except in your head.

Protect your precious images. After all, you're the next Ansel Adams right? Keep telling yourself that someday your photos are going to be worth millions!

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Esteban Mac Allister

Picture is work!

I live for my work

I'll keep doing

I'll never be Ansel Adams

I just want respect for my work!

thanks

Mac.-

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Esteban Mac Allister

The December 28, 2012 I closed my image bank ....

For 19 years I had sold my images

My clients published in their newspapers and magazines, then had their websites ......

My web protect my images, not those of my clients .....

In 2011, after the death of a local official, a few customers reported their portrait, but 2500 publications copied that image from my clients website without authorization

On the Internet nobody respects Copyright

If you publish an image on the internet, is like putting the Public domain .....

Mac.-

Mar 11, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

Esteban - "On the Internet nobody respects Copyright". Right ON!

Forty-five years earlier, I had highly profitable side business covering weddings, convocations, portraits which I gave-up after graduating from college and working full-time on my chosen (engineering) profession.

Now retired, I have no illusion on making money from photography. It is just a hobby I enjoy to document fun times with family and friends.

Jan 30, 2015*permalink

I cant see this model being effective. Most uses you can get the images for less.

Mar 11, 2014permalink

It's the licensing agreement that sucks. Unlimited everything and does sellerl aloud to sell the same image? Devils in the details.

Mar 10, 2014permalink

the seller cannot re license an image.

Mar 11, 2014permalink

DACOOK

In their terms it says they have the right to sub-license.

Apr 25, 2014permalink

It's the licensing agreement that sucks. Unlimited everything and does sell aloud to sell the same image? Devils in the details.

Mar 10, 2014permalink

Yeah and people give away there work.
So I can now go an buy a photo on 500x for $250
and print a 1000 copies and sell each of them on eBay and make a 1000% profit. Sweet.

Mar 10, 2014permalink

Telhma

I think 175$ is a nice prize, no matter how they use the immage. After all you are the one who decide what image you put online, and wich one not. If you think you can never get 175$ out of the image your self, than this is absolute the best.

For example, I take a wonderfull picture of the milkey way. okej, what can i do then with it. I do not know somebody interested in that, so i print it out 3 thimes on poster. let's say the cost is 8$ for me. then i go to a jumble sale. the stand cost again 5$. if i am very lucky, i can get sell them all for 20 dolar each, what gives me a frofit of 31$. I need to do this 6 thimes before i get the money i would have when i got it sold one thime on 500px. I don't know if i would put the effort in it. then i much more prefair to put it on 500px, maybe some planetarium catches the image and pay me 175$ aven if the can sell it a 1000 thimes.

off course when you shoot commissioned it's different, but such immages would you never post on 500px i guess.

Mar 10, 2014permalink

Jeff Greenberg

Its $175 net Royalty Free, right?
Yeah, that's going to be appealing
to anyone NOT full time stock shooter.
They will get occasional thrill of licensing
& never know they have KILLED their
chances of being full time self employed
stock shooter making reasonable income.
And despite the ambient moaning that
stock no longer provides reasonable income,
some ARE still achieving reasonable income,
some well above their nation average incomes...

Mar 9, 2014permalink

Rocky Mtn Old Boy

This would ONLY be true, if the stock shooter cannot "value" their own product. Let's face it... every time you pick up the camera is not going to return what you consider to be your best work. A photo stock shooter is no different. Sometimes they pull the trigger on a $250 image and once in a while on a $25,000 one.

It's up to the individual to know which is which.

The point being, if you hold back the "good stuff" and submit it to a better paying firm, you're going to ultimately make more money as the stuff you may have considered dreadfully average, someone might want for $250...

Mar 11, 2014*permalink

Mark Smiles

Suppose a guy went to an hardware store to purchase a tool, say a hammer. The clerk would then run a credit check to see how much he could afford and quiz him about his intended use of the hammer including if he was going to make any money using the hammer. Then the clerk could then decide on what would be a fair price to charge for the hammer.

Suppose a gal had a sore throat and went to the drugstore to get some cough drops. The clerk would then check how much she could afford to pay, and determine how important her voice was to her earning a living. The clerk could then determine what he could then charge the gal.

In both of these examples the selling price of the product was not based upon the cost of production, but rather the intended use of the product.

I can hear the hammer manufacturer saying he used my hammer to build a million dollar house, of course I deserve a cut of the action, for I made him a tool. Likewise for the gate at the gal's concert ...

Mar 9, 2014permalink

JordanAT

You laugh, but oil drill bits and film cinema equipment were (may still be) priced this way. Even though they are physical items, their design is covered by IP. And, yes, it's messed up, but the government gives all creators a big stick to save a relatively small proportion from actual exploitation.

