Lumigraphics wrote:

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?

That was posted while I was posting, so no, I was not able to see it. Although that goes against the statement I responded to: "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."

It's not just wedding, editorial and commercial photography will never be a commodity for all...and that doesn't mean just a "small elite group". I know many young photographers who are doing quite well at getting assignment work. I just hope it stays that way, which it might, the future only knows.

R Studios wrote:
I am looking to buy the back issue for Time

they could have at least sent you a free copy. lets see thats $30 - 6= $24 in all

just my 2 cents. would be smart to put it in the bank. haha

just kidding bro. tears that sheet out and show it to every one you can think of... twice

--
Z

www.twitter.com/thegreatzeee

Digitoxin wrote:

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.

it also brings up the standard of general photography for smaller players and makes the big players who care work a little harder..

it may have some detrimental effects in specific circumstances, it also has positive effects in others and proliferates the market massively to smaller organisations who simply couldn't afford it otherwise.

By way of example, I did a brochure recently using lots of microstock for a little eco organisation - i had a total design budget of around 2500, which, using traditional stock agencies, or going out and shooting it, wouldn't have got me a front cover shot, let alone a brochure designed. The fact that "little man" can produce great results in that budget pushes those that really care to up the ante

R Studios wrote:
I am looking to buy the back issue for Time

you could use your $30 bucks!..lol

Lumigraphics wrote:

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

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

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

I run a business, sounds and looks like you have a hobby.

Thanks for sharing.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

You got screwed.

bigtime. microstock photography has ruined many careers.
Thanks, guys.

Why Dangle wrote:
I have already congratulated the OP earlier in this thread.......... about a gazillion pages back lol.

............  just a thought (and a genuine question, as this is not a market I dabble in), but is this image, whatever, still the OP's because of the addition/s that were made? and how does that change things if at all.

If this is an ignorant question my apologies, but an helpful, knowledgeable answer would be appreciated.

If someone licenses an image then manipulates it, or creates a deviation from the origional art, that deviation becomes their "work" and is a copyrightable piece.

Grainpusher wrote:

That was posted while I was posting, so no, I was not able to see it. Although that goes against the statement I responded to: "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."

It's not just wedding, editorial and commercial photography will never be a commodity for all...and that doesn't mean just a "small elite group". I know many young photographers who are doing quite well at getting assignment work. I just hope it stays that way, which it might, the future only knows.

Why did photography become a commodity? The history of the stock business may provide that answer. Lets go back to say the 70's-early 80's before the advent of "auto" cameras for a moment. Stock was then photos that folks perhaps couldn't afford to do, often far-away images like the pyramids, or the Amazon, etc. along with other stuff here and there.

Along the way we had amateurs in cameral clubs, hobbiests and so on. Be there no mistake, amateur's can do as good a photo as a pro, but the pro does it for a living and does it "on demand, on time and under pressure".

In the 80's we saw the rise of the photo schools, churning out hundreds of folks who, with a hot shingle in their hands, thought they were now "photographers" as in any other degree for the most part. Those folks put together portfolios, often never worked as apprentices and "learned the business" so-to-speak.

And along came the rise of the BIG stock agencies, Corbus and Getty and there was also the Image Bank. They bought up the smaller stock agencies who had bought collections of photos from the advanced amateurs, hobbiest's who sold lots of images and thought they'd struck GOLD, of course not knowing what they really had if they had good images.

The accountants got into the mix, demanding ever cheaper costs from any manner of vendor be driven down and which brought new, young talent to the mix, who didn't know what quality was, but they did have cheap salaries at the agencies, designers and clients.

Little by little the prices of what was paid for photography eroded and as they eroded some, be it stock or assignment have perhaps felt the need to lessen their fees to get work. And so goes the downward spiral sort of like a snowball, the small one rolled down the hill becomes bigger, and bigger.

Perhaps the biggest problem is the "everyone thinks they're a photographer" which translates to the issue that the supply of folks creating images is so large, it makes things so much a buyers market, prices can't be upheld for there will always be someone who will work cheaper.

I have a buddy who is a photographer who won't ask for some price on an assignment. He always asks "What do you have" since he feels that if he quotes some price, they'll alway go to someone else if his price is equal so therefore he figures he got the job and they didn't. Then he has to figure out how to do the job within the dollars he just got. Did the client know they were getting him cheaper than cheap? Maybe, and he probably left money on the table for he didn't look at what it really took, cost wise, to do the job, just the dollars they wanted to pay. Things like this also contribute.

