Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

Jul 24 09 11:25 pm Link

Photographer

Antonio Marcus

Posts: 1849

San Francisco, California, US

R Studios wrote:
My stock photo on Istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- … ss-jar.php

is on Time magazine cover.

Awesome. Did they pay for it or did the El Jack it? haha.

Jul 24 09 11:26 pm Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

yes only 30.00 from Istock

Jul 24 09 11:26 pm Link

Photographer

Abbitt Photography

Posts: 11721

Oakland Acres, Iowa, US

Hey - maybe not big bucks, but still a a nice accomplishment.  Congrats!

Jul 24 09 11:29 pm Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

yes. I am happy.

Jul 24 09 11:30 pm Link

Photographer

CraigBlankPhoto

Posts: 72

Hermosa Beach, California, US

Big up! That will make an awesome tear sheet

Love & Bass

Jul 24 09 11:31 pm Link

Photographer

Sam Cantu

Posts: 397

Dallas, Texas, US

NICE!  congrats!!

Jul 24 09 11:33 pm Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

I am looking to buy the back issue for Time

Jul 24 09 11:33 pm Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

a2z Photo n Video wrote:
NICE!  congrats!!

thanks

Jul 24 09 11:34 pm Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock

You got screwed.

Jul 24 09 11:35 pm Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:

You got screwed.

ok

Jul 24 09 11:36 pm Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

R Studios wrote:

ok

There's value in the tear sheet. I'm speaking specifically to the $30.

Jul 24 09 11:37 pm Link

Photographer

MisterC

Posts: 15162

Portland, Oregon, US

WOW! Congratulations. That's worth a shout. It's a bit unfortunate they don't pay a bit more, but such is the life of stock photography. Very cool. That means that thousands, if not millions of people will now view your work! Nice.

Jul 24 09 11:42 pm Link

Photographer

Lee K

Posts: 2411

Palatine, Illinois, US

That's incredibly depressing.

Jul 24 09 11:45 pm Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

MinisterC  wrote:
WOW! Congratulations. That's worth a shout. It's a bit unfortunate they don't pay a bit more, but such is the life of stock photography. Very cool. That means that thousands, if not millions of people will now view your work! Nice.

thank.  I will frame it

Jul 24 09 11:45 pm Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:

There's value in the tear sheet. I'm speaking specifically to the $30.

last check.. 31.50..lol

Jul 24 09 11:46 pm Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

Lee K wrote:
That's incredibly depressing.

Photographers get all the blame for that one.

Jul 24 09 11:46 pm Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

R Studios wrote:

last check.. 31.50..lol

You'll be really depressed if I tell you the dollar value of a Time cover.

Jul 24 09 11:49 pm Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:

You'll be really depressed if I tell you the dollar value of a Time cover.

tell me

Jul 24 09 11:50 pm Link

Photographer

Travis Sackett

Posts: 1613

Los Angeles, California, US

the price fits the story lol


- Travis Sackett
www.TravisSackett.com

Jul 24 09 11:55 pm Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6394

Dallas, Texas, US

R Studios wrote:
My stock photo on Istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- … ss-jar.php

is on Time magazine cover.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

I'm assuming that yours is the main photo on the cover - the glass jar with the coins in it?

edit: duh...nevermind - I just went to your first link!   big_smile

Jul 24 09 11:57 pm Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6394

Dallas, Texas, US

Jul 24 09 11:58 pm Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

Through Garys Eyes wrote:

I'm assuming that yours is the main photo on the cover - the glass jar with the coins in it?

yes.

Jul 24 09 11:59 pm Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

R Studios wrote:

tell me

Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

Something is not right about that picture.

Jul 24 09 11:59 pm Link

Photographer

dave wright phx

Posts: 13509

Phoenix, Arizona, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

Something is not right about that picture.

The cover does say "The New Frugality."

