Robert Randall wrote:

Sounds like chicken little's recipe for disaster... really, a 2X teleconverter?

It worked. Wide enough to show the flames approaching a house, the wall of flames, and a bunch of firefighters futile attempt to control the flames as it crested over the mountain. Would have prefered a longer lense and not used a tele, but that is all I had with me at the time. BTW, shot on a D2X with a 1.5 frame factor, so effective focal length was 1200mm.

But I do believe this is getting off topic.

Robert Randall wrote:

I have offered a solution, a number of times. Quit crying and either join in the fun or go hang yourself.

And what exactly does this mean... "is devaluating the value in general"

Good grief Bob don't you remember the good old days before the internet. Where photographers had 2-3 assistants a PA and paid for lunch.
There were no internet picture librarys and  photographers went somewhere exotic on holiday and shot a few rolls of film. This would make good money out of the picture librarys. Even enough to pay for another exotic holiday.

Nowadays with the advent of the net/digital you can get stock pictures FREE on the net.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Good grief Bob don't you remember the good old days before the internet. Where photographers had 2-3 assistants a PA and paid for lunch.
There were no internet picture librarys and  photographers went somewhere exotic on holiday and shot a few rolls of film. This would make good money out of the picture librarys. Even enough to pay for another exotic holiday.

Nowadays with the advent of the net/digital you can get stock pictures FREE on the net.

That sounds like just about every shoot I work on...


I haven't been on an actual vacation since I took my wife to Hawaii 15 years ago, and the last thing I wanted along for the ride was a camera.

Robert Randall wrote:
I'm very happy with my returns from stock, but then again, I never deluded myself like some of the people that have so far responded. I realize I'm in this by myself, and the collective owes me nothing. Were I a communist, as it appears so many of you must be, then I would probably be upset at the inequity, and I might just ring up my party boss. I might get a bullet to the head for my efforts, but what else would you expect from the bullies that run a nanny state. Power to the people!

As an objectivist i have problems, and I have been stating my problems all along.

1. the amount the artist was paid WAS NOT the amount he should have been paid. Not should have in a universe owes him way, but should have as in the magazine bought the wrong usage way. I have outlined this about 10 times in this thread, so if you need more explanation you can look for it.

TIME currently states its circulation is around 3 million. So accordingly they have broken their licensing agreement with istock and oversold by 2.5 million. Istock charges a fee of .01 for every publishing past 500,000.

So far noone has come forward explaining how istock is going to fix this.

2. Let's talk about communism.

Let's not talk about communism, lets talk about objectivism.

"No man is a means to an end. Man is an end to himself."

What does that mean? Well it means that by hiding who buys your photos istock is currently making it difficult to track down usage misconduct. So when a magazine like TIME makes at least 3 licensing errors, the person who owns the photo doesn't know.

This cover is from last APRIL. The photographer just saw it now. Istock must have known it was being used, and they must have known that the photographer was not getting the usage payment they agreed to give for this type of usage, but they have done nothing.

They have shut down the discussion in their forums, and so far have made no statements.

Everyone must take responsibility for their own lives. And that means honoring your contracts. Two contracts have been broken here,

a. the contract between the photographer and the micro stock company which has failed to take action against a broken licensing agreement

b. the contract between TIME and the microstock agency, TIME has failed to buy the license for the product they have used. How is that different then shoplifting? They were hoping nobody noticed they took what wasn't theirs.

3. Lets talk about objectivism again. The whole man an end to a means thing, that encompasses paying a fair labor rate to your contractors, employees and other people you do business with. It means don't take everything you can grab at an unfair rate of pay, rather pay your own way and other people will pay their own way. Take care of yourself, but not by taking advantage of others.


What many of us have found to be insulting is that the OP doesn't really care that TIME owes him about $5,000+ just in unpaid licensing, according to the contract TIME signed when acquiring the photo.

He doesn't care that by excluding his name that TIME again broke the licensing agreement, and that the framed artwork sales make a THIRD time that the magazine is doing an unlawful usage.

And that is where people like me, and other professional photographers have to step in and say even if he doesn't care we have to care. That by not taking action against TIME magazine we are not the people who will lose out in the end.

The next time the magazine oversteps its bounds, and istock decides to notice because this time the photographer does care, it will be too late. Having been informed of this behavior in the past, and done nothing to stop it, istock has set the precedent for how it will enforce its licensing contracts.

