login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover Search   Reply
first89101112131415last
Photographer
OLJ studio
Posts: 1,550
Winnetka, California, US


I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
Read the whole license.
magazine isn't "Item for Resale" in the terminology of RF license.
Also, if you read the whole license you find that there are exceptions (a lot) when they don't have to credit artist

Star wrote:
the license for what time used would be $462 credits. The smallest amount per credit that this could pay out still totals to a $91.20.

Also they CANNOT do the unlimited sales of poster thing that they are doing. here is the extended license clauses, and because of the artist's payout it is obvious they DID NOT but a full extended license.

"Items for Resale - Limited Run

Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a) of the Standard License Prohibitions prohibiting the use or display of the Content in items for resale, you shall be entitled with respect to this specific Content to produce the following items for resale, license, or other distribution:

   1. up to 100,000 postcards, greeting cards or other cards, stationery, stickers, and paper products,
   2. up to 10,000 posters, calendars or other similar publications, mugs or mousepads,
   3. or up to 2,000 t-shirts, sweatshirts, or other apparel, games, toys, entertainment goods, framed or mounted artwork

in or on which the Content is used or displayed (the "Resale Merchandise"), provided that:

   1. the right to produce the Resale Merchandise in no way grants any right to you or any recipient of the Resale Merchandise in any intellectual property or other rights to the Content;
   2. you agree to indemnify the iStockphoto Parties from any cost, liability, damages or expense incurred by any of them relating to or in connection with any of the Resale Merchandise;
   3. any production of Resale Merchandise in excess of the allowed run size is prohibited and requires the Content to be purchased separately;
   4. all other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses."

and yes THEY DID NEED TO CREDIT him as the artist

"Reproduction / Print Run Limits

Notwithstanding the restriction contained in section 4(a)(14) of the Standard License Prohibitions limiting you to 500,000 reproductions, you shall be entitled with respect to this Content to an unlimited number of reproductions, and the Agreement is deemed amended in that respect. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect, including all Prohibited Uses."

from the standard licensing contract

"may not use the Content for editorial purposes without including the following credit adjacent to the Content: “©iStockphoto.com/Artist’s Member Name]; or
# either individually or in combination with others, reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content, in excess of 500,000 times without obtaining an Extended License, in which event you shall be required to pay an additional royalty fee equal to US $0.01 for each reproduction which is in excess of 500,000 reproductions. This additional royalty does not apply to advertisements in magazines, newspapers or websites or to broadcast by television, web-cast or theatrical production."

Jul 26 09 12:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 10,634
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Sins of the Flesh wrote:
Value = what the customer will pay for the product you offer.

Wrong.

Jul 26 09 12:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Anomalia Collaborat
Posts: 704
Brooklyn, New York, US


Value = worth what customer will pay= undervalued goods, more effort than return, dying industry.
Jul 26 09 12:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,660
San Francisco, California, US


Chris Macan wrote:
The bottom line is this.....
we have an image here that requires no special equipment to shoot,
requires no special expertise to shoot,
is a subject matter that can be found in almost any house in the U.S.
and could be set up and shot in under 15 minutes.

This shot is the very definition of a commodity image,
it is about as distinctive as generic toilet paper.
Why exactly do people think it is worth thousands of dollars?


To compare this image or this business model to one where a client pays you to specifically create something is disingenuous.
This is photography as a commodity at its most basic form.

While it is true that it's as distinctive as generic toilet paper, BUT, when you put that generic looking image in context with the current bad times, it's no longer a generic image. It's there for a reason; it's there to help the magazine and report make a point. Without that images, the story is just another story. And it's a damn important image because it's on the front cover.

Jul 26 09 12:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 10,634
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


**edited due to clarification by other poster**

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Value = worth what customer will pay= undervalued goods, more effort than return, dying industry.

Value = return on purchase price.

Just because TIME magazine got a good deal on this image does not mean that they purchased it at full value.

Jul 26 09 12:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,660
San Francisco, California, US


Jul 26 09 12:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Anomalia Collaborat
Posts: 704
Brooklyn, New York, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

again wrong.

I find it amusing that models are the ones who get this wrong most often.

Value = return on purchase price.

Just because TIME magazine got a good deal on this image does not mean that they purchased it at full value.

You misinterpreted me.

I wasn't agreeing.

I was saying that his equation leads to undervalued goods, more effort than return, and a dying industry.

