login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover Search   Reply
first23456789last
Photographer
Michael Donovan Rulezz
Posts: 651
New York, New York, US


x
Jul 25 09 09:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Donovan Rulezz
Posts: 651
New York, New York, US


x
Jul 25 09 09:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PYPI FASHION
Posts: 36,332
San Francisco, California, US


Brian Diaz wrote:
Before microstock was around, would Time have paid thousands of dollars for that image?

We know that they have (and still do) pay $1000+ for unique images, but would they have paid that much for a generic image?

The current rights managed fee for a similar image from Getty would be $1,995. I have no idea if Time would have paid that or just get someone to shoot it for less.

Jul 25 09 09:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


Brian Diaz wrote:
If they don't want a specific artist's work, why not?

As many people have said, this is about supply and demand.  A search for "coin jar" on istockphoto.com comes up with more than 300 hits.  The supply is high.

There is only one "Ray of Light" song.  The supply is low.

As supply increases, price goes down.
Michael Donovan Rulezz wrote:
Exactly. Why would Time hire the few great photographers of our time to produce something that can be bought in bulk?

People are still buying expensive products and services (A new Tesla Motors store just opened in Chelsea... I'm sure they will sell a few). Be rare and people will come. Be mediocre or average and people will just treat you like you are mediocre or average.

True.

And who needs photojournalists either?

ok for a war or two or a presidential election, maybe....

but otherwise, why not just get rid of photojournalists and just rely on all the people who have camera phones who take photos of accidents and fires and just rely on those shots for publication?

Everyone sends them in for free.  Why pay some guy to take a professional shot of an accident anyways?

Jul 25 09 10:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19,583
Great Neck, New York, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:

Brian Diaz wrote:
If they don't want a specific artist's work, why not?

As many people have said, this is about supply and demand.  A search for "coin jar" on istockphoto.com comes up with more than 300 hits.  The supply is high.

There is only one "Ray of Light" song.  The supply is low.

As supply increases, price goes down.

True.

And who needs photojournalists either?

ok for a war or two or a presidential election, maybe....

but otherwise, why not just get rid of photojournalists and just rely on all the people who have camera phones who take photos of accidents and fires and just rely on those shots for publication?

Everyone sends them in for free.  Why pay some guy to take a professional shot of an accident anyways?

that has been happening for years already, professionals are not always at the scene.  And in all the time that has happened, the pros have not gone out of business, and newspapers and magazines have not stopped using images from random people who caught the moment.  They both can coexist just fine.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 25 09 10:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Thomas Anomalous
Posts: 78
New York, New York, US


One way you could turn it around is to write a brief article about your experience of Time Magazine's "new frugality" and pitch it to them.  If properly done, they might actually want to buy exclusive rights to a story like that, just to keep it buried.  Heck, some photo editor might even be a good sport and throw you a couple bucks.
Jul 25 09 10:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 62,325
Danbury, Connecticut, US


PYPI FASHION wrote:

The current rights managed fee for a similar image from Getty would be $1,995. I have no idea if Time would have paid that or just get someone to shoot it for less.

For $1,995, Time could have sent an intern to buy a DSLR, a jar full of coins, and a light tent, then when the intern shot the cover photo, Time would own the copyright and not have to worry about managing the rights.

Jul 25 09 10:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Donovan Rulezz
Posts: 651
New York, New York, US


x
Jul 25 09 10:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Rebel Photo
Posts: 11,446
Florence, South Carolina, US


Anomalous wrote:
One way you could turn it around is to write a brief article about your experience of Time Magazine's "new frugality" and pitch it to them.  If properly done, they might actually want to buy exclusive rights to a story like that, just to keep it buried.  Heck, some photo editor might even be a good sport and throw you a couple bucks.

I like the way you think! big_smile, except pitch it to someone else..or just publish it like Diaz said.

Jul 25 09 10:20 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Steph Clare
Posts: 3,447
Argyle, Florida, US


R Studios wrote:
yes. I am happy.

i love that magazine smile

Jul 25 09 10:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,655
Detroit, Michigan, US


I need to spend more time doing table-top shoots. My landscape and conceptual stuff sells the best right now.