If they take action they can get money owed, and damages and copyright violation damages. But only if they step in, only if they say something.

And that my friend is not communism, it is objectivism. Taking care of yourself. Not using others to obtain your goals, with no thought to the consequences to the people you use.

It is a social construct, but so is everything.

Star wrote:

As an objectivist i have problems, and I have been stating my problems all along.

1. the amount the artist was paid WAS NOT the amount he should have been paid. Not should have in a universe owes him way, but should have as in the magazine bought the wrong usage way. I have outlined this about 10 times in this thread, so if you need more explanation you can look for it.

TIME currently states its circulation is around 3 million. So accordingly they have broken their licensing agreement with istock and oversold by 2.5 million. Istock charges a fee of .01 for every publishing past 500,000.

So far noone has come forward explaining how istock is going to fix this.

2. Let's talk about communism.

Let's not talk about communism, lets talk about objectivism.

"No man is a means to an end. Man is an end to himself."

What does that mean? Well it means that by hiding who buys your photos istock is currently making it difficult to track down usage misconduct. So when a magazine like TIME makes at least 3 licensing errors, the person who owns the photo doesn't know.

This cover is from last APRIL. The photographer just saw it now. Istock must have known it was being used, and they must have known that the photographer was not getting the usage payment they agreed to give for this type of usage, but they have done nothing.

They have shut down the discussion in their forums, and so far have made no statements.

Everyone must take responsibility for their own lives. And that means honoring your contracts. Two contracts have been broken here,

a. the contract between the photographer and the micro stock company which has failed to take action against a broken licensing agreement

b. the contract between TIME and the microstock agency, TIME has failed to buy the license for the product they have used. How is that different then shoplifting? They were hoping nobody noticed they took what wasn't theirs.

3. Lets talk about objectivism again. The whole man an end to a means thing, that encompasses paying a fair labor rate to your contractors, employees and other people you do business with. It means don't take everything you can grab at an unfair rate of pay, rather pay your own way and other people will pay their own way. Take care of yourself, but not by taking advantage of others.


What many of us have found to be insulting is that the OP doesn't really care that TIME owes him about $5,000+ just in unpaid licensing, according to the contract TIME signed when acquiring the photo.

He doesn't care that by excluding his name that TIME again broke the licensing agreement, and that the framed artwork sales make a THIRD time that the magazine is doing an unlawful usage.

And that is where people like me, and other professional photographers have to step in and say even if he doesn't care we have to care. That by not taking action against TIME magazine we are not the people who will lose out in the end.

The next time the magazine oversteps its bounds, and istock decides to notice because this time the photographer does care, it will be too late. Having been informed of this behavior in the past, and done nothing to stop it, istock has set the precedent for how it will enforce its licensing contracts.

If they take action they can get money owed, and damages and copyright violation damages. But only if they step in, only if they say something.

And that my friend is not communism, it is objectivism. Taking care of yourself. Not using others to obtain your goals, with no thought to the consequences to the people you use.

It is a social construct, but so is everything.

So you say, I say you're wrong. I say its just another example of why I hate soccer moms.

Star wrote:
As an objectivist i have problems, and I have been stating my problems all along.

1. the amount the artist was paid WAS NOT the amount he should have been paid. Not should have in a universe owes him way, but should have as in the magazine bought the wrong usage way. I have outlined this about 10 times in this thread, so if you need more explanation you can look for it.

TIME currently states its circulation is around 3 million. So accordingly they have broken their licensing agreement with istock and oversold by 2.5 million. Istock charges a fee of .01 for every publishing past 500,000.

So far noone has come forward explaining how istock is going to fix this.

2. Let's talk about communism.

Let's not talk about communism, lets talk about objectivism.

"No man is a means to an end. Man is an end to himself."

What does that mean? Well it means that by hiding who buys your photos istock is currently making it difficult to track down usage misconduct. So when a magazine like TIME makes at least 3 licensing errors, the person who owns the photo doesn't know.

This cover is from last APRIL. The photographer just saw it now. Istock must have known it was being used, and they must have known that the photographer was not getting the usage payment they agreed to give for this type of usage, but they have done nothing.

They have shut down the discussion in their forums, and so far have made no statements.