Jul 25 09 12:02 am Link

Photographer

Lee K

Posts: 2411

Palatine, Illinois, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:

Photographers get all the blame for that one.

That's part of what's depressing.

Jul 25 09 12:02 am Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:

Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

Something is not right about that picture.

thanks. good to know.

Jul 25 09 12:02 am Link

Photographer

Living Canvas

Posts: 2039

Denver, Colorado, US

The question is, if they'd had to cough out $10,000 would they have used that photo? Or did they use it because it was $30 and was exactly what they wanted?

Either way congrats! Maybe no big pay day, but I'd still chalk it up as an accomplishment.

Jul 25 09 12:02 am Link

Photographer

profile removed

Posts: 374

Scottsdale, Arizona, US

30 dollars?  does the license they purchased cover usage on/in a national magazine with a huge print run?

i see the 'extended' license options on your file and they are worth alot more than 30 dollars - still not a lot but i would think usage on Time Magazine's cover would require more than just iStock's 'standard' license pricing that somebody would license it for a cheesey website banner.

Jul 25 09 12:02 am Link

Photographer

-The Dave-

Posts: 8626

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

MinisterC  wrote:
Very cool. That means that thousands, if not millions of people will now view your work! Nice.

Will anyone even know who shot it?  Other than the few that click this thread?

Jul 25 09 12:04 am Link

Photographer

SusiB

Posts: 532

Santa Fe, New Mexico, US

I wouldn't know whether to be incredibly happy, or incredibly pissed.

Jul 25 09 12:04 am Link

Retoucher

btdsgn

Posts: 2212

Wahiawa, Hawaii, US

It's a cool tear...

Jul 25 09 12:05 am Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

Dark Life wrote:
30 dollars?  does the license they purchased cover usage on/in a national magazine with a huge print run?

i see the 'extended' license options on your file and they are worth alot more than 30 dollars - still not a lot but i would think usage on Time Magazine's cover would require more than just iStock's 'standard' license pricing that somebody would license it for a cheesey website banner.

I see the standard license does not require additional payments for runs over 500K for magazines.

Edit: I stand corrected. That's for advertising rate.

For editorial rate, Unlimited reproduction/print run license required for 500,000 or more impressions.

You may have more money coming OP.

Jul 25 09 12:05 am Link

Photographer

ty kyu

Posts: 98

Chicago, Illinois, US

Very cool! Congrats big_smile

Jul 25 09 12:05 am Link

Model

Stevie Lynn C

Posts: 617

Tampa, Florida, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:

Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

Something is not right about that picture.

Uh oh, that depresses me and I'm not even involved in this discussion!

Jul 25 09 12:05 am Link

Photographer

profile removed

Posts: 374

Scottsdale, Arizona, US

it's a great accomplishment - i'd have that cover blown up poster size and frame it up.  your photo on the cover of one of if not the world's most prestigious news magazines is priceless.

Jul 25 09 12:07 am Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

-The Dave- wrote:

Will anyone even know who shot it?  Other than the few that click this thread?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messag … adid=87339

Jul 25 09 12:07 am Link

Photographer

R Studios

Posts: 53

Los Angeles, California, US

Stevie Lynn wrote:

Uh oh, that depresses me and I'm not even involved in this discussion!

i am not depresses but happy

Jul 25 09 12:08 am Link

Photographer

PYPI FASHION

Posts: 36332

San Francisco, California, US

Living Canvas wrote:
The question is, if they'd had to cough out $10,000 would they have used that photo? Or did they use it because it was $30 and was exactly what they wanted?

Either way congrats! Maybe no big pay day, but I'd still chalk it up as an accomplishment.

Like I said, photographers are to blame for that $30 option.

Jul 25 09 12:09 am Link

Photographer

-The Dave-

Posts: 8626

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

R Studios wrote:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messag … adid=87339

So no photographers credit in the issue huh? That sucks!

Jul 25 09 12:09 am Link