Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
MC Photo wrote:
Photo Vogue seems to be the name of the page. So "on Photo Vogue" seems reasonable. agreed
The acknowledgement should be from Photo Vogue and not Vogue Italia. Besides who knows the workins of the company? For all we know they got a bunch of free interns from a local college to populate that site and keep the bulk of the applicantss happy while not getting too saturated with abundant talent. 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4144
New York, New York, US
Paul Tirado Photography wrote:
However selective, any photo chosen should not be promoted as "published" nor should anyone describe yourself - as I have seen some people on MM do - as being "Vogue approved" or what not. Ooh that's a good one. What about "I'm a Vogue photographer"?
I've never seen anyone write something like that who had an amazing port full of images that could have been used by some legitimate form of Vogue. Consistently it's a port of awful images and then I know that not only is this person a weak photographer, but they lie to themselves too, and should be ignored.
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
MC Photo wrote:
That's really your own issue.
They are having the excitement that anyone would have over their biggest achievement, and it's probably their biggest achievement. Why not let them have their moment? It doesn't harm you. members misrepresenting themselves does harm those who may b tricked into believing their exhaggerations.
if a model is 5'4" and says she's 5'9" will that hurt the designer when she shows up on set? YES
whether or not she cares who else she inconveniences or lies to is another story
I knew one model with no particular experience, no special look, mediocre skill and severe issues who represented herself all over the place (on mm and every social site she could find to put a model profile) as being in italian vogue because she had something accepted on that site and that was her biggest achievement in her entire life. i know 2 people who have worked with her since and have complained all over the place that they were expecting a vogue caliber model to show up as they were unfamiliar with the photo vogue site or her embellishments upon her involvement with it.
MC Photo wrote:
I've never seen anyone write something like that who had an amazing port full of images that could have been used by some legitimate form of Vogue. Consistently it's a port of awful images and then I know that not only is this person a weak photographer, but they lie to themselves too, and should be ignored. new people however are not as perceptive as you are 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4144
New York, New York, US
Dan OMell wrote:
I love this thread.
First of all, after OP complained, the awesome Joseph Francis tested the challenge and immediately was PUBLISHED in Vogue Italy. Great news. If she didn't, he probably would never try!
I repeat, published! Look at http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Istruzioni :
"... section will enable you to upload on Vogue.it your photographs[...] The best ones will be shown on a daily basis on PhotoVogue's home page and the best three will be also published in the magazine.
When you submit your image, it's immediately stamped, yes. But if during 24 hours the image isn't selected even for your own online portfolio on PhotoVogue Italy, it 1) erased from your online folder and 2) stays in their cache for maximum 2 more days, and then disappears. So, if some shitty guy saved the link to the submitted image that is never accepted (they usually review all of them during 24 hours max.), he can fool around for not so long at all.
I never claimed to be published in Vogue Italy, but I think it's Ok to provide the link to your image(s) accepted by PhotoVogue Italy. Why not? It's not a big deal. Why so much emotions about that? PhotoVogue Italy is definitely not Vogue Italy Magazine, but still some very minor part of their enterprise. I think nobody will be overly confused or deceived. To me, the most important part is that you can submit your images FOR FREE, damn. A lot of shitty publications or stupid shitty competitions require you to pay per each image to just submit!
The VERY big deal is to get what Francis actually did. And he was really published in Vogue Italy now, not just got 2 images accepted for his port on PhotoVogue Italy. Have you ever heard of Polo Jeans? Would you consider them part of the Polo "enterprise"?
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4144
New York, New York, US
V Laroche wrote:
No. Francis didn't upload that unicorn photo. I think the model must have uploaded it and that image was up as picture of the day already when I started this thread. I think. I am feeling discombobulated now.
HAS the image actually come out in the print edition of Vogue Italia? I don't understand what you are talking about. It's the use of "in" that's misleading, and probably grammatically incorrect.
Photos are not "in" websites, they are "on" websites. Using "in" implies "in the printed edition of the magazine."
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
MC Photo wrote:
Have you ever heard of Polo Jeans? Would you consider them part of the Polo "enterprise"? only if they maintained the same integrity of quality and policy.
if their jeans were made of lead and gave everyone scabies, i'd say they might as well be considered as far from Polo as possible
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4144
New York, New York, US
orias wrote:
MC Photo wrote:
That's really your own issue.