Everyone must take responsibility for their own lives. And that means honoring your contracts. Two contracts have been broken here,

a. the contract between the photographer and the micro stock company which has failed to take action against a broken licensing agreement

b. the contract between TIME and the microstock agency, TIME has failed to buy the license for the product they have used. How is that different then shoplifting? They were hoping nobody noticed they took what wasn't theirs.

3. Lets talk about objectivism again. The whole man an end to a means thing, that encompasses paying a fair labor rate to your contractors, employees and other people you do business with. It means don't take everything you can grab at an unfair rate of pay, rather pay your own way and other people will pay their own way. Take care of yourself, but not by taking advantage of others.


What many of us have found to be insulting is that the OP doesn't really care that TIME owes him about $5,000+ just in unpaid licensing, according to the contract TIME signed when acquiring the photo.

He doesn't care that by excluding his name that TIME again broke the licensing agreement, and that the framed artwork sales make a THIRD time that the magazine is doing an unlawful usage.

And that is where people like me, and other professional photographers have to step in and say even if he doesn't care we have to care. That by not taking action against TIME magazine we are not the people who will lose out in the end.

The next time the magazine oversteps its bounds, and istock decides to notice because this time the photographer does care, it will be too late. Having been informed of this behavior in the past, and done nothing to stop it, istock has set the precedent for how it will enforce its licensing contracts.

If they take action they can get money owed, and damages and copyright violation damages. But only if they step in, only if they say something.

And that my friend is not communism, it is objectivism. Taking care of yourself. Not using others to obtain your goals, with no thought to the consequences to the people you use.

It is a social construct, but so is everything.

Robert Randall wrote:
So you say, I say you're wrong. I say its just another example of why I hate soccer moms.

Ayn Rand was a soccer mom?

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

Star wrote:
As an objectivist i have problems, and I have been stating my problems all along.

1. the amount the artist was paid WAS NOT the amount he should have been paid. Not should have in a universe owes him way, but should have as in the magazine bought the wrong usage way. I have outlined this about 10 times in this thread, so if you need more explanation you can look for it.

TIME currently states its circulation is around 3 million. So accordingly they have broken their licensing agreement with istock and oversold by 2.5 million. Istock charges a fee of .01 for every publishing past 500,000.

So far noone has come forward explaining how istock is going to fix this.

2. Let's talk about communism.

Let's not talk about communism, lets talk about objectivism.

"No man is a means to an end. Man is an end to himself."

What does that mean? Well it means that by hiding who buys your photos istock is currently making it difficult to track down usage misconduct. So when a magazine like TIME makes at least 3 licensing errors, the person who owns the photo doesn't know.

This cover is from last APRIL. The photographer just saw it now. Istock must have known it was being used, and they must have known that the photographer was not getting the usage payment they agreed to give for this type of usage, but they have done nothing.

They have shut down the discussion in their forums, and so far have made no statements.

Everyone must take responsibility for their own lives. And that means honoring your contracts. Two contracts have been broken here,

a. the contract between the photographer and the micro stock company which has failed to take action against a broken licensing agreement

b. the contract between TIME and the microstock agency, TIME has failed to buy the license for the product they have used. How is that different then shoplifting? They were hoping nobody noticed they took what wasn't theirs.

3. Lets talk about objectivism again. The whole man an end to a means thing, that encompasses paying a fair labor rate to your contractors, employees and other people you do business with. It means don't take everything you can grab at an unfair rate of pay, rather pay your own way and other people will pay their own way. Take care of yourself, but not by taking advantage of others.


What many of us have found to be insulting is that the OP doesn't really care that TIME owes him about $5,000+ just in unpaid licensing, according to the contract TIME signed when acquiring the photo.

He doesn't care that by excluding his name that TIME again broke the licensing agreement, and that the framed artwork sales make a THIRD time that the magazine is doing an unlawful usage.

And that is where people like me, and other professional photographers have to step in and say even if he doesn't care we have to care. That by not taking action against TIME magazine we are not the people who will lose out in the end.

The next time the magazine oversteps its bounds, and istock decides to notice because this time the photographer does care, it will be too late. Having been informed of this behavior in the past, and done nothing to stop it, istock has set the precedent for how it will enforce its licensing contracts.