IOW, the commoditization of photography is partly the fault of the oversupply of folks willing to work cheap, rather than charge what they're worth. Often those folks who "bring something to the party" have a higher view of self-worth and charge for it. If you don't ask, you won't get.

Perhaps too, it's better to ask for higher prices, maybe negotiate lower, but not have the cheap jobs and make little or no profit. You can only live on cash flow so long and you go out of business when your equipment starts dying for you can't afford to replace it.

Digital Czar wrote:

Why did photography become a commodity? The history of the stock business may provide that answer. Lets go back to say the 70's-early 80's before the advent of "auto" cameras for a moment. Stock was then photos that folks perhaps couldn't afford to do, often far-away images like the pyramids, or the Amazon, etc. along with other stuff here and there.

Along the way we had amateurs in cameral clubs, hobbiests and so on. Be there no mistake, amateur's can do as good a photo as a pro, but the pro does it for a living and does it "on demand, on time and under pressure".

In the 80's we saw the rise of the photo schools, churning out hundreds of folks who, with a hot shingle in their hands, thought they were now "photographers" as in any other degree for the most part. Those folks put together portfolios, often never worked as apprentices and "learned the business" so-to-speak.

And along came the rise of the BIG stock agencies, Corbus and Getty and there was also the Image Bank. They bought up the smaller stock agencies who had bought collections of photos from the advanced amateurs, hobbiest's who sold lots of images and thought they'd struck GOLD, of course not knowing what they really had if they had good images.

The accountants got into the mix, demanding ever cheaper costs from any manner of vendor be driven down and which brought new, young talent to the mix, who didn't know what quality was, but they did have cheap salaries at the agencies, designers and clients.

Little by little the prices of what was paid for photography eroded and as they eroded some, be it stock or assignment have perhaps felt the need to lessen their fees to get work. And so goes the downward spiral sort of like a snowball, the small one rolled down the hill becomes bigger, and bigger.

Perhaps the biggest problem is the "everyone thinks they're a photographer" which translates to the issue that the supply of folks creating images is so large, it makes things so much a buyers market, prices can't be upheld for there will always be someone who will work cheaper.

I have a buddy who is a photographer who won't ask for some price on an assignment. He always asks "What do you have" since he feels that if he quotes some price, they'll alway go to someone else if his price is equal so therefore he figures he got the job and they didn't. Then he has to figure out how to do the job within the dollars he just got. Did the client know they were getting him cheaper than cheap? Maybe, and he probably left money on the table for he didn't look at what it really took, cost wise, to do the job, just the dollars they wanted to pay. Things like this also contribute.

IOW, the commoditization of photography is partly the fault of the oversupply of folks willing to work cheap, rather than charge what they're worth. Often those folks who "bring something to the party" have a higher view of self-worth and charge for it. If you don't ask, you won't get.

Perhaps too, it's better to ask for higher prices, maybe negotiate lower, but not have the cheap jobs and make little or no profit. You can only live on cash flow so long and you go out of business when your equipment starts dying for you can't afford to replace it.

All you've written is pure assumption, that looks to all the world to be nothing more than hyperbole, because you can't substantiate any of it. It also reads like sour grapes, but I will address the few things in it that I know for fact.

Dan Coha and Ted Tambura both graduated SIU photo school and thier business thrives, right across the courtyard from mine.
Chris Hawker Graduated SIU, and his thesis portfolio was better than anything I've ever produced in my entire career. He assisted for 2 years before he opened his own studio.
Jeff Schewe graduated from RIT, and his studio thrived for decades. Also, his name is on the credits window of Adobe Photoshop.
There are a ton more, and you know it, but I'm old and my memory fails me at the moment, which makes this part of the rebuke boring.

Photography, at least from where I sit, is not a commodity. I get between 4 and 10 new jobs every month. During this latest economic blip, I was affected a bit just like everyone else, but it's coming back just like it always does. I have a new rep and I'm gaining new market share of assignment work.

Your mention of hobbyists and camera clubbers in contrast to "pros do it al the time" is the sour grapes part. The folks that hang out in here don't give a wet crap about pros, and comments like yours tend to make them give less of a crap. I haven't really interacted with you since you moved out of 325 W. about 30 years ago, so I don't know much about your career, but if hobbyists and clubbers had that big an impact on your life, I feel for you.

