500px 'Prime' is a licensing marketplace with 30% cut for photographers

I don't expect the average photographer to be an economics expert, but some facts need to be acknowledged, even by photographers.
The price of a product or service is determined by supply and demand. Today, we all now that there is excess supply of photographs. Not all of them are of the same quality obviously, but there are a lot of good ones out there, many of them coming from amateurs whose first priority is NOT to make a living from photography.
On the contrary, setting up a business with millions of customers (I mean here registered users) (in this case 500px) is not as common, i.e. there is not such a big supply of sites like 500px out there. Therefore, they can set the price at 70% for selling your photos and they would be idiots to set it any lower.
The near future will show which way the prices will go. More sites like 500px will mean more supply for photographers. More photographers will mean more supply for 500px. Eventually a new equilibrium will be found and so on ...

Some of you with "superior" knowledge appear to have missed the point...I do have my own website from which I sell my work, and I have gone for the 30% from 500px Prime because the money will be AS WELL AS what I get from my own marketing, without much effort. With a non exclusive license I can sell the same image over and over on "Prime" AND my website. Getty do not offer anything much better !!
iStock give 15% ( !!! ), Shutterstock 20%, and if you sell to Getty via Flickr, you are looking at 15% and you cannot sell the image anywhere else and are tied in for five years.

I've licensed stock since the 1970s and this 500px deal is crap.
30%..ha! Not much better than rights grabbing Getty.
You are better off doing a great blog,getting active on Linkedin and Facebook and having an ecommerce site thru Zenfolio. $150 a year where you keep all but the Paypal fees and you set your own rates,can have prints made and get the name and address of the purchaser.

Why not 70% for the photographers.

Unless 500px is taking care of the following:

1. The photographers insurance - medical and general
2. Sponsor his all equipments - cameras, lens, other peripherals
3. Pays for the travel, lodging and other incidental costs

Guys please feel free to add to the above list..

Cheers
Happy Clicking

D's30% for the photographer sucks. That is true. But do you know how hard it is to market directly to the marketplace.
1. You better have spectacular photos
2. You need a web site to show the stuff
3. You have to create and manage the contracts
4. You have to have a web site that is capabale of commerce
5. You have to get the word out as in all the marketing work.
6. You are going to fight the fact that you are an unknown and anyone who has the money to license your work will be hesitant to work with an unknow (rightfully so) photographer
7. You have to secure your site, e-commerce from hackets
... and the list goes on. So you see, it is not that easy to go direct.
I know because I have tried.
In 2003, I came up with the idea, photographed, designed and did limited print run of 2,500 copies of an oversized B&W calendar. By the time I paid all the vultures and ate the cost of all the unsold copies, I came up on the loosing end big time.
And this was for a calendar which everyone thought was an Ansel Adams calendar.
I identified local retailers, presented to store managers and got them to agree that it was going to sell like hot cakes only to be overridden by a jerk out of New York who killed the idea because hedid not Iinitiate it. So I ended up dealing with Borders and Barnes and Nobles of the world.
Sure they gave me my 35% but wait, out of that I had to take out the cost of printing, shipoing the inventory to them, pay for shipping back to me what did not sell. And the time it took to creat the work. Lets not go there.
As I said, it is not easy to go direct.
The biggest lesson (albit an expensive one) I learned was that it is all about distribution not the work. That is why you see so much sub standard work (at least in calendars) out there. The are crappy photos printed for pennies in China and on the shelves where you are going to make money.

30% for photographers has been the industry standard for years. For those of you complaining, 30% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Most big businesses will go to an organisation rather than an individual for stock images as they will be dealt with in a manner familiar to them. This is how the business operates. It's not personal & certainly not a case of "money grabbing" it's just business.

I ran a search on "Fair Trade Photography" and came up with this company: http://www.photographersdirect.com/. The website is not especially slick, but I like what they are about. Has anyone worked with them? It may be worth checking out.

I think if your work is good enough to get license you can do better selling it on your own or seek out a deal with an agency directly. These opt in to the agency pools deals are never as good as if the agency wants your work because it's unique. And by the way, do we really need anymore photoshopped to hell and back landscape stock?

The more I think about that Prime offer, the more I resent it. Didn't take up this hobby in the vain hope of making money from it anyway. And at such a lousy cut, without any control over what my images are used for and by whom? Well, not going to sell my photographic soul as cheaply as that. Nor do I think this a contradiction to letting Ricoh Imaging Americas use shots of mine for free that made it into the Pentax Photo Gallery for marketing purposes. After all, Ricoh continues to build the cameras that I love to shoot, and therefore it's an honour to support the brand, in other words, my own conscious choice to do so.

As of now, I'm not contemplating removing images from 500px, since I use my account more for sharing what I do, rather than believing in some bizarre affection score (as if that were an accurate measure of artistic quality) or primarily seeing it as a selling platform.

I, for my part, am not going to touch that deal with a bargepole.