Don't rip on models.  We tend to know more than we let on.

Jul 26 09 12:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lightcraft Studio
Posts: 11,824
Delray Beach, Florida, US


We should introduce camera rationing. Only allow one camera for every five square miles. We can have an annual camera lottery to see who's allowed to own one each year.
Jul 26 09 12:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Anomalia Collaborat
Posts: 704
Brooklyn, New York, US


Lightcraft Studio wrote:
We should introduce camera rationing. Only allow one camera for every five square miles. We can have an annual camera lottery to see who's allowed to own one each year.

Then those photography workshops would be really interesting to watch.  Photographers trying to all shoot the same model from varying distances.

smile

Jul 26 09 12:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 10,634
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Anomalia Chin wrote:

You misinterpreted me.

I wasn't agreeing.

I was saying that his equation leads to undervalued goods, more effort than return, and a dying industry.

Don't rip on models.  We tend to know more than we let on.

sorry... that was just the second time I saw that equation here and about the billionth time I saw that general understanding of the concept of value from a model.  I appoligize.  If you wouldn't mind clarifying what you're saying with quotations and the like in the future I hope I wouldn't make the same mistake again.

Jul 26 09 12:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Faith EnFire
Posts: 13,514
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US


I say congrats, a great accomplishment. nevermind, the money
Jul 26 09 12:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Anomalia Collaborat
Posts: 704
Brooklyn, New York, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

sorry... that was just the second time I saw that equation here and about the billionth time I saw that general understanding of the concept of value from a model.  I appoligize.  If you wouldn't mind clarifying what you're saying with quotations and the like in the future I hope I wouldn't make the same mistake again.

My fault entirely.  I've been loving every moment of you, and I'm about to take the backseat and let you drive again.

Jul 26 09 12:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17,897
Los Angeles, California, US


OLJ studio wrote:
I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
Read the whole license.
magazine isn't "Item for Resale" in the terminology of RF license.
Also, if you read the whole license you find that there are exceptions (a lot) when they don't have to credit artist

read the whole thread, the item for resale is they are selling copies of the cover

I read the whole license agreement, I must have missed the exception to credit in the context of editorial usage. Can you quote it for me?

Jul 26 09 12:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Anomalia Collaborat
Posts: 704
Brooklyn, New York, US


Star wrote:

read the whole thread, the item for resale is they are selling copies of the cover

I read the whole license agreement, I must have missed the exception to credit in the context of editorial usage. Can you quote it for me?

Also loving every moment of you.

Jul 26 09 12:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Rock
Posts: 977
New York, New York, US


Derick Hingle wrote:

I disagree there Stephen, the reason newspapers are failing is poor content, the same content provided by Joe Blow who was at the scene with a point and shoot a photo journalist does more than take a snap shot he take a photograph that tells the story of what happen. Joe Blow take a picture of a car on fire, a photo journalist may focus on a family member crying at the scene and the car in the foreground. A photojournalist also captions the image for the editors at the paper, Joe Blow sends an email - Car crash fire.

Ok so what happened anyone die, hurt, multiple injuires, what's the story. When newspaper accept that they devalue their product. They are trying to get by cheap when if they would spend money and hire people to do the job they would get readership back. Newspapers are suffering today because they have lowered standards. This has little to do with the Time cover but everything to do with why photojournalism is dying. I know my local paper no longer hires photographers and it's exactly why their paper is going down quickly, poor content. Good content sells.

That's not true. Advertising budgets dropped and that's what's killing them. If content has changed it's because they can no longer afford to pay to create the same quality work.

Jul 26 09 12:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tim Foster
Posts: 1,749
New York, New York, US


People love to think of the community of photographers as a union, and bash the "scabs" that sell their work cheaply. It's a lot like communism; it's a nice idea in theory, but in reality it doesn't work. The only person responsible for the rates you charge is you.
Jul 26 09 12:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,781
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:
The bottom line is this.....
we have an image here that requires no special equipment to shoot,
requires no special expertise to shoot,
is a subject matter that can be found in almost any house in the U.S.
and could be set up and shot in under 15 minutes.

This shot is the very definition of a commodity image,
it is about as distinctive as generic toilet paper.
Why exactly do people think it is worth thousands of dollars?


