login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover Search   Reply
first56789101112last
Photographer
R_Marquez
Posts: 4,608
San Francisco, California, US


Bill Mason Images wrote:

The magazine cover photo is slightly altered. The jar appears to have more coins in it.

Not more coins, just a little taller. They either stretched the middle part where the tape is at or just cut it and cloned the edges.

Jul 25 09 07:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bill Clearlake Photos
Posts: 2,214
San Jose, California, US


Scott A Miller photo wrote:
And a clear example of why this image was under priced:

http://gallery.me.com/smillerpj2/100285/Picture-204/web.jpg?ver=12485580060001

You do realize that, unless you're already a GettyImage subscriber, you can't check what they charge for images?

The stock photo industry has historically walled itself off in its own cloistered corner of the world.  Seems those walls are starting to crumble.

The question I asked earlier about requirements for submitting stock photos was meant to make a point about why micro-stock agencies are getting large numbers of submissions.

The micro-stock agencies don't charge based on Rates & Specs.  It's a flat rate, set by the submitter of the photo, and the agency gets a cut of that amount.

I know what Getty Images' requirements are because I've jumped through the first few hoops and they're now waiting for my 40 technically-flawless 50mb RAW converted to TIFF images for their review committee to pour over before I can submit my own photos of coin jars.

For those in the high-end stock photo industry, the fact that a magazine as prestigious as Time went to micro-stock for a cover photo should send a cold chill up your spine.

Jul 25 09 07:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Studio Velvet
Posts: 12
Charlotte, North Carolina, US


AMBERCOOL wrote:
The OP seems to be very happy with his work and his accomplishment.  His own value is his own; everyone should stop criticizing him mostly on the dollar value.  Live your life and respect others.  Don't impose and instill your own views and standards to others.

A "good job" is about the coolest thing you can say to your fellow artist... unless... you're not in it for the art...

I don't think this is what most are aiming to do,criticize,however I can only speak for myself. I am speaking as an artist to an artist, "your work is worth more",it is on the cover of a magazine making then much money,and you deserve to be fairly compensated,not some ballooned amount,but truly,you deserve to be compensated fairly and if we have to continue to compete with people who are willing to "give away the cow",why should any of us expect them to buy the milk.

Jul 25 09 07:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bill Clearlake Photos
Posts: 2,214
San Jose, California, US


Studio Velvet wrote:

I don't think this is what most are aiming to do,criticize,however I can only speak for myself. I am speaking as an artist to an artist, "your work is worth more",it is on the cover of a magazine making then much money,and you deserve to be fairly compensated,not some ballooned amount,but truly,you deserve to be compensated fairly and if we have to continue to compete with people who are willing to "give away the cow",why should any of us expect them to buy the milk.

If you needed a photo of a coin jar and you only had access to the 30 or so such images available from Getty, then you'd expect to pay whatever they charge for that photo.

I just did a Google search on "coin jar" images and got 220,000 hits.  How much is that coin jar photo worth now?

Jul 25 09 07:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Studio Velvet
Posts: 12
Charlotte, North Carolina, US


Creative Works LLC wrote:

If you needed a photo of a coin jar and you only had access to the 30 or so such images available from Getty, then you'd expect to pay whatever they charge for that photo.

I just did a Google search on "coin jar" images and got 220,000 hits.  How much is that coin jar photo worth now?

Exactly,my point..Keep adding quality images to a pool of free for alls and ALL of  our work will be worth pennies! Sounds,like a plan!

Jul 25 09 08:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bill Clearlake Photos
Posts: 2,214
San Jose, California, US


Studio Velvet wrote:

Exactly,my point..Keep adding quality images to a pool of free for alls and ALL of  our work will be worth pennies! Sounds,like a plan!

A couple of applicable quotes from "The Matrix" -

"You hear that Mr. Anderson?... That is the sound of inevitability... " 

"It means fasten your seat belt Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is going bye-bye. "

Jul 25 09 08:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Studio Velvet
Posts: 12
Charlotte, North Carolina, US


clicks her heels 3x's......
Jul 25 09 08:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Lumigraphics wrote:
Does ANYONE think the old days are coming back? The days of artificial scarcity when print publishing was king?

