login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover Search   Reply
first1011121314151617last
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68,937
Orlando, Florida, 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.

The flaw in his reasoning is that it's based on a biased selection of profiles on MM AND the deliberate glossing over of the fact that most of the models on MM would never be SEEN by agencies.

Jul 26 09 05:21 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...
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.
SLE Photography wrote:
The flaw in his reasoning is that it's based on a biased selection of profiles on MM AND the deliberate glossing over of the fact that most of the models on MM would never be SEEN by agencies.

some may call it a flaw, some may call it accuracy through random sampling.  and if what was quoted goes to never being seen by agencies, let alone qualified, then it stands to reason those seeking hopeful dreams are indeed opening themselves up to jumping into something with virtually no protection...and being lead on by those who sell optimism without an understanding of what is required for making those dreams a reality.

again. it doesn't take much to see that when doing a cursory search of those who have placed themselves in the hands of the blind leading the blind.

Jul 26 09 05:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68,937
Orlando, Florida, US


291 wrote:
some may call it a flaw, some may call it accuracy through random sampling.  and if what was quoted goes to never being seen by agencies, let alone qualified, then it stands to reason those seeking hopeful dreams are indeed opening themselves up to jumping into something with virtually no protection...and being lead on by those who sell optimism without an understanding of what is required for making those dreams a reality.

again. it doesn't take much to see that when doing a cursory search of those who have placed themselves in the hands of the blind leading the blind.

It's more to the point of a self-serving business interest by a particular group of photographers willing to exploit, or help others exploit, wannabee models who have no realistic shot at agency work.

His basic criteria for someone being a pervert was that the person does TF, so the models should only approach paid photographers.  So he's, in fact, promoting selling optimism to people with unrealistic dreams.  smile

This's much like people who use the "escort" argument to tar competition & sell themselves.

He dislikes the way the amateur/hobbyist/semi-pro community operates because he feels it's a threat to a business paradigm he champions so he's out there crying "Stay AWAY from photographers there, they're all perverts.

Jul 26 09 05:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gregg Zaun
Posts: 1,084
San Diego, California, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

I hate to tell people flat out that they're wrong... because it's not typically the case... but in this case you are wrong completely.

1) Plenty of companies do not purchase micro stock for major image use because the ethics of the purchase are questionable
2) The question is not the purchase of the copyright of the image of xyz... the question is the purchase price of the useage rights of the image of xyz for the cover publication of a multi-million dollar an issue profit making news magazine.  Companies wishing to use the talents of a photographer like the OP should pay a fair percentage of the profit for the image that obviously helped sell the magazine in the first place.

I really have a hard time understanding this post.  If a company doesn't increase its payout to coincide with the amount of money they will make off of their product that means they are unethical?  So if the ad doesn't work and the company loses money is the photographer ethically required to return some of his/her pay?  And when you are shooting a shot with a a company for a national ad does that mean you pay the MUA and your assistants a % of what you make instead of their normal day rate?  I mean that would seem to be the ethical thing to do?

Jul 26 09 06:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Gregg Zaun  wrote:

I really have a hard time understanding this post.  If a company doesn't increase its payout to coincide with the amount of money they will make off of their product that means they are unethical?  So if the ad doesn't work and the company loses money is the photographer ethically required to return some of his/her pay?  And when you are shooting a shot with a a company for a national ad does that mean you pay the MUA and your assistants a % of what you make instead of their normal day rate?  I mean that would seem to be the ethical thing to do?

Day rates for assistants, makeup artists, stylist, and models are all usually decided by the client in typical advertising shoots.  Rates for these vary as much by project as the photographers rate does.

"If the ad does not work"... don't quite understand that line of questioning... there is no way to determine if an ad "worked" or not... and the percentage model of distribution and usage affecting pay scale does not rely on the results of the ad, just the number of places that the ad is put up.

I really don't know why this is so hard to understand for people.

It is ethical that the company who puts the image in x number of places pays y number of dollars for that placement and as such pays 1% of y to the photographer.  If the company places the image in x*20 number of places it pays y*20 number of dollars for that placement and should pay 1% of y*20 to the photographer.  Doing otherwise is profiteering and trying to cheat the usage system that is in place and accepted as the way that creative work is paid for.

