login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover Search   Reply
first910111213141516last
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:

Such as.......

Read the thread.

Jul 26 09 02:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Caperucita Roja
Posts: 11,541
Plymouth, England, United Kingdom


I have heard of models not getting paid for the tears they played a part in, I guess this is the same. Either way people seem to be content with the exposure.

If he's content with the way things have gone then why should we criticize him or imply that he's a bonehead for not getting more money?

Not everyone wants money, some people prefer the recognition.

Good on you lad!
Jul 26 09 02:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Caperucita Roja wrote:
If he's content with the way things have gone then why should we criticize him or imply that he's a bonehead for not getting more money?

I believe the majority of the criticism has been reserved for TIME magazine.  It does take two to tango however, and not understanding the value of your product brings an industry down faster than anything, so the criticism of the OP is valid.

Jul 26 09 02:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Caperucita Roja
Posts: 11,541
Plymouth, England, United Kingdom


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I believe the majority of the criticism has been reserved for TIME magazine.  It does take two to tango however, and not understanding the value of your product brings an industry down faster than anything, so the criticism of the OP is valid.

So it's ok for models not to get paid for tears- that won't bring down the industry?

The cocacola company, primark, tescos- big brand names- have all taken advantage of their 'employees'.
And it's shit- but it's just the way things go sometimes.
If this photographer isn't bothered and he's just happy with the exposure, why can't we offer him congratulations and move on?

Jul 26 09 02:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,791
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

Read the thread.

I've read the thread,
Answer the question.

What is to stop any tom, dick or harry from selling images to advertising agencies or publications for a fixed fee with unlimited use?
It could very well be a well thought out valid business model for them.

Jul 26 09 02:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Caperucita Roja wrote:

So it's ok for models not to get paid for tears- that won't bring down the industry?

No one said that.

Models typically get paid to work which results in real tear sheets.  Unpaid tear sheets are not an actual modeling industry standard.

Jul 26 09 02:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:
What is to stop any tom, dick or harry from selling images to advertising agencies or publications for a fixed fee with unlimited use?

Most ethical ad agencies and publications will not purchase an image "on the cheap" or ask for such an expansive usage right unless they are willing to pay for it.  I've known art directors to set up whole new shoots because the owner of an image either didn't want the correct amount of money or couldn't negotiate a proper licensing agreement with them.

Jul 26 09 02:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Caperucita Roja
Posts: 11,541
Plymouth, England, United Kingdom


OP, do you think you'll wish to pursue a lawsuit that will allow you to get more money, or are you genuinely content with the outcome?
Jul 26 09 02:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Grainpusher
Posts: 178
Dallas, Texas, US


Caperucita Roja wrote:
I have heard of models not getting paid for the tears they played a part in, I guess this is the same. Either way people seem to be content with the exposure.

If he's content with the way things have gone then why should we criticize him or imply that he's a bonehead for not getting more money?

Not everyone wants money, some people prefer the recognition.

Good on you lad!

It's not exposure when you are credited as "coin jar from istock.com".

Jul 26 09 02:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,791
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

Most ethical ad agencies and publications will not purchase an image "on the cheap" or ask for such an expansive usage right unless they are willing to pay for it.  I've known art directors to set up whole new shoots because the owner of an image either didn't want the correct amount of money or couldn't negotiate a proper licensing agreement with them.

Define ethics.
Is my first responsibility to "the industry", "my client" or "my companies bottom line"

And how long will "ethical" agencies keep doing "the right thing" when clients or stock holders demand otherwise?

Jul 26 09 02:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:

Define ethics.
Is my first responsibility to "the industry", "my client" or "my companies bottom line"

And how long will "ethical" agencies keep doing "the right thing" when clients or stock holders demand otherwise?

A company that does ethical business fairly compensates those helping produce a product based on the product produced and the market value of that product.  There is no "first responsibility" in an ethical division of pay.

I don't know of any publicly traded ad agencies. 

I don't know of any ad agencies where the clients can control what the agency pays the creatives.

Jul 26 09 02:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sockpuppet Studios
Posts: 7,862
San Francisco, California, US


Caperucita Roja wrote:
I have heard of models not getting paid for the tears they played a part in, I guess this is the same. Either way people seem to be content with the exposure.

