WOW! Congratulations. That's worth a shout. It's a bit unfortunate they don't pay a bit more, but such is the life of stock photography. Very cool. That means that thousands, if not millions of people will now view your work! Nice.
MinisterC wrote: WOW! Congratulations. That's worth a shout. It's a bit unfortunate they don't pay a bit more, but such is the life of stock photography. Very cool. That means that thousands, if not millions of people will now view your work! Nice.
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US
R Studios wrote:
tell me
Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.
PYPI FASHION wrote: Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.
Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.
The question is, if they'd had to cough out $10,000 would they have used that photo? Or did they use it because it was $30 and was exactly what they wanted?
Either way congrats! Maybe no big pay day, but I'd still chalk it up as an accomplishment.
30 dollars? does the license they purchased cover usage on/in a national magazine with a huge print run?
i see the 'extended' license options on your file and they are worth alot more than 30 dollars - still not a lot but i would think usage on Time Magazine's cover would require more than just iStock's 'standard' license pricing that somebody would license it for a cheesey website banner.
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US
Dark Life wrote: 30 dollars? does the license they purchased cover usage on/in a national magazine with a huge print run?
i see the 'extended' license options on your file and they are worth alot more than 30 dollars - still not a lot but i would think usage on Time Magazine's cover would require more than just iStock's 'standard' license pricing that somebody would license it for a cheesey website banner.
I see the standard license does not require additional payments for runs over 500K for magazines.
Edit: I stand corrected. That's for advertising rate.
For editorial rate, Unlimited reproduction/print run license required for 500,000 or more impressions.
Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.
Something is not right about that picture.
Uh oh, that depresses me and I'm not even involved in this discussion!
it's a great accomplishment - i'd have that cover blown up poster size and frame it up. your photo on the cover of one of if not the world's most prestigious news magazines is priceless.
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US
Living Canvas wrote: The question is, if they'd had to cough out $10,000 would they have used that photo? Or did they use it because it was $30 and was exactly what they wanted?
Either way congrats! Maybe no big pay day, but I'd still chalk it up as an accomplishment.
Like I said, photographers are to blame for that $30 option.
| 
| 
| edu