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

Photographer

James Jackson Fashion

Posts: 11111

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
We throw around terms like "ethics" and "morals", but the truth of the matter is that in general, "business" is a shrewd arena that exists for the purpose of making money.  Period.
I think you're confusing free enterprise with church  ..or disneyland, because when it comes down to it, "ethical standard'' is a fanciful mouthful that we use to describe what is projected and seldom what really 'is'.. not unlike a corporate mission statement wink

No... your argument is the one that is confused... you've confused conducting business properly with conducting business as the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's businesses did.  Sure you can do it for a while, but eventually the system breaks down.  You can't feed yourself if you never feed the hungry.

Jul 26 09 05:26 am Link

Photographer

AEV Foto

Posts: 165

Miami, Florida, US

Robert P Baxter wrote:
Ripped off or not, your ego can shine. Congratulations on the accomplishment.

And that accomplishment is what ?

Jul 26 09 05:38 am Link

Photographer

SPierce Photography

Posts: 19791

Amherst, Massachusetts, US

Wow, this absolutely turned from a generally positive thread into one full of whiny photographers who don't like what happened and that they used this guys photo (and i'm reading the other too).  For God's sake, what, we expect Time to hire a photographer to shoot a coin jar for 15,000 dollars? The economy sucks, and it affects everyone. Including time, and several other magazines that could possibly go bankrupt. Do ya'll really think he put that photo up on istock with the intention of it going onto the cover of time magazine? Of course he didn't, there's no way he would have known. Everyone just needs to suck it up and realize that, yeah, this is where the market is right now and until it recovers this is the direction things are heading.

Jul 26 09 05:43 am Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15546

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

I'm pretty sure it was for Time mag cover; I did the location hunt being snap shots of different angles of Lloyds building for photographer D. Sherwin who I assisted.
We did the finals on 5x4, sunset.

I doubt if he'd done the shot for less than approx $700 + my location hunt fee. Film/poloroid/processing so add some more $.

This was some years ago and it worked out at 1/2 day rate.. well more like 2-3 hrs.

Jul 26 09 06:05 am Link

Photographer

ledrayphoto

Posts: 1773

Laguna, California, US

Congragulations!

I doubt many here even sell Anything they take for any amount

Jul 26 09 06:11 am Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42495

Houston, Texas, US

Robert P Baxter wrote:
Ripped off or not, your ego can shine. Congratulations on the accomplishment.

AEV Foto wrote:
And that accomplishment is what ?

Some are understandably bothered by a peer being happy getting so little and fear the precedent being set.

In the end it's just bragging rights and a measurable credential, but most likely will not impress the typical model or paying customer.

If the image was of a model or bride instead of a jar of coins, he could probably glean a lot more fame and fortune from it.

Jul 26 09 06:12 am Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15546

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

R Studios wrote:
last check.. 31.50..lol

It's nice to have a tear/cover well done shot but an assistant get paid more.

Are time(s) really that desperate.

Jul 26 09 06:38 am Link

Photographer

James Jackson Fashion

Posts: 11111

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

SPierce Photography wrote:
For God's sake, what, we expect Time to hire a photographer to shoot a coin jar for 15,000 dollars? The economy sucks, and it affects everyone. Including time, and several other magazines that could possibly go bankrupt.

Time is in no danger of going bankrupt from paying one photographer $15,000 for a cover (and we're all really saying $3,000 to $5,000).  They print over 500,000 copies of that image and SELL IT even if they paid him $15,000 for the coin jar image it would come out to less than $0.03 per print... not to mention the posters that they're printing for $20 a pop of the same cover.