I didn't think so. All the griping on this thread isn't going to change ONE THING.

Get used to the new world order, folks.

It wasn't "Artifical Scarcity". But it was folks who truly knew their craft and were good shooters. Unlike today where anyone with an automatic camera thinks they're a "shooter".

Jul 25 09 08:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,787
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Czar wrote:
What it's doing is devaluing commercial photography, photojournalism and photo work in general and commoditizing photographic images. Lowers the value of assignment work(espeically when some stock agencies are sending folks out on assignments.)

Ummmm.... that image is a commodity....... Has been for a while,
It can be re-created in 10 minutes with stuff you can find in any office.

This is the kind of shot that we would have one of the designers or production guys shoot in their office if it were not already done and available on Istock.
Why in gods name would we pay a couple of grand for it?

Jul 25 09 09:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


Michael Donovan Rulezz wrote:
btw- CONGRATS to the OP!

Now use TIme like they used you! Go and market the hell out of that shot and use it as leverage.

I will

Jul 25 09 09:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1,464
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US


Chris Macan wrote:
Why in gods name would we pay a couple of grand for it?

seemingly, some would like to make it the job of magazines to look out for the photographers salaries and make sure they are well paid.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Jul 25 09 09:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Monito -- Alan
Posts: 16,524
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


To the original poster:  Congratulations and sorry you didn't get more compensation, but it seems you are happy with your choices and the result.

Digital Czar wrote:
It wasn't "Artifical Scarcity". But it was folks who truly knew their craft and were good shooters.

Still true today.  Good photographers are scarce.

Digital Czar wrote:
Unlike today where anyone with an automatic camera thinks they're a "shooter".

There is a temporary blip up because of the digital revolution, but in a few years the degree of image literacy will increase much more than the ability of people to accomplish it or the ability of people to invest the time and energy to become truly good.

Wait a few years:  the wannabes and the inflated self-esteem will decline back to historic levels.

When King Ptolemy asked for an easier way to learn math, Euclid told him "There is no royal road to geometry".

Jul 25 09 09:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
theda
Posts: 21,711
New York, New York, US


PYPI FASHION wrote:
You got screwed.

Gently with a chainsaw.

But I can't help but appreciate the harmony of Time Magazine using a $30 iStock photo for their cover story about tightening belts in the recession.

Jul 25 09 09:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DarkSlide
Posts: 2,150
Alexandria, Virginia, US


TIME magazine's standard cover rate is $3,000.00
Jul 25 09 09:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


Creative Works LLC wrote:

If you needed a photo of a coin jar and you only had access to the 30 or so such images available from Getty, then you'd expect to pay whatever they charge for that photo.

I just did a Google search on "coin jar" images and got 220,000 hits.  How much is that coin jar photo worth now?

222,000 + photos and I am the one that picked.

Jul 25 09 09:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Derick Hingle
Posts: 149
Hammond, Louisiana, US


A lot people don't get the point, it's not the image sold for $30 it is the usage that sold for $30. Istock shouldn't be selling images to editorial magazines for $30 there are industry rates that should be paid for this. I don't have a problem in listing images on istock I have a problem with unlimited usage for $30. Maybe something that reaches 100 or 1000 people could pay $30 for an image but should a publication with a worldwide distribution on 3.4 million be the same? I don't think so. A cover is not the same value of a thumbnail, istock essentially says that no matter how this image is use it is worth $30.

The people that should be paying $30 are company newsletter, website thumbnail images. Selling unlimited use of an image for $30 or $125 which is what Time should have paid according to license options on Istock, both are ridiculous rates. I think it's great a select few have an image downloaded thousands of times and make a lot off the image, but there should be limited usage attached to these purchases.

If someone wants to license an istock image for their personal website, that's one thing, but selling images this cheap to major publications is not good for the business of photography.
Jul 25 09 09:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,755
San Francisco, California, US


Derick Hingle wrote:
A lot people don't get the point, it's not the image sold for $30 it is the usage that sold for $30. Istock shouldn't be selling images to editorial magazines for $30 there are industry rates that should be paid for this. I don't have a problem in listing images on istock I have a problem with unlimited usage for $30. Maybe something that reaches 100 or 1000 people could pay $30 for an image but should a publication with a worldwide distribution on 3.4 million be the same? I don't think so.

