pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 500px - Kelly Thompson strikes again  (Read 34875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: March 22, 2016, 07:23 »
+10
Of course, cutting commissions is much easier if you're only trying to increase profits in the short term. In the long term, they took something good and f***ed up, just like with Istock. But nobody cares about long term anymore. The formula is: Take a good company, f*** it up, make a quick buck, get out, buy a mansion, repeat.

That is basically it. A new place opens and promises to be "different" and treat the artists fairly, we all upload millions of files hoping to have a stable and reliable work environment, then the owners realize how much money they can make in 18 months if they bring in investors, create a "story" like a teaser trailer that only has to last for 18 months, until they can sell and cash out and leave.

You need a real CEO like Mark Zuckerberg etc...someone who really is focussed on his mission, and sees beyond just money.

So many rich people in this world, not everyone retires in their penthouse at 21.

To provide a reliable fair trade marketplace is a very worthy project.


« Reply #101 on: March 22, 2016, 09:18 »
0
Possibly worth making some noise in the 500px forum and on Twitter. Whether or not it changes their minds, they should get a black eye publicly for being so cavalier about their relationship with their suppliers

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/711989519671627777

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/711988696254275584

Jasmin started the 500px thread. My reply to her request for thoughts was:

"Very few printable thoughts :)

I will stop uploading here for the moment (everything I uploaded was tagged for the Marketplace; that was my reason for joining).

I find the huge cut in royalty rate unconscionable and the explanation threadbare. I am less concerned about the price changes, although I think they'd do better to make a bigger difference between *pricing* on exclusive/non-exclusive content.

As far as financing expansion out of royalty cuts, that's a pseudo explanation that dissolves on contact. When there aren't very many sales and you need funds to build the business, you don't generate funds for expansion through a bigger slice of the still-small pie.

The fact that I've heard just about all these tales before without them coming true at any agency, ever, makes it hard to imagine how 500px Marketplace will be the first to make it happen. There are agencies that have grown and become successful, but they haven't done it by picking the pockets of their suppliers.

I could have understood a message about pricing changes to build the business in the current market. But why would anyone continue to contribute content to an agency that takes months to review images, has few sales and has so little respect for its contributors that it delivers this massive royalty cut message with no meaningful details on what 500px Marketplace is prepared to do for us. It's all about what we can do for them...."


One of your tweets features in this article: http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/500px-drops-royalty-rate

« Reply #102 on: March 22, 2016, 09:43 »
+7
Thanks for pointing that article out. Something else to share :)

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/712288193425440771


Following the reference from the Bokeh article which cited Reddit as the source, I noted some people saying that 500px was making money by sending out Getty-like demand notices when an image appeared without having been licensed:

"...A family member of mine got slapped with a notice from 500px asking for $500 in damages. I found out when the demand email was forwarded to me. It was my photo and she had my permission to use it. In fact, I am the web master of the site it was on and I put it there!"

Does anyone know more about this? One Reddit post claimed that was the bulk of their 500px royalty revenue!

Also, PDN Pulse added a piece in their blog

http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2016/03/500px-guts-royalty-rate-on-non-exclusive-images.html
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 10:09 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #103 on: March 22, 2016, 10:05 »
+7
Does the artist get a share of that?

With all those huge images without a professional watermark...at 500 dollars a piece...nice little income stream.

« Reply #104 on: March 22, 2016, 10:35 »
+1
So I wouldn't blame Thompson. He's just the messenger.

He's a messenger that usually doesn't deliver good news. Kind of like the people that deliver eviction notices.

LOL like so timely march 15 once long time ago at a forum, Spurinna the haruspex warns Caesar "beware the ides of march"...

must pay well to be the grim reaper , huh???

« Reply #105 on: March 22, 2016, 13:33 »
+26

Kelly, please, for the love of God, don't go looking for a job at Creative Market when you're done at 500px. Please.

Thank you.

« Reply #106 on: March 22, 2016, 13:51 »
+12
Does the artist get a share of that?

With all those huge images without a professional watermark...at 500 dollars a piece...nice little income stream.

