Star wrote:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

"Times are tough for everybody, especially, apparently, Time Magazine. Used to paying a stock fee of $3,000 for a cover, or $1,500 or so if it's an assignment (last I checked), take a guess how much the cover below cost Time?"

this blog makes references to the Model Mayhem thread. I think it is insightful. The writer of the blog is a very well known editorial photographer named John Harrington.

http://www.johnharrington.com

Might as well face facts. Photography has been devalued by the internet and also by digital camera revolution. There will be a handful of top photographers who make tons of money and millions of hobbiest that make nothing and pay for the the privilege of taking pictures. Just like with making music. The number of people that can actually earn a living with photography is a tiny fraction of what it once was. And it will only get worse in the future.

There is nothing that anyone can do about it. The genie is out of the bottle.

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

The artist is the one who put the image up for that price. The artist did not get shorted any more than the artist wanted.

So you're telling me you would be okay with selling a cover picture to a large publication for pennies?

Amazing Productions wrote:

Might as well face facts. Photography has been devalued by the internet and also by digital camera revolution. There will be a handful of top photographers who make tons of money and millions of hobbiest that make nothing and pay for the the privilege of taking pictures. Just like with making music. The number of people that can actually earn a living with photography is a tiny fraction of what it once was. And it will only get worse in the future.

There is nothing that anyone can do about it. The genie is out of the bottle.

Its a terrible look at the future.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

So you're telling me you would be okay with selling a cover picture to a large publication for pennies?

Depends on my plans for the image.

If I'm doing nothing else with it, sure.

If I'm planning on selling it elsewhere, for more... then of course not.

Ask him what his plans were for the image.

Star wrote:

They bought the WRONG USAGE. They stole the image, violated the license agreement and are illegally reselling it.

You need to not make comments on things you don't understand.

The photographer got $30. That wasn't what Time paid. Duh. The photographer only gets a percentage, depending on canister level. Time probably paid $120-150.

As for the entire situation, I for one think its great.

The old way was a gated castle with a few people able to make money and everyone else (including me) on the outside looking in. The new way has the gates standing open and all of us barbarians getting some of the loot as well.

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

Depends on my plans for the image.

If I'm doing nothing else with it, sure.

If I'm planning on selling it elsewhere, for more... then of course not.

Ask him what his plans were for the image.

He actually disappeared long before anyone could really talk to him about it too much.  He took a couple of congrats and once it seemed like the tide was shifting a bit, he vanished.  not a post.  And i can't find the damn original thread anymore.

Lumigraphics wrote:

You need to not make comments on things you don't understand.

The photographer got $30. That wasn't what Time paid. Duh. The photographer only gets a percentage, depending on canister level. Time probably paid $120-150.

As for the entire situation, I for one think its great.

The old way was a gated castle with a few people able to make money and everyone else (including me) on the outside looking in. The new way has the gates standing open and all of us barbarians getting some of the loot as well.

Terrible analogy.  And I have to say, there are much more functional ways of getting the point across.  It just sounds really rough, and unnecessarily untoward.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

iStock didn't take the picture and priced it at $30. The photographer did that.

Not true. iStock sets prices based on usage and pays the photographer a percentage based on canister level (number of downloads the contributor has.)

Anomalia Chin wrote:
And no one sees how this is equivalent to stealing from a child?

The child never should have been in that neighborhood alone to be stolen from. That's the point that people are making.

It's no secret how stock works. The rules are in place. Find a breach of the rules that Time committed and then we can talk about stealing from a child. But asking a child for all of his candy and that child giving it to that person is not stealing. Some may see it as stupid, but it's not stealing.

I equate it to crew chief Chad Knaus in NASCAR, who has been suspended several times for rules infractions. Some see him as a cheater; others, an innovator. He's PAID to know that rulebook inside and out, and he's PAID to find every advantage he can. It may piss off NASCAR, and it may result in some fines, but Jimmie Johnson has won three consecutive NASCAR Sprint Cup titles. He must have been doing SOMETHING right, though one can question the ethics and "rightness" all day.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

He actually disappeared long before anyone could really talk to him about it too much.  He took a couple of congrats and once it seemed like the tide was shifting a bit, he vanished.  not a post.  And i can't find the damn original thread anymore.

It's at the top of the photography forum.

Not hard to miss.

---

Let me give you a little back ground about me.

I am a graphic design, photo retoucher and photographer.

In my current graphic design job, and former ones. I have been a part of the process (if not directly responsible for) purchasing and/or downloading stock images.