Jul 26 09 06:41 am Link

Photographer

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project

Posts: 362

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Star wrote:
It has been shown that TIME was in violation of 2 parts of the istock contract,

1. they did not pay the correct usage fees of $125 for the image. They needed an extended license

2. istock requires they credit the member name, which TIME failed to do

Both of these are serious offenses, and they should be examined much more closely then they are. You need to contact the APA or EP to see if they have somebody willing  to contact TIME for you. They owe you and istock a bit of money for their breaking of the license agreement.

from the istock website
http://www.istockphoto.com/license_comparison.php

"Editorial purposes: printed magazines, newspapers, editorials, newsletters
Yes, up to 499,999 impressions. You must give credit as follows:"©iStockphoto.com/membername"
Unlimited reproduction/print run license required for 500,000 or more impressions"

They also can not resell the item, like they are doing with their current license.

from the istock website
http://www.istockphoto.com/license_comparison.php

"Items for resale, including prints, posters, calendars, mugs, mousepads, t-shirts, games, etc. No

Items for resale — limited run license required. Note: there are quantity restrictions dependent on the type of item"

Star, please re-read the license agreements.

They have no requirement to credit with the Extended License, which is required for a print run of more than 500,000. Time's print runs are above 3 million.

Extended License looks to be 137 credits at most. iStock credit plans get down to something like $0.25/credit.

Jul 26 09 07:54 am Link

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32694

Detroit, Michigan, US

James Jackson Fashion wrote:

Like I said... there's a little thing called ethics... some people have it, some people don't.

Ethics has zero to do with this issue. One person had a product, the other wished to buy it, everyone acted ethically.

I don't know where you get ethics out of this, but undercutting a competitor is not unethical.

Jul 26 09 08:22 am Link

Photographer

Antonio Marcus

Posts: 1849

San Francisco, California, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
I don't know where you get ethics out of this, but undercutting a competitor is not unethical.

It is unethical to me because although we competitors, we are also individually responsible for photographers worth as a group. The moment we think "this is my business and has nothing to do with anyone else"... it becomes unethical to the group as a whole.

Jul 26 09 08:28 am Link

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32694

Detroit, Michigan, US

David Pollack wrote:

I hate to be pessimistic, but this is about the saddest thing I have seen in, well probably ever in the world of photography. I have been with a legitimate stock agency since 1984 and seen the explosive growth and sad demise of this industry. Ten years ago I was netting over 15K every month in stock sales, my average sale was $600 per use. My average sale is now under $60. and this through a legitimate, service based, client oriented stock house. My total net is also significantly lower than it was 10 years ago.

Now that everyone with a camera is willing to sell images through micro stock agency at $30 for a national cover and be proud of it, there is no reason for Time or anyone else to pay fairly for the use they acquire. Fifteen years ago, a Time cover would have paid about $3,000 for rights from a stock agency or in the case of a still life such as yours, paid about $3,000 PLUS all expenses (ie stylist, film, processing, possibly even a model maker, assistant.) if it was an assigned shot. So basically, what the internet and digital cameras and non professionals have done is just throw a million images at the wind and if a couple stick they are happy. Time Magazine sells how many copies a week?? Do you really think $30 is fair pay for them to use a photo on a cover. Even today, they pay a hell of a lot more for the spot use of a news photo of for an assigned photo. While you did not set the selling prices on your micro stock site, you are willing to give away your work.

Sorry, but that is the bottom line, you gave away your work. On your web site you say that photography is an "enormous passion." Unfortunately, at $30 for a national cover, it can never be much more than a hobby, one could not make a living by selling licenses at these prices and this not only hurts you but it is destroying an entire industry.

I am not trying to be negative, just felt a fair and reasonable look at the economic and a look at the reality of what it eans to sell a national cover for $30 does.

Ten years ago I was making zero off stock sales. Now I make money every single day.

Thanks for sharing. I'd rather have that money in my pocket than yours.

Oh and you forgot something- there is a HUGE market that couldn't afford $600 for a stock photo, ever. Guess what? They are my customers now smile

Jul 26 09 08:28 am Link

Photographer

Digital Planet Design

Posts: 291

Saint Peters, Missouri, US

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:
They have no requirement to credit with the Extended License, which is required for a print run of more than 500,000. Time's print runs are above 3 million.

Extended License looks to be 137 credits at most. iStock credit plans get down to something like $0.25/credit.