If they take action they can get money owed, and damages and copyright violation damages. But only if they step in, only if they say something.

And that my friend is not communism, it is objectivism. Taking care of yourself. Not using others to obtain your goals, with no thought to the consequences to the people you use.

It is a social construct, but so is everything.

Ayn Rand was a soccer mom?

In a metaphorical sense, she probably started it all... or not.

Robert Randall wrote:
So you say, I say you're wrong. I say its just another example of why I hate soccer moms.

http://imaginarium-the.blogspot.com/

which part of my reasoning is wrong? They did buy the correct usage? How is that possible?

Or am i wrong that breaking a licensing contract should be followed up on?

or do you believe that people are a means to an end, and that you should use people to get what you want?

I stated that TIME did not pay for what it is using, please explain with facts how that is wrong?

I stated many things, are they all wrong or just some of them? Cause some of what i said backed you up, so that makes you wrong too.

You understand i am not arguing against micro stock, i am arguing against fraud.

Web Inceptions wrote:
To the complaining photographer:

Are you ONLY buying your photo gear from "brick and mortar" stores, and BOYCOTTING all of the online stores?

Are you boycotting online travel sites, insisting on going to an old fashioned TRAVEL AGENT and paying their fees while an old lady tries to figure out airline schedules by phone?

If not, it's hypocritical to complain about the efficiencies of the internet.

I'm busy this morning, and I almost missed this little gem... very good point. I'm quite certain that many of the complainers have gone into B&M stores to handle the equipment that they then go online to buy at a substantial discount. Probably bypassing their state tax requirements as well.

Nothing like a well intended fraud to spice up the posting.

Star wrote:

http://imaginarium-the.blogspot.com/

which part of my reasoning is wrong? They did buy the correct usage? How is that possible?

Or am i wrong that breaking a licensing contract should be followed up on?

or do you believe that people are a means to an end, and that you should use people to get what you want?

I stated that TIME did not pay for what it is using, please explain with facts how that is wrong?

I stated many things, are they all wrong or just some of them? Cause some of what i said backed you up, so that makes you wrong too.

You don't know what Time paid, yet you have based an entire book on your assumption of what they paid. If your logic is suspect at the outset, how can anything you've said be credible.

Robert Randall wrote:
You don't know what Time paid, yet you have based an entire book on your assumption of what they paid. If your logic is suspect at the outset, how can anything you've said be credible.

The photographer got paid $31 and change? correct? that it is correct. that has been stated by him more then once.

The licensing for what TIME magazine used would be 462 "credits". The smallest amount per credit that this could pay out to the photographer still totals to a $91.20. (according to istock's credit calculator)

that same onsite calculator showed that $31 and change, is the payout by a company having multiple credits per day on a subscription service for a multi-user license. (subscription services is the cheapest per credit available)

I do my homework Mr. Randall, maybe it is time you showed how TIME could have gotten the usage they have at a $31 payout to the artist.

Maybe you should show how they could buy a license that doesn't exist to resell the posters?

Maybe you could show the license that doesn't require TIME to credit the photographer?

Maybe you could show some proof to what you are saying, the same way I backed up my statements.

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

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

Star wrote:
Maybe you could show some proof to what you are saying, the same way I backed up my statements.

you didn't show proof, you are making an assumption the time-warner umbrella of media outlets work under a standard contract similar to those with far less purchasing power when securing stock photography.  i'll make the assumption they are not.

Leo Howard wrote:
just so I know which side of the fence to sit on, did they ( Time ) break the rules or not?

No one completely know for sure. We do not know exactly the agreement between iStock and Time or how much Time paid. We only know how much the photographer's last check was for.

When the issue was brought up in iStock forum the topic was fairly quickly locked.

It does appear that Time violated the rules about crediting the photographer.

"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"

The photo was only credited to iStock and not the photographer.

slave to the lens wrote:
This is an argument I have never understood. Perhaps the percieved value of said work has always been infalated if it can be so easily toppled.



Let's imagine a world of prudish women who refuse to agree to have sex with their husbands. The husbands in turn seek out professionals, women who charge a premium for said service. Now, imagine a global sexual awakening. Suddenly, wives everywhere enjoy sex and require little but a kind word, a bunch of flowers or the occasional bauble to entice them.