My image of a sunburst from behind clouds was used on an album cover. I'm not mad at how much I got paid, I'm happy it sold. Microstock is a numbers game.

http://www.lumigraphics.com/images/cd_cover_240.jpg
Jul 25 09 10:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,773
San Francisco, California, US


Robert Randall wrote:

I don't think they did, I think business people saw an opportunity to make money by short cutting the assignment process at a somewhat lesser rate of fee, and the natural progression of our economy took it from there. Faster, cheaper, hopefully better.

That's what I'm thinking too.

Jul 25 09 10:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
OwenImages
Posts: 3,801
Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, US


First I must offer my Congrats on the cover of Time...regardless of pay, that is way cool.  Not many people can claim a Time Cover!  The pay, sure that is disappointing....but the biggest disappointment is that ISTOCK gets the photo credit...Not YOU.  That is terribly sad.  I feel bad for the Getty and AP folks that happens to all of the time.  Most of them do not get paid what they should and then they always get ripped off with the credit.  I guess each publication has their own standards of how they credit photographers.  I have seen some where they will put AP/John Doe where others will just do AP.  You should be proud and frame it for sure.
Jul 25 09 10:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,773
San Francisco, California, US


StephenEastwood wrote:
that has been happening for years already, professionals are not always at the scene.  And in all the time that has happened, the pros have not gone out of business, and newspapers and magazines have not stopped using images from random people who caught the moment.  They both can coexist just fine.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

I agree. But the difference now is the technology. You can take a pic with a phone, upload it and bam! it's already there vs. the film years from an amateur photographer where the market wasn't saturated. Anyways, the bottom line is adapting.

Jul 25 09 10:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13,842
Chicago, Illinois, US


PYPI FASHION wrote:

Well if that CEO was on Facebook, his mug would have been featured on ads for "Hot singles in your area".

I get that you're angry, but unless you can stop the tide by yourself, you are spitting into an incredible wind storm. What good is the anger going to do you? Why not adapt and find the holes in the system that allow you to make a killing. Wouldn't you and your time be better served in a positive approach, rather than all this relentless bickering about what the man has done to the industry?

Jul 25 09 10:50 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jim Lafferty
Posts: 1,906
Brooklyn, New York, US


I'm curious for those making thousands (or more) on royalty free stock -- how many images do you have up?
Jul 25 09 10:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,773
San Francisco, California, US


Robert Randall wrote:

I get that you're angry, but unless you can stop the tide by yourself, you are spitting into an incredible wind storm. What good is the anger going to do you? Why not adapt and find the holes in the system that allow you to make a killing. Wouldn't you and your time be better served in a positive approach, rather than all this relentless bickering about what the man has done to the industry?

Do or die. That's reality and technology. People better get use to it because it's going to continue to change if we like it or not.

Jul 25 09 10:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Derick Hingle
Posts: 149
Hammond, Louisiana, US


StephenEastwood wrote:

that has been happening for years already, professionals are not always at the scene.  And in all the time that has happened, the pros have not gone out of business, and newspapers and magazines have not stopped using images from random people who caught the moment.  They both can coexist just fine.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

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.

Jul 25 09 11:03 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


StephenEastwood wrote:

that has been happening for years already, professionals are not always at the scene.  And in all the time that has happened, the pros have not gone out of business, and newspapers and magazines have not stopped using images from random people who caught the moment.  They both can coexist just fine.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

it's true.

it's happening with portrait and wedding photographers as well.  Really, who needs to pay some dude with a cheesy studio to do "studio portraits" or worse those god awful wedding photographers. 

Most people with a decent consumer digital slr can capture shots just as good as all these "pro" photographers who have been at it for a billion years.   The thing that kept these guys in biz all these years is the technology gap and now that consumer cameras are so good that a monkey can take a shot, I can see why people aren't paying photographers for portraits or wedding photos either.

Jul 25 09 11:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Donovan Rulezz
Posts: 651
New York, New York, US


x
Jul 25 09 11:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Dan Howell
Posts: 2,129
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.