I don't work cheap, there has been no erosion of prices for me. I may not get the dollars that some of the other players get, but in contrast to your tale of woe, my fees are increasing, and I also make money from iStock.

Your last paragraph is spot on, no argument there.

Karl Baxter wrote:
so basically what we're saying then... if you're good you'll get paid your worth, but nobody has a right to a living because they don't like the competition... ..and these complaints are specific to photography HOW exactly.  see the entire chinese economy for further details

Right on.  Thank goodness photography is one of the last truly free markets with low barriers to entry.  It makes it vibrant and lively!  Long live free markets.

Why Dangle wrote:
I have already congratulated the OP earlier in this thread.......... about a gazillion pages back lol.

............  just a thought (and a genuine question, as this is not a market I dabble in), but is this image, whatever, still the OP's because of the addition/s that were made? and how does that change things if at all.

If this is an ignorant question my apologies, but an helpful, knowledgeable answer would be appreciated.

Digital Czar wrote:
If someone licenses an image then manipulates it, or creates a deviation from the origional art, that deviation becomes their "work" and is a copyrightable piece.

Im 1998 I had to go to court to protect my work from piracy. The judge found I had no grounds for my plea due to the law as the Czar stated. Upon appeal, it was pointed out the pirates were in breach due to the fact that no license was issued, a small fact the judge had shunted under the table because he was more inclined to clear his schedule than he was inclined to adjudicate the law. Had they been granted a license originally, they could have legally stolen my entire life's body of work, simply by moving a few pixels around.

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

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

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

David Pollack wrote:
I run a business, sounds and looks like you have a hobby.

Thanks for sharing.

What kind of money can someone with a pompous attitude make from the sale of pictures in which tall women are choking nude male midgets? I'm just curious about your business model.

My name is Frank wrote:
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.

Pay per click may be a revenue generator for the porn industry, but in the legitimate world of commercial advertising, no one has the facility in place to monitor such a silly method of fee structure. You can't name one legitimate client that pays for photography that way.

Robert Randall wrote:

Why Dangle wrote:
I have already congratulated the OP earlier in this thread.......... about a gazillion pages back lol.

............  just a thought (and a genuine question, as this is not a market I dabble in), but is this image, whatever, still the OP's because of the addition/s that were made? and how does that change things if at all.

If this is an ignorant question my apologies, but an helpful, knowledgeable answer would be appreciated.

Im 1998 I had to go to court to protect my work from piracy. The judge found I had no grounds for my plea due to the law as the Czar stated. Upon appeal, it was pointed out the pirates were in breach due to the fact that no license was issued, a small fact the judge had shunted under the table because he was more inclined to clear his schedule than he was inclined to adjudicate the law. Had they been granted a license originally, they could have legally stolen my entire life's body of work, simply by moving a few pixels around.

So what I am trying to say/ask ............. is the front cover as it appears on Time magazine (with the addition of "the new frugality" thing) the OP's creation?

This is not to take anything away from the use of the OP's stock photo, I am just curious.

Why Dangle wrote:

So what I am trying to say/ask ............. is the front cover as it appears on Time magazine (with the addition of "the new frugality" thing) the OP's creation?

This is not to take anything away from the use of the OP's stock photo, I am just curious.

In the eyes of the law, no, it is not.

Tal wrote:

bigtime. microstock photography has ruined many careers.
Thanks, guys.

You're welcome!

Perhaps next time you'll share your clients with us instead of forcing us to play hardbawl!!!

Tal wrote:
bigtime. microstock photography has ruined many careers.
Thanks, guys.

Name one, just one verifiable career that was ruined by stock. You can't and we all know it. You indulge in nonsense, hyperbole and you are not to be considered.

Robert Randall wrote:

Name one, just one verifiable career that was ruined by stock. You can't and we all know it. You indulge in nonsense, hyperbole and you are not to be considered.

His billion dollars in lost revenue to what he earns now... thats pretty much a destruction of a career... potential theoretical career.

Just like MPAA's and RIAA's lost revenue, completely as valid.

Digital Planet Design wrote:

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

Actually I hardly ever read these forums because it's way too many people talking about things they are misinformed about. If you are spending all day on message boards, then you're probably not spending too much time shooting, no???

Also every single topic on model mayhem seems to dissolve into pointless flame wars.

Robert Randall wrote:

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

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

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

What kind of money can someone with a pompous attitude make from the sale of pictures in which tall women are choking nude male midgets? I'm just curious about your business model.

