Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US
Dark Life wrote:
it's a great accomplishment - i'd have that cover blown up poster size and frame it up. your photo on the cover of one of if not the world's most prestigious news magazines is priceless. you are right. i will
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
-The Dave- wrote:
Will anyone even know who shot it? Other than the few that click this thread? Like most tear sheets, the value is in how the photographer uses it. Nobody is going to go looking for the photographer upon seeing that image. It's bragging rights and a selling point for the photographer.
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Maybe someone who is experienced with microstock photography can tell us where the failure was. I'm guessing it was in the licensing option that allowed this to happen.
Photographer
The Dave
Posts: 8848
Ann Arbor, Michigan, US
PYPI FASHION wrote:
Like I said, photographers are to blame for that $30 option. Things like this is the reason I told Getty No!
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Antonio Marcus wrote:
Awesome. Did they pay for it or did the El Jack it? haha. Can you imagine if Time magazine stole that photo. OP spends $10,000 to files a Federal copyright infringement lawsuit and wins. The judge then said "Ok, you are entitled to triple damage. How much is that image worth? $30? Ok, judgement for $90."
Photographer
profile removed
Posts: 374
Scottsdale, Arizona, US
you need to download and read the various iStock licenses and see if Time over reached in their usage according to the standard license they paid 30 dollars for. If they did which I have a feeling they did I would hope iStock would bill them the amount for the correct license on your behalf without you having to get a lawyer involved.
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Dark Life wrote:
you need to download and read the various iStock licenses and see if Time over reached in their usage according to the standard license they paid 30 dollars for. If they did which I have a feeling they did I would hope iStock would bill them the amount for the correct license on your behalf without you having to get a lawyer involved. Well the unlimited print run for that image is $125. Whoa, it's steak instead of BK Jr. tonight!
Photographer
Z_Photo
Posts: 7079
Huntsville, Alabama, US
30 or 40 bucks seems typical payment for microstock.
Photographer
DA PHOTO
Posts: 1540
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Congratulations thats fantastic.
FYI. most editorial shoots pay very little if anything.
Go for where the real money is which is advertising.
Use this credit to market yourself accordingly..
Sometimes you have to give to receive.
all the best.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
I'm happy for you, I really am.
If that was my photograph on the cover of Time I got $30 for....I'd never tell anyone that, because I'm sure someone would try and have me committed to an asylum.
That's just me. If it works for you, excellent, more power to ya.
Photographer
PYPI COMMERCIAL
Posts: 1353
San Francisco, California, US
Cherrystone wrote:
I'm happy for you, I really am.
If that was my photograph on the cover of Time I got $30 for....I'd never tell anyone that, because I'm sure someone would try and have me committed to an asylum.
That's just me. If it works for you, excellent, more power to ya. Sell the sizzle, not the steak. I would have conveniently dropped the decimal point from that $30.00.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
PYPI COMMERCIAL wrote:
Sell the sizzle, not the steak. I would have conveniently dropped the decimal point from that $30.00. For sure, I'd lie my ass off about that. Perhaps I'd admit it on my death bed to one of my kids. 
Photographer
Nic
Posts: 627
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
I was contacted by a small not for profit publisher out of MN and asked if I would sell them one of my metallic bodypainting images for a book cover with a limited print run of 5,000 copies sold in the USA and Canada for $250.00 and 10 copies of the book shipped to me once published and I thought about it for a fraction of a second and said "SURE!" (lol) (See the mock up the art director did of the cover on my profile page here. The book comes out next month I hear)
I don't advertise or have images posted other than here and my own website. I don't know how they found the image on my personal website and didn't ask! (lol)
I would rather have the cover of Time for free! CONGRATS!
Nic
Photographer
MisterC
Posts: 15162
Portland, Oregon, US
-The Dave- wrote:
Will anyone even know who shot it? Other than the few that click this thread? The OP will know. ; )
It may be credited very small somewhere inside TIME magazine.
Photographer
JL Sigart
Posts: 353
Upland, California, US
hmm.... Interesting dynamic. Congrats! I'm happy for you, but kinda feel a tad irked at the same time.
Photographer
Antonio Marcus
Posts: 1849
San Francisco, California, US
Z_Photo wrote:
30 or 40 bucks seems typical payment for microstock. well right, but it's the cover of a magazine not some banner ad on the web.
Photographer
Greg Christensen
Posts: 361
Orange, California, US
PYPI FASHION wrote:
Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.