If he's content with the way things have gone then why should we criticize him or imply that he's a bonehead for not getting more money?

Not everyone wants money, some people prefer the recognition.

Good on you lad!

I have several tear sheets as a model, I agreed to take part in projects for reasons that did NOT include the tear sheets and the tear sheets came later as the photographers found places for the images or as the projects gained enough recognition to be published.

Jul 26 09 02:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US


photoscloseup wrote:
Congragulations!

I doubt many here even sell Anything they take for any amount

That's not true. I sold an 11x14 graduation photo to a grandma last week for $30 + 5 shipping/handling. Comparatively, I'm $5 ahead of the OP.

Jul 26 09 02:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M A R T I N
Posts: 3,893
Calgary, Alberta, Canada


would any of you who are saying that this is a great tear sheet that he can leverage to even greater achievements please explain your reasoning? what does it leverage for him? the ability to sell $30 stock photos? A tear sheet shows a potential client your experience level in the industry - a cover tear says that you were able to pitch the magazine on your concept and skill, were chosen over others, worked with production deadlines, and delivered a great result. He did no such thing. Really how is it different than if they had found a cool shot on flickr from some soccer mom. Would you tell her she has a great tear sheet to leverage... for what exactly? How will he leverage a single $30 stock photo on the cover of Time? All I see for him is a nice pat on the back, frame that cover and show it to your guests at the next dinner party. btw you'll need the $30 for the frame.
Jul 26 09 02:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Grainpusher
Posts: 178
Dallas, Texas, US


Star wrote:
It has been shown that TIME was in violation of 2 parts of the istock contract,

1. they did not pay the correct usage fees of $125 for the image. They needed an extended license

2. istock requires they credit the member name, which TIME failed to do

Both of these are serious offenses, and they should be examined much more closely then they are. You need to contact the APA or EP to see if they have somebody willing  to contact TIME for you. They owe you and istock a bit of money for their breaking of the license agreement.

from the istock website
http://www.istockphoto.com/license_comparison.php

"Editorial purposes: printed magazines, newspapers, editorials, newsletters
Yes, up to 499,999 impressions. You must give credit as follows:"©iStockphoto.com/membername"
Unlimited reproduction/print run license required for 500,000 or more impressions"

They also can not resell the item, like they are doing with their current license.

from the istock website
http://www.istockphoto.com/license_comparison.php

"Items for resale, including prints, posters, calendars, mugs, mousepads, t-shirts, games, etc. No

Items for resale — limited run license required. Note: there are quantity restrictions dependent on the type of item"

Forgive me because I'm not a stock photographer so I don't know the "agency fee" that istock takes. But, do we know that Time didn't buy the extended release and the photographer's cut of the $130 is $30? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that any company that gets photographers to devalue their work so much can pretty much take what ever cut they want. They seem to have some photographers that are just so happy that someone is looking at their photo they'll be happy being poor getting pennies.

This is just a stock issue, it's an issue of people not holding value in what they do. Some magazines and companies do the same thing to inexperienced photographers (and models) and sell them on the "exposure" line to get free work. What they don't realize is when they accept those terms, they are now the "free" photographer in the eye of that client, not worthy of being paid. I've worked for so many clients that other photographers work for free for "exposure" that I get the same exposure AND get paid. Because I put value in my work, my clients put value in my work.

Frankly, if other photographers don't mind having to work two jobs or going out of business because they undersell themselves isn't too much concern for me. I do have a passion for what i do and I generally like to see others succeed as well. I had photographers that were successful teach me the value of my photography when I was green and I'd like others to see it too. Or images are what sell their product, get people to pick up and buy that magazine that has value. The same goes for modeling, a model's image does the same thing, and that has value.

Jul 26 09 02:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,791
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
A company that does ethical business fairly compensates those helping produce a product based on the product produced and the market value of that product.  There is no "first responsibility" in an ethical division of pay.

I don't know of any publicly traded ad agencies. 

I don't know of any ad agencies where the clients can control what the agency pays the creatives.

So.... If I'm a builder.....
Should the lumber yard charge me more for the lumber that is framing the 2 million dollar house or the lumber for the $200,000 house?
I mean ethically speaking they should get a bigger cut from the high end house.... Right???


---------------------------------------------------------------------


And seriously..... You've never heard of a publicly trades Ad agency?
You are kidding right???