They are having the excitement that anyone would have over their biggest achievement, and it's probably their biggest achievement. Why not let them have their moment? It doesn't harm you. members misrepresenting themselves does harm those who may b tricked into believing their exhaggerations.
if a model is 5'4" and says she's 5'9" will that hurt the designer when she shows up on set? YES
whether or not she cares who else she inconveniences or lies to is another story
I know one model with no particular experience, no special look, mediocre skill and severe mental issues who represented herself all over the place (on mm and every social site she could find to put a model profile) as being in italian vogue because she had something accepted on that site and that was her biggest achievement in her entire life. i know 2 people who have worked with her since and have complained all over the place that they were expecting a vogue caliber model to show up as they were unfamiliar with the photo vogue site or her embellishments upon her involvement with it.
new people however are not as perceptive as you are I didn't ask if it harms someone, I asked if it harms you.
I agree that there is theoretically someone who could see the word "Vogue" ignore a crappy port and most likely do a trade shoot. But until that happens and that person feels harmed, it's speculation and possibly incorrect.
Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1415
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
orias wrote:
The acknowledgement should be from Photo Vogue and not Vogue Italia. well, those are all Toyota's:
http://www.truecar.com/prices-new/toyota/
deal with it!
orias wrote:
Besides who knows the workins of the company? For all we know they got a bunch of free interns from a local college to populate that site and keep the bulk of the applicantss happy while not getting too saturated with abundant talent. sounds rather like MM, no? LOL
the submitted images are actually "selected by Alessia Glaviano, Photo Editor of Vogue Italia and L'Uomo Vogue".
I feel sorry that you weren't yet honored. But you definitely could and, something tells me that you actually really want it . At least, Vogue Italy enterprise (who owns and supports PhotoVogue Italy) has the highest standards of quality in the world and not so corrupted as many all-american publications. plus, they have not just the name, but also the face and the recognized and unique taste.
it does not matter if somebody does not like them.
they are in majority so far. overwhelming one.
but you have the right to remain very angry
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4144
New York, New York, US
orias wrote:
only if they maintained the same integrity of quality and policy.
if their jeans were made of lead and gave everyone scabies, i'd say they might as well be considered as far from Polo as possible Well, both of those thoughts are flat out wrong.
They are not part of Polo/Ralph Lauren, they are an entirely separate company who licenses the name.
I think their website is linked to by the Polo/Ralph Lauren website, which is even more misleading.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Photo Vogue was a separate company who paid for a license. I know of no facts to suggest this, but it seems strange for Vogue to dilute their brand like this. I'm not saying dilute from putting up low quality photos, I mean allowing so many photos up that it's not really exclusive.
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
MC Photo wrote:
I didn't ask if it harms someone, I asked if it harms you.
I agree that there is theoretically someone who could see the word "Vogue" ignore a crappy port and most likely do a trade shoot. But until that happens and that person feels harmed, it's speculation and possibly incorrect. this site is full of individuals. so if you are asking people if it harms them.... there will be people that it will harm and people that it wont harm. but not in the least incorrect to say or even slight speculation to want to protect those people.
just because i have never been caught on fire, doesnt mean fire wouldn't harm me. theres a percentage of people who would be harmed by fire and a percentage of people who wouldnt be harmed by fire depending on their surroundings, what they're wearing, the wind direction, etc.
but fire will always be considered as potentially harmful and warnings will be told accordingly.... common logic
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4144
New York, New York, US
orias wrote:
this site is full of individuals. so if you are asking people if it harms them.... there will be people that it will harm and people that it wont harm just by basic logic alone so clearly it's not innacurate to say.
just because i have never been caught on fire, doesnt mean fire wouldn't harm me. theres a percentage of people who would be harmed by fire and a percentage of people who wouldnt be harmed by fire depending on their surroundings, what they're wearing, the wind direction, etc.
but fire will always be considered as potentially harmful and warnings will be told accordingly.... common logic True, but if you "have never been caught on fire" does it burn you?
There are remedies when people are harmed by fraud, but until someone actually mistakes some sloppy wording, nothing wrong has been done.
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
MC Photo wrote:
True, but if you "have never been caught on fire" does it burn you?
There are remedies when people are harmed by fraud, but until someone actually mistakes some sloppy wording, nothing wrong has been done. good well then plot the assassination of the president and plead your case that you are innocent and not causing harm because nothing wrong has been done yet lol
misrepresentation is a cause of many possible effects, and very few of them desireable for the person on the brunt end
well off to bed now...i hope to have visions of chickens and naked women dancing in my head
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4144
New York, New York, US
orias wrote:
good well then plot the assassination of the president and plead your case that you are innocent and not causing harm because nothing wrong has been done yet lol
misrepresentation is a cause of many possible effects, and very few of them desireable for the person on the brunt end
well off to bed now...i hope to have visions of chickens and naked women dancing in my head They charge you with plotting, not doing harm, so there's no need to plead that.
Analogies only work if they fit.
