Anomalia Chin wrote:

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.

Last I checked, the original artist feels he has been compensated fairly.

And also, last I checked, I have used facts to back up my arguments, you have only used wishy washy points of ethics. 

So please don't quantify my opinions as drivel. Everything in this puchase, from what I can see, has been done according to the original agreements.

---

No, I personally have nothing wrong with you. In fact I think you seem interesting. I am purely having a discussion on the original topic at hand. It is a close topic to me, because of the involvement on both sides of stock photography that I've had over the years.

You do trade work, and I'm assuming your rates are somewhat negotiable at times. You also say you have been compensated fairly every time. Someone else might disagree with that, but it's up to you to determine if you have been treated fairly, right? The same goes for this case, and every other case of an artist knowingly and freely entering into a financial agreement.

Garrett Sanders wrote:

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

If you can find two people who will make the EXACT SAME quality yet charge two completely different products, I don't know what world you live in.  Price difference generally relies on 1. Cost to produce 2. Cost to ship 3. Cost to advertise.  There are also plenty of examples of people using something that "seems" the same yet is of inferior quality and came at a lower price.

Hugh Alison wrote:
John Harrington's blog is full of real gems:

"One of the great things that the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) does is they have a certification program. Their Certified Photographer program gives you a variety of designators that follow your name. So, just as there is "PhD", or "Esq" as a designator after your name, so too is there "CPP", which stands for "Certified Professional Photographer".

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … rself.html

I laugh at anyone who is "certified" because it means they spent a bunch of money for nothing.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
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.

Sure you're not doing it, too? You seem to have your mind made up as well. What good is a position that can't be defended?

You say this:

Anomalia Chin wrote:
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.

Then you turn around and say this:

Anomalia Chin wrote:
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.

So if the level varies from person to person, why the surprise at Asylum sticking to his guns and you yours? I don't understand.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
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.

You sure you're being compensated for your worth? Seems like a pretty big statement to make.

Huh? Time will make a shitload of money selling an image of a jar of coins? Surely you jest. It can be argued that the letters T, I, M, and E written in a stylized font have more value than that jar of coins. And again, if it were a pic of Angelina Jolie or Pres. Obama (that was not from the White House itself, maybe him in a compromising position). So what exactly was the story that the image help sell, and what was it worth, ma'am.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
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.

You hitting Quote or Reply disproves that point every single time.

It's a debate. We're here to express opinions. Maybe each side will learn something from the other. But that's up to you. Seems like you're just as entrenched in your opinion as Asylum is. Just saying.

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

Last I checked, the original artist feels he has been compensated fairly.

And also, last I checked, I have used facts to back up my arguments, you have only used wishy washy points of ethics. 

So please don't quantify my opinions as drivel. Everything in this puchase, from what I can see, has been done according to the original agreements.

---

No, I personally have nothing wrong with you. In fact I think you seem interesting. I am purely having a discussion on the original topic at hand. It is a close topic to me, because of the involvement on both sides of stock photography that I've had over the years.

You do trade work, and I'm assuming your rates are somewhat negotiable at times. You also say you have been compensated fairly every time. Someone else might disagree with that, but it's up to you to determine if you have been treated fairly, right? The same goes for this case, and every other case of an artist knowingly and freely entering into a financial agreement.

I never said he had any complaints.  this has been purely from my interpretation of what is ethical.  You can call ethics wishy washy, and it is a large part of the reason that a whole lot of american businesses made such awful decisions leading to this wonderful place we are now.  Cutting corners, cutting throats, selling things for prices that differed from what they were worth.

it is drivel because you are attempting to argue with me, when i've already said, "fine.  your perspective is your own."

you remind me a bit of an Ayn Rand reader.

Lumigraphics wrote:

I laugh at anyone who is "certified" because it means they spent a bunch of money for nothing.

I thought comparing CPP with PhD was particularly laughable.

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.

That someone on the street may be a professional that was laid off because his/her manufacturing plant outsourced all the work to China or India. I'd rather give him/her the business because of the predicament that he/she is in.

Sorry, I think your view is way skewed.

Bums aren't always dumb, you know. Lots of brains and knowledge can be found by looking past the dirty clothes and whatnot. And quite frankly, there's more business-minded people out there now than ever due to this recession we're in.

SunArcher Photography wrote:

Anomalia Chin wrote:
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.

Sure you're not doing it, too? You seem to have your mind made up as well. What good is a position that can't be defended?