The people that should be paying $30 are company newsletter, website thumbnail images. Selling unlimited use of an image for $30 or $125 which is what Time should have paid according to license options on Istock, both are ridiculous rates. I think it's great a select few have an image downloaded thousands of times and make a lot off the image, but there should be limited usage attached to these purchases.

If someone wants to license an istock image for their personal website, that's one thing, but selling images this cheap to major publications is not good for the business of photography.

Fuck it. He's happy.

Jul 25 09 09:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19,583
Great Neck, New York, US


Derick Hingle wrote:
A lot people don't get the point, it's not the image sold for $30 it is the usage that sold for $30. Istock shouldn't be selling images to editorial magazines for $30 there are industry rates that should be paid for this. I don't have a problem in listing images on istock I have a problem with unlimited usage for $30. Maybe something that reaches 100 or 1000 people could pay $30 for an image but should a publication with a worldwide distribution on 3.4 million be the same? I don't think so. A cover is not the same value of a thumbnail, istock essentially says that no matter how this image is use it is worth $30.

If one disagrees with that policy, no one is making them list their images on istock.  If I had the time or need for more income, I would have no problem putting some of the tens of thousands of shots I have sitting on servers making me no money on sites that sell them for 30$.  Right now they cost me to keep the servers running and safe, and I will never even see what they are for the most part.  What is better making 30 here and there or just spending on servers and upgrading to maintain redundancy year after year?

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 25 09 09:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Monito -- Alan
Posts: 16,524
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


Derick Hingle wrote:
A lot people don't get the point, it's not the image sold for $30 it is the usage that sold for $30. Istock shouldn't be selling images to editorial magazines for $30 there are industry rates that should be paid for this.

Yes, iStock is missing the boat or, rather, a profit opportunity.  However, higher rates for certain usages are hard and expensive to administer and part of the iStock business model is to lose money on big circulation and gain it back on volume on sales they would never get otherwise.

They have a "long tail" of users they capture because the price is cheap.

In mathematical terms (calculus), it is the area under the curve that counts.

Jul 25 09 09:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Studios
Posts: 53
Los Angeles, California, US


Lumigraphics wrote:

A photo of a jar of coins is not worth thousands of dollars, no matter how loudly you claim it is.

And you need to fix your business model. I'd love to put you out of business because it means *I* get the money instead of you.

Somebody in Podunk wouldn't get to publish a shot in Time under the old system. So really, the only people hurt by this are commercial guys in LA and NYC. The rest of us have access to a market that was closed before.

I see this as a good thing.

Itune sales one song for .99 then make millions + per year.

Jul 25 09 10:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Tiffin
Posts: 1,041
San Antonio, Texas, US


-The Dave- wrote:

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

Does a call to the photo editor or AD to introduce yourself be a way to do similar work or maybe a look at your book to see more of your work?


PIPY is pissed you only got $30.00, me too, but a tear is a tear. Feels good don't it? Congrats!!

Jul 25 09 10:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert P Baxter
Posts: 33
Bloomington, Indiana, US


Ripped off or not, your ego can shine. Congratulations on the accomplishment.
Jul 25 09 10:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,652
Detroit, Michigan, US


Lumigraphics wrote:
Does ANYONE think the old days are coming back? The days of artificial scarcity when print publishing was king?

I didn't think so. All the griping on this thread isn't going to change ONE THING.

Get used to the new world order, folks.
Digital Czar wrote:
It wasn't "Artifical Scarcity". But it was folks who truly knew their craft and were good shooters. Unlike today where anyone with an automatic camera thinks they're a "shooter".

It absolutely was artificial scarcity. There COULD have been millions of people shooting 35mm Kodachrome or 6x6 and selling microstock 25 years ago, but high barriers to entry (the most common form of creating artificial scarcity) made it hard for the average enthusiast shooter.

Until the Internet there was no channel for gathering and distributing broadly-sourced content. In the 1970's and 80's, you needed hundreds or thousands of excellent chromes to even be considered for stock.