Model
Paige Morgan
Posts: 4060
New York, New York, US
MC Photo wrote:
I don't believe that anyone who's opinion matters is mislead.
I don't believe that people who are published on the website truly believe they are in print in Italian Vogue even if they say they are. I think they are aware that they are writing something that's using a technicality to mislead other people and they aren't misled themselves.
People who see a model's port and read one of these credit who think the model was in Italian Vogue are not experienced at what they do and are not going to influence anything of relevance through their mistake.
It's annoying seeing people getting away with stretching the truth, but it really doesn't matter in the bigger picture. I think it's a lack of comprehension, on both sides (photographer and model). I see castings on here quite often for "tear sheets" that are online only issuu mags or photocentric blogs.
There are some that are deliberately stretching the truth, but I think the bulk just doesn't know better. A lot of this site is new faces/hobbyist and they might not be aware of standard definitions of terms or bricks and mortar day to day practice.
This is also why I was very careful to word it clearly and correctly when I posted the image. I always push any non MM/larger venue where my work can be seen, but didn't want folks to feel that I was misleading them or had delusional notions of just what my precise role in the modeling world is.
Model
Melodye Joy
Posts: 545
Rancho Cucamonga, California, US
orias wrote:
good well then plot the assassination of the president and plead your case that you are innocent and not causing harm because nothing wrong has been done yet lol
misrepresentation is a cause of many possible effects, and very few of them desireable for the person on the brunt end
well off to bed now...i hope to have visions of chickens and naked women dancing in my head Fire burns wither it touches you or not.
At least that is what you know flame to be. Hot and warm on a cool day but harmful to the touch.
You get burned everytime someone discredits you or lacks in credits period.
Does it matter if its MM or VogueIT? No. You still get burned.
And to answer MC, yes, someone misrepresenting or lacking in representation does harm me personally...I have had an encounter with a said 'Vogue' artist, gave in and paid for a session guaranteeing (emphasis on guarantee) Vogue status (there was yet the information of 'oh, by the way, its VogueIT and its online only') and what occurred? "Oh, the images were denied."
I understand that things happen and perhaps the images done were not of the caliber required but let me point out...you can't misrepresent and guarantee publication if it doesn't come to flurish. And you should never, ever call yourself a 'Vogue/Vanity Fair/Elle/Cosmo' artist unless you ARE! And PLEASE specify if you are going to state you talent for Vogue...say that it is VogueIT!
Like I said, it's an honor wither online or in publication, so, please, credit where credit is due and be upfront and honest when you represent yourself or your work.
Photographer
R Michael Walker
Posts: 11987
Costa Mesa, California, US
Their choices are eclectic to say the least. I started submitting because I figured the same as the OP..anyone could get on there with anything. I was wrong. But I did get on there, mostly with my nature work. But a Human Condition shot was chosen as their Pic of the day last month. It meant something to me and if you look at my main page I link it there BUT state clearly it's NOT the magazine just the website. But it's not like getting on MM. Not everyone will succeed. And their rights agreement is more benign than most. Yes I agree it's wrong to put "published in Vogue IT" or "Vogue approved Model/Photographer". But to people with no real tears it's a start. And for me it was just a test, like submitting to a show. PS..here is my work on Vogue It's website if you care to look: http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profi … 757bf/User
Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1415
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
MC Photo wrote:
Have you ever heard of Polo Jeans? Would you consider them part of the Polo "enterprise"? oh, I can play! --> using your own logic,
1) you should probably direct this question of yours to Italy, after all, as a country! .
2) PhotoVogue Italy is definitely an integral part of Vogue Italy enterprise. it does not matter what I consider or not. it's not my cup of tea. I'm not the decision maker.
3) those are all of Toyota's brand, after all (Highlander and Camry are still Toyota so far):
http://www.truecar.com/prices-new/toyota/
(deadly serious)...
4) Mm, what else -- what about the famous "Photo" brand as a part of your nickname -- could you be potentially sued for that? (kidding)
going to bed. love the thread!
Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1415
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
R Michael Walker wrote:
Their choices are eclectic to say the least. not too eclectic. I found some answers similar to my own opinion, here:
http://waasgallery.com/waaser/?p=14
waaser wrote:
* PhotoVogue likes memories, photos that convey emotions captured candidly, and unplanned.
* PhotoVogue likes black and white. I am not saying that every black and white photo makes it in, but I have had a lot more black and white photos approved than colour.
* The titles and descriptions do not really matter, a great deal. In the beginning, I was planning the titles and descriptions very carefully, hoping that I could woo myself to an approval with that. However, name your photo One and have the description merely say Photo, and it can still get in, if they like the photo.