To compare this image or this business model to one where a client pays you to specifically create something is disingenuous.
This is photography as a commodity at its most basic form.
Legacys 7 wrote:
While it is true that it's as distinctive as generic toilet paper, BUT, when you put that generic looking image in context with the current bad times, it's no longer a generic image. It's there for a reason; it's there to help the magazine and report make a point. Without that images, the story is just another story. And it's a damn important image because it's on the front cover.

Which does not change the fact that it is a dime a dozen image.

If Time is running a story on the cost of electricity next week....
Should I expect them to pay me $3000 for MY SPECIAL photo of a light pole?
I mean it's not like they couldn't walk out in front of their building and shoot a photo of another very similar looking light pole.

You cannot expect to charge a premium price for an generic product forever,
Maybe you could 20 years ago when stock photos were more scarce......
But with todays extensive readily available stock libraries the simple generic stuff is going to go cheap. In some ways that is good.... in others it is not so good.
You can't turn back time and you can't force everyone to join the union.

If a photo buyer needs something unique (like product shots or to bring an art directors vision to life) then they will pay a premium for it.
If they just need a good shot of an Egg or a coin jar.... then not so much.

Jul 26 09 12:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 10,634
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Tim Foster wrote:
The only person responsible for the rates you charge is you.

And if you price your work at an unreasonable rate, you drive yourself out of the market because you fail to support your own cost of doing business.

Unfortunately at this moment in history there are so many people that don't know how to price themselves and how to run a business with profitability, and who are supporting their artistic business with external income from providing other goods or services, that unreasonable rates will stick around until either the consumer is educated or a major economic catastrophe forces everyone in to spending all their time on one job.

Jul 26 09 12:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bill Clearlake Photos
Posts: 2,214
San Jose, California, US


After reading istockphotos' licensing, it seems that Time magazine can't get away from paying the Extended License for editorial use of the image.

I hope they do that.
Jul 26 09 12:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 10,634
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:
Which does not change the fact that it is a dime a dozen image.

If Time is running a story on the cost of electricity next week....
Should I expect them to pay me $3000 for MY SPECIAL photo of a light pole?
I mean it's not like they couldn't walk out in front of their building and shoot a photo of another very similar looking light pole.

It doesn't matter *WHO* shoots the image, *WHAT* the image is of, *WHEN* it is shot, *HOW* it is shot, or *WHY* they choose that image... what matters is they intend to use it on the cover of a magazine to sell hundreds of thousands of copies.

Jul 26 09 12:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,351
Carmel, California, US


Creative Works LLC wrote:
After reading istockphotos' licensing, it seems that Time magazine can't get away from paying the Extended License for editorial use of the image.

I hope they do that.

ironic that all this publicity/debate is what brought the usage/license issue to light.

I wonder what mechanisms are in place at istock/getty that would have caught this eventually?

Jul 26 09 12:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
291
Posts: 11,911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US


Star wrote:
I dont think it was deliberate. I do think they need to pay the amount due for breaking the license granted.

under the time-warner family of media outlets their agreements are more than what you or i will know.  to think what they may or must pay equal to anyone else is nonsense without having any review of any existing arrangements.  trust me, they are not buying images equally to small firms requiring photos.

for all we know, time-warner may have in their stock contracts an obligation to purchase minimum quantities for that special pricing and if they fail to do so the penalty price would be divvied up between authors of used submissions.  who the hell knows?  certainly not anyone here.

credit disclosure may also only necessitate source disclosure and not creator.  as well, any such creator disclosure might require file data which may or may not have been submitted, nor required by istock.  someone who uses their service might shed some light on iptc data requirements as i'm not familiar with their policy.

what i find contrary (or maybe a strange value system) is the amount of fuss made when those/so many on this site provide and display work created for nothing but time with no expectation on return from a for-profit content provider. 

given that, even with the pittance paid by time-warner / istock, for most it would be a far more desirable marketing piece to have than the hundreds of clicks allowed here without compensation to simply look at pretty pictures.

it isn't just presentation value, it's the value presentation brings.

R Studios wrote:
yes. I am happy.

as well you should be.  they say it's hardest to make the first million.  those who do seize opportunity that gets them there.  this is a tear-sheet that has that opportunity printed all over it.

let it be an inspiration...and best wishes in having a great stepping stone for you.

Jul 26 09 01:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Essensuate
Posts: 1,018
London, England, United Kingdom


SusiB wrote:
I wouldn't know whether to be incredibly happy, or incredibly pissed.

