login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover Search   Reply
12345last
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


Jul 24 09 11:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Antonio Marcus
Posts: 1,849
San Francisco, California, US


R Studios wrote:
My stock photo on Istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- … ss-jar.php

is on Time magazine cover.

Awesome. Did they pay for it or did the El Jack it? haha.

Jul 24 09 11:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


yes only 30.00 from Istock
Jul 24 09 11:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 11,124
Oakland Acres, Iowa, US


Hey - maybe not big bucks, but still a a nice accomplishment.  Congrats!
Jul 24 09 11:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


yes. I am happy.
Jul 24 09 11:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CraigBlankPhoto
Posts: 72
Hermosa Beach, California, US


Big up! That will make an awesome tear sheet

Love & Bass
Jul 24 09 11:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sam Cantu
Posts: 397
Dallas, Texas, US


NICE!  congrats!!
Jul 24 09 11:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


I am looking to buy the back issue for Time
Jul 24 09 11:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


a2z Photo n Video wrote:
NICE!  congrats!!

thanks

Jul 24 09 11:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US


R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock

You got screwed.

Jul 24 09 11:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


PYPI FASHION wrote:

You got screwed.

ok

Jul 24 09 11:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US


R Studios wrote:

ok

There's value in the tear sheet. I'm speaking specifically to the $30.

Jul 24 09 11:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MisterC
Posts: 15,162
Portland, Oregon, US


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.
Jul 24 09 11:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lee K
Posts: 2,411
Palatine, Illinois, US


That's incredibly depressing.
Jul 24 09 11:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


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.

thank.  I will frame it

Jul 24 09 11:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


PYPI FASHION wrote:

There's value in the tear sheet. I'm speaking specifically to the $30.

last check.. 31.50..lol

Jul 24 09 11:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US


Lee K wrote:
That's incredibly depressing.

Photographers get all the blame for that one.

Jul 24 09 11:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US


R Studios wrote:

last check.. 31.50..lol

You'll be really depressed if I tell you the dollar value of a Time cover.

Jul 24 09 11:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


PYPI FASHION wrote:

You'll be really depressed if I tell you the dollar value of a Time cover.

tell me

Jul 24 09 11:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Travis Sackett
Posts: 1,613
Los Angeles, California, US


the price fits the story lol


- Travis Sackett
www.TravisSackett.com
Jul 24 09 11:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,241
Dallas, Texas, US


I'm assuming that yours is the main photo on the cover - the glass jar with the coins in it?

edit: duh...nevermind - I just went to your first link!   big_smile

Jul 24 09 11:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,241
Dallas, Texas, US


Jul 24 09 11:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


Through Garys Eyes wrote:

I'm assuming that yours is the main photo on the cover - the glass jar with the coins in it?

yes.

Jul 24 09 11:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
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.

Something is not right about that picture.

Jul 24 09 11:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
dave wright phx
Posts: 13,509
Phoenix, Arizona, US


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.

Something is not right about that picture.

The cover does say "The New Frugality."

Jul 25 09 12:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lee K
Posts: 2,411
Palatine, Illinois, US


PYPI FASHION wrote:

Photographers get all the blame for that one.

That's part of what's depressing.

Jul 25 09 12:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


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.

Something is not right about that picture.

thanks. good to know.

Jul 25 09 12:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Living Canvas
Posts: 2,039
Denver, Colorado, US


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.
Jul 25 09 12:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
profile removed
Posts: 374
Scottsdale, Arizona, US


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.
Jul 25 09 12:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-The Dave-
Posts: 8,506
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


MinisterC  wrote:
Very cool. That means that thousands, if not millions of people will now view your work! Nice.

Will anyone even know who shot it?  Other than the few that click this thread?

Jul 25 09 12:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SusiB
Posts: 532
Santa Fe, New Mexico, US


I wouldn't know whether to be incredibly happy, or incredibly pissed.
Jul 25 09 12:04 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
btdsgn
Posts: 2,210
Wahiawa, Hawaii, US


It's a cool tear...
Jul 25 09 12:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
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.

You may have more money coming OP.

Jul 25 09 12:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ty kyu
Posts: 98
Chicago, Illinois, US


Very cool! Congrats big_smile
Jul 25 09 12:05 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Stevie Lynn C
Posts: 617
Tampa, Florida, US


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.

Something is not right about that picture.

Uh oh, that depresses me and I'm not even involved in this discussion!

Jul 25 09 12:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
profile removed
Posts: 374
Scottsdale, Arizona, US


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.
Jul 25 09 12:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


-The Dave- wrote:

Will anyone even know who shot it?  Other than the few that click this thread?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messag … adid=87339

Jul 25 09 12:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


Stevie Lynn wrote:

Uh oh, that depresses me and I'm not even involved in this discussion!

i am not depresses but happy

Jul 25 09 12:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
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.

Jul 25 09 12:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-The Dave-
Posts: 8,506
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


So no photographers credit in the issue huh? That sucks!

Jul 25 09 12:09 am  Link  Quote 
12345last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers