Christopher Hartman wrote:

DO IT!! DO IT!! DO IT!!

yes do it.. the email is [email protected]

I just send to request for April 27 09 back issue for free, because i Don't to pay more than 31.50. LOL

Robert Randall wrote:

Judging from this picture... very cheap!

I've sold out for sushi more than once.

R Studios wrote:

yes do it.. the email is [email protected]

I just send to request for April 27 09 back issue for free, because i Don't to pay more than 31.50. LOL

You should ask for a box of them so you can sign them and give them to models.

They can then brag that they worked with a Time cover photographer!!

Christopher Hartman wrote:

You should ask for a box of them so you can sign them and give them to models.

They can then brag that they worked with a Time cover photographer!!

good idea. you the first to get my copy

Ma Fotographie wrote:
Good on ya Robert, you even got John Harrington discussing your practice, LMAO. 

Talk about being nickled and dimed

where was that?

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

buy print at http://robertlamphoto.zenfolio.com/p644729573

Congrats! you should be very proud!  Now that you've been on the cover a huge mag, maybe you should think about boosting the price of your photos a little.

applause.

Intensity Studios wrote:
You got f*cked, plain and simple... all of those microstock sites are a scam and this is the exact reason why they should be avoided.

a cover shot for a magazine of that stature and that amount of circulation should have netted you several thousands of dollars easily. but you wound up with thirty bucks.

yes, you can use it in your portfolio and if you can pull anything out this hopefully you can use this to get actual real work in which you charge a fair rate and not just $30.


Sorry for the harsh words, but it just makes me upset to see artists being taken advantage of left and right. Very talented people let themselves get scammed all in the name of "exposure".

Honestly, you can get exposure and get paid a fair wage at the same time. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Go back and read the thread. A LOT of us disagree with pretty much everything in your post.

In this SPECIFIC case, the OP would have had a choice between the $30 he got and zero without iStock.

Nobody is getting scammed. And I bet there are a fair number of people doing microstock who make more money than you do (at least two of them have posted in this thread...hint hint...)

Lumigraphics wrote:
Nobody is getting scammed. And I bet there are a fair number of people doing microstock who make more money than you do (at least two of them have posted in this thread...hint hint...)

Shhhhh.... He's "Intensity Studios".  It must be hard to post, being so "intense".

Lumigraphics wrote:

Go back and read the thread. A LOT of us disagree with pretty much everything in your post.

In this SPECIFIC case, the OP would have had a choice between the $30 he got and zero without iStock.

Nobody is getting scammed. And I bet there are a fair number of people doing microstock who make more money than you do (at least two of them have posted in this thread...hint hint...)

Nobody may have been scammed, but this kind of thing hurts the stock photo business and the photography business in general.

StevenJoseph wrote:
Congratulations.  The is a beautiful trophy accomplishment.  Here's looking at your 2nd one! 

Cheers!

StevenJoseph

nice portfolio. thanks

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

where was that?

This?
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … style.html

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

where was that?

Here in the blog...
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … style.html

Digital Planet Design wrote:

Shhhhh.... He's "Intensity Studios".  It must be hard to post, being so "intense".

Haha

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
Did either istock or time magazine notify the OP that his image was part of the cover artwork for Time mag or did he have to find out himself?

That is not a requirement for royalty free licensing.  See here:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpres … /rm-vs-rf/

Digital Czar wrote:

Nobody may have been scammed, but this kind of thing hurts the stock photo business and the photography business in general.

I respectfully disagree.

1. Microstock has brought in millions of new customers. Diversifying the customer base lowers prices but increases sales tremendously. Every industry has a profit-maximization point and I dare say that traditional pricing models hurt the industry more by leaving money on the table.

2. The business in general wouldn't be what's hurt anyway. The only ones hurt are a small cadre of established players. For the rest of us, this is a good thing because it gets us into the marketplace where before we were shut out.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
Did either istock or time magazine notify the OP that his image was part of the cover artwork for Time mag or did he have to find out himself?