No, they don't.

iStock credits go from $1.50 a credit to $.95 a credit: http://www.istockphoto.com/buy-stock-cr … you-go.php

This image is available as a large size for 12 credits.  Time would need both an unlimited run license and a resale license, for a total of 250+12 = 262 credits.  Total cost from $393 to  $249.  That falls in the range of Getty's RF XL size at $299, which does not require an EL for those uses, and also pays %20, like iStock for non-exclusives.

So, are you all rallying against the pricing of RF in general?  You may want to contact Getty then.

See here for more:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpres … our-money/

Jul 26 09 09:01 am Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63192

Danbury, Connecticut, US

Digital Planet Design wrote:
No, they don't.

iStock credits go from $1.50 a credit to $.95 a credit: http://www.istockphoto.com/buy-stock-cr … you-go.php

Corporate subscriptions go as low as $0.24 per credit.
http://www.istockphoto.com/corporate-accounts.php

Jul 26 09 09:08 am Link

Photographer

Digital Planet Design

Posts: 291

Saint Peters, Missouri, US

Brian Diaz wrote:

Corporate subscriptions go as low as $0.24 per credit.
http://www.istockphoto.com/corporate-accounts.php

Subscription plan credits pay out as if they were $.96 credits, regardless of actual cost.

Jul 26 09 09:28 am Link

Photographer

Leo Howard

Posts: 6795

Phoenix, Arizona, US

I cant believe this is still going on.

Yes, there are people that say he was screwed, there are people that say good job, he seems to be happy with the end result, however, it does appear as though Time did not even play by the iStock rules, but its done and over with, they cant go back and reprint the issue to include the artists name, does iStock have a contingency for that? will iStock be the one going after Time for the improper amount paid and not giving credit to the artist, or will they also be complacent and be happy with the fact that they sold an image to a large publication?

Jul 26 09 09:45 am Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63192

Danbury, Connecticut, US

Leo Howard wrote:
...it does appear as though Time did not even play by the iStock rules, but its done and over with, they cant go back and reprint the issue to include the artists name, does iStock have a contingency for that? will iStock be the one going after Time for the improper amount paid and not giving credit to the artist...

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … st10511781

Jul 26 09 10:17 am Link

Photographer

Boho Hobo

Posts: 25351

Portland, Oregon, US

David Pollack wrote:
I hate to be pessimistic, but this is about the saddest thing I have seen in, well probably ever in the world of photography. I have been with a legitimate stock agency since 1984 and seen the explosive growth and sad demise of this industry. Ten years ago I was netting over 15K every month in stock sales, my average sale was $600 per use. My average sale is now under $60. and this through a legitimate, service based, client oriented stock house. My total net is also significantly lower than it was 10 years ago.

Now that everyone with a camera is willing to sell images through micro stock agency at $30 for a national cover and be proud of it, there is no reason for Time or anyone else to pay fairly for the use they acquire. Fifteen years ago, a Time cover would have paid about $3,000 for rights from a stock agency or in the case of a still life such as yours, paid about $3,000 PLUS all expenses (ie stylist, film, processing, possibly even a model maker, assistant.) if it was an assigned shot. So basically, what the internet and digital cameras and non professionals have done is just throw a million images at the wind and if a couple stick they are happy. Time Magazine sells how many copies a week?? Do you really think $30 is fair pay for them to use a photo on a cover. Even today, they pay a hell of a lot more for the spot use of a news photo of for an assigned photo. While you did not set the selling prices on your micro stock site, you are willing to give away your work.

Sorry, but that is the bottom line, you gave away your work. On your web site you say that photography is an "enormous passion." Unfortunately, at $30 for a national cover, it can never be much more than a hobby, one could not make a living by selling licenses at these prices and this not only hurts you but it is destroying an entire industry.

I am not trying to be negative, just felt a fair and reasonable look at the economic and a look at the reality of what it eans to sell a national cover for $30 does.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Ten years ago I was making zero off stock sales. Now I make money every single day.

Thanks for sharing. I'd rather have that money in my pocket than yours.

