Quote

...from the email:
"We still believe it is important to reward the creators, which is why we will continue to give you an industry-leading royalty rate of 60% on images exclusive to 500px..."

This is simply not true. As an example, Zoonar paid 60% for non-exclusive material!

I had much more sales with Picfair (non exclusive) than with 500px and they pay me 100% of what I set up (and I don't use microstock pricing anywhere)...
Possible? Possible.

30% from non exclusive (most people are non-ex) is faaaaaar away from "an industry-leading royalty rate".

Edit

...
 Deleted all my photos. So, I don't have to worry about them anymore.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you better check out in Google for your images shared out there. I think I have wrote about it many times long time ago... I've found my images shared taken (also without linking back) from 500px on Tumblr and other places that had no my permission to use my work, so I asked 500px what will they do to remove it and stop for future. They told me it's really ok and they like when people share our images (search for the old threads), and I can use Google DMCA to remove my work from the places as 500px can not do this. So I wasted my time on uploading to 500px only to find out that I need to waste more time on removing my work from very weird places.
Without paying me for the usage in their articles.
I removed my images from many places. Dozens, hundreds then. Blogged, reblogged, shared everywhere. Social media, you know...
And I still find my images from 500px in many places where I can not remove them...

So, if you delete images from 500px they still can be shared out there...

Edit

"Would you be happy with selling an unlimited license to one of your pictures, forever, for $175? ..."


Also this is interesting to read. Worth to remind some forgotten details for some of you, who may have any doubts

Maybe they can afford a watermark now...

Thank you for making my day! LOL 

Removed my images from there some time ago in response to lack of watermark and lots of stealing. There were moments if I should reconsider coming back. Silly me

Old topic but need to continue.

Long time ago I used to like giving a chance and support new sites trying in the market and so I uploaded some stuff to EzMediArt. At the begining the site was very far away from beeing ready for clients, but new site needs time to improve sometimes.
Earlier in the thread (21 Nov.) I wrote about the pricing changed accident. I though strange things may happen at the beginning, let's be patient.
Later (28 Nov.'14) I've found that in my collection there is not my image so I contacted EMA to remove it and fix the issue.
They deleted it... "Go through your portfolio to make sure that everything is how it should be."
I didn't find new one.
In the meanwhile they promised new improvements on the site. Do they offer the option of price change in bulk already?

Now, a month ago I've found another image in my colection that belong's to another author. I tried to delete it and other my images but couldn't so contacted EMA to remove it and fix the issue. Their response convinced me to get away from this place asap.
I tried to delete my whole collection and account with no result. This is what I got from them:

"We will delete all your images and your account at the end of a year. If you want to delete your images right now, you can do it yourself."

As above - I would, if I could...

Can anyone of you try to delete images from Ezmediart? Can you guys try if it works for you?

Can anyone tell me why should I support any new agency after the experiences with EMA, and many more who closed after failed start last two years (Pixyloo, Stocktal, Ultimatstock, Stockbo, Fox ... etc)?

I hope my opinion is any worth for guys who consider supporting new, unknown sites like above...

edit-typos.

I'm not their contributor anymore for a long time and got this email too. Any way to forget about them ever?

Since opting out I had one request for $16. I told them to come back when it's $28+.

May I ask if you got any feedback from SS?

I just had an email telling me that I'm opted out of sensitive (which is not true - I opted out only of EL) and client wants to buy it (sensitive) immediately for the $22 (pfff). Of course I told them to come back when/ if they change their thinking and treating... After 8 years with them I DO expect more respect. What they do* is nothing but a distasteful joke...

* Cost of our living is higher and higer every year, after 8 yrs of supporting the agency I get the new "exciting news" with pricing cut during SS enjoys the new office. They even can't give me clear info if it is SoD or EL.

Yes, I'm mad and disappointed...

...
My big entreaty for those who don't care what's going on with your work - please do not comment in this thread. There are many other already started threads if it's worth to protect your work or not. Please, respect those who care what is going on with their work. Please do not fight with the rights here. This thread is made to aware people of what's going on.