Jul 26 09 06:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Anthony Gordon
Posts: 435
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


I've read this discussion with great interest pretty much all the way through and a few things seem clear.

1) Microstock is here to stay, the abundance of cameras now on the market have reduced the cost of entry for anyone wishing to join the ranks of photographer.  And it's not necessarily a bad thing, it allows people/organizations for which stock photography is too expensive to legally license and use photography in their works that they probably wouldn't have done otherwise or stolen.

2) No matter how you cut it, $30 for the cover shot for a international magazine with subscription in the millions is absurd.  No one blames the OP, he wasn't expecting this, but Time should have done better by him than that.  You can say that's capitalism if you want, but while legal, it certainly ain't moral.

3) A large number of people believe that there is no turning back, that we're all headed to $30 sales needing 2000+ just to maybe make ends meet, basically there'll be the few that do really well and the rest will make pocket change without being able to make ends meet. 

I have an solution/challenge for this idea:
The ASMP and PPA and whatever other photographer's organization should make this an issue to stand on.  I've seen way too many issues about copyrights like orphan works where it seems like these organizations have no pull, no say.  Well here's where you make your money.  Basically go to the major magazines (large subscriptions, national distribution) and make a deal, give them a list of approved stock sites from which they can use, if they're not willing to, then have your members withhold your services from them.  Basically say, microstock is for amateur photographers to help smaller industries, but for the mainstream stuff, you have to step up to the professional ranks.  It seems pretty obvious that the first target ought to be Time magazine, boycott them for a period and see what happens.  One of two things will become apparent: One, the lack of meaningful professional pictures leads to a drop in circulation and thus isn't worth the hassle of saving a few bucks on the odd picture or Two, they'll do just fine without you, and we will all have a new understanding of the value of photography.  Either way, I think it's time for these organizations and members to stop bellyaching and do something.  Maybe they'll realize they ain't that important, or maybe they'll prove how important they are and be able to stand as a group on other issues down the road.

That being said, I doubt they have the will to do it, but I'd love to see what happens if they did.  It seems to me that the photography industry is the only one of the creative media arts that doesn't have any strong leadership or say.  Music and Film push their agendas on copyrights and distributions, sometimes way over board I think, but at least they are being heard. Isn't it time for these organizations to do something similar or maybe it is already too late...
Jul 26 09 06:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I really don't know why this is so hard to understand for people.

Because you don't seem to understand how stock photography, specifically, royalty free as opposed to rights managed, works.

Jul 26 09 06:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Planet Design wrote:
Because you don't seem to understand how stock photography, specifically, royalty free as opposed to rights managed, works.

I understand completely how stock photogrpahy works...  Stock photography is irrelevant to the conversation as to what is the correct and ethical ammount to pay for an image for a cover of a national magazine

Jul 26 09 06:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

I understand completely how stock photogrpahy works...  Stock photography is irrelevant to the conversation as to what is the correct and ethical ammount to pay for an image for a cover of a national magazine

The correct amount is the amount it costs to properly license the image under the terms from the offering site.

What if it was only a regional magazine, would that be ethical?  Or a national magazine devoted more towards a niche subject?  Is that ethical, or would maybe a state-wide magazine pass the ethical test?  Perhaps only a local or county magazine is the right size as per your decision?  Or maybe, you don't like the full page size?  Would a quarter page element be ethical enough?  Or would it have to be smaller than 1/8 page?

Jul 26 09 06:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 11,411
Oakland Acres, Iowa, US


Grainpusher wrote:
Not really, recently Time published covers from photographers that they had to have paid some good coin for. ......

I think this touches on a good point I have not yet seen discussed. I work fairly regularly with a small magazine.   They have an annual operating budget.  Sometimes they can meet their publications needs by purchasing inexpensive stock.  At other times, they hire a very expensive photographer.   How can they afford to spend so much on an expensive professional photographer?   - Because they offset this with more affordable stock when they can. 