* Mistakes are okay. Photos with a blur or a little film-made mark in the corner are not discarded simply because of this. Photos are chosen based not only on things such as lighting and composition, but also on the emotions that they convey, and often, mistakes make the photo more personal. I would add that they also really love something in the lines of neoclassicism (portraits, nudes, landscapes), very raw and original street candids, urban contrast rythms, god rays light, and accept artistic composites even when post-processing is really visible or has some visible flaws. content rules, and some minor technical omissions aren't very critical overall to them. maybe I'm wrong. IMHO
definitely, it's not just about fashion at all
------------
R Michael Walker wrote:
here is my work on Vogue It's website if you care to look: http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profi … 757bf/User pretty cool, and my port is here:
http://www.vogue.it/en/photovogue/Profi … 2d4fc/User
Photographer
Escalante
Posts: 5367
Chicago, Illinois, US
Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1415
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
orias wrote:
please do not make arbitrary assumptions to other peoples intentions if you are naive to their life. well, I was carried away too much. sorry about that. you're right. my apologies.
Photographer
faltered
Posts: 285
Los Angeles, California, US
orias wrote:
agreed
The acknowledgement should be from Photo Vogue and not Vogue Italia. Besides who knows the workins of the company? For all we know they got a bunch of free interns from a local college to populate that site and keep the bulk of the applicantss happy while not getting too saturated with abundant talent. I'm just going to offer my opinion which is that you're wrong about most of what you've written in the multiple posts in this thread.
Photos submitted to Vogue Italia through Photo Vogue are accepted or killed by actual Vogue Italia editors, and at times co-reviewed by other top industry editors. Not all photos they pick up only run on the website, they do run some of them (which are still on the photo vogue site) in the print version of Vogue Italia. But that's not really what Photo Vogue is.
It's a catalog that is hand selected by Alessia Glaviano and being represented by Art + Commerce, which is one of the most prestigious agencies in the world, representing Steven Meisel and other world class photographers, and they have a stock business. Once a photo is accepted by photo vogue it is eligible to be listed in the Art + Commerce stock catalog, which is a joint venture with Conde Nast (owner of Vogue) and Art + Commerce. The Photo Vogue catalog is a editorial stock image site, so having photos with photo vogue can mean income and editorial exposure. Anyone can price the images in the catalog right through the site, most of the work I have for license with them is $7,000-$14,000 per image for a 90 day exclusive (cover with circulation over 2 million). Being co-owned by Conde Nast means their own magazines (vogue (all territories), cosmopoliton, vanity fair, glamour, allure, self, GQ, etc. etc all license images from these catalogs.
So you might see it as something ridiculous but in reality it's a way to be represented by one of the top editorial stock agencies in the world, make licensing fees on your photos and get exposure by those photos appearing in top publications.
Like I said, many photos through photo vogue are actually run in the print version of Vogue Italia but if you believe being "published" is defined by being run in print only I think you're terribly mistaken. That means you're saying photographers for Newsweek are not "published"? Newsweek is done with printed versions, it's completely online now. What about prestigious magazines like ID that commission web editorials, is that not considered published? Or are you saying it's not "published" unless it's a magazine website that you think counts as published and others you might not know about are not considered being published because you're not familiar with them?
For those that make their full time living in this business a revenue stream like this are very important, regardless if some on modelmayhem think it's ridiculous or not. At least images are sold through those catalogs and photographers are getting checks. ** for those that will argue about them owning the rights etc... you have to sign an agreement for each individual photo through Vogue Italia and Art + Commerce before it's offered for editorial licensing, if you don't want your images sold they are not sold and can not be sold. I have an artist agreement with Art + Commerce and it's very clear in the contract, it's not an opt-out system it's a opt-in system.
Photographer
Escalante
Posts: 5367
Chicago, Illinois, US
faltered wrote:
I'm just going to offer my opinion which is that you're wrong about most of what you've written in the multiple posts in this thread.
Photos submitted to Vogue Italia through Photo Vogue are accepted or killed by actual Vogue Italia editors, and at times co-reviewed by other top industry editors. Not all photos they pick up only run on the website, they do run some of them (which are still on the photo vogue site) in the print version of Vogue Italia. But that's not really what Photo Vogue is.
It's a catalog that is hand selected by Alessia Glaviano and being represented by Art + Commerce, which is one of the most prestigious agencies in the world, representing Steven Meisel and other world class photographers, and they have a stock business. Once a photo is accepted by photo vogue it is eligible to be listed in the Art + Commerce stock catalog, which is a joint venture with Conde Nast (owner of Vogue) and Art + Commerce. The Photo Vogue catalog is a editorial stock image site, so having photos with photo vogue can mean income and editorial exposure. Anyone can price the images in the catalog right through the site, most of the work I have for license with them is $7,000-$14,000 per image for a 90 day exclusive (cover with circulation over 2 million). Being co-owned by Conde Nast means their own magazines (vogue (all territories), cosmopoliton, vanity fair, glamour, allure, self, GQ, etc. etc all license images from these catalogs.
