Timothy Hughes wrote:

Ok, I do agree with you that $30 is not a fair rate. However, if one of my istock shots made the cover of Time I would accept it and move on. I've already accepted their TOS agreement and sometimes I get paid a lot for images and sometimes I don't. It's kind of a weird time we live in where valuation of images is whatever the clients "wants" to pay. Their are currently stock websites (which I will not publicly name) that Time could have downloaded a cover shot for free. Or, they could have gone on Getty or a rights-managed site and gotten a similar image for $2000. If the OPs image is exactly what they were looking for, than so be it.

At this point, I don't think this thread is really about the OP's image or his $30. It was just a catalyst for the broader discussion of microstock images used for a cover shot.

Sterlin Images wrote:
The tear is worth something. You weren't in position to make 10 grand off of a Time cover. But I think if potential clients see that cover on your website/blog it adds instant value to your brand. Your glass is half full. You might even be able to get some PR out of the story. Im actually pretty sure that you could get someone to write about it if you work the right channels.

PDN would be interested in this story I'm sure.

Derick Hingle wrote:
I am not upset at the OP for getting a cover of TIME I'm upset that people value their images so little that they put them on Microstock site, and to make things worse the photog doesn't get credit for the image, istockphoto does. The inset images likely got $300+ each and the Illustrator likely made $200 or who knows a lot more being it was a cover. I'm just saddened by this. I'm happy for the OP getting a cover, but sad at the business practices of TIME in this situation.

PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN. COIN JAR FROM ISTOCKPHOTO. INSETS, FROM LEFT: JON RASMUSSEN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES; ANDREW MACPHERSON/CORBIS OUTLINE.

Well the Getty image sold for a minimum of $1,995.00.

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.

My NY agent represents a few guys that shoot editorial, and that includes shooting for Time magazine. Current going rate is $1800.00 plus expenses for a cover. They aren't using old line big names like Gregory Heisler anymore to shoot their covers because they don't have the money. Have you looked at a Time lately... counted the ads in it? Magazine work of a non fashion genre is dying quickly and there is little money to be made in it. I used to shoot for Business Week, but when covers went under a $1000.00, and inside features went to $400.00 it was time to quit.

Check this out!

http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=138023

Timothy Hughes wrote:

PDN would be interested in this story I'm sure.

I can't find it now, but they already ran a story on time using microstock from this one.  http://microstockinsider.com/news/micro … zine-cover


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Robert Randall wrote:

My NY agent represents a few guys that shoot editorial, and that includes shooting for Time magazine. Current going rate is $1800.00 plus expenses for a cover. They aren't using old line big names like Gregory Heisler anymore to shoot their covers because they don't have the money. Have you looked at a Time lately... counted the ads in it? Magazine work of a non fashion genre is dying quickly and there is little money to be made in it. I used to shoot for Business Week, but when covers went under a $1000.00, and inside features went to $400.00 it was time to quit.

Check this out!

http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=138023

I'm not surprised at all. At low as $1,800 is, it's at least a sustainable fee to work with in difficult times. But $30 is just a slap in the face. Time mind as well have said we'll pay you in credits and throw in a subscription like so many Myspace magazines do.

Derick Hingle wrote:
I am not upset at the OP for getting a cover of TIME I'm upset that people value their images so little that they put them on Microstock site, and to make things worse the photog doesn't get credit for the image, istockphoto does. The inset images likely got $300+ each and the Illustrator likely made $200 or who knows a lot more being it was a cover. I'm just saddened by this. I'm happy for the OP getting a cover, but sad at the business practices of TIME in this situation.

PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN. COIN JAR FROM ISTOCKPHOTO. INSETS, FROM LEFT: JON RASMUSSEN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES; ANDREW MACPHERSON/CORBIS OUTLINE.

microstock is out of the bag, it like digital isn't going back in.

If you have major publications using freebie and microstock in their publications, what are the implications of that for professional photographers?

Derick Hingle wrote:
and to make things worse the photog doesn't get credit for the image, istockphoto does.

From what I understand, for editorial use the credit line should read: “©iStockphoto.com/Artist’s Member Name];"

Source: http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php

Timothy Hughes wrote:

Nonsense. The tearsheet can go in his print port. and online port. regardless of the credit line.

of course he could do whatever he wants...heck, I've seen some people post "other" people's work in their tearsheet...but any creative directors looking to book him were to see a stock image in his book, they would be less than impressed.

Remember, this isn't an image he was hired for and provided the client with...it's a stock image picked out of a huge library by a graphic designer. It does NOT belong as a tearsheet. "HE" wasn't published.