Purchasing stock, at some times, may free up the dollars to pay for the professionals when needed.

Jul 26 09 06:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Planet Design wrote:

The correct amount is the amount it costs to properly license the image under the terms from the offering site.

What if it was only a regional magazine, would that be ethical?  Or a national magazine devoted more towards a niche subject?  Is that ethical, or would maybe a state-wide magazine pass the ethical test?  Perhaps only a local or county magazine is the right size as per your decision?  Or maybe, you don't like the full page size?  Would a quarter page element be ethical enough?  Or would it have to be smaller than 1/8 page?

How hard is "It depends on distribution" to understand.

$30 is not a proper licensing fee for a distribution of half a million copies of an image... even according to the stock site which it was licensed from... the wrong license was purchased.

So... perhaps it is you who does not understand stock photography? Hmm... yes I am relatively certain that is the case.

Jul 26 09 06:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Uncle Tim Orden
Posts: 730
Kaneohe, Hawaii, 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.

As far as I'm concerned, its public tragedy.  This sort of thing hurts us all. Why aren't you guys getting that?

Every image from any photographer should be rights managed.

Jul 26 09 06:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
How hard is "It depends on distribution" to understand.

Here is an article I wrote on Rights Managed versus Royalty Free use.  Perhaps you should read up on the difference:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpres … /rm-vs-rf/

Yes, that should help.

Jul 26 09 06:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Viewu
Posts: 820
Palmetto, Florida, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I understand completely how stock photogrpahy works...  Stock photography is irrelevant to the conversation as to what is the correct and ethical ammount to pay for an image for a cover of a national magazine

I have read this entire thread and the other that is now locked I believe.  It has been interesting to say the least to read so many varied opinions. 

I think stock photography is relevant to the thread because that is what the image was, a stock image sold very cheaply.

My income is derived entirely from stock after a number of years in advertising.

When stock first reared its head a lot of assignment photographers, hated it and said it would ruin their business.  Then came along RF stock and RM shooters said it would ruin their business.

Now we have MS and both RM and RF shooters (some) are saying it will ruin their business.

But I know many very successful RM shooters who also shoot RF and are trying MS. 

The stock world is changing and it is getting harder and harder to make a living unless you it that home run image out of the ballpark.

I am not mad at anyone shooting any kind of stock.  I am dismayed that image buyers either don’t know or don’t care about quality but that was going on when I started shooting 30 years ago.

As to the OP.  Proud of the tear?  Sure why not?  It is exciting for most shooters to get their first tear sheets.  But then that begins to get old if you aren’t making enough money to support your business. 

And as to hobbyists and amateurs that don’t like the reaction of pros.  Think about how you would feel if some clown came into your workplace and said “hey I have a passion for selling furniture, I will work here for 1% of what you pay your employees.”

Perhaps this is disjointed…sorry.  MS is probably here to stay.  I think it sucks but me getting all pissy about it isn’t going to do any good.  Will I go after the MS market?  No need to.  Getty and Corbis already sell my crap at crap prices.  They both do MS whether you like it or not. 

I had a statement several months ago for a RM image that over 2000 sales and my take…about $2.00.  F__K me!  Sure it was a small file but I never intended for that to happen.

And just last week I came across another image I have with Corbis that is on the LIFE website under Vietnam travel.  Guess what anyone can download and print it.

Who looks out for photographers?  No one that is who.

Jul 26 09 06:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,369
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Sign of the times.
Jul 26 09 06:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Planet Design wrote:

Here is an article I wrote on Rights Managed versus Royalty Free use.  Perhaps you should read up on the difference:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpres … /rm-vs-rf/

Yes, that should help.

Did you bother to read the iStockphoto licenses?  There's only a few of them.  Your moronic article takes no note that even iStockphoto's licenses are limited to the number of prints, or USES of that image.

Jul 26 09 06:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Did you bother to read the iStockphoto licenses?  There's only a few of them.  Your moronic article takes no note that even iStockphoto's licenses are limited to the number of prints, or USES of that image.