I very much doubt the artsist shares any of that. That actually explains huge image previews and no watermark and their resistance to change it. Tempt the thief to steal, then make him pay - "nice" business model! That also explains why they want people to go exclusive - easier to demand payments from thieves, since you don't have to prove it's been stolen from them. I like when things make sense. Even though I really dislike these "things".

stockVid

« Reply #107 on: March 22, 2016, 13:56 »
+14
It's just a matter of time before the Exclusive 60% is reduced. . . It's called 'greed'.

What a shame 500px showed a lot of promise.

« Reply #108 on: March 22, 2016, 13:57 »
+10

Kelly, please, for the love of God, don't go looking for a job at Creative Market when you're done at 500px. Please.

Thank you.

And please feel free to go jump in the lake

Gracias

dpimborough

« Reply #109 on: March 22, 2016, 14:47 »
+7

Kelly, please, for the love of God, don't go looking for a job at Creative Market when you're done at 500px. Please.

Thank you.



And please feel free to go jump in the lake

Gracias

Don't forget the lead boots when you do :D

« Reply #110 on: March 22, 2016, 15:03 »
+9
Oh come on, how greedy.... Considering the yearly fee for plus and awesome, this is really a slap on the faces of photographers. 500px will start to sink after this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #111 on: March 22, 2016, 15:05 »
0
Does the artist get a share of that?

With all those huge images without a professional watermark...at 500 dollars a piece...nice little income stream.

I very much doubt the artsist shares any of that. That actually explains huge image previews and no watermark and their resistance to change it. Tempt the thief to steal, then make him pay - "nice" business model! That also explains why they want people to go exclusive - easier to demand payments from thieves, since you don't have to prove it's been stolen from them. I like when things make sense. Even though I really dislike these "things".

Your thinking this is intentional? Chasing the legal fees instead of selling?

Is there that much money in that?

Maybe I should remove more files, this sounds scary.

Ill definitely wait until they have a professional full frame watermark before uploading again.

And no exclusive images, not if my royalty rate can be changed so abruptly with 10 days notice.

« Reply #112 on: March 22, 2016, 15:40 »
+5
Does the artist get a share of that?

With all those huge images without a professional watermark...at 500 dollars a piece...nice little income stream.

I very much doubt the artsist shares any of that. That actually explains huge image previews and no watermark and their resistance to change it. Tempt the thief to steal, then make him pay - "nice" business model! That also explains why they want people to go exclusive - easier to demand payments from thieves, since you don't have to prove it's been stolen from them. I like when things make sense. Even though I really dislike these "things".

Your thinking this is intentional? Chasing the legal fees instead of selling?

Is there that much money in that?

Maybe I should remove more files, this sounds scary.

Ill definitely wait until they have a professional full frame watermark before uploading again.

And no exclusive images, not if my royalty rate can be changed so abruptly with 10 days notice.

If it makes them more money, why wouldn't it be intentional. I have no data on this, but Jo Ann above mentioned that most of their revenue seems to come from that.

« Reply #113 on: March 22, 2016, 17:21 »
+3
So after investing in Corbis, the Visual China Group is now investing millions of dollars in 500px.
https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2016/03/tech-startup-500px-creating-high-value-jobs-in-ontario.html



« Reply #114 on: March 22, 2016, 17:37 »
+1
Interesting. I thought 500px was a Russian-Canadian owned company originally.

« Reply #115 on: March 22, 2016, 17:57 »
+1
Interesting. I thought 500px was a Russian-Canadian owned company originally.

Yes, the founders were 2 Russian guys living in Toronto, one of them was a stock photographer, not sure they are even still around..

« Reply #116 on: March 22, 2016, 19:17 »
+2
theyre a bunch of cretins

StefC

  • www.royaltyfreevault.com
« Reply #117 on: March 23, 2016, 04:14 »
+16
Just deleted all my files I had for sale there.

Bye 500px

« Reply #118 on: March 23, 2016, 04:31 »
+20
Have they really gone from 70% to 30%?  Alamy went from 60% to 50%, that was palatable, 70 to 30 is a real kick in the teeth.