Oh and you forgot something- there is a HUGE market that couldn't afford $600 for a stock photo, ever. Guess what? They are my customers now smile

ok so curiosity time....


you average 2.5 downloads a day, what does that work out to $$ wise?

Jul 26 09 10:22 am Link

Model

Laurel Rae

Posts: 2034

Tucson, Arizona, US

dave wright sf wrote:

The cover does say "The New Frugality."

ha "the new frugality" is right!

Jul 26 09 10:23 am Link

Photographer

afterexposure

Posts: 241

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Laurel Rae wrote:
ha "the new frugality" is right!

That was my point in the locked thread:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … 066&page=7

If anyone has the issue, do they mention the source / cost of the cover photo in it?

Jul 26 09 10:50 am Link

Photographer

afterexposure

Posts: 241

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Lumigraphics wrote:
Ten years ago I was making zero off stock sales. Now I make money every single day.

Thanks for sharing. I'd rather have that money in my pocket than yours.

Oh and you forgot something- there is a HUGE market that couldn't afford $600 for a stock photo, ever. Guess what? They are my customers now smile

I tried to make that case last week regarding MM -vs- agencies; that there is this vast untapped market that can't / doesn't / isn't purchasing images with models of their choice because it's too expensive / complicated / time consuming to bother.

I won't go down that rat-hole of a discussion again here on MM, but my contention is that there are a zillion small businesses all over the world that would love to have their products and services advertised with models (other than the owners niece...), and the price point for a non-agency style business model might just bottom WAY out for that kind of service.

Jul 26 09 10:55 am Link

Photographer

BritWoollardPhotography

Posts: 771

Chicago, Illinois, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:

You got screwed.

I agree. But I mean, what else is there to be done? The image was in stock.

Jul 26 09 11:00 am Link

Photographer

Sockpuppet Studios

Posts: 7862

San Francisco, California, US

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
ok so curiosity time....


you average 2.5 downloads a day, what does that work out to $$ wise?

Pay-as-you-go
You earn your royalty based on the net value of the credits used to download your image. The standard credit price is $1.50 USD.

Info from istock

PhotosVectorFlashVideoAudio

Size    Credits    Royalty
XSmall    1    $0.30
Small    3    $0.90
Medium    6    $1.80
Large    12    $3.60
XLarge    18    $5.40
XXLarge    22    $6.60
XXXLarge    28    $8.40




It's easiest to explain with examples. Let's look at 3 different scenarios for a non-Exclusive contributor.


Subscriber has:    They spend:    You earn:
30 credits/day
3 month term    10 credits one day, 5 of those on you    $1.00
480 credits/day
3 month term    10 credits one day, 5 of those on you    $13.20
480 credits/day
3 month term    10 credits one day, ALL of those on you    $26.40


I have several images that have been sitting on Fotolia since 2006 I just averaged out sales, about 1.00 per download on average.

Jul 26 09 11:03 am Link

Photographer

Chris Macan

Posts: 12795

HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US

The bottom line is this.....
we have an image here that requires no special equipment to shoot,
requires no special expertise to shoot,
is a subject matter that can be found in almost any house in the U.S.
and could be set up and shot in under 15 minutes.

This shot is the very definition of a commodity image,
it is about as distinctive as generic toilet paper.
Why exactly do people think it is worth thousands of dollars?

To compare this image or this business model to one where a client pays you to specifically create something is disingenuous.
This is photography as a commodity at its most basic form.

Jul 26 09 11:04 am Link

Model

Kymberly Jane

Posts: 2251

Garden Grove, California, US

he sold it to ISTOCK..not time..

that is WHY getty and istock are out there.. for photographers to See their work in print..

i heard getty is the hardest to get into..but they use the images EVERYWHERE in any commercial print ad..

Jul 26 09 11:07 am Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15546

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

Chris Macan wrote:
The bottom line is this.....
we have an image here that requires no special equipment to shoot,
requires no special expertise to shoot,
is a subject matter that can be found in almost any house in the U.S.
and could be set up and shot in under 15 minutes.