Apparently, your reading of the article didn't allow you to realize it is a general article on RM vs. RF, and not on iStockphoto specifically.  I pointed it out since you keep saying things like "$30 is not a proper licensing fee for a distribution of half a million copies of an image..." as a general statement that the content is undervalued.  I thought you might acknowledge that RM licensing is more concerned with usage numbers and such.

By the way, it does appear that Time did buy the extended license for unlimited usage.

Since you can read though, you might like this article specifically on iStockphoto extended licenses:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpres … d-license/

Jul 26 09 07:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JesseRphoto
Posts: 84
Ossining, New York, US


Congrats on making the cover...

Jul 26 09 07:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DarkSlide
Posts: 2,160
Alexandria, Virginia, 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.

AOL pays their staff photographers very well. They cover everything from the tsunami in Indonesia, Live8 concerts around the globe, USA-Mexican border issues, to product shots for story illustrations and weekly concerts in their NYC studio by top of the chart performers.

AOL TimeWarner have specials deals with Getty & Corbis which results in below market fees to license images. AOL alone publishes 4,000 images a week.

Jul 26 09 07:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 934
Oak Park, Illinois, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

I understand completely how stock photogrpahy works...  Stock photography is irrelevant to the conversation as to what is the correct and ethical ammount to pay for an image for a cover of a national magazine

No, sorry pal but you don't understand. Stock is not irrelevant to the issue and it began when Corbus, Getty began buying up the small stock agencies and continues even today for if I'm not correct, Getty may have it's hands in iStock and I've also heard Getty has been trolling Flickr for images to purchase.

Jul 26 09 07:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 934
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Bodyshots Photography wrote:

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.

Regardless of what "he shoots for" it's hurting the business, lowering the value of photography by professionals.
As for his "price" he put his photos with a "cheap" stock agency, and also left money on the table.

As for an "accomplishment", it's not, unless his name is on it in the magazine(say at the bottom of the credits,etc. often on the page with the TOC, naming the stock agency and photographer). without that it means NOTHING, since he can't prove it's his image or someone copied his image.

Jul 26 09 07:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Saxon Alvarez
Posts: 469
San Antonio, Texas, US


$30+ Bucks and 500 comments richer!

Congrats!

Here's to many more covers for you with even better rewards!

Cheers! smile
-Patrick

Ps. Sorry I can't send you a drink on this thing, but I'll drink an extra one in your honor! wink
Jul 26 09 07:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Viewu
Posts: 820
Palmetto, Florida, US


Digital Czar wrote:

No, sorry pal but you don't understand. Stock is not irrelevant to the issue and it began when Corbus, Getty began buying up the small stock agencies and continues even today for if I'm not correct, Getty may have it's hands in iStock and I've also heard Getty has been trolling Flickr for images to purchase.

Getty has Flicker as one of their collections on their websites.  Anyone putting images on Flicker now has the option of clicking in "sharing" to allow Getty to see and ask for the photographer to license it through them. 

It states on Flicker that the photographer will be then offered a contract with one of their collections BUT from what I see it is now the "Flicker" collection.  I would love to know what the percentage rate is being offered to flicker contributors.

Jul 26 09 08:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Soup
Posts: 20,901
Long Beach, California, US


Someone is passing around some info about facebook selling it users images.???

There seems to be something devious going on, maybe its because all the users are using others software for free? Music, Art, software??


I wonder why?
Jul 26 09 08:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Viewu
Posts: 820
Palmetto, Florida, US


Digital Soup wrote:
Someone is passing around some info about facebook selling it users images.???

There seems to be something devious going on, maybe its because all the users are using others software for free? Music, Art, software??


I wonder why?

Ye facebook has an option that by default is set to allow them to place your photos on ads.  Most people I imagine are not aware of it but it is there.  I just turned mine off yesterday.

Jul 26 09 08:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


Saxon Alvarez wrote:
$30+ Bucks and 500 comments richer!

Congrats!

Here's to many more covers for you with even better rewards!

Cheers! smile
-Patrick

Ps. Sorry I can't send you a drink on this thing, but I'll drink an extra one in your honor! wink

drink with me. Thank

Jul 26 09 08:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


Viewu wrote:

I have read this entire thread and the other that is now locked I believe.  It has been interesting to say the least to read so many varied opinions. 