Jul 25 09 10:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
theda
Posts: 21,711
New York, New York, US


Digital Czar wrote:
First off, which Time? There's Time Magazine, Time Canada,Time Europe, Time Latin America, Time Out of New York, Time Out of Paris, and Time South Pacific.

Was it used only in Time Magazine or any of the others? Print usage, electronic usage? Direct Mailer usage? Or whatever else?

Time Magazine alone has a circulation of 4,026,891 and charges $241,350 for a 4/C full-page Ad. And the other Time's charge different fees.

That said Time payes $400-500 including e-rights so says Cradoc FotoQuote for this year. Far too cheap, but probably negotiable.

Last, what does anyone think it would cost for them to hire a tabletop shooter(probably in NY) to shoot that photo?

TIME and Time Out are totally different publications.  And Time Canada is no more. Not that any of that really matters. It's still a major publication with significant distribution opting to spend pennies on it's cover photo.

But yes, it would cost thousands to hire a professional tabletop shooter to produce that image. The day rate might be minimal, but the usage fees would be substantial.

Jul 25 09 10:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


Derick Hingle wrote:
A lot people don't get the point, it's not the image sold for $30 it is the usage that sold for $30. Istock shouldn't be selling images to editorial magazines for $30 there are industry rates that should be paid for this. I don't have a problem in listing images on istock I have a problem with unlimited usage for $30. Maybe something that reaches 100 or 1000 people could pay $30 for an image but should a publication with a worldwide distribution on 3.4 million be the same? I don't think so. A cover is not the same value of a thumbnail, istock essentially says that no matter how this image is use it is worth $30.

The people that should be paying $30 are company newsletter, website thumbnail images. Selling unlimited use of an image for $30 or $125 which is what Time should have paid according to license options on Istock, both are ridiculous rates. I think it's great a select few have an image downloaded thousands of times and make a lot off the image, but there should be limited usage attached to these purchases.

If someone wants to license an istock image for their personal website, that's one thing, but selling images this cheap to major publications is not good for the business of photography.

but remember that microstock agencies aren't interested in the business of photography.  they are interested in their bottom line.   

and I'd venture a guess that many of the microstock startups weren't started by photographers looking to help photographers but rather either IT types or biz wizs looking to capitalize on internet technology as a nexus between social networking and photographic images.

what you have now is technology that allows anyone with a whizbang camera and access to photoshop the opportunity to step into the stock game.  and apparently you have major corporations now who are shopping on microstock sites to provide artwork for their publications or advertising.

Like I said before, the microstock cat is out of the bag as well as digital technology and camera automation which makes even the average joe blow a player in the photographic realm.

I don't know how you put something out of the bag back in.  And I really don't know how you make an argument to corporations to go for quality vs bottom line or how you try and educate companies to pay a living wage to the artists that contribute to their product.

Time magazine has 52 covers a year?  I would be that each cover could be had for free by artists willing to have that much publicity for being on the cover of Time.

Jul 25 09 11:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Wilde One
Posts: 2,349
Santa Monica, California, US


Congratulations.

Great for your web portfolio.

Jul 25 09 11:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Wilde One
Posts: 2,349
Santa Monica, California, US


Creative Works LLC wrote:

You do realize that, unless you're already a GettyImage subscriber, you can't check what they charge for images?

The stock photo industry has historically walled itself off in its own cloistered corner of the world.  Seems those walls are starting to crumble.

The question I asked earlier about requirements for submitting stock photos was meant to make a point about why micro-stock agencies are getting large numbers of submissions.

The micro-stock agencies don't charge based on Rates & Specs.  It's a flat rate, set by the submitter of the photo, and the agency gets a cut of that amount.

I know what Getty Images' requirements are because I've jumped through the first few hoops and they're now waiting for my 40 technically-flawless 50mb RAW converted to TIFF images for their review committee to pour over before I can submit my own photos of coin jars.

For those in the high-end stock photo industry, the fact that a magazine as prestigious as Time went to micro-stock for a cover photo should send a cold chill up your spine.

They should pay percentages, not fixed fees.