You say this:

Anomalia Chin wrote:
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.

Then you turn around and say this:

Anomalia Chin wrote:
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.

So if the level varies from person to person, why the surprise at Asylum sticking to his guns and you yours? I don't understand.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
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.

You sure you're being compensated for your worth? Seems like a pretty big statement to make.

Huh? Time will make a shitload of money selling an image of a jar of coins? Surely you jest. It can be argued that the letters T, I, M, and E written in a stylized font have more value than that jar of coins. And again, if it were a pic of Angelina Jolie or Pres. Obama (that was not from the White House itself, maybe him in a compromising position). So what exactly was the story that the image help sell, and what was it worth, ma'am.


You hitting Quote or Reply disproves that point every single time.

It's a debate. We're here to express opinions. Maybe each side will learn something from the other. But that's up to you. Seems like you're just as entrenched in your opinion as Asylum is. Just saying.

You, are tiring.  I already said there was nothing wrong with him sticking to his guns, I just don't like his tone.

The other point is, I think you're approaching the entire discussion he and I are having with a very screwy POV. 

Just saying.

RJ Ohrstedt wrote:

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.

I think are right. When I first started out I was in a medium-sized city and I knew just about every photographer in town. We could have a meeting at someone's studio or even home and everyone would easily fit.

Now there is like 1000 photographers that show up in a search just on Model Mayhem alone. My guess is that 990 of them make little to nothing.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

I never said he had any complaints.  this has been purely from my interpretation of what is ethical.  You can call ethics wishy washy, and it is a large part of the reason that a whole lot of american businesses made such awful decisions leading to this wonderful place we are now.  Cutting corners, cutting throats, selling things for prices that differed from what they were worth.

it is drivel because you are attempting to argue with me, when i've already said, "fine.  your perspective is your own."

you remind me a bit of an Ayn Rand reader.

I suppose I'm not supposed to debate with you when you wish me not to. I apologize for offending you with my differing opinions.

You seem to be set on the idea of "selling things for prices that differ from what they are worth"

Please tell me what the original image is worth and why you think that.

And then tell me why you think the artist uploaded the image for the price he uploaded it for.

Thank you.

SunArcher Photography wrote:

That someone on the street may be a professional that was laid off because his/her manufacturing plant outsourced all the work to China or India. I'd rather give him/her the business because of the predicament that he/she is in.

Sorry, I think your view is way skewed.

Bums aren't always dumb, you know. Lots of brains and knowledge can be found by looking past the dirty clothes and whatnot. And quite frankly, there's more business-minded people out there now than ever due to this recession we're in.

So you made a general statement, I made a more specific one, and you decided to find your moral high horse? 

I think you're hunting for an argument, and its silly.

By saying, "someone off the street" you imply a shoddier quality of work.

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

I suppose I'm not supposed to debate with you when you wish me not to. I apologize for offending you with my differing opinions.

You seem to be set on the idea of "selling things for prices that differ from what they are worth"

Please tell me what the original image is worth and why you think that.

And then tell me why you think the artist uploaded the image for the price he uploaded it for.

Thank you.

You're not getting it.  Sending you a PM.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
If you can find two people who will make the EXACT SAME quality yet charge two completely different products, I don't know what world you live in.

I do. The real one. General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and the Chrysler Corporation did it (and continue to do it) for YEARS.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Price difference generally relies on 1. Cost to produce 2. Cost to ship 3. Cost to advertise.

Not true. Perceived value in the name/brand also dictates price. It's been proven for watches, cars, vodka, and whatnot. The name "Mercedes-Benz" has value. The name "Michael Jackson" has value. The name "Rolex" or "Nuvo" have value. That also reflects in the price of something.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
There are also plenty of examples of people using something that "seems" the same yet is of inferior quality and came at a lower price.

There's also examples of people using something that is the same yet "seems" of superior quality and came at a higher price, like Grey Goose vodka:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Goose_%28vodka%29

When Sidney Frank created Grey Goose, he priced it well above established competitors such as Absolut Vodka. This high price created a perception of quality. Frank's strategy proved successful, as Grey Goose was a financial hit and led to significant changes in the market. Many people attribute Grey Goose as being a major inspiration for the various other high-priced vodkas.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
I think you're hunting for an argument, and its silly.

I'm showing you that there's more to it than simply dismissing others for their seeming lack of ethics.

Just as people have expanded upon the "more than meets the eye" of Harrington and Lam.