What do you think the Interpublic Group does?

http://www.interpublic.com/

They own Ad Agencies.... Bout a hundred of them
and yes they are publicly traded

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:IPG

How about the Omnicom Group?
Yeah they hold some large agencies

http://www.omnicomgroup.com/home

Also publicly traded on the NYSE

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:OMC


-----------------------------------------------------------------


And really.... you don't think that clients kill jobs because of costs?
Snicker...........

How is that not controlling what we pay for the creative?
I've got a job running right now that we designed the photographs out of because the clients budgets were too low to justify renewing the rights to the images.

So while they may not have  outright said you are paying to much for the photo...
The result was the same.

Jul 26 09 03:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:

So.... If I'm a builder.....
Should the lumber yard charge me more for the lumber that is framing the 2 million dollar house or the lumber for the $200,000 house?
I mean ethically speaking they should get a bigger cut from the high end house.... Right???


---------------------------------------------------------------------


And seriously..... You've never heard of a publicly trades Ad agency?
You are kidding right???

What do you think the Interpublic Group does?

http://www.interpublic.com/

They own Ad Agencies.... Bout a hundred of them
and yes they are publicly traded

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:IPG

How about the Omnicom Group?
Yeah they hold some large agencies

http://www.omnicomgroup.com/home

Also publicly traded on the NYSE

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:OMC


-----------------------------------------------------------------


And really.... you don't think that clients kill jobs because of costs?
Snicker...........

How is that not controlling what we pay for the creative?
I've got a job running right now that we designed the photographs out of because the clients budgets were too low to justify renewing the rights to the images.

So while they may not have  outright said you are paying to much for the photo...
The result was the same.

Services and goods are two different things.  Photos are not goods, they are services... see also, the IRS.

---------

none of those are ad agencies... there are no publicly traded ad agencies.  There are investment firms that are publicly owned which privately own portions of those ad agencies, but the agencies are not public.  The agencies have no reportability to the stockholders

---------

Clients will make a budget work... just because your sales people at your agency can not find a way to sell your services, does not mean the service is not that valuable... it means you have bad sales people.

Jul 26 09 03:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 11,411
Oakland Acres, Iowa, US


Digital Czar wrote:
Only getting $30 is a nice accomplishment?

The OPs profile states he shoots for the passion of it.  He was happy to have his image picked out of thousands selling for that price.  Why shouldn't he be congratulated for that?  He didn't coerce Time into buying inexpensive stock and he didn't negotiate a low price with them.  He simply put his images on a stock site and sold some.  Should he feel bad that for $30 it's on the cover of TIME instead of one of the back pages of a small trade journal?   He rightly should feel good about it.

I understand why pro photographers are concerned about a changing market place, but that's no reason to ridicule what is an accomplishment for someone who is not a full time professional.   

Congrats again R Studios.

Jul 26 09 03:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,791
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Services and goods are two different things.  Photos are not goods, they are services... see also, the IRS.

---------

none of those are ad agencies... there are no publicly traded ad agencies.  There are investment firms that are publicly owned which privately own portions of those ad agencies, but the agencies are not public.  The agencies have no reportability to the stockholders

---------

Clients will make a budget work... just because your sales people at your agency can not find a way to sell your services, does not mean the service is not that valuable... it means you have bad sales people.

So switch in plumber for lumber and you have a service.
The notion of charging different people different rates for the same service is an interesting one.... but it's what we do.

Those are not are not investment companies... they are holding companies.
They own many or most agencies outright.
They pay us, they bill for us, they are us.
You are kidding yourself if you think a subsidiary company is not responsible to the stockholders of the parent company. My paycheck comes from the parent company and the stockholders are my ultimate boss.

And while clients will work with you on a budget.....  They are really not that flexible,
They too are responsible to their corporate overseers and share holders.
If we have a $40,000 out of pocket budget... we can't spend $20,000 on photography.... it's just a fact of business life.

Jul 26 09 03:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:
So switch in plumber for lumber and you have a service.

Those are not are not investment companies... they are holding companies.
They own many or most agencies outright.
They pay us, they bill for us, they are us.
You are kidding yourself if you think a subsidiary company is not responsible to the stockholders of the parent company. My paycheck comes from the parent company and the stockholders are my ultimate boss.