So you might see it as something ridiculous but in reality it's a way to be represented by one of the top editorial stock agencies in the world, make licensing fees on your photos and get exposure by those photos appearing in top publications.
Like I said, many photos through photo vogue are actually run in the print version of Vogue Italia but if you believe being "published" is defined by being run in print only I think you're terribly mistaken. That means you're saying photographers for Newsweek are not "published"? Newsweek is done with printed versions, it's completely online now. What about prestigious magazines like ID that commission web editorials, is that not considered published? Or are you saying it's not "published" unless it's a magazine website that you think counts as published and others you might not know about are not considered being published because you're not familiar with them?
For those that make their full time living in this business a revenue stream like this are very important, regardless if some on modelmayhem think it's ridiculous or not. At least images are sold through those catalogs and photographers are getting checks. ** for those that will argue about them owning the rights etc... you have to sign an agreement for each individual photo through Vogue Italia and Art + Commerce before it's offered for editorial licensing, if you don't want your images sold they are not sold and can not be sold. I have an artist agreement with Art + Commerce and it's very clear in the contract, it's not an opt-out system it's a opt-in system. QFT+100000000000000000
Thank you for a industry voice of reason.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
faltered wrote:
For those that make their full time living in this business a revenue stream like this are very important, regardless if some on modelmayhem think it's ridiculous or not. At least images are sold through those catalogs and photographers are getting checks. ** for those that will argue about them owning the rights etc... you have to sign an agreement for each individual photo through Vogue Italia and Art + Commerce before it's offered for editorial licensing, if you don't want your images sold they are not sold and can not be sold. I have an artist agreement with Art + Commerce and it's very clear in the contract, it's not an opt-out system it's a opt-in system. +1
Well said!
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
Photographe
Posts: 2351
Bristol, England, United Kingdom
A few years ago I was in Paris with a girlfriend and in Champs Elysee Armani had set up a studio with two photographers, couples were invited to kiss and have the Armani Stamp on a printed A6 postcard a few minutes later. I could not resist.
Similar PR goes on the videogames industry, developers put their "stamp" on fan contributions and people enjoy some PR, free of charge, but unpaid also.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
faltered wrote:
I'm just going to offer my opinion which is that you're wrong about most of what you've written in the multiple posts in this thread.
Photos submitted to Vogue Italia through Photo Vogue are accepted or killed by actual Vogue Italia editors, and at times co-reviewed by other top industry editors. Not all photos they pick up only run on the website, they do run some of them (which are still on the photo vogue site) in the print version of Vogue Italia. But that's not really what Photo Vogue is.
It's a catalog that is hand selected by Alessia Glaviano and being represented by Art + Commerce, which is one of the most prestigious agencies in the world, representing Steven Meisel and other world class photographers, and they have a stock business. Once a photo is accepted by photo vogue it is eligible to be listed in the Art + Commerce stock catalog, which is a joint venture with Conde Nast (owner of Vogue) and Art + Commerce. The Photo Vogue catalog is a editorial stock image site, so having photos with photo vogue can mean income and editorial exposure. Anyone can price the images in the catalog right through the site, most of the work I have for license with them is $7,000-$14,000 per image for a 90 day exclusive (cover with circulation over 2 million). Being co-owned by Conde Nast means their own magazines (vogue (all territories), cosmopoliton, vanity fair, glamour, allure, self, GQ, etc. etc all license images from these catalogs.
So you might see it as something ridiculous but in reality it's a way to be represented by one of the top editorial stock agencies in the world, make licensing fees on your photos and get exposure by those photos appearing in top publications.
Like I said, many photos through photo vogue are actually run in the print version of Vogue Italia but if you believe being "published" is defined by being run in print only I think you're terribly mistaken. That means you're saying photographers for Newsweek are not "published"? Newsweek is done with printed versions, it's completely online now. What about prestigious magazines like ID that commission web editorials, is that not considered published? Or are you saying it's not "published" unless it's a magazine website that you think counts as published and others you might not know about are not considered being published because you're not familiar with them?
For those that make their full time living in this business a revenue stream like this are very important, regardless if some on modelmayhem think it's ridiculous or not. At least images are sold through those catalogs and photographers are getting checks. ** for those that will argue about them owning the rights etc... you have to sign an agreement for each individual photo through Vogue Italia and Art + Commerce before it's offered for editorial licensing, if you don't want your images sold they are not sold and can not be sold. I have an artist agreement with Art + Commerce and it's very clear in the contract, it's not an opt-out system it's a opt-in system. This is an excellent read & fantastic information.