I never got around to uploading to 500px, now I never will.

« Reply #119 on: March 23, 2016, 05:31 »
+18
Yes we need a DIFFERENT agency but we do not need another 30% agency. I was planning to join 500px. I am not planning anymore. Simple like that.

« Reply #120 on: March 23, 2016, 09:51 »
+8
Have they really gone from 70% to 30%?  Alamy went from 60% to 50%, that was palatable, 70 to 30 is a real kick in the teeth.

Kelly is just getting his mojo back.  Totally out of character, he appears to have made this big announcement on a Monday morning (or that's when MSG'ers started discussing).  The next big announcement - the one knocking everyone down to 15% will be on a Friday at 4:55 EST. 

« Reply #121 on: March 23, 2016, 10:45 »
+21
A couple of weeks ago I was getting ready to upload 200-300 photos.  I held back because of the tedious upload process and the issue of displayed image size being too large - decided I'd wait and see the new direction before spending all that time.   Well, here's the new direction: straight down.   

I just closed my account.     

By now we've all been through the experience of uploading hundreds of photos to a new site, then getting the knife later and realizing we've wasted a lot of time.  So the next new site I consider will have to show a clear direction, a fair trade (50% commission) policy and a business plan that makes sense for both them and us.   

 

« Reply #122 on: March 23, 2016, 13:14 »
+12
The new definition for entrepreneurship is offer the moon, suck everybody in until you can make millions off their back, then take away the moon and give them a turd.  >:(

« Reply #123 on: March 23, 2016, 13:45 »
+2
I was debating whether to join 500px marketplace but was waiting to see if they sorted out the watermark issue. Now that they've chopped the royalty rate, I'm no longer interested, especially since I wouldn't have been willing to give them exclusive images in any event.

I do wonder, however, if there's any value in displaying small watermarked images in a free basic account. Do others who have done this ever generate any sales this way? Are you allowed to explicitly let viewers and potential buyers know they can contact you for direct sales? Flickr never allowed this, which was one reason I quit posting there.

I thought I read on this thread or another one a comment from someone who said 500px allows this but I can't find the reference right now. When I read their terms and conditions, it seems that they, like Flickr, don't permit it. I'd appreciate any feedback from people who know about this firsthand.

Of course, there's the larger question of whether uploading images would be worthwhile even if direct selling is allowed. Many people have been commenting on how poor the sales have been in the 500px marketplace, so perhaps there's no reason for optimism that images in the basic account will sell either.


Tror

« Reply #124 on: March 23, 2016, 14:21 »
+17
The new definition for entrepreneurship is offer the moon, suck everybody in until you can make millions off their back, then take away the moon and give them a turd.  >:(

Yes. The new capitalist startup tale is that you form a company based on some fancy "community" or "crowdsourcing" concept which requires the least possible own and real productive effort, honeytrap as many people in it as you can by "for free" or "high Royalty" offers, trap people in your concept, then sell the thing after a few years, get rich and retire on some real or virtual island.

What society has to learn is to stop fancying BS like this. Last week I got to know one of those guys and most people seem to think that it is "cool" to live off abusive corporate structures who are simply base upon the exploitation of the productive effort of others. I told him that I think he is an A***'#e. Obviously, I did not exactly make friends at that table that night. But I acted regarding my honest values and do not believe in verbal Pacifism neither :D . I think the root and solution lies in the community to exclude People like this and include and honor honesty and loyalty more. It is upon the individual to act by best conscience, not following what is the easiest or socially most accepted form.


« Last Edit: March 23, 2016, 14:37 by Tror »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2867 Views
Last post November 19, 2008, 22:43
by hali
22 Replies
5956 Views
Last post September 21, 2010, 11:24
by Case
107 Replies
23369 Views
Last post April 13, 2011, 04:53
by ShadySue
84 Replies
19381 Views
Last post January 23, 2012, 21:38
by Suljo
87 Replies
12426 Views
Last post November 27, 2015, 01:49
by shiyali

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results