I think stock photography is relevant to the thread because that is what the image was, a stock image sold very cheaply.

My income is derived entirely from stock after a number of years in advertising.

When stock first reared its head a lot of assignment photographers, hated it and said it would ruin their business.  Then came along RF stock and RM shooters said it would ruin their business.

Now we have MS and both RM and RF shooters (some) are saying it will ruin their business.

But I know many very successful RM shooters who also shoot RF and are trying MS. 

The stock world is changing and it is getting harder and harder to make a living unless you it that home run image out of the ballpark.

I am not mad at anyone shooting any kind of stock.  I am dismayed that image buyers either don’t know or don’t care about quality but that was going on when I started shooting 30 years ago.

As to the OP.  Proud of the tear?  Sure why not?  It is exciting for most shooters to get their first tear sheets.  But then that begins to get old if you aren’t making enough money to support your business. 

And as to hobbyists and amateurs that don’t like the reaction of pros.  Think about how you would feel if some clown came into your workplace and said “hey I have a passion for selling furniture, I will work here for 1% of what you pay your employees.”

Perhaps this is disjointed…sorry.  MS is probably here to stay.  I think it sucks but me getting all pissy about it isn’t going to do any good.  Will I go after the MS market?  No need to.  Getty and Corbis already sell my crap at crap prices.  They both do MS whether you like it or not. 

I had a statement several months ago for a RM image that over 2000 sales and my take…about $2.00.  F__K me!  Sure it was a small file but I never intended for that to happen.

And just last week I came across another image I have with Corbis that is on the LIFE website under Vietnam travel.  Guess what anyone can download and print it.

Who looks out for photographers?  No one that is who.

++++100

Jul 26 09 08:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 934
Oak Park, Illinois, 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.

I've done jobs where the photo's were "free" but it was also something I chose to do, not something where they expected my work free.

Jul 26 09 09:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17,917
Los Angeles, California, US


Digital Planet Design wrote:

Apparently, your reading of the article didn't allow you to realize it is a general article on RM vs. RF, and not on iStockphoto specifically.  I pointed it out since you keep saying things like "$30 is not a proper licensing fee for a distribution of half a million copies of an image..." as a general statement that the content is undervalued.  I thought you might acknowledge that RM licensing is more concerned with usage numbers and such.

By the way, it does appear that Time did buy the extended license for unlimited usage.

Since you can read though, you might like this article specifically on iStockphoto extended licenses:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpres … d-license/

NO they DIDN'T. The payment to the artist is at least 90.00 on the licenses TIME would have needed. Based on the amount he was paid they bought a multi-user standard license.

Jul 26 09 09:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 934
Oak Park, Illinois, US


R Studios wrote:

++++100

Maybe the answer lies in how you got to the stock "agency" that sold your image  and with 2000 sales you made $2.00. What if you were with a more reputable agency?

Time was that a lot of photographers made stock out of out-takes from some assignments that weren't used by the client. Or they shot their own images during downtime on an assignment when they went somewhere, all before there were automatic cameras and when film had to be processed.

Then came the advent of the small stock agencies. In order to compete they bought images, lots of them from what would have been amateurs, camera club folks, and others(perhaps working in photography as employees) and so on...and those folks thought they'd struck gold! They got what was to them a gob of money for a collection of images and really didn't give a hoot about rights. Then along came the folks with the big ideas, corbus, getty and others who bought the smaller stock agencies and became the bigger agencies and along the way getting the cash to purchase larger collections.

Today, they even compete and shoot what was assignment work. And so it goes...

Jul 26 09 09:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Viewu
Posts: 820
Palmetto, Florida, US


Digital Czar wrote:
Maybe the answer lies in how you got to the stock "agency" that sold your image  and with 2000 sales you made $2.00. What if you were with a more reputable agency?

Time was that a lot of photographers made stock out of out-takes from some assignments that weren't used by the client. Or they shot their own images during downtime on an assignment when they went somewhere, all before there were automatic cameras and when film had to be processed.