I may never ever be good enough to even make the front page of 500.
The only ones that do are the ones that use the buddy code to boost the number of views on their photo. I cancelled my paying account on 500 for that very problem. I have seen poor photos on there make it to the premiere page. Only because of the "you scratch my back, i scratch yours" . Even if i ever am good enough too sell a photo it wont be thru 500px

For those that are complaining about their 70% cut...when you have a gallery showing at an art house, what is your cut?

If you want a larger cut, then build your own website. Market your own work.

If that earns you more money, then you win.

But if you're a nobody, perhaps this can open a door for you. Get your name out there.

Most people here won't make much at all. There are too many photographers that shoot the same thing and quite possible better than you.

I guess if your attitude is something is better than nothing. Not a successful business model for any photographer. They are correct in they are fundamentally change how photos are licensed, they get the money you don't. If you produce anything and the sales person says to you my cut will be 70% for selling your product what would you say? Have fun being poor.

The prime contract, seems to give 500px, rather than you the "Licensee" the copyright to your images. See contract excerpt below.

======

Your acceptance of this
Agreement forms a binding agreement between You and 500px. Please read this Agreement carefully
before downloading any images offered for licensing on the site (“Image(s)”). By downloading any Image
you agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement, the 500px Privacy Statement and 500px’s
Website Terms of Use.
1. Ownership of Images. All Images on the 500px Website are protected by United States
copyright law and international copyright treaties. 500px and/or its Contributors own or control all rights,
including the copyrights in and to the Images. 500px and/or its Contributors reserve all rights in and to the
Images not expressly granted to You in this Agreement.

I joined dpreview some years back mostly for tech info on equipment. It seems most others are as well from looking at the number of comments from the other articles in the news section:

New Sigma - 79 comments
New GH4 - 367/112 comments
New Coolpix P340 - 92 comments
Tamron 16-300mm lens - 196 comments

However (to me at least), the most important one "500px Prime" only has 79 comments. I find this a bit sad as this business model is something that will kill photography as a profession in the not too distant future. The microstock companies have already crippled stock photography. With digital cameras amateurs can afford to submit pictures to these cut throat agencies hoping to make a bit of money to pay for their equipment. Taking a deal like this you will discover that your time & equipment replacement cost will not be covered. Professionals see the danger of this kind of deal. I hope others will start to see the light as well. You should not be touching this with a ten foot pole.

Shameless...
They take 70%... I wonder how many emploies they have and where that would possibly explain this model...
Probably bloated consulting and legal fees...

Some capitalist parasite that it claiming giving a photographer only 30% of the revenue from that photographer's own work is a good deal should be reviled.

Any decent photographer wouldn't corrupt themselves with this parasitic model. Boycott 500px, take pics for fun and share them for free.

I often read comments on computer forums on how Apple is ripping off developers by taking 30%. Those commenters should take a walk in the world of stock photography.

I think they should stick this offer where the light is -5EV (where the sun doesn't shine) Once again the people who sell make disproportionally more than the people who create.

Given the fact that they are no professional photo agency I think 70—90% would be an appropriate share »that brings dignity to the photographer«.

I signed up for the preview. Awful lot of pictures of cats in there for an agency attempting to sell images. Hint: people aren't interested in spending the big bucks on pictures of pets doing what pets do. Unless maybe, and this is a very tentative maybe, it's their own pet and the image is truly extraordinary. Sure some of the other images there are great, but what's up with all the felines? Hard to take them seriously with curating like that.

30 percent to the photographe? Just one more batch of hucksters who don't value the work of photographers.

As most of us know this has been the photographers lot for years now. The days of making a living wage have all but gone. Staffers at a number of newspapers have been replaced by the journalist and a smartphone.

The daily's are full of agency photos where in the past staffers were sent out.
Even the BBC is full of amateur video footage and they encourage viewers to send in their news pics for free and thousands do.

I do some event photography at weekends and struggle to make £150 a day. I notice my clients are encouraging those on the event to submit their own photos and many do which are adequate for web site use. I expect eventually I will loose this work as they will get more than enough pics for free.

This is why 500px can promote this business model.

As an amateur photographer who won't be selling anything by any method, I have some outsider thoughts with nothing to gain or lose. The professional photography that results from a direct transaction between the client and the photographer won't appear there or on any other similar site. Video is replacing still photography. Print publications are going to disappear, and internet based news, entertainment, or advertising requires video. The sales of stock photos aren't based on absolute quality or specificity, which the professional photographer offers directly to the client. I think they're based on more generic criteria, and there are millions of photographs already out there that meet generic criteria. So they have rightly concluded that the supply will exceed the demand, and this is all they need to pay. Any business would do the same.

These people are crooks. Photographer should get at least 50% but 60% would be ideal!

Is it 30% for exclusive or non exclusive images? If it is non exclusive images like offset and you can still sell from your own site or other macro sites it would already be a competitive offer in the macro world. Because most of them want exclusive images. There are of course many agencies in the market that pay 50% or more - but do they generate sales? And you can always sell direct and get 100%. Nobody really needs an agency, or do they ;)? Just one more market place in the industry, we will see how they fare. There is no lack of agencies and it will be interesting to see what they offer that is different.