Anyway, I would say it's bad form and a misrepresentation of his working experience.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

I'm not surprised at all. At low as $1,800 is, it's at least a sustainable fee to work with in difficult times. But $30 is just a slap in the face. Time mind as well have said we'll pay you in credits and throw in a subscription like so many Myspace magazines do.

if you were hired to produce a shot its a slap in the face, if you are selling the shot for 30$ its the going rate for that shot. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Derick Hingle wrote:
I am not upset at the OP for getting a cover of TIME I'm upset that people value their images so little that they put them on Microstock site, and to make things worse the photog doesn't get credit for the image, istockphoto does. The inset images likely got $300+ each and the Illustrator likely made $200 or who knows a lot more being it was a cover. I'm just saddened by this. I'm happy for the OP getting a cover, but sad at the business practices of TIME in this situation.

PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN. COIN JAR FROM ISTOCKPHOTO. INSETS, FROM LEFT: JON RASMUSSEN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES; ANDREW MACPHERSON/CORBIS OUTLINE.

Lise Gagne makes about $1,000,000.00 per year selling images through iStock.


This one image from another photographer has been down loaded 13,000 times at a minimum of $2.00 a pop to the photographer.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- … l-fast.php

When is the last time you made $26,000 from one of your pictures?

I took a bunch of old job images and loaded them up to iStock just to see what would happen. So far I've made over $30,000.00 from 2 weeks worth of scanning and uploading old relic images. It also opened the door to Getty and the new Vetta collection, where I make more money. In 5 years all I hope to do is shoot for stock. I imagine in 5 years you will still be complaining about how unfair it all is.

StephenEastwood wrote:

if you were hired to produce a shot its a slap in the face, if you are selling the shot for 30$ its the going rate for that shot. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

That's true and no one is debating the true market value of that shot at $30 because it sold for $30. It comes back to my earlier statement that photographers created this problem.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

microstock is out of the bag, it like digital isn't going back in.

If you have major publications using freebie and microstock in their publications, what are the implications of that for professional photographers?

some will make money and be successful, some will go broke and blame microstock and flicker, some will go into the microstock business and make money,  some will go into microstock and not make any and blame flicker.  Some will just be happy to post on flicker and get someone offering them 25$ and a tear and claim they are not a photographer but have a tear sheet and be happy! 

So far, my business is doing great, increase in rates and in clients this year over last, so I can't complain.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Robert Randall wrote:

My NY agent represents a few guys that shoot editorial, and that includes shooting for Time magazine. Current going rate is $1800.00 plus expenses for a cover. They aren't using old line big names like Gregory Heisler anymore to shoot their covers because they don't have the money. Have you looked at a Time lately... counted the ads in it? Magazine work of a non fashion genre is dying quickly and there is little money to be made in it. I used to shoot for Business Week, but when covers went under a $1000.00, and inside features went to $400.00 it was time to quit.

Check this out!

http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=138023

Worst still is the great editorial rags of yesteryear are having to put more and more fluff and tacky celebrity stories to move copies off the shelves.

Most mags need 50-60% ads to make any money...less ads mean less pages...less pages means less stories which means less photos. They are also scaling back how many photos they use for each story. Magazines are getting super slim and many are dying off.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

That's true and no one is debating the true market value of that shot at $30 because it sold for $30. It comes back to my earlier statement that photographers created this problem.

I don't think they did, I think business people saw an opportunity to make money by short cutting the assignment process at a somewhat lesser rate of fee, and the natural progression of our economy took it from there. Faster, cheaper, hopefully better.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
If you have major publications using freebie and microstock in their publications, what are the implications of that for professional photographers?

Well then people don't need to hire photographers. That's what happens. haha.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

That's true and no one is debating the true market value of that shot at $30 because it sold for $30. It comes back to my earlier statement that photographers created this problem.

absolutely!

but if they did not, flicker would have.  I know two clients that bought images by finding them on flicker and that other site (shutterfly maybe) they offered the people (who are not actually photographers, just someone who got a snapshot and put it up online) a hundred dollars and the person was so excited to have any offer for their little picture they jumped at it.  One was a shot of a bee on a flower, one was a shot of an old barnhouse.



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Robert Randall wrote:
I took a bunch of old job images and loaded them up to iStock just to see what would happen. So far I've made over $30,000.00 from 2 weeks worth of scanning and uploading old relic images. It also opened the door to Getty and the new Vetta collection, where I make more money. In 5 years all I hope to do is shoot for stock.

Could I ask how long it took to make that 30k? Just curious.

StephenEastwood wrote:

some will make money and be successful, some will go broke and blame microstock and flicker, some will go into the microstock business and make money,  some will go into microstock and not make any and blame flicker.  Some will just be happy to post on flicker and get someone offering them 25$ and a tear and claim they are not a photographer but have a tear sheet and be happy! 

So far, my business is doing great, increase in rates and in clients this year over last, so I can't complain.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

I may be in NY to inspect your increase... just got hired for an annual report and the CEO is in Manhatten. I love it when they hire a hack Chicago shooter to come into the Apple to show em how its done!

Robert Randall wrote:

I may be in NY to inspect your increase... just got hired for an annual report and the CEO is in Manhatten. I love it when they hire a hack Chicago shooter to come into the Apple to show em how its done!

you mean they did not find a shot they could use that looked like him on flicker?