If my POV is screwy, you won't offend me by telling me how. I'm all ears.

SunArcher Photography wrote:

Anomalia Chin wrote:
If you can find two people who will make the EXACT SAME quality yet charge two completely different products, I don't know what world you live in.

I do. The real one. General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and the Chrysler Corporation did it (and continue to do it) for YEARS.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Price difference generally relies on 1. Cost to produce 2. Cost to ship 3. Cost to advertise.

Not true. Perceived value in the name/brand also dictates price. It's been proven for watches, cars, vodka, and whatnot. The name "Mercedes-Benz" has value. The name "Michael Jackson" has value. The name "Rolex" or "Nuvo" have value. That also reflects in the price of something.


There's also examples of people using something that is the same yet "seems" of superior quality and came at a higher price, like Grey Goose vodka:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Goose_%28vodka%29

When Sidney Frank created Grey Goose, he priced it well above established competitors such as Absolut Vodka. This high price created a perception of quality. Frank's strategy proved successful, as Grey Goose was a financial hit and led to significant changes in the market. Many people attribute Grey Goose as being a major inspiration for the various other high-priced vodkas.

All three examples you just made for car companies are suffering financially right now.  they are not strong examples of anything save my point that undercutting leads to destruction.

Booze is often purchased by people who have a specific taste for it.  I, and many many people i know, will buy only specific brands of certain alcohols.  Some things depend entirely on taste.

The perceived value argument, while valid in many points of american history, is not as strong now.  People tend to buy cheap, with little care for quality.

Garrett Sanders wrote:
I just noticed that what a lot of people are arguing for is for everyone to be paid a large amount for their pictures and attempting to stop anyone that would lower the price and diminish their income.

That's called "price fixing" and it's illegal.

If Best Buy has a camera for $600 and Walmart decides to sell it for $400 that's okay.  I would really hate it if the manager of Best Buy and the manager of Walmart got together and decided what price to set--that's called collusion.

Careful, you're going to get called an Ayn Rand fan with that kind of logic.

SunArcher Photography wrote:

I'm showing you that there's more to it than simply dismissing others for their seeming lack of ethics.

Just as people have expanded upon the "more than meets the eye" of Harrington and Lam.

If my POV is screwy, you won't offend me by telling me how. I'm all ears.

I would do that in a private message, instead of attempting to insult you in a forum.

the difference is respect.

Here i will merely tell you I think you're wrong.  I will site my thoughts, and refrain from even possibly coming off as a bitch.

If you want to continue this discussion, and are willing to do it respectfully, then I don't mind doing it through a message.  But this stops becoming a discussion when I have several people throwing what they perceive to be truth at my head for every post.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

If you can find two people who will make the EXACT SAME quality yet charge two completely different products, I don't know what world you live in.  Price difference generally relies on 1. Cost to produce 2. Cost to ship 3. Cost to advertise.  There are also plenty of examples of people using something that "seems" the same yet is of inferior quality and came at a lower price.

Ironically, with photography many times the person who charges less does a better job.  MM is loaded with photographers who make nothing and are a cut above many "professionals."

(Note: this is also true with most art--painting, sculptor, music, etc.  Often the most compensated, most acclaimed artists are talentless hacks who have caught on with the art crowd.  Anyone ever hear of a tale called "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen?)

slave to the lens wrote:

Careful, you're going to get called an Ayn Rand fan with that kind of logic.

Do you know anything about her theories?  You would have understood the reference if you've read any of her books.

Garrett Sanders wrote:

Ironically, with photography many times the person who charges less does a better job.  MM is loaded with photographers who make nothing and are a cut above many "professionals."

(Note: this is also true with most art--painting, sculptor, music, etc.  Often the most compensated, most acclaimed artists are talentless hacks who have caught on with the art crowd.  Anyone ever hear of a tale called "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen?)

Sometimes, and I am quite happy to admit this, you are right.  Its the times when you aren't that bother me, because they seem to be becoming a trend.

