Photographer
JWB2
Posts: 5965
Evansville, Indiana, US
Robert Randall wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, who is John Harrington, and who is the Robert he is discussing? Not hard to tell. He is the whiner. John Harrington is the whiner.
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25351
Santa Barbara, California, US
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
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. They could have done that anyway, and used it any way they chose. You are right in that it is not a complex photo, and any decent photographer can create one similar.
But you have to ask yourself - why that particular image? It's been said many times in this thread that there are a glut of coin jar images on the market and this one is nothing special.
Ah, but it is special, for it was the one that was chosen out of the miriad others available and, over and above recreating it in-house.
Why? Because for some intangible reason, it, like all the work we do, is unique. Photographs are not commodities, they are rarities all. As such, each photo deserves a fair value and it's creator deserves fair compensation for the use of that rare piece of work.
Photographer
David Gaar
Posts: 843
Burton, Texas, US
Robert Randall wrote:
I didn't give it much more than a cursory glance, but the only Robert I could fine is some fellow named Robert lam. Robert Lam, the OP of this thread, is the photographer whose IStock jar of coins image is at the center of this discussion.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
My name is Frank wrote:
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. Usually, I don't think I'm anything special, but when confronted by statements like yours, I find I must be something extra special indeed.
I don't delude myself into believing I'm as good a photographer as Erwin Olaf, but I try to be. I look everywhere for opportunities. I create opportunities whenever possible. I work tirelessly at my craft. I don't complain when someone else wins a project that I wanted, I just try harder.
If your photography career is imperiled by the stock image the OP sold to Time, or anything like it, you must have all the drive and ability of a sponge. I have absolutely no respect for people like you. The incessant whining about the microstock industry, and how unfair and detrimental it is to the welfare of the industry is pure nanny state spineless whimpering. The day a stock picture makes me sweat, is the day I have lost my edge, and that will never happen. Personally speaking, if I were you, I would be ashamed right now.
Photographer
Micyl Sweeney
Posts: 7442
Madison, Alabama, US
Thornton Harris wrote:
Maybe one of the professional photographers that are so upset about this could tell you who Arthur Hochstein is. Hint: He works at Time Magazine and if you want to sell them a photo for the cover, maybe you ought to know him. I know who he is, that was not my question, I was wondering why he got the credit however someone cleared that up for me.
Photographer
Sockpuppet Studios
Posts: 7862
San Francisco, California, US
Patchouli Nyx wrote:
well can you paste it?
there are a billion posts on the thread and all I see is SLE everywhere!
lol It might be Robert Lam...
I think we have two Roberts confused...
I think I do...
Photographer
Sockpuppet Studios
Posts: 7862
San Francisco, California, US
Robert Randall wrote:
Usually, I don't think I'm anything special, but when confronted by statements like yours, I find I must be something extra special indeed.
I don't delude myself into believing I'm as good a photographer as Erwin Olaf, but I try to be. I look everywhere for opportunities. I create opportunities whenever possible. I work tirelessly at my craft. I don't complain when someone else wins a project that I wanted, I just try harder.
If your photography career is imperiled by the stock image the OP sold to Time, or anything like it, you must have all the drive and ability of a sponge. I have absolutely no respect for people like you. The incessant whining about the microstock industry, and how unfair and detrimental it is to the welfare of the industry is pure nanny state spineless whimpering. The day a stock picture makes me sweat, is the day I have lost my edge, and that will never happen. Personally speaking, if I were you, I would be ashamed right now. i am not afraid
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
My name is Frank wrote:
Photographs are not commodities, they are rarities all. As such, each photo deserves a fair value and it's creator deserves fair compensation for the use of that rare piece of work. Have you ever thought to appeal your concerns to the ministry of deserves, or perhaps you could go a bit higher, say perhaps the bureau of gimme gimme.
Did you play organized soccer as a youth?