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Lynn Helms Photography wrote:

Could I ask how long it took to make that 30k? Just curious.

I think its been 2 years. Its an escalating process and they have raised their rates several times since I joined. The new Vetta Collection is going to be killer for fees. Where you might make 5 or 6 dollars a download through normal channels, through Vetta you make $30. I see a point where I could do $250,000.00 a year without even trying all that hard. I think a lot of that stems from knowing what and how to shoot. 35 years of ad shooting has its benefits.

Lynn Helms Photography wrote:
Could I ask how long it took to make that 30k? Just curious.

Robert Randall wrote:
I think its been 2 years. Its an escalating process and they have raised their rates several times since I joined. The new Vetta Collection is going to be killer for fees. Where you might make 5 or 6 dollars a download through normal channels, through Vetta you make $30. I see a point where I could do $250,000.00 a year without even trying all that hard. I think a lot of that stems from knowing what and how to shoot. 35 years of ad shooting has its benefits.

Plus you shoot the awesome!!!

Robert Randall wrote:

I don't think they did, I think business people saw an opportunity to make money by short cutting the assignment process at a somewhat lesser rate of fee, and the natural progression of our economy took it from there. Faster, cheaper, hopefully better.

I'm not familiar with iStock license fees but I'm guessing the $30 standard license fee has been in place far longer than the current recession. This Time cover example is an anomaly because here we have one of the biggest publishers in the world using a microstock image. The vast majority of microstock images will be nowhere close to this type of use.

If we were to extend this to the music industry, it would be like Microsoft buying an iTunes song for 99 cents and using it as the theme music to launch Windows 7.

StephenEastwood wrote:

you mean they did not find a shot they could use that looked like him on flicker?

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Well if that CEO was on Facebook, his mug would have been featured on ads for "Hot singles in your area".

PYPI FASHION wrote:

I'm not familiar with iStock license fees but I'm guessing the $30 standard license fee has been in place far longer than the current recession. This Time cover example is an anomaly because here we have one of the biggest publishers in the world using a microstock image. The vast majority of microstock images will be nowhere close to this type of use.

If we were to extend this to the music industry, it would be like Microsoft buying an iTunes song for 99 cents and using it as the theme music to launch Windows 7.

My question is this, would it be financially responsible of time to pay for a high priced photographer and crew and all involved to shoot something they could buy for 30$ online that fits the description perfectly?

If you think it would be, you need to take business classes and own a business.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

StephenEastwood wrote:

some will make money and be successful, some will go broke and blame microstock and flicker, some will go into the microstock business and make money,  some will go into microstock and not make any and blame flicker.  Some will just be happy to post on flicker and get someone offering them 25$ and a tear and claim they are not a photographer but have a tear sheet and be happy! 

So far, my business is doing great, increase in rates and in clients this year over last, so I can't complain.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

we know you're doing great Stephen, I think many people in the thread aren't at your level on the food chain whether it be due to just entering into the field, or lack of resources or talent, etc.

Lise Gagne by my estimates is averaging 120,000 downloads a year.   She's clearly the top earner in the ms universe.   Most people on istock struggle just to get their files accepted, and then the fight to get ranked higher in the search engines, so it's a bit of the same planet different worlds issue at stake.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

we know you're doing great Stephen, I think many people in the thread aren't at your level on the food chain whether it be due to just entering into the field, or lack of resources or talent, etc.

Lise Gagne by my estimates is averaging 120,000 downloads a year.   She's clearly the top earner in the ms universe.   Most people on istock struggle just to get their files accepted, and then the fight to get ranked higher in the search engines, so it's a bit of the same planet different worlds issue at stake.

and this shows that microstock has the ability to be a great potential source of income for those who can.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

PYPI FASHION wrote:
If we were to extend this to the music industry, it would be like Microsoft buying an iTunes song for 99 cents and using it as the theme music to launch Windows 7.

Um.

http://www.istockphoto.com/audio.php

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

does it get any kooler

Brian Diaz wrote:

Um.

http://www.istockphoto.com/audio.php

Microsoft reportedly paid Madonna 12-18 million to use Ray of Light to promote Windows XP. Maybe they will go the microstock route and just use some music from a Myspace band.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Microsoft reportedly paid Madonna 12-18 million to use Ray of Light to promote Windows XP. Maybe they will go the microstock route and just use some music from a Myspace band.

If they don't want a specific artist's work, why not?

As many people have said, this is about supply and demand.  A search for "coin jar" on istockphoto.com comes up with more than 300 hits.  The supply is high.

There is only one "Ray of Light" song.  The supply is low.

As supply increases, price goes down.

Brian Diaz wrote:
Um.

http://www.istockphoto.com/audio.php

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Microsoft reportedly paid Madonna 12-18 million to use Ray of Light to promote Windows XP. Maybe they will go the microstock route and just use some music from a Myspace band.

why not?

it seems like the bottom line for business owners is what matters most.
and let's face it, many artists will do it for free.