Star wrote:
I then talked about what people should be focusing on, that TIME violated the usage agreement and did not buy the correct license nor did they do the correct crediting

it's clear in this thread many don't understand how magazines operate.  editorial calendars outside of breaking news are set in advance and used at discretion of the managing editor under the direction of the publisher.  editorial and photo departments are then assigned to capture and depict the stories or events under that "general" calendar.

it is the photo editor's role to present not just one, but many photos to the managing editor team that best portray and give cover impact to sell magazines on the newsstand.  photo departments use multiple resources, including virtually every stock agency.  what we don't know is whether "time" commissioned photography for the cover first, then chose to use a stock photo that better depicted the story to be told.

upon stock selection if the photo is chosen under certain use/circulation agreement and was not purchased as such then it's likely the error will be corrected.  if there is no such agreement or error then the payment stands and it merely becomes sellers remorse or a nice tear sheet.

as for crediting, the source was credited but not the photographer.  although i'm not familiar with istock crediting procedure, i do know from personal experience through my agency that credit information is placed in the iptc information within the file and if left blank the agency credit is all that is provided as source (the iptc info is also used for tracking payment so it's important to include, but if i don't include it fortunately they know me well enough it doesn't slip through).

it's unfortunate the blog author went out of his way to attempt a discredit at both time and the photographer, not to mention the slap at mayhem which gives countless hours of energy and creative spirit for advancing the craft.  i'm sure if he were to join and enter the daily image competitions he would soon learn just how big this sandbox is, and he would find himself beaten down to size by the mere hobbyist competition.

291 wrote:

it's clear in this thread many don't understand how magazines operate.  editorial calendars outside of breaking news are set in advance and used at discretion of the managing editor under the direction of the publisher.  editorial and photo departments are then assigned to capture and depict the stories or events under that "general" calendar.

it is the photo editor's role to present not just one, but many photos to the managing editor team that best portray and give cover impact to sell magazines on the newsstand.  photo departments use multiple resources, including virtually every stock agency.  what we don't know is whether "time" commissioned photography for the cover first, then chose to use a stock photo that better depicted the story to be told.

upon stock selection if the photo is chosen under certain use/circulation agreement and was not purchased as such then it's likely the error will be corrected.  if there is no such agreement or error then the payment stands and it merely becomes sellers remorse or a nice tear sheet.

as for crediting, the source was credited but not the photographer.  although i'm not familiar with istock crediting procedure, i do know from personal experience through my agency that credit information is placed in the iptc information within the file and if left blank the agency credit is all that is provided as source (the iptc info is also used for tracking payment so it's important to include, but if i don't include it fortunately they know me well enough it doesn't slip through).

it's unfortunate the blog author went out of his way to attempt a discredit at both time and the photographer, not to mention the slap at mayhem which gives countless hours of energy and creative spirit for advancing the craft.  i'm sure if he were to join and enter the daily image competitions he would soon learn just how big this sandbox is, and he would find himself beaten down to size by the mere hobbyist competition.

I do have to say that some of his statements were a bit off the top.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
If you want to continue this discussion, and are willing to do it respectfully, then I don't mind doing it through a message.

I never called a name. I never said your POV was screwy. I never once mentioned that Asylum was right or wrong or that you were right or wrong.

You can send me a message here if you so desire. Your choice.

Lumigraphics wrote:

It sounds like a whiny rant to me. Too fucking bad for him.

I agree...who even cares!!! If he sold it for $2...I wouldn't care. Some people just want to create art because they do and have no desire to get paid for it. Lots of irony in this whole story...not threatened.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

Sometimes, and I am quite happy to admit this, you are right.  Its the times when you aren't that bother me, because they seem to be becoming a trend.

I do appreciate and admire the creativity in your portfolio. 

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Do you know anything about her theories?  You would have understood the reference if you've read any of her books.

Yes, I know about her theories and I completely understood the reference, hence my post. I've read all her books and many of Leonard Piekoff's as well .


Silly me, I set a price for my efforts and when someone pays it I'm fine. I don't begrudge them looking elsewhere for a better price or talent/ value ratio. I'm funny that way.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

The perceived value argument, while valid in many points of american history, is not as strong now.  People tend to buy cheap, with little care for quality.

Bingo - I go to Walmart and buy bread instead of going to the local baker it's OK, but if TIME is looking for "cheap" as in stock photographs instead of going to a high profile photographer, it's bad?  I don't believe "quality" or the lack there of is even in this equation. Good enough as in bread is sometimes good enough on other things, too.

Garrett Sanders wrote:

I do appreciate and admire the creativity in your portfolio. 

Thank you.  And I am diggin the heck outta yours.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

You're not getting it.  Sending you a PM.

My Response to your PM wrote:
Alright, well it certainly wasn't intentional to insult you.

But I take issue with being told that I am unethical and the businesses I have taken part of are as well. I have been on both sides of stock photography everywhere from Getty (high priced) down to Alamy (middle ground) and iStock (low end).