Photographer
Scattered Light
Posts: 6
Albuquerque, New Mexico, US
Allow me to state (or restate) the obvious here. Mr. Lam chose to tell the Mayhem Community that one of his stock photos was used for a Time cover (back in April, apparently) and he received the princely sum of $31.50 for the privilege. Mr. Lam wanted attention and he certainly got it. Who should feel sorry for him as to his treatment here? Anybody who reads these threads knows you're going to get hosed by SOMEONE, whether you deserve it or not.
But then again, being a business man, Mr Lam knows that "advertising" makes all the difference. And it doesn't hurt to be lucky. Maybe it wasn't his intention for posting, but four months later his ordinary, uninspired, but decently taken photo which was picked out the hat by a graphic artist who changed it into an image that MEANS something is now finally amounting to something, besides the $31.50. He's finally getting the recognition he feels he deserves, outside of his family and friends. His peers on Mayhem know his name now, from hot shots down to a nobody like me. They're writing blogs about him. He's a cause celebre. Who knows where it goes from here. But one thing is for sure, Mr. Lam isn't so dumb.
However, this story is obviously bigger than Mr. Lam. I only hope that the end result is something that improves the lives of photographers who have to worry about making a living. It seems like everything about our society is a "race to the bottom" these days. That's the depressing part.
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Robert Randall wrote:
Have you ever thought to appeal your concerns to the ministry of deserves, or perhaps you could go a bit higher, say perhaps the bureau of gimme gimme.
Did you play organized soccer as a youth? I did until I was commoditized. We are all snowflakes, Bob. So are our images 
But seriously, I'm gonna fight for my share of the bank.
Photographer
Scott Doctor
Posts: 388
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Did you play organized soccer as a youth? Like when the army tried to let any soldier wear a Green Beret even though they were not a Green Beret, just so they would not feel less important. The Green Beret's did not take to kindly to that given what each member had to do to earn the right to wear the Green Beret.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
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. Patchouli Nyx wrote:
really? you're selling so much this isn't even something that crossed your mind? Seriously, not worth my time to track down who is using what where. I've deliberately chosen that sort of licensing model.
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. Patchouli Nyx wrote:
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. I'd honestly rather have iStock handle the sales and terms. I want to be a photographer, not a salesman.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
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. Your "we" is a small group of commercial shooters selling to a small group of wealthy media users. Everyone else was left out in the cold, not able to sell stock, and not able to afford it.
You are just mad that the traditional high barriers to entry have been chopped down. Commoditization always sucks for the incumbent unless they can adapt their capital and operations to the new order.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
My name is Frank wrote:
I did until I was commoditized. We are all snowflakes, Bob. So are our images
But seriously, I'm gonna fight for my share of the bank. Fighting is admirable, unless its for lost causes. Fight to become better, fight for better clients, fight for more market share, fight to market better, fight all you can. But don't complain about such a peripheral segment of the marketplace as if its the gauntlet you just can't overcome.
Most of the images downloaded from iStock are used to comp ads, fill newsletters with cheap fluff, screen ads for the local dentist at the local movie house, stuff like that. They provide a resource for projects that wouldn't see the light of day because of budget constraints. If it weren't for iStock, the dentist's nephew would be shooting the ad with his point and shoot. You can't tell me you use that type of work as a business model... please, you just can't tell me that.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
My name is Frank wrote:
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. At this point, it doesn't matter.
Photography is now a commodity and is not going back to the old way, ever. Spend your energy taking advantage of it, rather than crying and complaining.
Photographer
THRobinson
Posts: 869
London, Ontario, Canada
Holy crap! I didn't check this thread for 2 days and now up to 19 pages. I can't even start to catch up now. 
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Your "we" is a small group of commercial shooters selling to a small group of wealthy media users. Everyone else was left out in the cold, not able to sell stock, and not able to afford it.
You are just mad that the traditional high barriers to entry have been chopped down. Commoditization always sucks for the incumbent unless they can adapt their capital and operations to the new order. Commoditizing hurts all the sellers. Why should I let someone promote themselves and make long term gains at my expense and a pitance? That just seems like a poor way to live and do business. I like to be kissed first, ya know, before I have to bend over.