Well, sadly the professional sex provider whose services were in such high demand before now attracts a much smaller and often more discerning clientele. She can no longer rely on a glut of admirers, but she can focus the premium service she provides and do it better than the amatuers. Likely, she will charge more.

Well good analogy. But, here's another part of it. Say to these who are charging premium services and charging more... then comes Spring Break and fresh college faces come to town and charge 1/10 of what the pros are... and offer the same level of "talent". The only difference here for us ... is that Spring Break is lasting ALL YEAR ROUND. haha.

Star wrote:

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

last check again $31.50 US dollars

R Studios wrote:

last check again $31.50 US dollars

Please buy some prints at

http://robertlamphoto.zenfolio.com/p644729573

MinisterC  wrote:
It's a bit unfortunate they don't pay a bit more, but such is the life of stock photography.

No, such is the life of micro-stock photography.  There's a big difference between giving images away for peanuts and licensing them for thousands of dollars at a time.  Some do the former, some do the latter.

Star wrote:
The photographer got paid $31 and change? correct? that it is correct. that has been stated by him more then once.

The licensing for what TIME magazine used would be 462 "credits". The smallest amount per credit that this could pay out to the photographer still totals to a $91.20. (according to istock's credit calculator)

that same onsite calculator showed that $31 and change, is the payout by a company having multiple credits per day on a subscription service for a multi-user license. (subscription services is the cheapest per credit available)

I do my homework Mr. Randall, maybe it is time you showed how TIME could have gotten the usage they have at a $31 payout to the artist.

Maybe you should show how they could buy a license that doesn't exist to resell the posters?

Maybe you could show the license that doesn't require TIME to credit the photographer?

Sigh.  The large size at 12 credits, plus the 125 credit EL for the unlimited usage would total 137 credits.  Credits run from $1.50 to $.95, costing this one from $205 to 130.  20% royalty then goes from $40 to $26.  It's not hard to figure out.

Yes, they probably didn't get the resale EL.  Yes, they didn't credit the contributor.  They will likely have to pay the resale EL, and credit contributors in the future.

You can stop ranting.

291 wrote:

you didn't show proof, you are making an assumption the time-warner umbrella of media outlets work under a standard contract similar to those with far less purchasing power when securing stock photography.  i'll make the assumption they are not.

but istock makes a promise to their contributors. For the usage bought istock tells the people submitting photos they will be paid a certain amount. the person was not paid that usage. Itock could give it to TIME for free, they still have to pay the photographer whose work is being used.

They also cannot give out licenses to anything not agreed to

http://www.istockphoto.com/photographer-royalties.php

Subscriptions

We pay your canister royalty based on how much of the subscriber's daily limit was used to download your file. And we always guarantee a minimum of 19 cents USD per credit used for each Subscription download — which is the same guarantee offered with the Pay-as-you-go plan.

Star wrote:

The photographer got paid $31 and change? correct? that it is correct. that has been stated by him more then once.

The licensing for what TIME magazine used would be 462 "credits". The smallest amount per credit that this could pay out to the photographer still totals to a $91.20. (according to istock's credit calculator)

that same onsite calculator showed that $31 and change, is the payout by a company having multiple credits per day on a subscription service for a multi-user license. (subscription services is the cheapest per credit available)

I do my homework Mr. Randall, maybe it is time you showed how TIME could have gotten the usage they have at a $31 payout to the artist.

Maybe you should show how they could buy a license that doesn't exist to resell the posters?

Maybe you could show the license that doesn't require TIME to credit the photographer?

Maybe you could show some proof to what you are saying, the same way I backed up my statements.

I'll grant the photographer was paid $30.00 according to statements the OP made. I won't grant anything else because its nothing more than guess work. You can run iStock schemes all you want, but until you can show me the paperwork between iStock and Time, which you can't, everything you based your argument on is assumption. I know you would like to think your efforts would hold up under close scrutiny, but they don't.

You haven't backed up anything, you're simply showing a lack of real world experience. As to the emboldened type, correct me if I'm wrong, but Time didn't make that payment, iStock did.

I've dealt with enough rags to know that they don't go around cheating people. For the most part they are honorable in their pursuits, and I imagine Time is no exception. If there is any party to suspect in all of this, you need to look for the party that stands to profit the most from hiding fee structure. I doubt that its Time.