Looks like having that 'stamp' can only be a good thing.
I never tried for something like that; after reading this, maybe I should:)
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
faltered wrote:
Photos submitted to Vogue Italia through Photo Vogue are accepted or killed by actual Vogue Italia editors, and at times co-reviewed by other top industry editors. Not all photos they pick up only run on the website, they do run some of them (which are still on the photo vogue site) in the print version of Vogue Italia. But that's not really what Photo Vogue is.
It's a catalog that is hand selected by Alessia Glaviano and being represented by Art + Commerce, which is one of the most prestigious agencies in the world, representing Steven Meisel and other world class photographers, and they have a stock business. Once a photo is accepted by photo vogue it is eligible to be listed in the Art + Commerce stock catalog, which is a joint venture with Conde Nast (owner of Vogue) and Art + Commerce. The Photo Vogue catalog is a editorial stock image site, so having photos with photo vogue can mean income and editorial exposure. Anyone can price the images in the catalog right through the site, most of the work I have for license with them is $7,000-$14,000 per image for a 90 day exclusive (cover with circulation over 2 million). Being co-owned by Conde Nast means their own magazines (vogue (all territories), cosmopoliton, vanity fair, glamour, allure, self, GQ, etc. etc all license images from these catalogs.
So you might see it as something ridiculous but in reality it's a way to be represented by one of the top editorial stock agencies in the world, make licensing fees on your photos and get exposure by those photos appearing in top publications.
Like I said, many photos through photo vogue are actually run in the print version of Vogue Italia but if you believe being "published" is defined by being run in print only I think you're terribly mistaken. That means you're saying photographers for Newsweek are not "published"? Newsweek is done with printed versions, it's completely online now. What about prestigious magazines like ID that commission web editorials, is that not considered published? Or are you saying it's not "published" unless it's a magazine website that you think counts as published and others you might not know about are not considered being published because you're not familiar with them?
For those that make their full time living in this business a revenue stream like this are very important, regardless if some on modelmayhem think it's ridiculous or not. At least images are sold through those catalogs and photographers are getting checks. ** for those that will argue about them owning the rights etc... you have to sign an agreement for each individual photo through Vogue Italia and Art + Commerce before it's offered for editorial licensing, if you don't want your images sold they are not sold and can not be sold. I have an artist agreement with Art + Commerce and it's very clear in the contract, it's not an opt-out system it's a opt-in system. if you read the threads please pay care to pay attention to what you're reading.
i never said getting on the site holds literally no value for anyone. i said its not as valuable as most people are perpetrating it to be.
it was said in here that only one higher up person did all the work selecting for the photo vogue website. i said that would be wishful thinking as anyone worth that kind of weight would be doing more important things like the publications. Clearly they have a large team, and if you have record documentation of the employment hours of said editors and how much time they actually spend on photo vogue selections, we'd all love ot see it. But being well versed in this industry from all positions, most company operations are all smoke and mirrors and about keeping the best possible appearance with doing minimal for it. Its a business remember?
i never said being published in general was for print versions only. You have read a wealth of info in this thread and putting words in members mouths to substatantiate your bias because you're involved with their company. But as a lot of people have agreed PhotoVogue is not a published credit or a caliber equivalent tobeing published. Extrapolating that out to eceptions where online credits are still heavily valued is fine, but misrepresenting what i've said innacurately is not. NEwsweek is an awesome addition to the resume, but if they ever start a site called photo news which is a slightly more closed social site than facebook to get lots of hits and images to get more hits and maybe eventually post a small percentage to their parent company and maybe pay that small percentage..... then i'd feel the same about that subsidiary site as well
I'm sure some people are getting paid, but the percentage of those who are giving them free images versus those that are making big dollars from them like you for being published in their print work is far skewed with the excitement to be part of it in my opinion. How much did they pay you to pull images from your photovogue profile to publish in Vogue Italia? What and what length usage rights did they require you to sign for after they chose your pieces?
For new people any credit is a good credit. for those looking to get their name out there being seen on a social site like that is one more step up from deviant art or mm. However having a profile on there where they find some of your images accetable to display isn't some grand ol majestic honor that only a handful of people share in the world either.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
orias wrote:
I'm sure some people are getting paid, but the percentage of those who are giving them free images versus those that are making big dollars from them like you for being published in their print work is far skewed with the excitement to be part of it in my opinion.
For new people any credit is a good credit. for those looking to get their name out there being seen on a social site like that is one more step up from deviant art or mm. Nobody is giving them "free" images any more so than we do when we upload images to MM or Facebook - less in fact.