Nobody tells you. But often somebody will see it and let you know

R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock

What you gonna do with that 30.00?

At least u made it truly big time.


Very good

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
Did either istock or time magazine notify the OP that his image was part of the cover artwork for Time mag or did he have to find out himself?

Lumigraphics wrote:
Nobody tells you. But often somebody will see it and let you know

That might work in Time magazine....but I don't see it working in a run of tshirts.

how are you supposedly to help police and report usage violations when there are so many images out there?

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
That might work in Time magazine....but I don't see it working in a run of tshirts.

how are you supposedly to help police and report usage violations when there are so many images out there?

Well, honestly

1. Its not worth my time to even worry about it.

2. I'd have the same problem if I licensed images myself (which I do, on occasion.) How do I know that a buyer follows my license terms? I don't.

3. iStock/Getty has a much bigger and more well-funded enforcement staff than me. I'd rather have them police it. After all, *iStock* knows who bought an image (although they aren't told usage.)

4. We all know, if someone wants to steal your IP they will. I'd rather have a cheap, legal way to get sales than nothing. Piracy is less likely from people who have already paid you.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
Did either istock or time magazine notify the OP that his image was part of the cover artwork for Time mag or did he have to find out himself?

That might work in Time magazine....but I don't see it working in a run of tshirts.

how are you supposedly to help police and report usage violations when there are so many images out there?

The point of micro stock is to sell so much you don't care,
And the job of your micro stock agency is to police you usage for you.

Ned Horn wrote:
Editorial Photography as a profession is over.

In the future there will only be wedding photographers who make a few extra bucks doing covers for national magazines.

You are kidding.... Right???
Why is it we have all those photographer reps stop be the agency????
oh wait.... I forgot.... it's for the free bagels....

MinisterC  wrote:
The OP will know. ; )

It may be credited very small somewhere inside TIME magazine.

Funny. The illustrator is credited by name. The photo credit is to istock. Even the other two images are credited by name.

OP: Thank you for your participation in the devaluing of our collective work. Don't spend that 30 bucks all in one place.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
That might work in Time magazine....but I don't see it working in a run of tshirts.

how are you supposedly to help police and report usage violations when there are so many images out there?

Lumigraphics wrote:
Well, honestly

1. Its not worth my time to even worry about it.

really?  you're selling so much this isn't even something that crossed your mind?

Lumigraphics wrote:
2. I'd have the same problem if I licensed images myself (which I do, on occasion.) How do I know that a buyer follows my license terms? I don't.

not exactly.  If you sell x image to me, madame y and madame g and you start seeing your image all over the place, you not only have a small universe of suspects, but you are intimately aware of what sort of license each person has....because, having negotiated with them, you are aware.



I'm just curious what kind of enforcement mechanisms are in place, other than everyone throwing a bunch of shots up on istock and hoping and trusting for the best.

Chris Macan wrote:
The point of micro stock is to sell so much you don't care,
And the job of your micro stock agency is to police you usage for you.

well yeah, that's the concept.   I'm asking how it's working out.

On an istock thread there is an estimation of how many on there are working fulltime supporting themselves financially (and not just supplemental income to a primary breadwinner) with it...unless i read the answers wrong, it looks to be less than a 100 more like a couple dozen.

That being the case, I don't think it's a matter of people selling so much that they shouldn't care.


This isn't a swipe at istock by any means.

Ray Marquez wrote:

Can you find the OP someone that will pay $10,000 for the image? /...

If Time had never used the image, that image would still be worth $30 regardless, so why not at least gain a marketing tool?

Edit: For the record, I do agree that $30 from Time is nothing. But, it is what it is. We gain nothing by souring the situation for the OP. If any anger should be directed at anyone, it should be Time, not the OP.