In past photography related jobs, and privately. I have uploaded and managed stock images for photographers and myself.

I have been on both sides of the coin.

Guess what, the photographer has complete control over what they do with the image. No one pointed a gun at him and told him he HAD to upload to iStock and he HAD to make the image available for "pennies"

He consciously choseto make that decision.

There is no "unfair" there is no "unethical". The photographer made a decision to use a service based on certain conditions. The corporation found the image through that service and purchased the image based on those conditions.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
And no one sees how this is equivalent to stealing from a child?

No, this is equivalent to an adult offering a product to a company for a standard price that the adult agreed to when entering the process.

SunArcher Photography wrote:

The child never should have been in that neighborhood alone to be stolen from. That's the point that people are making.

It's no secret how stock works. The rules are in place. Find a breach of the rules that Time committed and then we can talk about stealing from a child. But asking a child for all of his candy and that child giving it to that person is not stealing. Some may see it as stupid, but it's not stealing.

Its just calling a rubber ball a ball of a different colour.  If you want to argue that "legally" nothing has been done that's wrong, I can concede that.  I cannot agree that there is nothing "ethically" wrong with it.

Lumigraphics wrote:

You need to not make comments on things you don't understand.

The photographer got $30. That wasn't what Time paid. Duh. The photographer only gets a percentage, depending on canister level. Time probably paid $120-150.

As for the entire situation, I for one think its great.

The old way was a gated castle with a few people able to make money and everyone else (including me) on the outside looking in. The new way has the gates standing open and all of us barbarians getting some of the loot as well.

Indeed, iirc iStock pays something like 20-40% to the original photographer.

Time had to purchase at the very least the extended license.

Depending on their account, they pay somewhere between $0.25-1.00 per credit.

From what I can tell, the price looks to be 137 credits total, unless they also needed to purchase electronic options separately, that might have brought the total up to the ~250 credit mark.

The number of people that can actually earn a living with photography is a tiny fraction of what it once was. And it will only get worse in the future.

Actually, I would challenge that. I have worked in photography for 30+ years, and there were never a LOT of people making money in photography. The number of people entering -- or trying to enter -- the field exploded in the 1990's with the advent of digital cameras. The resulting, predictable, bust is upon us.

When it shakes out, there will still be a few people making a living at photography; we don't currently know the new business model they will use to do so, but the fact is that the number of full-time photographers making a decent living plying their trade has always been relatively small.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Its just calling a rubber ball a ball of a different colour.  If you want to argue that "legally" nothing has been done that's wrong, I can concede that.  I cannot agree that there is nothing "ethically" wrong with it.

I never said it was ethical or not. But a lot of people are throwing the LEGAL aspect of it out there (i.e. Time did this or didn't do that, in a legal sense). Time found a loophole and exploited the hell out of it. Some find that unnerving and unethical. Others call it good business sense to survive. Many are somewhere in the middle.

I still say that Harrington's diatribe on Lam's MM practices was uncalled for.

BTW I edited the post to which you responded by adding an analogy.

nudes by paul wrote:
isn't it the mind set that photography isn't worth anything that is driving this?  Think about the fact that time's circulation is huge, it's insulting to photographers that a photo made only a portion of a cent per print.  Hell, even if time's circulation was only 10,000, the photo was sold for 1/3 of a cent per copy.

Would ANYONE on here even consider a third of a cent payment for a portrait?

HELL NO!

Anomalia Chin wrote:

Its just calling a rubber ball a ball of a different colour.  If you want to argue that "legally" nothing has been done that's wrong, I can concede that.  I cannot agree that there is nothing "ethically" wrong with it.

Here is what happened:

iStock creates service.

Photographer consciously agrees to use service.

Time browses service.

Time purchases from service.

Photographer gets chunk of income as agreed to in original use of service.

---

Tell me exactly where something went wrong "ethically"?

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

It's at the top of the photography forum.

Not hard to miss.

---

Let me give you a little back ground about me.

I am a graphic design, photo retoucher and photographer.

In my current graphic design job, and former ones. I have been a part of the process (if not directly responsible for) purchasing and/or downloading stock images.

In past photography related jobs, and privately. I have uploaded and managed stock images for photographers and myself.

I have been on both sides of the coin.

Guess what, the photographer has complete control over what they do with the image. No one pointed a gun at him and told him he HAD to upload to iStock and he HAD to make the image available for "pennies"

He consciously choseto make that decision.