And while clients will work with you on a budget.....  They are really not that flexible,
They too are responsible to their corporate overseers and share holders.
If we have a $40,000 out of pocket budget... we can't spend $20,000 on photography.... it's just a fact of business life.

Every service provider I know most definitely charges on a sliding scale based on the final cost of the product produced.  Plumber on a simple house job... $5000 for the full install... Plumber on the new Comcast center in Philadelphia... $2.4 million for the full install.  Sure any plumber could have done it, they all need the same basic skills to get the plumbers license, but I'm sure the Comcast center paid more per man hour than my mom did when she redid her bathrooms.

Your day to day business decisions as a child company are not overseen by the stockholders of a parent company... that is why they are separate companies.  They may have some input, however it would be against trade law for them to actually run your company in a day to day capacity.

If you budget is $40,000 for a job of course the photography is not going to be $20,000 of it.  Nor were we ever talking about such inequity.  You price the useage at what it is used for.  If it is a $40,000 budget, that only buys you so much ad space... the price for the re-print of those images should be less for that smaller ad space than if you had a $100,000 budget and were running twice the ad space.

I don't know why you keep going with this, you know how it works in the real world and you're acting like it doesn't work that way.  The income of the creatives is always dependent on the full budget of the final project... end of story.  That is how creative work is paid for, and arguably how it always should be paid for.  The reason no flat rate service providers exist is because it is a self defeating business model that has failed time and again.

Jul 26 09 03:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,368
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Were not talking some local village paper with a circulation of 100 and a few advertisers, this is a national mag/world wide mag.

Istock paid the op not Time mag. We have no idea how much Time mag paid for picture usage.
But if Istock could only afford to pay the op $30 they they are in the s**t or not giving the op what they should be.

It devalues photographers $30.
Jul 26 09 03:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,791
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I don't know why you keep going with this, you know how it works in the real world and you're acting like it doesn't work that way.  The income of the creatives is always dependent on the full budget of the final project... end of story.  That is how creative work is paid for, and arguably how it always should be paid for.  The reason no flat rate service providers exist is because it is a self defeating business model that has failed time and again.

Because nothing is set in stone.
We do thing the way we have always done them.... well because we do.
But that does not mean things will not change.
If a flat rate provider suddenly appears....
it would not be wrong or unexpected for companies to use their service.
That is just the nature of business.

You talk about "ethics" but fail to acknowledge that if no law is broken is it really unethical to not pay usage costs? Some will say yes other will say no
Ethics are really rather flexible.

I've done jobs with "Free" photos and jobs where we did large full budget photoshoots,
Is one more "Ethical" than the other?
I don't think so.

Jul 26 09 03:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Grainpusher
Posts: 178
Dallas, Texas, US


SPierce Photography wrote:
Everyone just needs to suck it up and realize that, yeah, this is where the market is right now and until it recovers this is the direction things are heading.

Not really, recently Time published covers from photographers that they had to have paid some good coin for. My point is that photographers need to take value in their work. Honestly, there have been low ballers since the dawn of photography and there always will. It's a personal choice of what kind of photographer you want to be. Do you want to be the photographer that clients call when they have a job that they need done well or do you want to be "coin jar image from istock.com" having to work two jobs because you can't make enough? No offense to the OP, I've gone through mistakes that taught me about value too. I agree with another poster who said to use this as a learning tool that his images have real value and go out there and be a successful photographer.

Jul 26 09 03:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,368
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Chris Macan wrote:

Because nothing is set in stone.
We do thing the way we have always done them.... well because we do.
But that does not mean things will not change.
If a flat rate provider suddenly appears....
it would not be wrong or unexpected for companies to use their service.
That is just the nature of business.

You talk about "ethics" but fail to acknowledge that if no law is broken is it really unethical to not pay usage costs? Some will say yes other will say no
Ethics are really rather flexible.

I've done jobs with "Free" photos and jobs where we did large full budget photoshoots,
Is one more "Ethical" than the other?
I don't think so.

Tfp.

Jul 26 09 03:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,791
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Tfp.

Different can of worms... But also not inherently unethical.