Take this Time issue we're discussing, for example. How many dollars in copy and ad sales can be attributed to the cover image? Why should I eat my portion of that? Nobody else gives it away that cheap, why are we, the photographers, always the ones expected to do so? People don't walk past a newstand and think 'my what wonderful typesetting in the headline, I think I'll pick this pub up.' The image stops them and compells them to delve deeper. I'm gonna fight for my chunk of that pie, and it'll be a damn godd chunk, too!
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Robert Randall wrote:
Fighting is admirable, unless its for lost causes. Fight to become better, fight for better clients, fight for more market share, fight to market better, fight all you can. But don't complain about such a peripheral segment of the marketplace as if its the gauntlet you just can't overcome.
Most of the images downloaded from iStock are used to comp ads, fill newsletters with cheap fluff, screen ads for the local dentist at the local movie house, stuff like that. They provide a resource for projects that wouldn't see the light of day because of budget constraints. If it weren't for iStock, the dentist's nephew would be shooting the ad with his point and shoot. You can't tell me you use that type of work as a business model... please, you just can't tell me that. I don't disagree with you there, but when it spills over like this, and we don't bitch and moan about it, revenue streams can really start to dry up. A good example is web specific imagery, great market, but the cost for usage could be higher than it is due to the reach of the web and it's impact on the consumer.
I don't go for intitlement, but I don't want our industry to get short-sighted about valuations, either.
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
My name is Frank wrote:
Commoditizing hurts all the sellers. Bullshit. Technology is a prime example.
How many people make a living in the computer business now as opposed to in 1965? What about the telecomm industry now as opposed to 1915?
Commoditization broadens the customer base. IF that is managed properly, the people already in the industry can make a LOT more money.
I submit that you need to change your business model. You are wrong and nothing you say will change the modern market reality.
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
At this point, it doesn't matter.
Photography is now a commodity and is not going back to the old way, ever. Spend your energy taking advantage of it, rather than crying and complaining. But as photographers we can do something about it. I want to encourage others to really consider the value of their work. It's a mistake to think an image is only worth what someone will pay for it. That's the buyer's way of haggling and it's wrong. We have to remember that an image is worth the return expected by the purchaser.
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
My name is Frank wrote:
I don't disagree with you there, but when it spills over like this, and we don't bitch and moan about it, revenue streams can really start to dry up. A good example is web specific imagery, great market, but the cost for usage could be higher than it is due to the reach of the web and it's impact on the consumer.
I don't go for intitlement, but I don't want our industry to get short-sighted about valuations, either. I'm not sure if this is what you mean when you discuss the web, but I shot the images that cycle up on this web site...
http://www.wmbarr.com/
I got paid every bit as much to shoot that project as any print ad project I've ever done. We received consumer grade usage rates plus typical consumer ad fees. What I'm saying is the job was as profitable as any other mode of project, and I shoot a lot of projects just like it. The only way i could make any more money at it, is if a larger agency with a bigger budget client wanted me to shoot for them. That where the I try harder part comes into play. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I simply don't see the validity of the argument.
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US
My name is Frank wrote:
It's a mistake to think an image is only worth what someone will pay for it. That's the buyer's way of haggling and it's wrong. We have to remember that an image is worth the return expected by the purchaser. Enjoy your hard drive full of images, and your empty email box...
Photographer
Stacy Leigh
Posts: 3064
New York, New York, US
paul cameron wrote:
companies are the winners you and the rest of us are the losers cause were to busy trying to undercut to get the job. So very true.
and sad too...
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
My name is Frank wrote:
But as photographers we can do something about it. I want to encourage others to really consider the value of their work. It's a mistake to think an image is only worth what someone will pay for it. That's the buyer's way of haggling and it's wrong. We have to remember that an image is worth the return expected by the purchaser. :sigh:
No, we can't.