There is no "unfair" there is no "unethical". The photographer made a decision to use a service based on certain conditions. The corporation found the image through that service and purchased the image based on those conditions.

If you think its acceptable, then there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind.  But I think someone made an argument likening this agreement to barter.  I will close with that, and by saying that if it was, it would have been a fair trade of one good for something of equal value.

Amazing Productions wrote:
Might as well face facts. Photography has been devalued by the internet and also by digital camera revolution. There will be a handful of top photographers who make tons of money and millions of hobbiest that make nothing and pay for the the privilege of taking pictures. Just like with making music. The number of people that can actually earn a living with photography is a tiny fraction of what it once was. And it will only get worse in the future.

There is nothing that anyone can do about it. The genie is out of the bottle.

This is not new, this is the way it always has been.  That is, the genie has been out of the bottle since George Eastman created roll film and the box camera in 1888 and made photography accessible to the masses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kodak_ad_1888.GIF

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

As far as the argument that a handful will make tons of money and the many will make little or nothing that same thing applies to:

Actors
Dancers
Inventors
Painters
Sculptors
Movie Makers (yes, more movies lose money than make money)

This is the price of a creative profession--if you're in it for the money you're bound to be disappointed.

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

Here is what happened:

iStock creates service.

Photographer consciously agrees to use service.

Time browses service.

Time purchases from service.

Photographer gets chunk of income as agreed to in original use of service.

---

Tell me exactly where something went wrong "ethically"?

"chunk of income" 

do you consider an ant turd a chunk?

Anomalia Chin wrote:
"chunk of income" 

do you consider an ant turd a chunk?

I do. Chunks aren't always big, you know.

If the photographer got shorted from what he was supposed to get, that's wrong. If Time was supposed to get one license but got another, that's wrong.

If my instructions at work are to take the Dulles Toll Road every day to work, and I find a way to get there on surface streets and avoid paying that toll (while everyone else takes the toll road), is that unethical? I mean, that's how it's always been done (them telling their employees to take the toll road) and that's what's expected of me (to take that toll road), right?

SunArcher Photography wrote:

I do. Chunks aren't always big, you know.

If the photographer got shorted from what he was supposed to get, that's wrong. If Time was supposed to get one license but got another, that's wrong.

If my instructions from work are to take the Dulles Toll Road every day to work, and I find a way to get there on surface streets and avoid paying that toll (while everyone else takes the toll road), is that unethical?

Its not the same.

If you put effort into something, the compensation should match the effort.  If i climb a tree and between a photographer and I make an image that is slammin, we should be compensated if someone wants to purchase it.  The same if I took a picture of a tree.  If you want it, pay me its value.

Garrett Sanders wrote:

This is not new, this is the way it always has been.  That is, the genie has been out of the bottle since George Eastman created roll film and the box camera in 1888 and made photography accessible to the masses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kodak_ad_1888.GIF

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

As far as the argument that a handful will make tons of money and the many will make little or nothing that same thing applies to:

Actors
Dancers
Inventors
Painters
Sculptors
Movie Makers (yes, more movies lose money than make money)

This is the price of a creative profession--if you're in it for the money you're bound to be disappointed.

add singers (beyonce made what?  86million last year, miley cyrus 27million)  and athletes. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Its not the same.

Explain how it's not.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
If you put effort into something, the compensation should match the effort.

I wonder how much effort went into shooting that jar of coins. Surely you don't think it's the same as an all-day on-location shoot with six models, strobes, wardrobe, makeup, permits, security, catering, and the whole nine, do you?

Anomalia Chin wrote:
If i climb a tree and between a photographer and I make an image that is slammin, we should be compensated if someone wants to purchase it.

He was compensated. He was compensated based on the agreement to which he voluntarily entered with iStock. Was he not?

Anomalia Chin wrote:
If you want it, pay me its value.

I think iStock had something to do with determining its value. If you think your tree pic is worth more than $30, don't put it on iStock and you do the footwork to market it, expose it, advertise it, and if it ever comes down to it, sell it (a stage at which 99% of all pictures never make).

Anomalia Chin wrote:

"chunk of income" 

do you consider an ant turd a chunk?

I consider it to be exactly what he agreed to when he made the decision to enter the agreement.

You're acting like he was taken advantage of.

He is the one who uploaded the site to iStock. I have to assume he read the agreements, the pricing structure and all that before doing so. Either way it's his responsibility to determine if its fair for him or not, and since he uploaded the image for sale, he must have though the agreement was fair to him.

So I still don't see where you are coming from in regards to ethics.