How do you know they actually have access to selling large quantities. I wonder if they have a list of buyers. Has anyone seen statistics of places like flickr pro and if people actually make money from these places Sometimes I feel that the most lookers are other photographers. Same with 1x how many do they actually sell?

Gee, did somebody say, "Let's figure out a way to make easy money off other people on the Internet"?

There will be many non professional shooters that will feel, “what the heck, I might make some money if I just invest in the join up fee. I’m not getting anything right now anyway.”

30% of a sale does not justify what work I put forth into creating my library of images. I put out all the expenses, time and effort to gather images with the speculation that the effort will pay off. The agency takes none of that gamble. Their gamble begins after selection. How cushy they can also charge for a contract. They are feeding off of the large arena of photographers that are not gambling their livelihood on photography.

It seems this trend of devaluing what the image creator receives for their work will be difficult to reverse mainly due to supply and demand yet I would encourage photographers not to settle for such a percentage.

I am not sure I get the outrage. It's supply and demand. Millions of photographers, few decently established middle-man galleries. Who do you think dictates the terms?

If you really think it's a ripoff and that 500px will get rich off it, then it should be a good business opportunity. Get together other like-minded individuals, secure funding, start a new company, and spend the time and resources to get established, then offer other photographers a good deal.

Well?

I removed all of my images from 500px some time ago, as they make it too easy for people to steal images from the site.

The whole trend is a new form of slavery, and not just by 500px, but any site that charges over 10% to 15% commission.

Just think about it; their cost for storing and selling your images in an automated process (on huge sites like Getty's, Flickr, or 500px) may not exceed pennies, I would think!

Some correction to this trend is badly needed.

Freelance photographers, in particular, should join hands and make their own site, as shareholders, and pocket their fair fees (and not allow the big players to buy the site out).

The percentage needs to be 70% to the photographer, as they have no expenses like travel equipment time, health issues, and like all agents cant be bothered to take pictures themselves. Its costs them how much per image per annum to host your work on their site? and can they GUARANTEE that the pics wont be stolen? Well?
There's no point advertising a service when you dont say what EXACTLY is involved, but ask you to Email them (thus giving away your hard drive and location!) to do what? make an individual deal?
No, everything on offer should be available- exact contract details- (IS there a contract) the terms- do you upload thumbnails to the site before anyone buys and email them the image yourself after they have paid the fee? That would be good- as then everybody is happy.
I expect 500pix to answer all our queries HERE, by sending everything to Dpreview, and on this page so we can all see it.
Why risk death in Syria to fund them, AND lose your work?

Maybe we need a boycott of 500px, any photogs want to remove there photos?This is obscene, and I thought micro stock was a rip off, this takes to to a new level.

How much money you are left with at the end of the day is of course way more important than the percentage. I would rather have 25% of a large cake than 75% of a muffin.

Some of the major players (I am lucky enough to have 100+ photos with Getty Images) does a lot of work for their share and is in my opinion well worth it. I made more from my first 2-3 sales via Getty (I got in early through their co-operation with Flickr) than I had made from other services in total the previous years.

What you 'pay for' via their share is not only marketing and outreach but also payment collection and even more important: systems that chase down sites that use photos without permission. It seems that some people think this type of companies only receives your photo and then sits down and waits. That is simply not true.

Can I suggest that perhaps the photographer gets 70% and 500px gets 30%.
Their current proposal is insulting and smacks of greed.
And can I suggest that if it doesn't happen then photographers boycott the site?
Perhaps there is an opening here for a photographers co-op where a group of photographers start up a site and get the full value of their images minus expenses?

The bigger issue then what % you get is how MUCH you get. Meaning 15% of a billion is more the 50% of a million. 500px has not be a major player in selling photos. What new marketing efforts are they putting out other then this attempt to get photographers excited about 30% of what thus far has been a rather small number.
Getty (for example) might take a big huge cut but they also tend to sell alot of photos.

Am I reading this right? The photographer gets a measly 30% while 500px pockets the remaining 70%???

Daylight robbery.

The sad part is they will be overrun with people wanting to sell a photo.

OK, ok, it's a ripoff. Now please tell me what established microstock site gives a better deal. iStockPhoto pays 15% (45% if Exclusive, which is something you most probably wouldn't want), Shutterstock pays 20% to 30% (if you happened to earn $10+ with them already), and so on and so forth.

Pretty please no emotions etc., it's just a question. And I would really appreciate if it's answered.

Thievery at the highest level. They give a crumb and eat the whole cake. Sell ​​your work in a more direct or through a fairer service mode.
Not sure how it is now, but over a year, not even had the chance to delete a photo that was posted for sale on the original size, simply, the option we took them out for sale. However they were always with the image originally sent by us on servers. The difference is that was not for sale. But in reality it was never deleted. This way of managing is twisting my nose when I have not the least control of my work, when I can not even delete my own image. Now I do not know if this process keeps. And for other reasons, 500px, no thanks.

Only 70% commission? What an absolute bargain!