If you're so sure it's easy to get images accepted then why don't you create a profile there and come back in 4 days with a link to your portfolio where all of your 12 submitted images are displayed?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Nobody is giving them "free" images any more so than we do when we upload images to MM or Facebook - less in fact.
If you're so sure it's easy to get images accepted then why don't you create a profile there and come back in 4 days with a link to your portfolio where all of your 12 submitted images are displayed?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com i didnt realize a free social site was so engrained in people's self worth to make them this defensive. my mistake. i forgot this is mayhem, land if irrationality.
stamps reign supreme here and a stamp site affiliated with a land of industry legitimacy is clearly worth me bending over backwards to participate in and gain my seal of club approval lol
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
orias wrote:
It was said in here that only one higher up person did all the work selecting for the photo vogue website. i said that would be wishful thinking as anyone worth that kind of weight would be doing more important things like the publications. Of course there is a large team of sub-editors performing the initial screenings and throwing out 99% of what's uploaded.
However, it's clearly a 2 stage process, as I have witnessed in my own portfolio an occasion where I uploaded the 3 allowed images one day and within an hour two had been deleted and one left in the queue. By the next day, that remaining image was in my portfolio, but there was a significant delay - maybe 12 hours - between the first two being rejected and the third being accepted. Clearly the sub-editors perform the initial screening and put images that "pass" into a separate queue for final approval.
The Vogue.it website clearly states that all selected images are personally approved by the editor Alessia Glaviano and with only a couple of hundred new images approved each day this would take no more than a few minutes of her time to click "yes" or "no" to each of a stream of images scrolling past on her screen while she was on the phone or eating her lunch etc..
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
orias wrote:
i didnt realize a free social site was so engrained in people's self worth to make them this defensive. my mistake. i forgot this is mayhem, land if irrationality.
stamps reign supreme here and a stamp site affiliated with a land of industry legitimacy is clearly worth me bending over backwards to participate in and gain my seal of club approval lol Go ahead - mock as much as you like.
You're not standing to gain exposure on one of the most respected fashion magazine websites in the world, with the additional opportunity to earn significant licensing income from those images via the affiliation with Art+Commerce, so I guess it doesn't make any difference to you.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, US
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Of course there is a large team of sub-editors performing the initial screenings and throwing out 99% of what's uploaded.
However, it's clearly a 2 stage process, as I have witnessed in my own portfolio an occasion where I uploaded the 3 allowed images one day and within an hour two had been deleted and one left in the queue. By the next day, that remaining image was in my portfolio, but there was a significant delay - maybe 12 hours - between the first two being rejected and the third being accepted. Clearly the sub-editors perform the initial screening and put images that "pass" into a separate queue for final approval.
The Vogue.it website clearly states that all selected images are personally approved by the editor Alessia Glaviano and with only a couple of hundred new images approved each day this would take no more than a few minutes of her time to click "yes" or "no" to each of a stream if images scrolling past on her computer screen while she was on the phone or eating her lunch etc..
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com Thanks for that info Stefano... I think I may upload some images myself now...
Could be fun if accepted!
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
with only a couple of hundred new images approved each day this would take no more than a few minutes of her time to click "yes" or "no" to each of a stream if images scrolling past on her computer screen while she was on the phone or eating her lunch etc.. my point eactly. There would be a low probability of The judgement being based on one extremely high worth persons lengthy contemplation of the artists skill, vision, composition, lighting prowess, etc. and then accepted as the best representation of the company.
IF that were the case it would be a tremendous honor to be there
Instead the higher probability would be the scanning through tens of thousands of mind numbing submissions and randomly picking those passing blobs that catch the eye for whatever reason in that moment. That is all that is needed for the logo o acceptance.
Further scouting later with more intent and legitimate scrutiny of the company would yield the quality to promote as image of the day or those that go into print caliber pools. Those would be worth noting
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
orias wrote:
Instead the higher probability would be the scanning through tens of thousands of mind numbing submissions and randomly picking those that catch the eye for whatever reason in that moment. That is all that is needed for the logo o acceptance. Wrong. As I clearly explained the initial screening is obviously performed by sub-editors. Nothing wrong with that.
But it's also clear that at "stage 2" of the process, somebody else is approving/rejecting a much smaller number of images. If you look at the site, the number accepted and published each day is in the low hundreds at most. (ETA: I just checked and in the last 3 days around 300 images per day have been approved.)
And why do you even care? To be honest, your attitude smacks more of a "dog in the manger" than a genuine concern for the welfare of those you claim are being fooled.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9474
Paris, Île-de-France, France
When Vogue Italia launched this PhotoVogue site they had a reason for doing so.