This shot is the very definition of a commodity image,
it is about as distinctive as generic toilet paper.
Why exactly do people think it is worth thousands of dollars?

To compare this image or this business model to one where a client pays you to specifically create something is disingenuous.
This is photography as a commodity at its most basic form.

What the op got paid for was the rate for a pack shot of which you'd probably shoot approx 40 in a day to make up the day fee. But the shot was used for a mag cover... a very different rate of pay.

Jul 26 09 11:10 am Link

Photographer

afterexposure

Posts: 241

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Chris Macan wrote:
The bottom line is this.....

(snip)

This is photography as a commodity at its most basic form.

Agreed, but there is the usage rights aspect; coverage, exclusivity, term, options to extend, all of these things have value.

So a stock shot of TP gets $0.30 to run once, as a 1"x1" image in a 1 column article in the town paper....

But say the raw file is pretty good; and it's good enough for a cover shot on some national weekly news mag... maybe they don't want it re-used, ever, and they want a shot that no-one else has used in the past (or wasn't associated with something the publishers find counter to their views). They want these rights for 2 years, and they'd like the right to alter the image (maybe insert a gold coin...). The also don't want to credit the photographer, because maybe they want to make a point of using stock for their own cover in the body of the issue ("see, it works, even we did it this week!...").

All those things add up.

It's no different in employment contracts, or any contract for that matter; you get what you settle for.

Jul 26 09 11:12 am Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17958

Los Angeles, California, US

the license for what time used would be $462 credits. The smallest amount per credit that this could pay out still totals to a $91.20.

Also they CANNOT do the unlimited sales of poster thing that they are doing. here is the extended license clauses, and because of the artist's payout it is obvious they DID NOT but a full extended license.

"Items for Resale - Limited Run

Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a) of the Standard License Prohibitions prohibiting the use or display of the Content in items for resale, you shall be entitled with respect to this specific Content to produce the following items for resale, license, or other distribution:

   1. up to 100,000 postcards, greeting cards or other cards, stationery, stickers, and paper products,
   2. up to 10,000 posters, calendars or other similar publications, mugs or mousepads,
   3. or up to 2,000 t-shirts, sweatshirts, or other apparel, games, toys, entertainment goods, framed or mounted artwork

in or on which the Content is used or displayed (the "Resale Merchandise"), provided that:

   1. the right to produce the Resale Merchandise in no way grants any right to you or any recipient of the Resale Merchandise in any intellectual property or other rights to the Content;
   2. you agree to indemnify the iStockphoto Parties from any cost, liability, damages or expense incurred by any of them relating to or in connection with any of the Resale Merchandise;
   3. any production of Resale Merchandise in excess of the allowed run size is prohibited and requires the Content to be purchased separately;
   4. all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses."

and yes THEY DID NEED TO CREDIT him as the artist

"Reproduction / Print Run Limits

Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a)(14) of the Standard License Prohibitions limiting you to 500,000 reproductions, you shall be entitled with respect to this Content to an unlimited number of reproductions, and the Agreement is deemed amended in that respect. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses."

from the standard licensing contract

"may not use the Content for editorial purposes without including the following credit adjacent to the Content: “©iStockphoto.com/Artist’s Member Name]; or
# either individually or in combination with others, reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content, in excess of 500,000 times without obtaining an Extended License, in which event you shall be required to pay an additional royalty fee equal to US $0.01 for each reproduction which is in excess of 500,000 reproductions. This additional royalty does not apply to advertisements in magazines, newspapers or websites or to broadcast by television, web-cast or theatrical production."

Jul 26 09 11:16 am Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17958

Los Angeles, California, US

if they did not buy the extended license they owe istock at least $28,601 at the cost of .01 per copy over the number contracted for. That means the artist is owed $8,540 from istock for the usage of his image.

Jul 26 09 11:20 am Link

Model

Anomalia Collaborat

Posts: 704

Brooklyn, New York, US

Star wrote:
the license for what time used would be $462 credits. The smallest amount per credit that this could pay out still totals to a $91.20.