Jul 26 09 03:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
denisemc
Posts: 555
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


I'm just learning about usage right now and this thread makes me think I need to do a little more research.
Jul 26 09 03:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Chris Macan wrote:

Because nothing is set in stone.
We do thing the way we have always done them.... well because we do.
But that does not mean things will not change.
If a flat rate provider suddenly appears....
it would not be wrong or unexpected for companies to use their service.
That is just the nature of business.

You talk about "ethics" but fail to acknowledge that if no law is broken is it really unethical to not pay usage costs? Some will say yes other will say no
Ethics are really rather flexible.

I've done jobs with "Free" photos and jobs where we did large full budget photoshoots,
Is one more "Ethical" than the other?
I don't think so.

*shrug* you say tomato... I say the business will fail... The current economic slump proves my point, but still there are people who fail to listen.

Jul 26 09 04:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68,937
Orlando, Florida, US


I'm VASTLY amused at Mr. Harrington's responses and how he keeps insisting that MM is a haven of predatory pornographers looking to take advantage of women who'd be protected by the agency system, and the attacks being levied at me by "Saradah," especially her slaps at the quality of work of anyone who disagrees.

As I mentioned in the other thread, this's been the typical attitude of many "pros" who want to attack amateurs, hobbyists, and part timers, excluding them from their world & saying they're unworthy of notice until we suddenly do something to get their attention, at which point we get blamed rather than the actual factors responsible for the problem.

Pat noted in the other thread that the reputation I cited above is common in the "real world," but the sad thing is that reputation's being perpetuated by people like Mr. Harrington who have a self-serving interest in doing so.
Jul 26 09 04:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,368
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Chris Macan wrote:
Different can of worms... But also not inherently unethical.

Collaboration everyone gets something out of it.....value.

The op is proud he got published good for him but should have held out for more again my feeling being he got taken advantage of.
Mr. Harrington is pissed because it takes food out of the mouths of full time photographers when pictures sell for $30.

Jul 26 09 04:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


SLE Photography wrote:
I'm VASTLY amused at Mr. Harrington's responses and how he keeps insisting that MM is a haven of predatory pornographers looking to take advantage of women who'd be protected by the agency system, and the attacks being levied at me by "Saradah," especially her slaps at the quality of work of anyone who disagrees.

As I mentioned in the other thread, this's been the typical attitude of many "pros" who want to attack amateurs, hobbyists, and part timers, excluding them from their world & saying they're unworthy of notice until we suddenly do something to get their attention, at which point we get blamed rather than the actual factors responsible for the problem.

Pat noted in the other thread that the reputation I cited above is common in the "real world," but the sad thing is that reputation's being perpetuated by people like Mr. Harrington who have a self-serving interest in doing so.

I think that discussion is for another thread.

Jul 26 09 04:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,791
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:

I think that discussion is for another thread.

I think they closed and locked that thread.....

Jul 26 09 04:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68,937
Orlando, Florida, US


Chris Macan wrote:

I think they closed and locked that thread.....

Yep.  All discussion of this topic & the discussions about it was directed here.

Jul 26 09 04:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
I think that discussion is for another thread.
Chris Macan wrote:
I think they closed and locked that thread.....

I mean a discussion about amateurs vs pros, changing industry, effects of technology, yada yada yada....

Jul 26 09 04:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AusModels
Posts: 298
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


That's awesome. If, as it has been suggested, you feel you've been screwed, then I'd suggest Time would have simply chosen another $30 pic instead of yours.

Seriously, and I think you probably look at it this way too, how many people can say a shot of theirs has been on the cover of Time? Don't let the money hungry, narrow minded underachievers steal your moment.

Jul 26 09 04:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Thornton Harris
Posts: 1,684
San Francisco, California, US


Let's discuss this cover for a while:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 16,00.html

Same magazine, same designer. But this time, two images from a higher priced stock house and the photographers got credit.

Does that make it more ethical? Or should they have sent it out for a custom table top job? Or maybe just paid higher than the asking price?

Besides, it could provide some food for the starving pros.
Jul 26 09 04:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Collaboration everyone gets something out of it.....value.

The op is proud he got published good for him but should have held out for more again my feeling being he got taken advantage of.
Mr. Harrington is pissed because it takes food out of the mouths of full time photographers when pictures sell for $30.

I think it's more than just it takes $$ from photographers.   