In light of Getty and Corbis ( I'm with both) and all the trunk archives the agents are now launching, they wanted their own piece of the action.
By hosting so many images with their logo on it, they are driving sales up without that much effort. Then all of a sudden they announce they will help users sell their images.
Has anyone who signed with Art and Commerce actually a sales report yet? Love to see one.
They are careful, yes, in selecting. Their instructions are to accept what people might look for, in the way of a decent editorial stock with flair.
The images can be anything. Really anything. With so many images coming their way they approve some stuff that is really bad, as well as really good, and deny the same.
It's a fun showcase and way of getting a Vogue label on your jpg.
It is not published in Vogue Italia, but for those that play their words is published on Photo Vogue, which is the same as your portfolio published on Model Mayhem!
Every once and a while I post an image. IF accepted I have another jpg with a logo. Big deal, but it's my option to auto- congratulate myself, and those who help make the pix. But it goes no further.
The logo doesn't say it's good, only that it is seen and they are ready now to exploit it, especially if you sign with Art and Commerce.
I won't as I signed with Corbis this past summer. Yet there are people in the middle of nowhere that still might benefit to have pictures sold and published via A&C.
Use it for what it's worth to you, just as they are using you, and your need to say you are published arhgghum on Vogue Italia more correctly Photo Vogue nothing more than a huge photo library in the making.
Photographer
RINALDI
Posts: 2870
Eindhoven, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands
I don't think this is bad at all, in fact, being affiliated with Vogue Italia is pretty nice. The most important thing to remember here is that all images the public can see, were curated by someone (whoever it is) of the Vogue Italia team, so their reputation is on the line as well. I am sure they maintain much higher standards and criteria than for example approving new MM members by Gatekeepers. As a model, MUA, stylist, photographer or other, you are not published in the magazine, but you are published on the website, which is like the magazine a valid and reputable platform of Vogue Italia. Vogue doesn't "just" logo-stamp your image, they show their entire audience (from you all the way to Karl Lagerfeld and beyond), that they appreciate your image, put a reasonable value to it, and approve your image to be affiliated with their major brand. Looking from a marketing stand-point, this might be the best PR you can get at no charge 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
Neil Snape wrote:
Has anyone who signed with Art and Commerce actually a sales report yet? Love to see one. Once I've uploaded my images I'll let you know
I can't imagine that Art+Commerce would actually go to the trouble of creating a photo library on this scale if they didn't expect to sell some images through it.
There is one user on here who caught the eye of the Vogue editors via her submissions to PhotoVogue and who has benefited greatly from it. I won't 'out' her in this thread but a cursory glance through the other threads on the subject will provde plenty of clues.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Wrong. As I clearly explained the initial screening is obviously performed by sub-editors. Nothing wrong with that.
But it's also clear that at "stage 2" of the process, somebody else is approving/rejecting a much smaller number of images. If you look at the site, the number accepted and published each day is in the low hundreds at most.
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com yes they accept hundreds of images a day on average..... and if they're supposedly rejecting 90% of them. that means stage one they will reject 90% of x amount of applicants. and then stage 2 (aka the big boss) will reject 90% of those that come up the ladder to eventually get PHotoVogues seal of approval
if 400 images a day accepted is the 10% passing of the top of the latter that people are claiming as their standards then the person at the top is reviewing 4,000 images a day (500 per hour for 8 hrs or over 8 images a minute and this is assuming no breaks in an 8hr work day and that the person has literally no other responsibilities like talking to their boss on the phone, answering collegue emails, etc.). the people below that have claimed those to be the highest 10% they feel are stamp candidates from the 40,000 they receive each day.
In reality this person probably reviews over 20 images a minute for the stage 2 of the process. (i put more thought and intent on my shoe selection than that lol as i weigh more than just what may give me a good stock closet later)
then stage 3 being the promotion to image of the day has more scrutiny and time in discerning the best candidates. And then Publication worthy images will receive the most attention of course
Forgive me for still not seeing passing stage 2 to be a serious industry reflection of anyones massive skill in creating a killer piece of art work that would blow away Vogue
Model
orias
Posts: 5187
Tampa, Florida, US
Neil Snape wrote:
By hosting so many images with their logo on it, they are driving sales up without that much effort. Then all of a sudden they announce they will help users sell their images.
Has anyone who signed with Art and Commerce actually a sales report yet? Love to see one.
They are careful, yes, in selecting. Their instructions are to accept what people might look for, in the way of a decent editorial stock with flair.
The images can be anything. Really anything. With so many images coming their way they approve some stuff that is really bad, as well as really good, and deny the same.
The logo doesn't say it's good, only that it is seen and they are ready now to exploit it, especially if you sign with Art and Commerce. agree on all accounts
|