At work, I use Stock.Xchange which includes lots of "free" stock photography.

Is that unethical as well? Since you know, the community decided to upload pictures on their own accord.

Personal responsibility. Get familiar with it.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Money isn't the only kind of compensation.  I do agree that if you're in it only for the money than you are screwed unless you have an edge.

If I were Lam, I'd be marketing the hell out of that Time image. The resulting paid work his hustling skills could possibly net could also be seen as a form of compensation.

Ask these urban glamour shooters and models how much they get paid and what compensation is.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

Its not the same.

If you put effort into something, the compensation should match the effort.  If i climb a tree and between a photographer and I make an image that is slammin, we should be compensated if someone wants to purchase it.  The same if I took a picture of a tree.  If you want it, pay me its value.

Compensation rarely matches effort, nor should it.  If someone off the street takes all day to make a chair that a skill carpenter could fabricate in an hour should I pay the person who took all day more?

SunArcher Photography wrote:

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Its not the same.

Explain how it's not.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
If you put effort into something, the compensation should match the effort.

I wonder how much effort went into shooting that jar of coins. Surely you don't think it's the same as an all-day on-location shoot with six models, strobes, wardrobe, makeup, permits, security, catering, and the whole nine, do you?

Anomalia Chin wrote:
If i climb a tree and between a photographer and I make an image that is slammin, we should be compensated if someone wants to purchase it.

He was compensated. He was compensated based on the agreement to which he voluntarily entered with iStock. Was he not?


I think iStock had something to do with determining its value. If you think your tree pic is worth more than $30, don't put it on iStock and you do the footwork to market it, expose it, advertise it, and if it ever comes down to it, sell it (a stage at which 99% of all pictures never make).

Exactly.

If you think your work is more valuable elsewhere, DO NOT use iStock.

If you think your work is doing nothing for you in its current state.... there is no harm in using a site like iStock.

I know I plan to upload to iStock in the future. Wouldn't hurt, honestly.

StephenEastwood wrote:

add singers (beyonce made what?  86million last year, miley cyrus 27million)  and athletes. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Yes, the list could go on and on.

Perhaps people are just venting their frustration at the way the world works and always has.  Life is not fair.  (Occasionally I'd like it to be unfair in my favor.)

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

I consider it to be exactly what he agreed to when he made the decision to enter the agreement.

You're acting like he was taken advantage of.

He is the one who uploaded the site to iStock. I have to assume he read the agreements, the pricing structure and all that before doing so. Either way it's his responsibility to determine if its fair for him or not, and since he uploaded the image for sale, he must have though the agreement was fair to him.

So I still don't see where you are coming from in regards to ethics.

At work, I use Stock.Xchange which includes lots of "free" stock photography.

Is that unethical as well? Since you know, the community decided to upload pictures on their own accord.

Personal responsibility. Get familiar with it.

At some point did I offend you personally?  Because you're pretty high on your high horse.

I have already stated that if you have your mind set on your perspective, it is useless to tell you anything that differs.  You will simply provide what you feel is a defense.

It doesn't matter.  I don't think its an ethical way to practice business, but it doesn't matter, because I don't have to work that way.

I know that I am compensated my worth for every image I make and thats what matters.  I just happen to think that he was not compensated properly for an image the magazine will make shitloads of money selling on their cover. 

I am not discussing legality, so drop that end of your discussion. 

I am discussing ethics, which, whether or not you have been informed, are a code by which people live, and the levels of which vary person to person. 

You can disagree with me, and I with you, but I made a point of stating that I no longer wished to continue this drivel.

It's not going anywhere.

Garrett Sanders wrote:

Compensation rarely matches effort, nor should it.  If someone off the street takes all day to make a chair that a skill carpenter could fabricate in an hour should I pay the person who took all day more?

Why would you use the work of someone who came off the street?  If you wanted a good product, you would pay a professional for their time and effort.

Lumigraphics wrote:
The photographer got $30. That wasn't what Time paid. Duh. The photographer only gets a percentage, depending on canister level. Time probably paid $120-150.

It's about time someone mentioned this, on iStock the shooter gets 20% - 40% of the sale, depending on if they're exclusive or not...

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Why would you use the work of someone who came off the street?  If you wanted a good product, you would pay a professional for their time and effort.

What if I find one guy who will do it for $1500 and one who will do it for $30 with the same quality--who would you choose?  Aren't the editors of Time magazine accountable to stockholders to keep profits up and expenses down?  (Yes, they are.)

Oxymoron of the Day: Business Ethics