Leo Howard wrote:
just so I know which side of the fence to sit on, did they ( Time ) break the rules or not?

I can't say for sure because I have absolutely none of the facts, same as the rest of you, but I highly doubt they would risk their reputation over a few measly dollars. But then again, I'm not in my early twenties, and I don't see conspiracy under every rock.

Digital Planet Design wrote:

Sigh.  The large size at 12 credits, plus the 125 credit EL for the unlimited usage would total 137 credits.  Credits run from $1.50 to $.95, costing this one from $205 to 130.  20% royalty then goes from $40 to $26.  It's not hard to figure out.

Yes, they probably didn't get the resale EL.  Yes, they didn't credit the contributor.  They will likely have to pay the resale EL, and credit contributors in the future.

You can stop ranting.

actually by violating the licensing agreement they could be help liable for up to $150,000 per violation AND  in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony.

saying that violating a contract should be a serious offense isn't whining or ranting. I am being cool and calm. So far nobody has shown number that contradict me.

Copyright and licensing violations are serious business. They should be treated as such, especially when concerning one of the largest magazines in the world.

Here is the calculator guys: http://www.istockphoto.com/photographer-royalties.php

you make the numbers work

and to the OP was the $31.50 for the entire month, or just that one download?

Star wrote:
you make the numbers work

and to the OP was the $31.50 for the entire month, or just that one download?

I already did.  Try reading my post above.

Robert Randall wrote:

I can't say for sure because I have absolutely none of the facts, same as the rest of you, but I highly doubt they would risk their reputation over a few measly dollars. But then again, I'm not in my early twenties, and I don't see conspiracy under every rock.

If you had read the entire thread I have stated i think TIME made a licensing mistake. I also think that that mistake should be costly so they don't make that type of mistake again. If they are not made to pay fines and such, then the whole point of licensing your photos goes out the window.

They made a mistake. I am very sorry for them. Because now they have to pay for that mistake.

Star wrote:
If you had read the entire thread I have stated i think TIME made a licensing mistake. I also think that that mistake should be costly so they don't make that type of mistake again. If they are not made to pay fines and such, then the whole point of licensing your photos goes out the window.

They made a mistake. I am very sorry for them. Because now they have to pay for that mistake.

You have never shows proof of what TIME paid Istock for the image.
You have only been shown what Istock paid the photographer.

Star wrote:
If you had read the entire thread I have stated i think TIME made a licensing mistake.

...

They made a mistake. I am very sorry for them. Because now they have to pay for that mistake.

So, which is it?  You "think" they made a mistake, or they "did" make a mistake?

Star wrote:

If you had read the entire thread I have stated i think TIME made a licensing mistake. I also think that that mistake should be costly so they don't make that type of mistake again. If they are not made to pay fines and such, then the whole point of licensing your photos goes out the window.

They made a mistake. I am very sorry for them. Because now they have to pay for that mistake.

What makes you think that iStock didn't collect the proper amount from Time, Inc.?

Digital Planet Design wrote:
Sigh.  The large size at 12 credits, plus the 125 credit EL for the unlimited usage would total 137 credits.  Credits run from $1.50 to $.95, costing this one from $205 to 130.  20% royalty then goes from $40 to $26.  It's not hard to figure out.

Yes, they probably didn't get the resale EL.  Yes, they didn't credit the contributor.  They will likely have to pay the resale EL, and credit contributors in the future.

You can stop ranting.

you are not very good at business.

large 12 credits
multi-seat 75 credits (and yes they would have it on more then one computer at a time)
unlimited reproduction 125
resale 125

and look at that I can order TIME on my Kindle well that means they need
electronic items for resale at 125

You know what, I am not arguing opinion here, i am arguing business and licenses. They are numbers. They aren't something you interpret. I may not be good at some things, but I am good at numbers. I am good at figuring out licenses and contract.

You wanna argue the numbers i have given you all the links, all the tools, all the contracts and licenses. Make them work for your arguments and I will apologize.

Digital Planet Design wrote:

So, which is it?  You "think" they made a mistake, or they "did" make a mistake?

I think they made a mistake and did not deliberately try and defraud istock nor the photographer who's work was used.

MMDesign wrote:

What makes you think that iStock didn't collect the proper amount from Time, Inc.?

read the blog, read the thread