Economics 101- an individual seller has ZERO influence on a commodity market. Your options are to accept the market price or find another industry.
The way out of this, of course, is to ignore the commodity market and sell a specialty product/service. That's why stock has zero effect on wedding photography. That is not a commodity market and will never be.
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Bullshit. Technology is a prime example.
How many people make a living in the computer business now as opposed to in 1965? What about the telecomm industry now as opposed to 1915?
Commoditization broadens the customer base. IF that is managed properly, the people already in the industry can make a LOT more money.
I submit that you need to change your business model. You are wrong and nothing you say will change the modern market reality. Technologie is a broad base. We have had technologie since fire was started by a human, since sticks were used to hunt with.
Comparing hard goods to intellectual property is like comparing apples to orange juice(although I will admit I did this earlier with my paper clip comment - oops).
As hard goods become ubiquitous, they naturally become cheaper to manufacture and tend toward commoditization. The consumer base is broader, but profit margins are flatter. To combat this industries create 'new and improved' versions. IP always has high overhead. Each work is always 'new and improved' by definition, as we learn and grow. It takes just as much to create your first image as it does to create your 1,000,001 image, maybe more.
And you're right. The business models do need to evolve. Drastically.
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Robert Randall wrote:
I'm not sure if this is what you mean when you discuss the web, but I shot the images that cycle up on this web site...
http://www.wmbarr.com/
I got paid every bit as much to shoot that project as any print ad project I've ever done. We received consumer grade usage rates plus typical consumer ad fees. What I'm saying is the job was as profitable as any other mode of project, and I shoot a lot of projects just like it. The only way i could make any more money at it, is if a larger agency with a bigger budget client wanted me to shoot for them. That where the I try harder part comes into play. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I simply don't see the validity of the argument. Do you get residuals from click-throughs?
Photographer
netmodel
Posts: 6786
Austin, Texas, US
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
My name is Frank wrote:
Do you get residuals from click-throughs? That's akin to asking if you get residuals from repeat views of an ad in a dentist's office. Basically, you've got to be kidding me.
Photographer
T A R I Q
Posts: 1302
Baltimore, Maryland, US
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Robert Randall wrote:
That's akin to asking if you get residuals from repeat views of an ad in a dentist's office. Basically, you've got to be kidding me. No no. The web is a totally different game from print. It's interactive, it's live, it's now. Print ads simply don't have the same immediacy(spelling?). Pay per click is an established revenue generator. Click though rates are vital in calculating ad buys.
I think it's another place where we are short-changing ourselves.
Photographer
DarkSlide
Posts: 2353
Alexandria, Virginia, US
No one here knows what TIME paid to use the image and John Harrington does not know. I was a photo editor for short time with a Time Warner company. Photo editors did not process the license agreements for the photos they selected. That is done by the photo library or photo accounting team at the end of the month, or quarter, depending upon the vendor.
When dealing with a photo agency that has a yearly contract there is no need to do the paperwork on each image as they are selected. It's a waste of manpower and can delay the production of the piece being published.
There are times when one-on-one price negotiations are done -- but not with Getty, Cobis or even iStock.
For everyone like Star who thinks they know what is going on between iStock and TIME -- you don't.
Photographer
JWB2
Posts: 5965
Evansville, Indiana, US
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
R Studios wrote:
good idea. you the first to get my copy I'll happily accept!!  I'll brag that I know, sort of, a Time cover photographer!!
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
This whole thing makes me laugh. Just like the "TFCD is ruining the industry!" types, everyone here who is whining, you are funny.
I'm happy that I'm able to get into the market instead of still being on the outside. If you go under because of it, with the advantages of being an established player with clients and capital that I can't match, then you deserve your fate.