I would consider it to be unethical if he didn't get what he was expecting. If Time stole the image, or didn't pay what he agreed to. I would most definitely say that is unethical.

But fact is, he knowingly put it up there and got exactly what he was expecting/wanted.

Also, I find it offensive that you seem to think I have no concept of ethics. I have been fighting in my work places and elsewhere for equality in many, many, many ways. From gay rights, to race relations, to inter company personnel relations.

I don't like when people are taken advantage of. And I would be livid if Time did that. But to me, it looks like  he put the image up on his own accord and Time purchased the image according to the agreements with the stock site. I really don't understand how that is an ethics issue, everyone did exactly what they agreed to, no one took advantage of anyone else.

Again, I apologize for coming off as insulting.

I will post this in the thread and exit the thread so that you and the others can continue a productive conversation.

Again, I want to publicly apologize for being offensive and aggressive.

-----

To the rest of you, please find my post regarding the usage and license agreements. Time did, indeed purchase the correct License and was not required to provide credit under their license agreement.

Thank you for the opportunity to give my opinion on the subject.

slave to the lens wrote:

Yes, I know about her theories and I completely understood the reference, hence my post. I've read all her books and many of Leonard Piekoff's as well .


Silly me, I set a price for my efforts and when someone pays it I'm fine. I don't begrudge them looking elsewhere for a better price or talent/ value ratio. I'm funny that way.

And my worry is that it will become a trend, and not just an occasional behaviour.  This was expressed before.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

Thank you.  And I am diggin the heck outta yours.

Thank you.

291 wrote:

it's clear in this thread many don't understand how magazines operate.  editorial calendars outside of breaking news are set in advance and used at discretion of the managing editor under the direction of the publisher.  editorial and photo departments are then assigned to capture and depict the stories or events under that "general" calendar.

it is the photo editor's role to present not just one, but many photos to the managing editor team that best portray and give cover impact to sell magazines on the newsstand.  photo departments use multiple resources, including virtually every stock agency.  what we don't know is whether "time" commissioned photography for the cover first, then chose to use a stock photo that better depicted the story to be told.

upon stock selection if the photo is chosen under certain use/circulation agreement and was not purchased as such then it's likely the error will be corrected.  if there is no such agreement or error then the payment stands and it merely becomes sellers remorse or a nice tear sheet.

as for crediting, the source was credited but not the photographer.  although i'm not familiar with istock crediting procedure, i do know from personal experience through my agency that credit information is placed in the iptc information within the file and if left blank the agency credit is all that is provided as source (the iptc info is also used for tracking payment so it's important to include, but if i don't include it fortunately they know me well enough it doesn't slip through).

it's unfortunate the blog author went out of his way to attempt a discredit at both time and the photographer, not to mention the slap at mayhem which gives countless hours of energy and creative spirit for advancing the craft.  i'm sure if he were to join and enter the daily image competitions he would soon learn just how big this sandbox is, and he would find himself beaten down to size by the mere hobbyist competition.

I posted this on the other thread.

The subject for this week's cover could be a bunch of things- Gate's arrest and Obama's remarks about it, 30 year anniversary of the moon landing, Palin leaving office, 2002 talk of using the military for law enforcement that just became public, Ford making a profit, etc etc.

Ray Holyer wrote:
They didn't use the image because it was cheap, they used it to sell the magazine.

That's my take. If the image was listed at 1000.00-3000.00 they probably would have bought it without blinking an eye. It matched what they needed and paid per the agreement.

Now as far as the blog. If the old dinosaurs of the photographic field are not smart enough and quick enough to adapt to the new environment then we will be seeing them in a museum next to their obsolete camera gear.

To John Harrington. Since you obviously read these threads. Nice job asshole. Way to make professional photographers look like whiny babies. Blaming everyone else for your shrinking business just shows how insecure you are in your abilities.

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

Anomalia Chin wrote:
You're not getting it.  Sending you a PM.

Again, I want to publicly apologize for being offensive and aggressive.

-----

To the rest of you, please find my post regarding the usage and license agreements. Time did, indeed purchase the correct License and was not required to provide credit under their license agreement.

Thank you for the opportunity to give my opinion on the subject.

Fine and fair enough.  I was not calling you unethical, and if I was, it was not my intention.  I was stating that I, and some of the other "dissenters", find these practices to be unethical. 

I am sorry for offending you as well.