I am so sorry I need to quote myself 

That's sad but needs to be said. For those of you who take care of protecting your work I hope this info will be usefull and give you an eye on the problem.

On the Crated site our images are NOT well protected and are easy to take up to 960px size (from the page code). Size large enough to make prints and use it in wide range without paying license fee.
I've found it accidentally when found my work stolen on some site (name doesn't matter now) and I contacted Crated few times about the problem. Nothing is done, the page code still gives 960px with NO watermark. All they offer is:
" you could try deleting the image and re-uploading it? This would change the URL on them and most likely remove it from their site since it's a direct linking."

Earlier I wanted to remove my image by my own with abuse report on the found site (not on Crated of course) but found it's some kind of scam or whatever you call it... The final is they only got my email address  I can remove my images from here and there but I believe that's not the solution. The problem starts with the source.

And for those of you who ask on the forum if there is watermark on Crated. No, there isn't and:
"I did pass along your request regarding watermarks but I don't believe we're going to be moving forward offering those on Crated."

Crated is one of many sites I'm with and I know it's physically possible to (1) not use large 960px size in page code to be cool site and (2) protect images with watermark and have sales at the same time...


My big entreaty for those who don't care what's going on with your work - please do not comment in this thread. There are many other already started threads if it's worth to protect your work or not. Please, respect those who care what is going on with their work. Please do not fight with the rights here. This thread is made to aware people of what's going on.

Tim, please make social media sharing optional.
I have no interest in seeing my photos shared freely on Facebook, Twitter, G+ etc.

Yup... That's the point.

I uploaded many images wasting time on preparing two sizes and handly watermark on files (why the h... isn't it made automatically?!). Some promising sales showed up but... huge but... I wasted far too much time on removing my work from the sites I didn't want to share my work... taken from 500px. Like Thumblr for example. One guy takes (shares) the image from your site and hundreds people just copy it to their blogs. I don't use it and I don't want people to share my images without my permission here and there. And your politic is encouraging people to share just like that.

Last year I (and many other people) asked 500px to stop this madness and let us decide about sharing options. 500px declined saying:

"However, we allow and encourage members to share photos from 500px on personal blogs and social networks. As long as they're providing a link back to the photo's page and giving the photographer attribution for the photo,..."

and
"social sharing will always be a feature of 500px. It increases views of your photos and thereby increases sales..."

It was almost a year ago. (Big thread on the forum to read more.) I was removing my work almost everyday from different sites, sometimes hundreds weekly... without any link back to my PF or even not a word who created the image. I was very patient but finally had enough and deleted my images from 500px. You know, there is no other site that would let people share so wide in internet and I still have nice sales there, I mean they have clients who pay...

It is really good to know you open for people and try to listen about watermark. But you have more important and bigger problem, priority.

Many professionalists who want to sell images are not 14 y.o. children who love to spend life on collecting hearts, likes, favs or whatever. It's very nice when people enjoy my work but this is about business and licensing every usage, even in internet, on the blogs. Others may have different expectations. Here are mine - 500px is not ready for professionalists with what you offer now - changing watermark is only first step from your side.

I removed my work from micros last year finally (slow process started in 2013 and even late 2012), some useless files left on SS.
Now I upload only to macro agencies, self pricing agencies, my own website (direct sales) and POD sites and I set up my pricing up to $300. Do I regret? Have no reason as I doubled my income in the first 6 months after the change! I sell less, but I'm more happy with results...

As Paulie said, micro was good to learn the base elements.

Nevermind.

@MarcvsTvllivs
Does 500px sell licenses? YES.

May I use Alamy as my gallery/ portfolio? YES.

May I choose if I want or not to protect my work with watermark on 500px like I do on other sites? NO. Why?

Where is the problem? Right there ^

... Focalpool pits photographers against each other and whoever wins gets a reward, for everyone else, well it sucks to be you. They don't care who gets paid because no matter what, they get their 20%.

Isn't it the standard way with any other agency? Does SS or Alamy care whose image will be sold? As far as I know, they don't. They get their % and that's happy end. Just like with Focal Pool. And here as well client won't buy 100 images, he comes to any agency for the one that he's looking for. Or not? Am I wrong?