Remember the Taylor Swift demand that Apple pay her when her music is played for non-subscribers using Apple music during the trial period? Ditto. 

Apparently 500px feels that it owns your pictures and for that, streams it live to Google Chromecast for absolutely nothing. That's how much your digital pictures are worth I'm afraid. They have licensed it to Google for nothing and photographer's contribution to the site will now be carried for free as an image backdrop. 

Now I cannot see why Taylor Swift could make such a demand using the same logic while photographers seems to get ripped off by the same process. 

If Google wants those images as a backdrop for Chromecast, then they should pay for it. 

I do not know at this stage if 500px did a backdoor dealing with Google on this and it certainly does not bode well for people who want to earn some money from their photographic works. Why doesn't 500px tell Google that they can only display creative commons type of images only and that until a photographer signs off as a CC release, no picture will be displayed until a fee is paid. 

Imagine for a moment that they only give you credit for the image displayed. Would that translate to financial success?

I'm afraid not. 

No one is going to be paid and the want for fame does not equate with fortune. You work could net you picture a framed and printed picture sold from 500px but giving it away as a backdrop is pretty much like shooting an image for free just for your photo byline. 

Why not shoot for free? The thousands you sunk into camera gear gives you so much joy that not having a roof over your head or a hot meal on the table isn't a priority. 

Having your picture discovered is one thing, but getting paid for it is a whole different issue. Being discovered as a photographer these days is like finding a nickel on the street. If it makes you happy just to be that nickel well good for you. 

But for the rest of us. We want to be paid because we believe that our pictures are worth something more than that nickel on the street. 

So let's hear it from Photographers in the comments below...!

Yes, it has finally happened. The fiasco regarding Flickr offering Creative Common images for paid Wall Art prints has come to a conclusion. Below is the excerpt of the farce...and apology. In all rational, why would CC type images be offered up as Wall Art in the first place?

We’re sorry we let some of you down.

About a month ago, we introduced Flickr Wall Art to allow our members to order printed photos on wood or canvas. Over the past few weeks, we’ve received a lot of feedback from the community and beyond — while some expressed their excitement about the new photography marketplace and the value it would bring, many felt that including Creative Commons-licensed work in this service wasn’t within the spirit of the Commons and our sharing community.
We hear and understand your concerns, and we always want to ensure that we’re acting within the spirit with which the community has contributed. Given the varied reactions, as a first step, we’ve decided to remove the pool of Creative Commons-licensed images from Flickr Wall Art, effective immediately. We’ll also be refunding all sales of Creative Commons-licensed images made to date through this service.
Subsequently, we’ll work closely with Creative Commons to come back with programs that align better with our community values.
The Wall Art service will continue to be available, but will not tap into Creative Commons-licensed images. You’ll still be able to order Wall Art from your own photostream, as well as the work of Flickr’s licensed artists, who are part of the Flickr Marketplace. If you want your work to appear in the Flickr Marketplace, you can sign up here to be considered and a member of the Flickr curation team will reach out if your work is a good fit.
From the beginning, we’ve worked hard to foster a community of creators. It’s our deep commitment to the Flickr community that inspires us everyday. Please continue to share your ideas and feedback.Bernardo HernandezVP of Flickr

A new service from Magnum Photos is about to be rolled out and it's going to take a swipe at Creative Commons. For a flat annual fee, you can download and use ANY Magnum image without watermarks on your non-commercial website.

For the longest time, photography had been a barometer of human activity. Photographers have captured those precious moments on film and saved that for posterity but lately, photos are not worth more than a postage stamp — thanks largely to Photoshop and digital imagery.

Magnum, being the oldest photo agency on the planet can't have you taking their pictures with a creative common twist. Even though you only want to use it on your website for non commercial purposes (which is contentious at best since you earn traffic revenue from web advertising) Magnum has the right to send you a DMCA takedown for using their photos without their permission.

What is the Value of Digital Images?

For old school stock agencies, the last thing they want is to host photos from non-agency photographers. The deal behind Magnum Photos as a collective agency is that the whole library of images is set up to benefit Magnum members and since they can't be possibly  shoot the usual commercial crap one has known to expect from a royalty free stock agency, those images from the past should be worth far more than the postage stamp.

I have nothing but sympathy for Magnum Photos. I  have worked with them in the past and they do try very hard to innovate but going out to enlist bloggers by asking them to pay an annual fee to use photos without watermarks is probably asking too much. Bloggers are a different breed. Think Perez Hilton, who as a successful professional blogger wouldn't even pay a cent even when he's being sued for using images without permission. His best excuse? Let's toss in a photo credit and be done with that.

As a collective agency, I was once in talks with Magnum to get sponsorship from Sony to host an exhibition but that faltered for several reasons, first being that the bulk of their photos were shot on film rather on digital. And even if they were shot on digital, it wasn't shot on a Sony camera. Companies like Nikon or Canon could sponsor them but they too do not see the same value since they are the big shots of the camera scene. Leica could of course do this but heck, they are a premium brand. If you shot Fendi, Burberry or LV, maybe they might consider it. Photojournalism isn't a hot commodity these days as anyone with an iPhone can upload the latest video and pictures onto the Internet for free. Magnum built their reputation on photojournalism, which at this time is being savaged by the digital age. No one pays attention to where the photos came from—and much less of the photographer who took it.

Magnum is a prestigious agency and to shore up their revenue, they are hoping to convert up to 30 percent of their recalcitrant image thieves to their new membership model though I think they would have more success if they were aiming for between 1 to 10 percent. Frankly bloggers are not out to pay for images and even if they did, they would want to desecrate them into personal Memes which they can share online. Robert Capa and HCB could be turning in their graves as we speak....