Also they CANNOT do the unlimited sales of poster thing that they are doing. here is the extended license clauses, and because of the artist's payout it is obvious they DID NOT but a full extended license.

"Items for Resale - Limited Run

Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a) of the Standard License Prohibitions prohibiting the use or display of the Content in items for resale, you shall be entitled with respect to this specific Content to produce the following items for resale, license, or other distribution:

   1. up to 100,000 postcards, greeting cards or other cards, stationery, stickers, and paper products,
   2. up to 10,000 posters, calendars or other similar publications, mugs or mousepads,
   3. or up to 2,000 t-shirts, sweatshirts, or other apparel, games, toys, entertainment goods, framed or mounted artwork

in or on which the Content is used or displayed (the "Resale Merchandise"), provided that:

   1. the right to produce the Resale Merchandise in no way grants any right to you or any recipient of the Resale Merchandise in any intellectual property or other rights to the Content;
   2. you agree to indemnify the iStockphoto Parties from any cost, liability, damages or expense incurred by any of them relating to or in connection with any of the Resale Merchandise;
   3. any production of Resale Merchandise in excess of the allowed run size is prohibited and requires the Content to be purchased separately;
   4. all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses."

and yes THEY DID NEED TO CREDIT him as the artist

"Reproduction / Print Run Limits

Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a)(14) of the Standard License Prohibitions limiting you to 500,000 reproductions, you shall be entitled with respect to this Content to an unlimited number of reproductions, and the Agreement is deemed amended in that respect. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses."

from the standard licensing contract

"may not use the Content for editorial purposes without including the following credit adjacent to the Content: “©iStockphoto.com/Artist’s Member Name]; or
# either individually or in combination with others, reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content, in excess of 500,000 times without obtaining an Extended License, in which event you shall be required to pay an additional royalty fee equal to US $0.01 for each reproduction which is in excess of 500,000 reproductions. This additional royalty does not apply to advertisements in magazines, newspapers or websites or to broadcast by television, web-cast or theatrical production."

Nice! Thread ender!

Jul 26 09 11:20 am Link

Photographer

Legacys 7

Posts: 33857

San Francisco, California, US

Leo Howard wrote:
I cant believe this is still going on.

Yes, there are people that say he was screwed, there are people that say good job, he seems to be happy with the end result, however, it does appear as though Time did not even play by the iStock rules, but its done and over with, they cant go back and reprint the issue to include the artists name, does iStock have a contingency for that? will iStock be the one going after Time for the improper amount paid and not giving credit to the artist, or will they also be complacent and be happy with the fact that they sold an image to a large publication?

I agree. And it's pretty fucked up that the man's thread got hi jacked. I don't know why the mod locked the other thread that Star started, it was more suited for this argument vs turning this thread into an entire different topic. Somewhere beneath all of this circular shit is the actual topic. You either say congrats or just move on.

Jul 26 09 11:43 am Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17958

Los Angeles, California, US

I want to mention, based on the user payout of 20% it is likely that TIME magazine only bought a multi-user license.

My guess is someone in the art department wanted to show some examples of choices for the cover, and then nobody went in and bought the additional licenses needed. I really hope istock does something about this and gets the artist the money he is due.

Jul 26 09 11:47 am Link

Model

Anomalia Collaborat

Posts: 704

Brooklyn, New York, US

Star wrote:
I want to mention, based on the user payout of 20% it is likely that TIME magazine only bought a multi-user license.

My guess is someone in the art department wanted to show some examples of choices for the cover, and then nobody went in and bought the additional licenses needed. I really hope istock does something about this and gets the artist the money he is due.

Me too.

Jul 26 09 11:48 am Link

Photographer

Legacys 7

Posts: 33857

San Francisco, California, US

Star wrote:
I want to mention, based on the user payout of 20% it is likely that TIME magazine only bought a multi-user license.

My guess is someone in the art department wanted to show some examples of choices for the cover, and then nobody went in and bought the additional licenses needed. I really hope istock does something about this and gets the artist the money he is due.