How about I help you out as I'd be:-
Happy to get front cover.
Pissed to get $30!

Jul 26 09 01:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 10,634
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:

ironic that all this publicity/debate is what brought the usage/license issue to light.

I wonder what mechanisms are in place at istock/getty that would have caught this eventually?

I'm more interested to see *if* they enforce their agreement.  Hope the OP comes back and tells us he's got a couple extra hundred dollars coming his way because they did, at the same time I'm curious because it would be an interesting commentary on the whole business model of micro stock.  Exceeding licenses is something traditional stock companies and freelance producers deal with on a constant basis, and it is expensive to deal with and enforce licensing agreements... I don't know of (but I'm sure there are past cases of) micro stock having gone back and billed for a bigger license, and since that is half of what a stock company is responsible for (the proper licensing of your images), I'm curious to see if they manage it properly.

Jul 26 09 01:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,781
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:
Which does not change the fact that it is a dime a dozen image.

If Time is running a story on the cost of electricity next week....
Should I expect them to pay me $3000 for MY SPECIAL photo of a light pole?
I mean it's not like they couldn't walk out in front of their building and shoot a photo of another very similar looking light pole.
James Jackson Fashion wrote:
It doesn't matter *WHO* shoots the image, *WHAT* the image is of, *WHEN* it is shot, *HOW* it is shot, or *WHY* they choose that image... what matters is they intend to use it on the cover of a magazine to sell hundreds of thousands of copies.

James... I work at an advertising agency,
I get usage costs.

I also get that managing usage costs is an expensive pain in the ass over the long term when you have thousands of images being used across many type of media.
So there is an incentive avoid that game...
particularly for images that any trained monkey could shoot.

Such is the reality of generic images in the era of cheap easily searchible image libraries.

Jul 26 09 01:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17,897
Los Angeles, California, US


Creative Works LLC wrote:
After reading istockphotos' licensing, it seems that Time magazine can't get away from paying the Extended License for editorial use of the image.

I hope they do that.

actually by violating the terms of the license they did buy they owe istock imaging .01 for every single copy of the magazine over 500,000

Jul 26 09 01:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 10,634
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:
So there is an incentive avoid that game...
particularly for images that any trained monkey could shoot.

Which is why AOL/Time/Warner has a huge internal database of images and several in house shooters who they pay a very small daily salary to shoot such simple images.  No prodcution house, ad department, or art department that I have ever known has ever used stock for an unfair usage value.

Jul 26 09 01:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,781
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Which is why AOL/Time/Warner has a huge internal database of images and several in house shooters who they pay a very small daily salary to shoot such simple images.  No prodcution house, ad department, or art department that I have ever known has ever used stock for an unfair usage value.

Define unfair usage value.

If Time bought the proper license as defined by the Istock contract terms to use this image as they did(and I don't know that they did).... then the agreed upon cost is the fair use cost.

It does not matter if that is $3 or $30,000 for perpetual unlimited usage.
As long as the terms are agreed upon by both parties it is "fair" use.

Jul 26 09 01:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Something Guy
Posts: 14,770
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Chris Macan wrote:

Chris Macan wrote:
Which does not change the fact that it is a dime a dozen image.

If Time is running a story on the cost of electricity next week....
Should I expect them to pay me $3000 for MY SPECIAL photo of a light pole?
I mean it's not like they couldn't walk out in front of their building and shoot a photo of another very similar looking light pole.

James... I work at an advertising agency,
I get usage costs.

I also get that managing usage costs is an expensive pain in the ass over the long term when you have thousands of images being used across many type of media.
So there is an incentive avoid that game...
particularly for images that any trained monkey could shoot.

Such is the reality of generic images in the era of cheap easily searchible image libraries.

Me too, (used to) work in production/traffic and dealt with stock shots or picture library.
It does'nt mater if it's a picture of a toilet roll it's what is appropriate for that issue be it magazine or any other type of publication.

In this case the op's image was appropriate or else they would'nt have used it from a picture library with 1,000's of images to choose from kinda sets the op appart from the rest.

Jul 26 09 01:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,781
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Me too, (used to) work in production/traffic and dealt with stock shots or picture library.
It does'nt mater if it's a picture of a toilet roll it's what is appropriate for that issue be it magazine or any other type of publication.

In this case the op's image was appropriate or else they would'nt have used it from a picture library with 1,000's of images to choose from kinda sets the op appart from the rest.