Gee, i guess you can't click far enough to see the tear sheets, national ad, paid jobs.

Having shot professionally for 20++ years, I have the time and freedom to shoot whatever I want for my personal work. Fortunately, as I said, I run a business, I  don't need to make money selling my personal shots, my clients pay me for my commercial work and I am therefore able to shoot other things which may not sell.  Funny, your profile states "I want to create a large body of fine art images that will allow me to seek gallery representation for my work." You might spend your time shooting to accomplish that goal rather than wasting your time here whining. To bad you seem to have some sort of art envy. By the way, nice commercial work on your business web site.

Why Dangle wrote:

So what I am trying to say/ask ............. is the front cover as it appears on Time magazine (with the addition of "the new frugality" thing) the OP's creation?

This is not to take anything away from the use of the OP's stock photo, I am just curious.

Everything that Time added to the image belongs to Time magazine.  He cannot license that creation to someone else.  It's doubtful they have an exclusive license to the image so he could continue to license the image (it is still available on iStock I believe) however.

Digital Vinyl wrote:
Hats off to the guy for landing on the cover of time. But 30 bucks?

I'd do Victoria Secret or Sports Illustrated cover for free.

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...)

I don't care what "a lot of you" think. "A lot of you" that post on these message boards have no clue about what you're talking about because you spend lots of time on message boards and not out in the field working.

And it's not just about the OP and letting himself get f*cked by getting paid $30 to shoot a magazine cover for Time. It's about the standards of pay being dragged down across the board by sh*t like istockphoto, fake internships, etc.

The percentage of people who actually earn a livable income just on microstock compared to the amount of people who submit is a tiny tiny tiny fraction.

I work for a magazine (that is much smaller than Time) that uses both contract photographers and istockphoto. When I shoot for them, I get around $500 give/take depending on assignment. When they pull images from istock, they spend like $40 and the photographer sees only a fraction of that.

Intensity Studios wrote:
I work for a magazine (that is much smaller than Time) that uses both contract photographers and istockphoto. When I shoot for them, I get around $500 give/take depending on assignment. When they pull images from istock, they spend like $40 and the photographer sees only a fraction of that.

Since you're an insider, may I ask a question or two?

When you shoot for them and get your $500, do they have some sort of exclusive license?  temporary or otherwise?

When they purchase a photo from iStock for $40, do they have that same license?

if the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second is no, could it be that one major factor in the difference in the rate is not the photo but the license/rights to how that photo is used?

Exclusive use = $460

Seems pretty fair since they are going to limit who you can license your image to, they should have to pay more.  If they don't care about other people using the same image, why pay more?

Scattered Light wrote:
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.

Yeah, listen up everybody... if you need a $30 magazine cover, hit up Mr. Lam!

Lumigraphics wrote:
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.

Are you some kind of authority on the photo biz or what? Maybe you should start travelling and giving workshops! LOL!

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Since you're an insider, may I ask a question or two?

When you shoot for them and get your $500, do they have some sort of exclusive license?  temporary or otherwise?

When they purchase a photo from iStock for $40, do they have that same license?

if the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second is no, could it be that one major factor in the difference in the rate is not the photo but the license/rights to how that photo is used?

Exclusive use = $460

Seems pretty fair since they are going to limit who you can license your image to, they should have to pay more.  If they don't care about other people using the same image, why pay more?

hell no, i never sell "buyout rights"

Intensity Studios wrote:

Are you some kind of authority on the photo biz or what? Maybe you should start travelling and giving workshops! LOL!

Intensity Studios wrote:
Actually I hardly ever read these forums because it's way too many people talking about things they are misinformed about. If you are spending all day on message boards, then you're probably not spending too much time shooting, no???

Also every single topic on model mayhem seems to dissolve into pointless flame wars.

You're gonna make sure you're right one way or another aren't you?

Intensity Studios wrote:

hell no, i never sell "buyout rights"

I didn't ask about buyout rights.  Do they have ANY form of exclusive use?  Such as, you can't license the image to anyone else until AFTER they have published it?  Do they have ANYTHING like that?  And if they do not, do you market those images to anyone else at the same time or do you wait as some sort of courtesy?

You know, $500?  Maybe YOU'RE part of the problem to.  I'm sure there are people that won't do your work for less than $5,000.  Maybe they should join this thread and talk about how you're ruining their careers.