Something is not right about that picture. Come on - let's get real here, does anybody think Time is going to shell out $10,000 for a cover shot each week. Photography for editorial use is not a money maker for stock shooters. If some 70K rag paid you $500 for a one time run there is a reason newspapers and magazines are going out of business.
Photographer
Hoodlum
Posts: 10254
Sacramento, California, US
Bodyshots Photography wrote:
Hey - maybe not big bucks, but still a a nice accomplishment. Congrats! No the real accomplishment here is that a huge for profit cooperation got a cover that should of cost several thousand dollars for peanuts and the photographer is happy about it.
Btw, to all of those who think this was some kind of an accomplishment I would like to make a rope to hang you all would any of you have any hemp for sale?
(wonders how many will not be able to understand the analogy)
Photographer
Hoodlum
Posts: 10254
Sacramento, California, US
Greg Christensen wrote:
Come on - let's get real here, does anybody think Time is going to shell out $10,000 for a cover shot each week. They used to, quite often. Have you even looked at what a ad page rate cost for time magazine?
http://www.time.com/time/mediakit/1/asi … index.html
If you understood the way advertising works and the value of a cover to sell a magazine you would relize that $10,000 is chump change for them.
Photographer
J C ModeFotografie
Posts: 14718
Los Angeles, California, US
PYPI FASHION wrote:
Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.
Something is not right about that picture. . . . and don't forget that iStock got their cut . . . but $30 is $30 - a filling dinner at Sizzler or a bottle of wine (and a tearsheet)!
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Greg Christensen wrote:
Come on - let's get real here, does anybody think Time is going to shell out $10,000 for a cover shot each week. Photography for editorial use is not a money maker for stock shooters. If some 70K rag paid you $500 for a one time run there is a reason newspapers and magazines are going out of business. Seriously? You think dire the state of newspapers and magazines are caused by them overpaying photographers?
BTW, that $500 rate was actually about half the fair market rate at the time for such use. They made me an offer and I accepted instead of trying to get more out of them because it was a year old image that would not have sold to anyone else. If they offered me $30, I would have hung up on them.
I made more than $30 the other day selling a few 4x6 grad photos to grandma.
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
J C ModeFotografie wrote:
. . . and don't forget that iStock got their cut . . . but $30 is $30 - a filling dinner at Sizzler or a bottle of wine (and a tearsheet)! Based on the license, he is suppose to get $125 so it'll be steak at Ruth's Chris for one.
Photographer
rmcapturing
Posts: 4859
San Francisco, California, US
Yeah, $30 is not a lot for a magazine that huge. But, if I had to choose between getting no money and no cover and getting the cover and $30 bucks, hell, istock can take their cut and I'll deal with it.
It's pretty cool regardless and most of us will never get the cover of Time or any other huge magazine. I know there are a lot of succesful photographers on here with plenty of accomplishments but for us less-accomplished a thing like this is huge and it can serve as a nice pedastal for making leaps and getting the compensations that is deserved.
Creaming this for what is worth can really stretch those $30.00 and hopefully that also means that the decimal will move to the right as time goes on.
Photographer
J C ModeFotografie
Posts: 14718
Los Angeles, California, US
Dan Hood wrote:
No the real accomplishment here is that a huge for profit cooperation got a cover that should of cost several thousand dollars for peanuts and the photographer is happy about it.
Btw, to all of those who think this was some kind of an accomplishment I would like to make a rope to hang you all would any of you have any hemp for sale?
(wonders how many will not be able to understand the analogy) Lenin . . .
. . . or "The Pineapple Express" . . .
. . . and yes, I've always said that stock dilutes the value of photography.
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13456
Denver, Colorado, US
R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock How wonderful for you! You get to work and work and work to produce great imagery and a multi-national, multi-billion dollar company with an advertising budget in the tens of millions gets to use your image ON THE COVER for $30.
Photographer
Hoodlum
Posts: 10254
Sacramento, California, US
J C ModeFotografie wrote:
. . . and don't forget that iStock got their cut . . . but $30 is $30 - a filling dinner at Sizzler or a bottle of wine (and a tearsheet)! Heck just think 60 more national covers and the Op can buy a spiffy new Nikon D300. 
Reminds me of this classic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13456
Denver, Colorado, US
-The Dave- wrote:
Things like this is the reason I told Getty No! There are a lot of photographers with Getty selling RM imagery and making very good money doing so. Stock per se is not an issue. RF Microstock allows billion-dollar companies with millions of dollars in ad budgets to pay pennies for images and use them anywhere they wish.
