Nakrani Studios wrote:
Do any of you really submit to these creeps?

Yes, though I don't think it's fair to call them all creeps.

As with everything there are good ones that are really trying to put out something nice and there are a lot of bad ones that are total shit. There's a growing list of these things that I will never touch again because of how they act or how they correspond with me or the models. As time goes on though I'm getting to fine-tune things a little and have a list of decent POD mags that seem to be worth dealing with.

Nakrani Studios wrote:
Has it done anything for you or your business?

Not really, no. At best it makes me look slightly more impressive to the same models you're talking about and a few clients. It does however seem to be making it easier for my girlfriend and some of the models I shoot with to get some of the local GWCs to shoot with them. Maybe I need to start charging the girls to do these shoots that they're going to want to submit later. lol It seems to be doing them more good than me.

Zack Zoll wrote:
... and the magazine folded.

With MagCloud and Facebook a lot of these things have got to be nearly zero-cost operations. When one of them fails it's usually attributed to one of three causes:

1) They couldn't get enough submissions or any kind of quality to make the magazine work. I don't see this one often because in a lot of cases the editors will decide they also want to be the photographers and they'll start shooting terrible work with bad models to fill their own pages.
2) The time investment was getting to be too much for them to maintain.
3) They weren't getting enough money to make the time investment worth it.

Nakrani Studios wrote:
So I start googling these (creeps) and allot of them are making a profit selling PDF files as on line magazines with our images in them, usually for $18-30. Most of them use a service called Magcloud. Mag cloud charges around  $12(+/-) to host your "PDF Magzine" and provide the services to sell it.

Why would a photographer let some bogus company use their images for profit and not get a kick back of some kind. Legitimate magazines use advertisers to cover the cost of the magazine.

Just to provide a different perspective, consider the following:

ModelMayhem hosted an article by the editor of an online fashion magazine: https://www.modelmayhem.com/education/p … their-work

This magazine can't be bought in stores and obviously doesn't meet your standard of getting published for real, but MM gave him the time of day and whatever credibility that might make you afford it/him.

He made that article to talk about the things photographers tend to screw up on when submitting their work.

MM also hosted another article IIRC where-in a male model talked about how he got published/got covers.

At a minimum, going through this kind of submission process with the online and magcloud magazines that aren't crap serves as a form of practice and fine tuning for going into bigger magazines that you and they might hold in higher regard. In that way, it has some value.

Nakrani Studios wrote:
I don't know that "Fake published" is the right word, But most of us are here because at some point, we either photograph models now, have in the past, or plan on it in the future.

--snip--
They also requested high resolution versions of these images (RED FLAG). They also sent release forms saying that the photographer can't sue them for usage of the photo's online and in print, blah, blah, blah,etc.(Red Flag 2)

They also wanted photo's without the watermarks on them (Really?)

So I start googling these (creeps) and allot of them are making a profit selling PDF files as on line magazines with our images in them, usually for $18-30. Most of them use a service called Magcloud. Mag cloud charges around  $12(+/-) to host your "PDF Magzine" and provide the services to sell it.

Why would a photographer let some bogus company use their images for profit and not get a kick back of some kind. Legitimate magazines use advertisers to cover the cost of the magazine.
--snip--

When a model asks me for help in submitting to these publications, I help them.

Your red flags are not even something I worry about in the least. Of course, the publication wants a high res image. They need something that still produces high quality images when printed to a 8x10" or so. A low res jpeg of 800x1200 pixels won't do them a good job of a full page image (100pixels per inch). They need twice that if not three times.

Typical usage agreements involve getting permission to publish your images. They realize you still own the copyright, so you need to specifically grant them permission - sometimes called a photographer's release. No red flag to me on this one.

No watermarks seems appropriate. I haven't see any major magazine publish images with some photographer's huge logo splattered across the image. Why should a e-zine do it? So allow a small signature or logo in the corner; some do not.

Magcloud allows print per request. The editor no longer needs to buy 1000's of copies to get a reasonable printing cost, and then worry whether he can sell each one. If the customer is willing to pay for the $12 printed copy, they get it. Or they can get a PDF version to read for much less.

While these are not publishers of the Vogue or Playboy likes, they have their markets. If a model is excited about getting into a smaller publication, I'm happy for them. Why shouldn't I help them by following the requested submissions?

If Vogue or Playboy sent you any of those requirements, you might bend over backwards to comply with the requests. I really do not see any red flags. Just some smaller publication trying to produce something of quality, and worth the charges to their customers. Low res, watermark images with questionable permissions are best left for on-line viewing, not print.