Wait!  You actually think that newspapers are declining nationwide because they are using amateur photographic content for a percentage of what they publish?  Really?  That's a bigger factor than say...the shift of advertising dollars to TV and electronic media over the past two decades?  Or the rising cost of paper pulp and fuel?

Believe me I like to think that photography is important, but c'mon if you think that is what is behind the decline of newspapers and print in general you need to pull your head out of the sand.

Jul 25 09 11:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
TC Studios
Posts: 85
New York, New York, US


Not directly on topic but....

I have plenty of 'Royalty Free' stock up on Alamy. But if Time wanted to get good enough resolution for a cover, it would be at least $300-$400 bucks. Hell RM or RP it would be only a couple grand.

Granted it is a good tear-sheet, but then the next cheap photographer comes along and undercuts him. $30.00 is really an insult for a magazine cover.

istockphoto sucks for the entire industry.

That all said, Time Cover, very cool!
Jul 25 09 11:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JMX Photography
Posts: 2,097
Saginaw, Michigan, US


People need to stop lamenting the advent of microstock.  It is sooo 2006.  This is a trend that is not going to reverse and Getty has already given industry credibility to the trend.  I put images on iStock.  Why?  Cause they make more money there than just sitting on my hard drive.

This thread just reminded me I had 4 more shots to upload!

One thing iStock has also done is open the market up to more buyers.  Before microstock websites would often "steal" images.  Now that they're a buck a piece, more designers purchase images legally.  More people legally buying images does sound like a good thing.
Jul 25 09 11:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,655
Detroit, Michigan, US


Time is not going to spend thousands for a stock illustration image for their cover. That cover can and does change if a new major story popped up. They also design multiple covers and tie them to a big story that is running. It could have been the Gates arrest, the perfect game, more troubles in Iran, Palin leaving office, the moon landing anniversary...

A time-sensitive newsmagazine has to be very flexible, and most of their non-ad content imagery is decidedly "news" rather than non-specific illustration. News photos, maps, charts, tables of figures, etc.
Jul 25 09 11:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FitnessPortfolioNow
Posts: 7
Jersey City, New Jersey, US


The death of an industry and you're "happy."

And, your fellow photographers are congratulating you.

Wow, way to go.
Jul 25 09 12:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Scott A Miller photo
Posts: 5,625
Orlando, Florida, US


No I didn't read all the pages of this post.

But a few highlights :

1. Time pays $10,000 for a cover ? Since when? Maybe based on a software program saying so, but not in reality.

2. and most important, who give fuck about a tear on TIME.... THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS FOR A COVER OF TIME ?

Holy shit dude, that is the reason those of us that do this professionally are dying trying to get what we should be paid. Asshats that don't know the business selling their work for pennies or giving it away.

All that tear does is harm, yes HARM the photography industry and you. Now you are the guy who had a cover of TIME for $30 dollars.. great go to fucking McDonalds and buy a Happy Meal. Because you just set your price for life.

You are now the guy who will work for free or VERY CHEAP.

Oh, and TIME is selling reprints of the cover for $15 and change.. so after two sales they made their money back. And under their contract, you may get a penny...

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

How would a dentist like it if I did cleanings for a penny, or a lawyer if I did pro-bono work, or did free lawns service, or any job for pennies on the dollar.

LEARN THE BUSINESS.
Learn the value of your work.
It does no one any good if you don't. Including you.
Jul 25 09 12:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Greg Christensen
Posts: 360
Orange, California, US


Dan Hood   wrote:

They used to, quite often. Have you even looked at what a ad page rate cost for time magazine?

http://www.time.com/time/mediakit/1/asi … index.html

If you understood the way advertising works and the value of a cover to sell a magazine you would relize that $10,000 is chump change for them.

I do understand how advertising works and I know that the image in question and the way it was used wouldn't be preceived as advertising by most stock agencies - I'm not saying it's right - unfortunately that is the way it is now and has been for a long time. For example Image Bank (no w Getty) sold one of my images for the cover of a large run calendar back in the 90's. Do you think I made thousands of dollars? No. I made a few hundred and that is only because Image Bank didn't give things away like microstock companies do.