Are you kidding me???! If all the shmucks who submit cookie-cutter images to the penny stock agencies just so they can have the 'trophy' of being published some day didn't exist, we'd still be getting a decent pay for our work.

I boycott these outfits for this very reason.

My name is Frank wrote:

Are you kidding me???! If all the shmucks who submit cookie-cutter images to the penny stock agencies just so they can have the 'trophy' of being published some day didn't exist, we'd still be getting a decent pay for our work.

I boycott these outfits for this very reason.

well, okay, but back in the day, how much would a "client' pay for an image of some businessman shaking someone's hand or a photo of a dollar bill or a lump of sugar?

I'm not being argumentative, really just curious.

Lumigraphics wrote:

Go back and read the thread. A LOT of us disagree with pretty much everything in your post.

In this SPECIFIC case, the OP would have had a choice between the $30 he got and zero without iStock.

Nobody is getting scammed. And I bet there are a fair number of people doing microstock who make more money than you do (at least two of them have posted in this thread...hint hint...)

Thank god there are at least two more people making sense here.

To everyone else.

Fer fuck sake, it's a generic image - there is no way on Gods green earth it's worth anything more than $30. Sorry, it just isn't. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm made up for the OP, I wish I had a shot on the cover of time, so kudos to him. But the fact of the matter is, it's a generic, commodity image. This is not a critique, it's a fact.

Time could just as easily have used a staff photographer to make such a generic image and it would have taken five or six minutes, assuming they had a jar of coins, and with overhead maybe cost them $100, so they saved themselves a few bucks by buying stock. Very sensibly I might add.

To the point about SI laying off all those people. That's got absolutely nothing to do with stock. In case nobody has noticed we're in the worst economy we've had for the last 80 odd years. Everyone is laying off. TI just let go of 1000 highly skilled chip designers...shit happens. SI aren't going to go to stock for their images, stock photographers aren't going to get Superbowl passes.

My name is Frank wrote:
Are you kidding me???! If all the shmucks who submit cookie-cutter images to the penny stock agencies just so they can have the 'trophy' of being published some day didn't exist, we'd still be getting a decent pay for our work.

I boycott these outfits for this very reason.

Do you really think so.......

or do you think just maybe they would have one of their designers toss a coin jar on a table and shoot it with the office camera?

Could anyone tell the difference for a shot like this???
I mean it's not exactly a complicated photo to create.

Lumigraphics wrote:

I respectfully disagree.

1. Microstock has brought in millions of new customers. Diversifying the customer base lowers prices but increases sales tremendously. Every industry has a profit-maximization point and I dare say that traditional pricing models hurt the industry more by leaving money on the table.

2. The business in general wouldn't be what's hurt anyway. The only ones hurt are a small cadre of established players. For the rest of us, this is a good thing because it gets us into the marketplace where before we were shut out.

Penny stock houses have gone a long way to commoditize photography. You don't think that hurts the industry as awhole?

Do some research and learn what happens to an industry once it becomes a commodity in the economy. Paper clips my friend, paper clips.

Ma Fotographie wrote:
Good on ya Robert, you even got John Harrington discussing your practice, LMAO. 

Talk about being nickled and dimed

Forgive my ignorance, who is John Harrington, and who is the Robert he is discussing?

Robert Randall wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, who is John Harrington, and who is the Robert he is discussing?

Some uber fancy photography pro who is also a blogger. Robert he is referring to is you bob.

http://johnharrington.com/dc-photograph … bout-john/

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … style.html

Chris Macan wrote:

Do you really think so.......

or do you think just maybe they would have one of their designers toss a coin jar on a table and shoot it with the office camera?

Could anyone tell the difference for a shot like this???
I mean it's not exactly a complicated photo to create.

Create or or copy.  Most any of us could copy it but he had the idea and created something someone like Time wanted.

I bet every one of us that posted on this thread could posts 20 pictures a piece and not one of them would end up on Time.