Nakrani Studios wrote:
I don't know that "Fake published" is the right word, But most of us are here because at some point, we either photograph models now, have in the past, or plan on it in the future..

I did not want to name any of them specifically but I am sure you all know many of the ones I would have mentioned. Do any of you really submit to these creeps? Has it done anything for you or your business?

And when these people email you, wow, You can tell it's a scam because they don't know how to talk to potential clients.

I've been submitting to many Mag Cloud magazines among other print magazines. It costs nothing to submit or be published, and does make the models and myself happy. The more people who see my work, the more that are interested in shooting with me. Photography is my hobby, not my job. Much better to have pictures seen than to keep them on a hard drive.

I shot for two newspapers in my teens and was published many times, doesn't mean a thing now.

If you don't want to submit to these 'magazines' , don't. Not the right choice for everyone. Concentrate on your own business plan.

Michael McGowan wrote:
Once upon a time, you could pick up a copy of Newsweek. Now we see "expert" reporters from The Daily Beast and Huffington Post on TV all the time.

Publishing isn't what it used to be. And even back when paper publishing was clearly what mattered, magazines wanted images without watermarks (really). They still do. Want to check this out? see how many images are watermarked in any of the major magazines or even newspapers. Just doesn't happen.

A lot of the griping I hear about magazine submissions comes about because people don't understand what publishers need. This goes for online magazines, too. The better ones all follow the pattern laid out for them by paper mags.

Michael, Legit "periodicals" is one thing. These e-zines, online magazines(Not everyone, but a majority of them) have no credentials. They are fly by night, no ownership or responsibility.

Of course if a legit paper or magazine wanted to use an image, it would be provided without a watermark.

L2Photography net wrote:
"published" check with my name on it means more to me.
L2

Which is usually the one feature that is lacking.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Just a side note for the US readers - Because this is a board with an international membership it is important to note that in the REST OF THE WORLD photographers, as authors of their work, have legally binding moral rights and universally that includes the right, in law and morally, to be identified as the author of their work. That can be by way of a watermark or by way of a credit. Many of the so-called publishers offer neither option. Studio36

So far, I have images in 8 different  Mag Cloud magazines. I have photo credits on the first page of each submission, and in the index. So do the model, the MU and H person and often the tattoo artist. I wouldn't be submitting if there was no way to identify our work. It brings me more work, that's reward enough for me.

I don't see why so many get worked up over what other people choose to do with their images.

photo212grapher wrote:

When a model asks me for help in submitting to these publications, I help them.

Your red flags are not even something I worry about in the least. Of course, the publication wants a high res image. They need something that still produces high quality images when printed to a 8x10" or so. A low res jpeg of 800x1200 pixels won't do them a good job of a full page image (100pixels per inch). They need twice that if not three times.

Typical usage agreements involve getting permission to publish your images. They realize you still own the copyright, so you need to specifically grant them permission - sometimes called a photographer's release. No red flag to me on this one.

No watermarks seems appropriate. I haven't see any major magazine publish images with some photographer's huge logo splattered across the image. Why should a e-zine do it? So allow a small signature or logo in the corner; some do not.

Magcloud allows print per request. The editor no longer needs to buy 1000's of copies to get a reasonable printing cost, and then worry whether he can sell each one. If the customer is willing to pay for the $12 printed copy, they get it. Or they can get a PDF version to read for much less.

While these are not publishers of the Vogue or Playboy likes, they have their markets. If a model is excited about getting into a smaller publication, I'm happy for them. Why shouldn't I help them by following the requested submissions?

If Vogue or Playboy sent you any of those requirements, you might bend over backwards to comply with the requests. I really do not see any red flags. Just some smaller publication trying to produce something of quality, and worth the charges to their customers. Low res, watermark images with questionable permissions are best left for on-line viewing, not print.

+1

I'm the creative director of a fashion magazine and I don't understand your issue with smaller magazines??

Red Sky Photography wrote:
I don't see why so many get worked up over what other people choose to do with their images.

Because sometimes what they are doing, or not doing, as the case might be, causes no end of grief to others, both the business of photography itself and individuals.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Because sometimes what they are doing, or not doing, as the case might be, causes no end of grief to others, both the business of photography itself and individuals.

Studio36

Photography is my hobby. It's not my place to help you or anyone else succeed in your business.

I'm a professional Automotive technician. Do you think I worry about anyone doing a tune up in their driveway, for themselves or their friends for FREE. I could say they are taking work away from me, but people come to me for my knowledge and experience. If you think my hobby is taking work away from you, then you better step up your game.