Jul 25 09 12:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Justin Foto
Posts: 3,592
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland


Dan Howell wrote:
Wait!  You actually think that newspapers are declining nationwide because they are using amateur photographic content for a percentage of what they publish?  Really?  That's a bigger factor than say...the shift of advertising dollars to TV and electronic media over the past two decades?  Or the rising cost of paper pulp and fuel?

Believe me I like to think that photography is important, but c'mon if you think that is what is behind the decline of newspapers and print in general you need to pull your head out of the sand.

Content certainly is a factor. One of many. I kept reading tales of sadness online about the demise of the Rocky Mountain News a few months back. I can only say that the people who claimed to say they were sorry to see it go didn't actually read it.

TC Studios wrote:
Not directly on topic but....

I have plenty of 'Royalty Free' stock up on Alamy. But if Time wanted to get good enough resolution for a cover, it would be at least $300-$400 bucks. Hell RM or RP it would be only a couple grand.

Granted it is a good tear-sheet, but then the next cheap photographer comes along and undercuts him. $30.00 is really an insult for a magazine cover.

istockphoto sucks for the entire industry.

That all said, Time Cover, very cool!

You missing the point aren't you? $30.00 is the going rate for that kind of microstock. The OP sells it 100 times, with no additional effort on his part and $30.00 is now three grand.

Jul 25 09 12:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bill Clearlake Photos
Posts: 2,214
San Jose, California, US


Congratulations on getting a Time cover.  That can only benefit you.
Jul 25 09 12:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,773
San Francisco, California, 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.

No,

the reason why newspapers are failing is because of the internet.

Jul 25 09 12:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Why Dangle
Posts: 2,791
Manchester, England, United Kingdom


Scott A Miller photo wrote:
No I didn't read all the pages of this post.

But a few highlights :

1. Time pays $10,000 for a cover ? Since when? Maybe based on a software program saying so, but not in reality.

2. and most important, who give fuck about a tear on TIME.... THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS FOR A COVER OF TIME ?

Holy shit dude, that is the reason those of us that do this professionally are dying trying to get what we should be paid. Asshats that don't know the business selling their work for pennies or giving it away.

All that tear does is harm, yes HARM the photography industry and you. Now you are the guy who had a cover of TIME for $30 dollars.. great go to fucking McDonalds and buy a Happy Meal. Because you just set your price for life.

You are now the guy who will work for free or VERY CHEAP.

Oh, and TIME is selling reprints of the cover for $15 and change.. so after two sales they made their money back. And under their contract, you may get a penny...

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

How would a dentist like it if I did cleanings for a penny, or a lawyer if I did pro-bono work, or did free lawns service, or any job for pennies on the dollar.

LEARN THE BUSINESS.
Learn the value of your work.
It does no one any good if you don't. Including you.

The value is $30 but a lot of people don't seem to be able to get their heads round it.

Jul 25 09 12:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
BlackWatch
Posts: 3,825
Cleveland, Ohio, US


R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock

And people say tfp is ruining the business...

Jul 25 09 12:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Donovan Rulezz
Posts: 651
New York, New York, US


x
Jul 25 09 12:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,773
San Francisco, California, US


BlackWatch wrote:

And people say tfp is ruining the business...

I laugh when I see those titles. That's a joke. No, internet and digital technology has changed how we now do things and is the major factor on who survives and who doesn't.

Jul 25 09 01:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,773
San Francisco, California, US


Michael Donovan Rulezz wrote:
No. They are failing because the publishers and editors are having a hard time adapting, reinventing and becoming more valuable. Wired UK was just launched a few months ago. The original version of Wired started at the first big internet boom. People can only blame themselves for their fortunes and misfortunes.

Which is still internet related. Look, I'm not here blaming John for putting Jack out of business. I already addressed that "You have to adapt" in my earlier post. BUT, with Yahoo, MSN etc. this is competition for your local pick up a newspaper L.A. Times etc. that didn't jump on the internet bandwagon. A lot of newspaper readers will go online to get their info. plus the key word here is 'free.'

Jul 25 09 01:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ASYLUM - Art Nudes
Posts: 13,657
Washington, District of Columbia, US


Why would any company, big or small, pay thousands for a photo they can get for a few bucks on a micro stock site? I don't understand why people are so offended by this.