Photographer
Grainpusher
Posts: 178
Dallas, Texas, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
Photography is now a commodity and is not going back to the old way, ever. Spend your energy taking advantage of it, rather than crying and complaining. Wrong, some photographer's work is a commodity, other's aren't and never will be. Since we are talking about Time here, let's use them as the example. This year they have made several illustrations made from stock photography. Time has been doing illustrations for a long time now have had have had full time illustrators since way before microstock was in the picture. They also have commissioned covers this year that they have paid the photographer's cover fee, just as they always have. This particular photo, yes, is a commodity. Time not only didn't feel this photo wasn't worth crediting, they feel this cover is the creation of their art director, not Mr. Lam. Now, Time has hired quite a few photographers this year, that they credit, pay full price for, and consider Time contributors. These photographer's work isn't a commodity. Time felt their work was unique enough to hire and pay the price for. They will always need current, unique work.
Assignment photography isn't going anywhere. I'm having more and more clients tell me they were going to buy stock but felt their project was too special and wanted to put the money and effort into having a unique product. It's just like the introduction to Walmart wasn't the death to Oscar de la Renta, they aren't even the death of BCBG or Lucky. You will always have different price points and quality in ANY market, it's just personal preference of where you want to your business to be. Also, I don't know many art directors that want to spend all their time retouching microstock to paste in holes...many love being on the set and sharing in a creative process.
Ironically, I do think that while microstock allows greater access to the industry for those starting out and those that dabble, I think it could also shut them out of growing past that point. What I could see it doing is eroding into the "middle class" of photography which is where most starting out cut their teeth, thus making it harder to break in to get the "real jobs". I could see client's spending money on trusted experienced photographers and not taking as many chances on those without a roster. And don't be too fooled, being "coin jar from istock.com" doesn't go that far. This is my opinion though, so I guess we'll wait and see on this point. I hope I'm wrong as I like to see new photographers succeed.
As for ALL photography being a commodity, well, I just think that's flat out wrong. Clients will always need unique and current work.
Photographer
Quay Lude
Posts: 6386
Madison, Wisconsin, US
Photographer
Quay Lude
Posts: 6386
Madison, Wisconsin, US
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Grainpusher wrote:
Wrong, some photographer's work is a commodity, other's aren't and never will be. Since we are talking about Time here, let's use them as the example. This year they have made several illustrations made from stock photography. Time has been doing illustrations for a long time now have had have had full time illustrators since way before microstock was in the picture. They also have commissioned covers this year that they have paid the photographer's cover fee, just as they always have. This particular photo, yes, is a commodity. Time not only didn't feel this photo wasn't worth crediting, they feel this cover is the creation of their art director, not Mr. Lam. Now, Time has hired quite a few photographers this year, that they credit, pay full price for, and consider Time contributors. These photographer's work isn't a commodity. Time felt their work was unique enough to hire and pay the price for. They will always need current, unique work.
Assignment photography isn't going anywhere. I'm having more and more clients tell me they were going to buy stock but felt their project was too special and wanted to put the money and effort into having a unique product. It's just like the introduction to Walmart wasn't the death to Oscar de la Renta, they aren't even the death of BCBG or Lucky. You will always have different price points and quality in ANY market, it's just personal preference of where you want to your business to be. Also, I don't know many art directors that want to spend all their time retouching microstock to paste in holes...many love being on the set and sharing in a creative process.
Ironically, I do think that while microstock allows greater access to the industry for those starting out and those that dabble, I think it could also shut them out of growing past that point. What I could see it doing is eroding into the "middle class" of photography which is where most starting out cut their teeth, thus making it harder to break in to get the "real jobs". I could see client's spending money on trusted experienced photographers and not taking as many chances on those without a roster. And don't be too fooled, being "coin jar from istock.com" doesn't go that far. This is my opinion though, so I guess we'll wait and see on this point. I hope I'm wrong as I like to see new photographers succeed.
As for ALL photography being a commodity, well, I just think that's flat out wrong. Clients will always need unique and current work. Did you see this?
Lumigraphics wrote:
The way out of this, of course, is to ignore the commodity market and sell a specialty product/service. That's why stock has zero effect on wedding photography. That is not a commodity market and will never be.
|
I'll brag that I know, sort of, a Time cover photographer!!