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13456
Denver, Colorado, US
Dark Life wrote:
you need to download and read the various iStock licenses and see if Time over reached in their usage according to the standard license they paid 30 dollars for. If they did which I have a feeling they did I would hope iStock would bill them the amount for the correct license on your behalf without you having to get a lawyer involved. Time likely has a "volume discount" arrangement with Istock and has negotiated lower rates.
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
To put it another way, Time magazine paid the bike messenger more to carry the proof from one office to another.
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Digitoxin wrote:
Time likely has a "volume discount" arrangement with Istock and has negotiated lower rates. And the receptionist is probably responsible for paying that bill from the petty cash fund.
Photographer
BYS
Posts: 11614
Paris, Île-de-France, France
R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez
istock blacklisted for ever
congrats btw for the cover
this is killing the industry not tf lol
tb
Photographer
Antonio Marcus
Posts: 1849
San Francisco, California, US
Ray Marquez wrote:
I know there are a lot of succesful photographers on here with plenty of accomplishments but for us less-accomplished a thing like this is huge and it can serve as a nice pedastal for making leaps and getting the compensations that is deserved. The thing that is bothering me is that it's not so much a matter of experience or being accomplished. When someone doesn't know that their work is valuable, and that they could have easily gotten more than $30 no matter what their experience is. The point is that you deserve the compensation NOW, regardless of your experience. TIME wanted to use that image... they should pay the fair rate (I don't think it's $30).
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36332
San Francisco, California, US
Another way to look at it is Time paid 9 millionth of a dollar for each use.
Photographer
rmcapturing
Posts: 4859
San Francisco, California, US
Antonio Marcus wrote:
The thing that is bothering me is that it's not so much a matter of experience or being accomplished. When someone doesn't know that their work is valuable, and that they could have easily gotten more than $30 no matter what their experience is. The point is that you deserve the compensation NOW, regardless of your experience. TIME wanted to use that image... they should pay the fair rate (I don't think it's $30). Can you find the OP someone that will pay $10,000 for the image?
Just because the magazine has paid tens of thousands for a cover shot doesn't mean they will pay tens of thousands every time. If I had to choose between someone else getting paid money and being compensated justly and me wanting to have that opportunity, I'll take me. It garners me NOTHING if Time paid someone else what they were worth.
The other option for them is to re-create the image and the OP doesn't get anything period and we're not having this discussion. I don't mean any offense to the OP but change in a jar has been done before and will be done again so there's not much room for a copyright claim there either. I have a bunch of those jars around the house.
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.
Photographer
Antonio Marcus
Posts: 1849
San Francisco, California, US
Ray Marquez wrote:
Can you find the OP someone that will pay $10,000 for the image?
Just because the magazine has paid tens of thousands for a cover shot doesn't mean they will pay tens of thousands every time. If I had to choose between someone else getting paid money and being compensated justly and me wanting to have that opportunity, I'll take me. It garners me NOTHING if Time paid someone else what they were worth.
The other option for them is to re-create the image and the OP doesn't get anything period and we're not having this discussion. I don't mean any offense to the OP but change in a jar has been done before and will be done again so there's not much room for a copyright claim there either. I have a bunch of those jars around the house.
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. Oh hey I'm not angry and not blaming the OP. In general I'm trying to say there is a general apathy of "it is what it is" that I don't like. When photographers don't know to charge more for certain types of usage ... then it hurts all of us.
Photographer
J C ModeFotografie
Posts: 14718
Los Angeles, California, US
Antonio Marcus wrote:
Oh hey I'm not angry and not blaming the OP. In general I'm trying to say there is a general apathy of "it is what it is" that I don't like. When photographers don't know to charge more for certain types of usage ... then it hurts all of us. I totally agree with you - and I think this will be a lesson the OP will be thinking on for a long time.
Photographer
Fast Trax
Posts: 187
Jenison, Michigan, US
You should consider adjusting pay depending on its intended use. I recently was doing a design for a CD and went there to grab a small image. While it was originally only like $10, to reproduce it under 10,000 units, the license jumped the cost up to $175. I don't even want to think what it would have cost to produce millions for world wide release. You need to rethink your terms of use of image, how its used, where its used, quantity of replication, etc.
But you do certainly gain "bragging rights" if that is important to you. And it is a great accomplishment. Congratulations.
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
PYPI FASHION wrote:
Based on the license, he is suppose to get $125 so it'll be steak at Ruth's Chris for one. Can time sell the prints of the cover they are selling?
|