BTHPhoto wrote:
I think when people start using the terms "real" and "fake" to distinguish between their choices/accomplishments/self-perceptions and those of other people, they're generally more concerned with reminding the world of their own importance than with anything else.  If Joe-next-door feels proud of being published in an on-line magazine, exhibited in a coffee shop, self publishing a book, or what ever else he chooses to do with his images, then the only person who has a right to say whether that accomplishment is legitimate or not is Joe, and people who take it upon themselves to denigrate Joe and belittle his accomplishment are really just exposing their own insecurities for the world to see.

+1

Nakrani Studios wrote:
I am curious to know which ones are good to work with

The ones with editors who know the difference between allot and a lot.

ERSATZ
adj.
1. Being a usually inferior imitation or substitute; artificial: e..g. ersatz coffee made of chicory.
2. Not genuine; fake

That about sums it up for a lot of on-line "magazines". No history in, or attachment to, the the actual world of publishing; no obvious readership or demographic; no obvious place of business or ownership; and on and on. They are like phantoms pushing a product [their "publication"] that doesn't exist in the real world. On top of that they seem in large part, but by no means all of them, to be either directly infringing [actual copying] or at least plagiarising [copying and re-writing] the work of others for some of their content ... and, occasionally for all of it.

Studio36

Nakrani Studios wrote:
I am curious to know which ones are good to work with because its fair to say I have been talking to the wrong ones. About being bitter? I am not bitter, I don't care what you do with your images, it seems like most (Not all of them) are scams.

OP....here are just a few wonderful magazines to work with...(which are not that easy to get into)...one is called *Miroir*...another is *Gothic Beauty* magazine...the images/artwork is usually *Fantastic and Beautiful*.....as well as the submissions they accept are stunning...!!....I will take back the word bitter and use the word...tart..(LOL)...just a little...as to what I felt from your original posting..!!..I am not here to battle with anyone...only to let you know there are several...highly worthy, quality magazines that can be found online...if you do your research.~  These are magazines with quite a following both online and off, that if you can get 'published' by them, can bring you a wider audience then you might have had originally...!!...By the way...I am a professional, in that I have been paid to have my work in several print magazines...(that you would consider..'real'..)....gigs I got...from being in so called online magazines, where I did it purely for the creative energy and fun that I got from it..!!....Live and let live...I think the bottom line, is that we are all just wanting people to see our images and think we rock...LOL....be you a model, MUA, photog, stylist, etc....Now, with social media at the front...you don't even need to be in print...to have/get paid gigs from authentic companies who like your work and/or to get a wider audience of people who see your images...!!

Red Sky Photography wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Because sometimes what they are doing, or not doing, as the case might be, causes no end of grief to others, both the business of photography itself and individuals.

Studio36

Photography is my hobby. It's not my place to help you or anyone else succeed in your business.
.

But see, this is actually the crux of the entire problem. not all that long ago ago, when you said you were "published", that meant your photos were submitted to a magazine or newspaper editor. That editor then reviewed your photos along with a team of other editors and staff members and were chosen after a strict review process against many of the hundreds or even thousands of other related photos sent in by an army of other photographers also wanting to get into that publication. These editors understood the rules of publishing, understood how photo-journalism works, and actually (well, usually) followed  a set of rules of publishing. The job of paying for quality photos was always necessary because the having of great photographs included in your magazine meant that more magazines sold because of the increase value such photos brought to the publication. If you were the lucky one who's photos were used, it was considered a very big deal, and in addition to  your bragging rights and photo credit, you were also paid for your work. Sometimes it wasn't much, but you were paid. I've had the privilege of being published in magazines this way as have many other professional photographers here on MM so I can speak from experience that this was usually no small feat.

Now, with websites like Magclud, you have people in their basements with nothing more than Adobe Illustrator 3 and some crappy Vista Print business cards who claim to be "Magazine Publishers". Now, the editorial review process of being published is you basically send in whatever crap the "publisher" is looking for and they run with it just to fill the pages, regardless as to whether or not it's any good. So the value isn't in the quality, it's in the quantity. The reason for this is because the "publishers" of these magcloud "magazines" are jumping for joy if they can sell 10 copies a month to people who aren't actually in the magazine themselves or are friends or family of those people. I've been in several of those things so I know, but you'll never see me credit myself as being "published" in them because I don't consider that being published. The things I DO consider myself as being published are the photos I take for a publication that has a staff, a review board, a Photo Editor, an Art Director, and actually goes to press where I can see my work on a newsstand.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know the industry is changing, blah blah blah, but diluting the value of what "published" means insults those of us who work so hard to actually BE PUBLISHED.