If you take a step back further, what I hear is a deep frustration that a profession, and all the skills, crafts, learning that it has taken to be a full member of that profession is being deeply disrespected.   Disrespected by not only large corporations who have a legacy in publishing and communications, disrespected by newly formed agencies/corporations designed to marginalize photographer's profits so that theirs can be big, and disrespected by people who think that owning a camera and being able to capture an image therefore makes them a professional photographer.


I asked in an earlier part of the thread, with the advent of increasingly smart photographic technology and equally cunning bean counters, what the future might hold for any in the photographic industry.     Might not most of it end up being relegated to the realm amateurs, of everyone who will be walking around with a camera unit attached to our heads, and thus all events can be captured and documented and even edited with ease.  Bean counters would love that b/c such content would likely be obtained for free.

You note that not all pros are as verklempt as Mr. Harrington over the change in the industry.  There are a few on MM, in the thread even, who will happily tell you that their business has never been better than in this economy, that change is what you make of it, that only whiners and losers lament the passing of time and changes in industry, and you just need to stfu and march on, they are on microstock sites as well.


What would be an interesting debate would be to get folks like Mr. harrington and let's say for the sake of argument, Stephen E and Mr. Randall  (and a few others) all of them highly successful pros and let them discuss the state of the real industry.


That, I'd like to read.

Jul 26 09 04:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Thornton Harris wrote:
Let's discuss this cover for a while:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 16,00.html

Same magazine, same designer. But this time, two images from a higher priced stock house and the photographers got credit.

Does that make it more ethical? Or should they have sent it out for a custom table top job? Or maybe just paid higher than the asking price?

Besides, it could provide some food for the starving pros.

That's a bit more ethical...

1) Actual exposure and credit
2) Actual price was paid for the stock image (one in the cover shot) instead of microstock price, and I'm sure the larger stock house negotiated an appropriate license instead of automatically allowing an incorrect license.
3) They sent out for a custom table top job for the newspaper or had one of their inhouse studios do it.

They paid probably close to their normal market pay for that cover.

Jul 26 09 04:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US


Caperucita Roja wrote:
OP, do you think you'll wish to pursue a lawsuit that will allow you to get more money, or are you genuinely content with the outcome?

You're kidding, right?

James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Every service provider I know most definitely charges on a sliding scale based on the final cost of the product produced.  Plumber on a simple house job... $5000 for the full install... Plumber on the new Comcast center in Philadelphia... $2.4 million for the full install.

Not the same analogy at all.  Plumber fixes a leaky faucet at your house.  $100/hr.  Plumber fixes a leaky faucet at a business.  $100/hr.  Same service, different recipients, same cost.

Jul 26 09 04:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
291
Posts: 11,911
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US


SLE Photography wrote:
I'm VASTLY amused at Mr. Harrington's responses and how he keeps insisting that MM is a haven of predatory pornographers looking to take advantage of women who'd be protected by the agency system...

without reading his exact quote and taking what was paraphrased i'd say that statement was more true than false. 

we read of transgressions by those who fail to provide imaging, those without a clue what to charge and those, well, who put up pictures and call themselves a model or model photographer that would never be accepted at a marketable level.

given the no standard of entry agency-level professionals aren't afforded, this site is indeed a haven for pretenders.  however, it would be wrong to say every member doesn't have a clue, but it would be accurate to say many don't have a clue.  and it certainly isn't difficult to see that.

Jul 26 09 04:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


SLE Photography wrote:
I'm VASTLY amused at Mr. Harrington's responses and how he keeps insisting that MM is a haven of predatory pornographers looking to take advantage of women who'd be protected by the agency system...
291 wrote:
without reading his exact quote and taking what was paraphrased i'd say that statement was more true than false. 

we read of transgressions by those who fail to provide imaging, those without a clue what to charge and those, well, who put up pictures and call themselves a model or model photographer that would never be accepted at a marketable level.

given the no standard of entry agency-level professionals aren't afforded, this site is indeed a haven for pretenders.  however, it would be wrong to say every member doesn't have a clue, but it would be accurate to say many don't have a clue.  and it certainly isn't difficult to see that.

someone should probably just start a:
"Is MM a haven of predatory pornographers" thread.

Jul 26 09 05:05 pm  Link  Quote 
first910111213141516last   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