Then came the advent of the small stock agencies. In order to compete they bought images, lots of them from what would have been amateurs, camera club folks, and others(perhaps working in photography as employees) and so on...and those folks thought they'd struck gold! They got what was to them a gob of money for a collection of images and really didn't give a hoot about rights. Then along came the folks with the big ideas, corbus, getty and others who bought the smaller stock agencies and became the bigger agencies and along the way getting the cash to purchase larger collections.

Today, they even compete and shoot what was assignment work. And so it goes...

I should have clarified that stock "agency" was Corbis that sold 2000 downloads and my percentage was around $2.00, granted the size of the file was so small I didn't even know it could be done but done it was...speculation from my peers who have seen the same thing is that it is for cell phones or some such crap.

P.S.  As I said I am with both Getty and Corbis but as to reputable stock agencies I'm not sure there are any when it comes to photographers.

Jul 26 09 09:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Scott A Miller photo
Posts: 5,627
Orlando, Florida, US


Why is what paid Time paid even important?

Because it will become a price reference.

It will affect how photographs are valued in the future. And that affects every single photographer out there.

Not just pros, EVERYONE.

And that is what some just don't seem to understand.
Jul 26 09 09:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Scott A Miller photo
Posts: 5,627
Orlando, Florida, US


Viewu wrote:

I should have clarified that stock "agency" was Corbis that sold 2000 downloads and my percentage was around $2.00, granted the size of the file was so small I didn't even know it could be done but done it was...speculation from my peers who have seen the same thing is that it is for cell phones or some such crap.

P.S.  As I said I am with both Getty and Corbis but as to reputable stock agencies I'm not sure there are any when it comes to photographers.

And the shame is Corbis -- owned by Bill Gates -- bought Sygma, one of the great agencies in it's time.

And Corbis like many Microstock sites doesn't care about photographers or the lack of money it sells images for or even if they take care of the images they have.

A good read :

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/behind-6/


ok, back to the thread...

Jul 26 09 09:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Viewu
Posts: 820
Palmetto, Florida, US


Scott A Miller photo wrote:
Why is what paid Time paid even important?

Because it will become a price reference.

It will affect how photographs are valued in the future. And that affects every single photographer out there.

Not just pros, EVERYONE.

And that is what some just don't seem to understand.

And some never will and/or will never care.

Jul 26 09 09:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
brandy pruitt
Posts: 136
Chicago, Illinois, US


Wow, there seems to be a lot of bickering going on round here

I just wanted to say congrats, OP! The cover of Time Magazine is a ridiculously huge accomplishment and a testament of your talent.
Jul 26 09 09:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


you can buy original copy (Time cover) from me at

http://robertlamphoto.zenfolio.com/p644729573
Jul 26 09 10:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Scott A Miller photo
Posts: 5,627
Orlando, Florida, US


R Studios wrote:
you can buy original copy (Time cover) from me at

http://robertlamphoto.zenfolio.com/p644729573

Dude, an 4x6 for $4.00 plus shipping.....

wow... 13 times what the lab charges (29 cents) to make the print..

At least you under stand that part of the biz ...

Jul 26 09 10:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Stacy Alberto
Posts: 435
San Diego, California, US


I think the $30 is worth the bragging rights and the tear sheet. This thread alone has already gotten you 13 pages worth of MM discussion and exposure. Milk it for all it's worth.
Jul 26 09 10:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


Stacy Alberto wrote:
I think the $30 is worth the bragging rights and the tear sheet. This thread alone has already gotten you 13 pages worth of MM discussion and exposure. Milk it for all it's worth.

sure, you can print at http://robertlamphoto.zenfolio.com/p644729573

Jul 26 09 10:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
mfpixDC
Posts: 6
Lake Barcroft, Virginia, US


R Studios wrote:

i am not depresses but happy

I'd be very depressed as should you. - There's a thing called usage!  Learn the business and don't accept this.  It's a slap in the face whether you are a professional or an amateur. Equal pay based on usage.

Better luck next time.

Jul 26 09 10:40 pm  Link  Quote 
first1011121314151617last   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