I'm a professional Automotive technician. Do you think I worry about anyone doing a tune up in their driveway, for themselves or their friends for FREE. I could say they are taking work away from me, but people come to me for my knowledge and experience. If you think my hobby is taking work away from you, then you better step up your game

That's not the same thing, and that's not even what the topic of conversation here is about. A better analogy is how would you feel, as a "professional automotive technician" when someone changes the oil on their driveway and suddenly, they too claim to be a "professional automotive technician". It probably wouldn't make you feel too good, would it? But hey, they can change the oil in their Range Rover, and after all, that's all they see you do when you're working at Jiffy Lube, so it's the same thing, right?

Wrong.

That's what we're talking about here. Don't get me wrong, I think it's fun when my work gets into some sort of Magcloud thing, but I don't consider that being "published" at all because the way I see it, it's not being actually "published". In fact, I refuse to let my work even show up in them unless the guy making the thing gives me and the model a free copy. The problem is, with many of those "publications", by giving away two copies on his dime, that just ate away 15% of his monthly profits because 95% of the readers of his rag are the people who are actually in the damn thing, or the parents of the models inside...they usually buy a copy or two also at $30 a piece. I had a model submit a shoot we did to one of those once (without my permission) because she too was lured in by the possibility of being "published". The "Publisher/Editor/Art Director/Graphic Designer/Owner" never bothered to ask her about releases so they ran the photos without ever asking me. A month later I had them cough up a check to me to pay for damages because he was too stupid to realize he needed to do such a thing, and that's the point here. We aren't dealing with actual publications here, we are dealing with people using some technology to print something and call it a "magazine", and that's fine. If you want to play "Editor" have fun, but let's not dilute the value of what it takes to actually BE PUBLISHED.

Shot By Adam wrote:
[. If you want to play "Editor" have fun, but let's not dilute the value of what it takes to actually BE PUBLISHED.

I'm not diluting any value of being published. I submit images and most are chosen to be in the magazine. It's in print and digitally available, and some people buy those magazines. I'm happy because it brings me more opportunities for shooting and it makes the people I work with happy. Maybe some of these magazines will eventually attract advertisers and be sold at bookstores. Maybe that's how magazines get started now. I don't know and neither do you.

I was a professional, paid photographer in my teens when I was in College and now it's my hobby. I couldn't care less if someone wants to call himself a professional Auto Tech,although I wouldn't call the people who work at Jiffy Lube that. If they do,  it has absolutely no effect on me.

Just like me saying I was published in a Mag Cloud Magazine should have no effect on you. It's published by my definition, you are free to call it whatever you like.

Nakrani Studios wrote:
...Along comes "social media"...

Yep, it's a HUGE game changer...

Come gather 'round people. Wherever you roam. And admit that the waters. Around you have grown. And accept it that soon. You'll be drenched to the bone

funny how Robert Zimmerman nailed this decades ago...

Those who cling to the past as if it had religious significance... get over it, k?

The eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is that retail clientele ARE impressed with publication... matters little whether it's a credential of merit or not....i.e. in the eyes of other photographers... this is soooo about PERCEIVED WORTH... not about noteworthy accolades... Like how valid are the claims of marketing campaigns... get real folks and worry more about soliciting clients if you are in the commercial side of the equation...   albeit if you're a hobbyist this thread is so totally for you... lol

Yes, totally agree that no managing agent of an advertising firm is going to be swayed by faux credentials albeit retail clientele indeed are... so what's the issue?  again, simply get over it...

Ok, publication with named credit seriously does matter for a makeup artist... it gets an artist "Pro" status with the major cosmetic houses... without a 40% discount pro artist might have a challenge competing with the drug store cowgirls on price point... So yes name credit in a published image is a HUGE matter of serious importance for those artist who actually pay the bills with their artistry...   

Let me share a reality I've had to deal with for years... when I got licensed I was brutally attacked on social media forums by the multitude of "self taught" MUA's... the rant was always the same... "A license is meaningless"   funny how the heat came from those without license credentials... But the truth of the matter is those without a license can not work in a salon in nearly all jurisdictions and in many states can not apply product for hire... but discretion being the better part of valor I choose to keep my head down and move forward with my career... would seriously suggest all those photographers with a sour grapes attitude here consider doing likewise...

Words of wisdom from Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception

Jason instead of preaching to the choir in a photographer's forum (where you will likely be well received) have you considered mounting a counter offensive against your REAL adversaries in the marketplace?  just a thought...

...you better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone

All the best on your journey...