And if you had the choice between two similar pictures of toilet paper rolls...

one that you could buy unlimited usage rights to for $150
or
One that you could buy specific usage for one print run of less than 5000 for $120

Knowing that you might later reprint, or want to use that same image for a direct mail piece........ Which would you have picked???

Jul 26 09 01:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 10,634
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:

Define unfair usage value.

If Time bought the proper license as defined by the Istock contract terms to use this image as they did(and I don't know that they did).... then the agreed upon cost is the fair use cost.

It does not matter if that is $3 or $30,000 for perpetual unlimited usage.
As long as the terms are agreed upon by both parties it is "fair" use.

I suppose there's something to be said for TIME being able to get a good deal on an image, but I have to cite ethics again.  TIME should have contacted directly for special agreement with their typical cover rate, or produced a similar image themselves through whatever means they chose.  If of course, as it seems now, iStock is actually geared to handle this sort of situation, and this particular licensing issue just fell through the cracks, then the whole point is moot.  The guy will get paid properly.

TIME magazine, being the business that will profit in the majority from the use of this image should compensate the party who actually produced the image they used in a manner that is appropriate to its use.  There is no ethical reason not to compensate someone properly for their contribution to your success in business.  If TIME magazine wants to profiteer, in this free market helter sketler society that some seem to think is the right way to do business, then they will find their market drop out from under them and find themselves hoisted by their own petards when no one can afford to buy their magazine any longer.

Jul 26 09 01:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Something Guy
Posts: 14,770
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Chris Macan wrote:
And if you had the choice between two similar pictures of toilet paper rolls...

one that you could buy unlimited usage rights to for $150
or
One that you could buy specific usage for one print run of less than 5000 for $120

Knowing that you might later reprint, or want to use that same image for a direct mail piece........ Which would you have picked???

I could be wrong but I've never seen unlimited usage only specific usage. Every usage was negotiable depending on it's usage and positioning.
The same as photographers different rates be it editorial or advertising. Unlimited then the price goes way up.

Jul 26 09 01:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,781
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I could be wrong but I've never seen unlimited usage only specific usage. Every usage was negotiable depending on it's usage and positioning.
The same as photographers different rates be it editorial or advertising. Unlimited then the price goes way up.

Why is that so....
And in and environment where someone can make money by charging the same flat rate to everyone why would you not expect to see some offer flat rates.
It is what it is.

Jul 26 09 01:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Something Guy
Posts: 14,770
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


You actually work for an advertising agency ?
Jul 26 09 01:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,781
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


c_h_r_i_s wrote:
You actually work for an advertising agency ?

Yes... Why do you ask?

Jul 26 09 01:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Something Guy
Posts: 14,770
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


As there's no flat rate for everyone, even media buying can change daily.
Jul 26 09 01:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Urban Stylz Photo
Posts: 2,669
Montreal, Quebec, Canada


Derick Hingle wrote:

I disagree there Stephen, the reason newspapers are failing is poor content, the same content provided by Joe Blow who was at the scene with a point and shoot a photo journalist does more than take a snap shot he take a photograph that tells the story of what happen. Joe Blow take a picture of a car on fire, a photo journalist may focus on a family member crying at the scene and the car in the foreground. A photojournalist also captions the image for the editors at the paper, Joe Blow sends an email - Car crash fire.

Ok so what happened anyone die, hurt, multiple injuires, what's the story. When newspaper accept that they devalue their product. They are trying to get by cheap when if they would spend money and hire people to do the job they would get readership back. Newspapers are suffering today because they have lowered standards. This has little to do with the Time cover but everything to do with why photojournalism is dying. I know my local paper no longer hires photographers and it's exactly why their paper is going down quickly, poor content. Good content sells.

I totally agree with you here...the quality of the product they produce decreases with the lack of quality of the materials they use (images in this case)

Jul 26 09 02:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,781
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


c_h_r_i_s wrote:
As there's no flat rate for everyone, even media buying can change daily.

And I am simply asking...... "Why not"
If someone can make money that way.... What is stopping them.

Jul 26 09 02:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 10,634
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:

And I am simply asking...... "Why not"
If someone can make money that way.... What is stopping them.

There are several dozen reasons.

Jul 26 09 02:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,781
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

There are several dozen reasons.

Such as.......

Jul 26 09 02:18 pm  Link  Quote 
first89101112131415last   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