Mar 9, 2014permalink

Socorro Photog

? Sarcasm right? Otherwise this is kinda how all professional photographers, painters and artist in general get paid. Otherwise the Mona Lisa would be 50 cents and wedding photographers would be paid in food and gasoline.

Mar 9, 2014permalink

Ferling

Well, Mark. It's all about access. Hammers and cough drops (used in your example) are readily available and common, just like images of landscapes, trees and every day items used in stock. Shoot something exclusive, or provide something made of unobtanium and the price goes up. Class dismissed.

Mar 10, 2014permalink

bcalkins

Ferling - you have just summed up exactly why there are always two side to these debates. $175 is a lot or a little, depending on the image!

Mar 10, 2014permalink

Art is not a commodity. Period.

Mar 10, 2014permalink

raincoat

Mark you're absolutely right. And I hereby challenge you to forever only hire photographers who charge you gas money or less. For your wedding, your childrens' weddings, everything. You can even hire those guys that will pay YOU for the privilege of capturing your event.

Stand by what you say and then show us your proud photos.

Mar 10, 2014permalink

Mark they are not buy hammers or cough drops though. they are buying intellectual property. and specifically the right to reproduce intellectual property. That right reasonable cost more to use in a world wide add campaign than to post an image on a blog. I will never understand why people make up silly examples to try to invalidate something that is entirely reasonable

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Roland Karlsson

$175 seems very nice to me. Now I just have to figure out how to make images that can sell :) Way to go 500px.

The Getty I find a scam though. If I put up a viewer on my web site that may contain ads and does link to Getty, then I shall get paid.

Mar 9, 2014permalink

The Scurvy Dog of PR

Getty finally figured out, how to market via Social Media.

Mar 9, 2014permalink

plasnu

It is the same as iTunes store rate.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Peter K Burian

Well the entire market for stock images has crashed since so many agencies give photos away for free or for $2 or $3. A lot of high volume users (including the Toronto Star newspaper) work with Dreamstime for example, which is penny stock: ...... <b>Purchase a plan to download stock photos: free high resolution stock images or from 23 cents per image. Choose the Corporate account option for an easier administration of your company's stock photography needs.
Download any stock image from our amazing collection of 21 million images & illustrations.</b>

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Peter K Burian

Anyway... I suspect that 90% of sales from 500px will be from photo enthusiasts (not pros) who would be thrilled to make $175 from an image (for perpetual use). Better than getting 10 cents per image every time that Dreamstime sells it, for example.

Mar 8, 2014*permalink

Xentinus

IMO;if the photo itself is pro no matter who took it,pro or enthusiast.

Mar 9, 2014permalink

Earthrise

A 70-30 split sounds fine, but I'd agree with other comments on here in that if I had an image someone actually wanted to spend $250 on then it's not an image I'd want to give a worldwide perpetual license on. Still, if someone would like to test my resolve on that... :-)

Mar 8, 2014permalink

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.

BAB

Mar 8, 2014permalink

CFynn

@Henry M. Hertz

Maybe you should explain...

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Raist3d

@henry explain away I you know better. All I know is that perpetual license for anything else doesn't sound good to me.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

babart

I ran this by some illustrator friends and they had the same notion I stated above. Selling your rights to art work, including photos, isn't the best way to profit from your best work. Most of the images sold at 500px will be those from photo enthusiasts -- and they'll be lucky to get sold once. Pros will keep their work to sell as they fit, in prints, books, stock where they keep the license, and anywhere else they can find a buyer.
BAB

Mar 9, 2014permalink

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?

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Yes people buy photos, just as they buy music and movies. There will always be thieves that pirate our work. I have had images stolen, but I am not going to let the thieves and negativity discourage me. IMHO we should use our energy to create. Let the thieves reap what they sow.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

It is my understanding that 500px is promoting fine art photography. This is just one avenue for us to sell our photography. It sounds like you have found a good match the type of photography you talk about. You have the option to do both. No reason you can't use Shutterstock for one type of photography, and 500px for another.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

sh10453

Are we a little arrogant here, doubting that typical users here and there can sell their work?

There are millions of very fine quality pictures of Flikr, 500px, as well as many other sites.

Many enthusiasts, who have other real life jobs, take pictures as a hobby, for their own enjoyment, and have been doing it for decades. They do great work, but they have no interest in selling pictures.

The late Ansel Adams would hesitate to make such bragging!

Congratulations on being able to sell your pictures, but a little bit of humility would be nice.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

CFynn

"There are millions...."
exactly

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Gryfster

Is this photography as an app? Can multiple purchasers buy rights to the same photograph or is it exclusive? If its the former, I guess its okay but the photographer should set the price.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Google 500px licensing options.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

TCMercury

Apologies for the decidedly amateur question, but if, say, I wanted to sell a photo, do I pay 500px for them to market and sell it?

Mar 8, 2014permalink

No.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

AV Janus

I think this is a good deal.
The overall atmosphere in the comments suggest it is something pople can live with.
Those crying never for lifetime usage need to think of a few things:
- it is just one user of your photo, just he can use it,
- its just one photo, how glorious do you think our work is...
- 175$ for is good days pay in most o the world, plus somebody else could also buy it if its used more.
- its logical usage that if they buy it they can use it in more than one of theirs catalogue or web whatever.

Control your greed.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Thank you. I think we have been beaten up for so long that we just expect the next "offer" to be another low blow. Let's take some great photos and give 500px a run for their money.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

JamieTux

If it's unlimited usage rights does that mean an agency could buy a picture you posted then print it as posters and sell hundreds of thousands of them while you get that one time fee? Or that they could buy your picture and use it to promote something that you disagree with strongly. Or all of a sudden your picture of your teenage daughter is being used to sell condoms all over europe

I thinkbthat these are things you would need to think about before posting pictures there.

Mar 9, 2014permalink

500alexs

@JamieTux I'm Alex, from 500px. It's a royalty-free license, so they can use it in all-media. Our license does prohibit the image from being used in a defamatory way. More details at prime.500px.com/legal.

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Leandros S

Is this a new PR gimmick? First, you propose something outrageous, get lots of press coverage and then make a generous-seeming offer to placate the complainants? I say that because anyone with half a brain should have realised that 30% was not going to be an acceptable deal. It's hard to think that the backlash was unexpected. And if they had started out with offering 70%, would that have seemed okay? Or would you have wanted to push for 80%? Ask yourself the question.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

acidic

Most people would have been pleased with 70% from the start.

Perpetual license? Probably not.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Leandros S

Well, good point.

Mar 8, 2014*permalink

CFynn

Is the perpetual license just a license to one buyer?

Is the license transferable?

Is it exclusive?

Mar 8, 2014permalink

500alexs

@CFynn I'm Alex, from 500px. Yes, it's one license per client. The license is non-transferrable and can not be sub-licensed. We offer both exclusive and non-exclusive content. If a buyer wants to purchase exclusive-use rights, that'll cost a lot more than the $250 and is negotiated separately. You'll always get 70% royalties. If you have any other questions, let me know at prime@500px.com.

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Sixpm

Is this an indication that our world is heading towards a unity consciousness where everything will eventually will be free for all? Most music, books, programs and movies are already free to download and photography is well and truly heading towards the same direction. Either this is a scan to cause more inequality or we are heading towards a paradigm shift where we just all work for the love of all humanity.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Nikon2011

lol, we are human beings and it's million years one monkey tries to get advantage OR command over other similars (Same goes for animals), there might be 1 among 1000 who doesnt want to make his work free, or there might be the one who makes it free convinced by another one of the pros if he asks money and they do 50-50, OUR nature is to get advantage, and if it is not our nature, someone else will convince a singer-scientist-artisan-whoevermakesaproduct, not to talk about billions that go into research for HIV medicine and other virii, who is gonna research, pay the machines, make tests-... the only hope for that to happen is world population zeroed and our left over bacteria restart rebuilding a dna, but they will still get advantage on weaker microorganisms.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Michel F

What you speak of is pure utopia. As long as power and greed are the prime movers of the human race, it will never happen.

Mar 9, 2014permalink

michael2011

Off topic but...is it just me or have they started applying more compression to their images just recently? 500px pictures used to look real sharp but a lot of them look pretty crappy all of sudden. Compression artifacts in facial details are the easiest to spot. It's as if they've suddenly switched their jpegs from 90% to 60% quality. Now all I see are compression artifacts and I can't enjoy the photos anymore!

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Michael,
I just checked my iPad, MacBook Pro, and Sharp monitor, and images look great. I usually adjust the brightness on my monitors, often having to turn the brightness down. Monitors typically are too bright and too blue out of the box. That's why photos typically print dark and yellow if the monitors have not been calibrated and adjusted. I calibrate my monitors with a ColorMunki and turn the brightness down quite a bit too. Hope this helps. Good day.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Mescalamba

@Markster66

They need to hope that all users are blind as you are.

They use worse compression than FaceBook. Big pix (those 2048px) end at top as 200kb file, smaller as 80kb. As you can imagine, it doesnt cut it..

Long time ago they used 11/12 JPG compression, which was great. I guess they needed to remove that cause they couldnt pay bandwith and space for it (most likely just bandwith, storage space is cheap).

Strangely Tumblr doesnt have this kind of issues.. (reason why I like it, since I dont worry about my pics being stolen I can put 100% quality pics there).