You are surprised by this? Look, I know people that have been in the Stock game for a few decades and I also have an instructor and associate who's husband own his own stock co. that pays very well. When the IStock co. question came up to her last year, her reply wasn't positive about them. I knew about this co. a few years ago, before they were monopolized out by the bigger co.; when I found out who purchased the co. this didn't surprised me at all.

While I don't agree with the company's way of doing things, it's very important to know what you're getting yourself into before you do. I rejected their services, but what the o.p. has done is on him. For all we know, he may be aware of their policies. And at this point he might not even care about what you're suggesting. And if this were the case, he'd be on top of this several pages back. So I say, let him be happy with that and let this be an eye opener for you and others that don't agree to this.

Jul 26 09 11:57 am Link

Model

theda

Posts: 21716

New York, New York, US

Star wrote:
I want to mention, based on the user payout of 20% it is likely that TIME magazine only bought a multi-user license.

My guess is someone in the art department wanted to show some examples of choices for the cover, and then nobody went in and bought the additional licenses needed. I really hope istock does something about this and gets the artist the money he is due.

I think you may be right. It really is entirely possible someone at TIME made an error.  Human beings do fuck up. This doesn't necessarily mean that TIME's photo department was deliberately looking for a loophole to screw someone.

Jul 26 09 11:59 am Link

Model

Sins of the Flesh

Posts: 128

Louisville, Kentucky, US

Just wanted to say- congratulations, OP.

As to the rest of it- TIME bought a picture that was what they wanted.  Had it been a $3000 picture, they would have paid $3000.  They found the picture they wanted at a much lower price, and that's what they paid.

Value = what the customer will pay for the product you offer.

If you are pricing yourself above what the customer will pay for that product, you will be disappointed.

OP:

You have an awesome tearsheet out of this, and I just want to say again- kudos.  Even if there is a snafu and the $30 is all you got, you can now use the TIME cover as a selling point in future endeavors.  Congratulations!

Jul 26 09 11:59 am Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15546

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

Star wrote:
I want to mention, based on the user payout of 20% it is likely that TIME magazine only bought a multi-user license.

My guess is someone in the art department wanted to show some examples of choices for the cover, and then nobody went in and bought the additional licenses needed. I really hope istock does something about this and gets the artist the money he is due.

Mag i.e Time usually have an account with pic librarys and a fee that is flexible pending on usage. But not that flexible $30.
Time probably have no idea as to the photographer.

Jul 26 09 12:00 pm Link

Model

theda

Posts: 21716

New York, New York, US

Chris Macan wrote:
This shot is the very definition of a commodity image,
it is about as distinctive as generic toilet paper.
Why exactly do people think it is worth thousands of dollars?

Usage. The usage fees for a national magazine cover image, regardless of how many thousands there, was already established in the low thousands. And that established rate was still chump change to the purchaser.  The OP received less than chump change.

Jul 26 09 12:06 pm Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17958

Los Angeles, California, US

theda wrote:

I think you may be right. It really is entirely possible someone at TIME made an error.  Human beings do fuck up. This doesn't necessarily mean that TIME's photo department was deliberately looking for a loophole to screw someone.

I dont think it was deliberate. I do think they need to pay the amount due for breaking the license granted.

Jul 26 09 12:09 pm Link

Photographer

James Jackson Fashion

Posts: 11111

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

Chris Macan wrote:
The bottom line is this.....
we have an image here that requires no special equipment to shoot,
requires no special expertise to shoot,
is a subject matter that can be found in almost any house in the U.S.
and could be set up and shot in under 15 minutes.

This shot is the very definition of a commodity image,
it is about as distinctive as generic toilet paper.
Why exactly do people think it is worth thousands of dollars?

Why haven't you paid attention... several people have gone over this...

It doesn't matter what the image is of... the concern is the sales based on the image.  THAT is the value of the image... its use.  An image is not and has never been priced based on the cost of production... and image is priced based on how much it is used to make money.

Jul 26 09 12:20 pm Link