If not for the microstock site he wouldn't have that $30 or the picture on Time, most likely.

Yes, things have changed, but not so much for the worse as some people are thinking.

----
-ASYLUM-
Jul 25 09 01:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bill Clearlake Photos
Posts: 2,214
San Jose, California, US


Dan Howell wrote:

Wait!  You actually think that newspapers are declining nationwide because they are using amateur photographic content for a percentage of what they publish?  Really?  That's a bigger factor than say...the shift of advertising dollars to TV and electronic media over the past two decades?  Or the rising cost of paper pulp and fuel?

Believe me I like to think that photography is important, but c'mon if you think that is what is behind the decline of newspapers and print in general you need to pull your head out of the sand.

I'll give my opinion on this, hoping that this will remain on topic since it's about the decline of newspapers, the firings of photographers and the rising use of stock and layman photos in the press:

News departments used to be run by people who loved news.  They were shady characters who chain-smoked and tended towards alcoholism.  They slept with other men's wives or other women's husbands, and sometimes with each other.  They argued and fought and worked their asses off to get their stories while fighting off creditors and divorce lawyers in their personal lives.

That passion came through in their work, and some of those folks became legends.

I had the fortune of be chosen to be Editor-In-Chief of a community college newspaper.  I chose my staff the old-school way.  I chose people who were demonically passionate about their subjects.  They weren't the most skilled or experienced writers or photographers, but they cared about their subject matter and new and lived it daily.

My sports guy knew the coaches, partied with the players and dated some of the cheerleaders.  My entertainment person knew many of the local bands and could get interviews because she'd hung out backstage with them when they were first starting to get gigs (I didn't ask - she didn't tell).

We covered school events, local events and hard news.  We even had reporters who traveled mail in reports and photos from places like London and New Delhi.

We argued and fought and flirted and broke all kinds of rules.  But our newstands emptied as fast as we could fill them.

We entered our work into the Northern California Conference, Journalism Association of Community Colleges.  Our first year, our entries were rejected because we didn't meet their formatting requirements (titles, captions, legends, etc. - all totally non-standard).  We also got kicked out of the conference for our rowdy behavior. 

We tightened things up a bit the next year and won nine awards for journalism, photojournalism, page layout, and graphics.  More than any awards the school had won during a single year before (or, I believe, since).

Then, we all went our separate ways.

I went back to visit the newsroom about a year later.  It was under a new journalism instructor as well as a new Editor-In-Chief.  The folks were all clean-cut, professional-looking journalism students.  The only sound was the clicking of keyboards.  Their reporting, in my opinion, was just as lifeless.

And that, I believe, is what's killing the dailies.  A concerned citizen with a cell-phone camera is often telling a more compelling story than the pros who are playing it safe.

When newspapers are cheaper than toilet-paper, maybe people will have a reason to buy them again.

Jul 25 09 01:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bay Photo
Posts: 734
Brooklyn, New York, US


ASYLUM - Art Nudes wrote:
Why would any company, big or small, pay thousands for a photo they can get for a few bucks on a micro stock site? I don't understand why people are so offended by this.

If not for the microstock site he wouldn't have that $30 or the picture on Time, most likely.

Yes, things have changed, but not so much for the worse as some people are thinking.

----
-ASYLUM-

because they want to have original, unique images that no one else has.  RF stock can;t give you that.

why would any photographer sign up with a stock agency these days, is a mystery to me..

you need 25K+ images to be able to compete in that market these days

Jul 25 09 01:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,655
Detroit, Michigan, US


Seattle Photo wrote:

because they want to have original, unique images that no one else has.  RF stock can;t give you that.

why would any photographer sign up with a stock agency these days, is a mystery to me..

you need 25K+ images to be able to compete in that market these days

Not true. You need a few hundred great sellers.

Jul 25 09 02:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DarkNamelessOne
Posts: 686
O FALLON, Missouri, US


When one door closes another door opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for us.



Alexander Graham Bell




DNO
Jul 25 09 02:16 pm  Link  Quote 
first23456789last   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