Mar 8, 2014permalink

CWDaly

Michael2011 I would agree with you. The images on 500px have gotten quite soft. They used to have the best quality around. When I flip through Flipboard on my iPad, I can tell right away which images come from 500px, due to the extreme drop in quality.

CWDaly

Mar 8, 2014permalink

ConanD

You can definitely see the compression artifacts. It looks to be at least 80%, possibly more. But this may be by design. It could be that they are doing that to discourage folks from using it, since there's nothing that stops anyone from getting an image from their browser -- any data sent to the client is fair game. IMO, better would be the use of an embedded water mark. I think that would detour even more people from using it.

Mar 8, 2014*permalink

I think it is a fair deal since I can still sell my photos as art. Of course, I won't be able to sell them as limited numbered editions, but then I have the right to not license certain images if I choose to do so.

This is the best deal going, and more importantly it has IMHO started the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction. Who would have imagined a year or two ago that we would be offered this kind of deal.

There have been many pros out there taking a lot less for their hard earned and expensive art. It has been truly depressing. Perhaps 500px wants to be the first to restore some respect and fair value for our art. Being the first has always been a HUGE advantage. I say let's give them a chance.

This is clearly a step in the right direction, and though it may not seem ideal for some it is IMHO a way to earn some money and respect. As always we will have to hustle and earn thru other avenues too. Let's give it a "shot." Good luck, and God bless the photographer.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

danieljcox

Still a crappy deal for world wide rights forever. No way.

Daniel J. Cox
www.naturalexposures.com

Mar 8, 2014permalink

EssexAsh

and here you are getting free advertising for your website.

There is always someone taking advantage of someone else in the world.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Mescalamba

Doesnt mean he isnt right (not sure if you are same guy, but there is one pretty good nature photographer with same name on 500px).

Most pics I see when I open my 500px are two categories.

1) 175 USD is way too low for unlimited license
2) nobody would like this even for free (include my pics :D)

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Meklymor

What gets me is anytime someone puts a link or tries to sell something on the internet, in a comment , or description, something they created. And I mean like posting art for sale they created on facebook, not on someones profile, but just an example, like this guys link in his comment, is that people act like they are being taken advantage of. How is that hurting anyone to make information available? It's not spam because spam is sending out large amounts to large amounts of people. It's just tidbits of info. I have seen people flag things like that. Some guy on facebook said he purposely clicked ads to run their bill up knowing he wouldn't buy it. Why is there a war on people trying to make money? If DJCox for example is trying to sell a print, is that killing you? Is he holding a gun to your head? And on the other foot, it's all irrelevant. What makes anyone think their end product is better than someone who lives with mom and has a cheap camera? Someone was whining about that.

Mar 19, 2015permalink

TravelPhotog

This is a low price even just for a one-time print for personal, noncommercial display. It's not like I license photos on a constant basis or anything, but the last few I licensed were priced way beyond this and the licenses were limited to very specific uses and timeframes.

On another note, I'm curious how many people actually buy from 500px. I have tons of photos "favorited" on the site, but it has never crossed my mind to actually purchase one!

Hmm.. Now that I think of it, maybe the 500px agreement will allow me to buy them cheaply and relicense or resell them for much more. ;)

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Dean Lapinel

Great point...seriously. I do believe someone with drive and a good sense of the public pulse can make money off of them.

I suspect though that they will retain the rights to the purchased works.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

AbrasiveReducer

From 30-70 to 70-30. Just like that. Must be the same person who thought up the fee structure at eBay. Special promotion: Users of 4/3 cameras receive 133% of each sale.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

rsbfotos

Forever ? --- NEVER !

Mar 8, 2014permalink

CameraLabTester

"Do you have a proper Leh Sans?"

"Yes, a proper Leh Sans!"

--- Inspector Jacques Clouseau

Mar 8, 2014permalink

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.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Juck

huh?

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Raist3d

Not to license to a same entity permanently and forever- nope. And forget any of my images I would consider in the fine art and not stock category.

I don't understand why they decide to roll back on photographers setting their pricing. At first it seemed like a huge step forward for the right thing but now again- no.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

ZTJ

Photography is so easy it is a wonder anyone pays for it at all. This is doubly true of what's typically wanted in stock photography. Photographers in this market think they are worth way more than they are. Maybe 20 years ago. Not anymore.

Mar 8, 2014permalink

Zvonko

photography is easy enough if you're snapping away. I was once asked to shoot an underground carpark to sell of the car spots in the middle of busy Sydney. The place was dark and dull. Very limited lighting. It was a chore but they printed brochures and gave me money. The lens and camera are technical tools. I think it's rather naive for you to say what you did.

Mar 8, 2014permalink