Jul 25 09 11:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,652
Detroit, Michigan, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:

but remember that microstock agencies aren't interested in the business of photography.  they are interested in their bottom line.   

and I'd venture a guess that many of the microstock startups weren't started by photographers looking to help photographers but rather either IT types or biz wizs looking to capitalize on internet technology as a nexus between social networking and photographic images.

what you have now is technology that allows anyone with a whizbang camera and access to photoshop the opportunity to step into the stock game.  and apparently you have major corporations now who are shopping on microstock sites to provide artwork for their publications or advertising.

Like I said before, the microstock cat is out of the bag as well as digital technology and camera automation which makes even the average joe blow a player in the photographic realm.

I don't know how you put something out of the bag back in.  And I really don't know how you make an argument to corporations to go for quality vs bottom line or how you try and educate companies to pay a living wage to the artists that contribute to their product.

Time magazine has 52 covers a year?  I would be that each cover could be had for free by artists willing to have that much publicity for being on the cover of Time.

Someone would need to go back and look, but most Time covers are going to be current news stories and not editorial illustrations.

Contrast that with Muscle and Fitness or Scientific American who typically will use editorial images on the front cover.

Jul 25 09 11:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
but remember that microstock agencies aren't interested in the business of photography.  they are interested in their bottom line.   

and I'd venture a guess that many of the microstock startups weren't started by photographers looking to help photographers but rather either IT types or biz wizs looking to capitalize on internet technology as a nexus between social networking and photographic images.

what you have now is technology that allows anyone with a whizbang camera and access to photoshop the opportunity to step into the stock game.  and apparently you have major corporations now who are shopping on microstock sites to provide artwork for their publications or advertising.

Like I said before, the microstock cat is out of the bag as well as digital technology and camera automation which makes even the average joe blow a player in the photographic realm.

I don't know how you put something out of the bag back in.  And I really don't know how you make an argument to corporations to go for quality vs bottom line or how you try and educate companies to pay a living wage to the artists that contribute to their product.

Time magazine has 52 covers a year?  I would be that each cover could be had for free by artists willing to have that much publicity for being on the cover of Time.
Lumigraphics wrote:
Someone would need to go back and look, but most Time covers are going to be current news stories and not editorial illustrations.

Contrast that with Muscle and Fitness or Scientific American who typically will use editorial images on the front cover.

Well if times are so tough for Time Inc. that they are competing with the Walachutkascobi WI Girl Scouts in terms of publication budget and thus both are scouring RF microstock for images, maybe Time Inc should just switch all their covers to illustrations and save even more money?

Jul 25 09 11:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photobymhanly
Posts: 352
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada


PYPI FASHION wrote:

Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

Something is not right about that picture.

You really NEED to read the cover.

Jul 25 09 11:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tony Blei Photography
Posts: 1,060
Seattle, Washington, US


Thank god that the OP didn't shoot a Model Mayhem model for this shot.  By the time the check came, he would still owe the model.
Jul 25 09 11:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Grainpusher
Posts: 178
Dallas, Texas, US


Lumigraphics wrote:
A photo of a jar of coins is not worth thousands of dollars, no matter how loudly you claim it is.



As for the license, why "should" it have been thousands of dollars? is there any logical reason? That image didn't take thousands of dollars to produce, did it?

Why would one price their photography to what it costs them to physically produce the image? This is akin to a lawyer charging you only for the paper they write your letters or contracts on. A photographers product isn't just the image but their creativity, technical expertise and ability. I never understand why photographers are so afraid to ask for what their images, creativity and time is worth. It's like some are so happy to just be making photos and getting some sort of paycheck from time to time they forget that what they are doing actually has worth and it's okay to make a GOOD living doing what you love. 

And yes, a cover photo is worth thousands of dollars, especially on a such a large circulation magazine. A cover photo is the grasping mechanism that is used to get people to pick up the magazine, buy it and look at all those wonderful ads that Time sold.....so yes, that makes the cover image extremely valuable. I've charged this much for inside shots....granted, those were assignment where a client wanted the look we can produce and this is a stock image that we're talking about. Our images have so much more value, we sell magazines, products, get people to click on the web and so on....it's weird to me that so many photographers don't see the value and power of their own work and one would actually comment that an image isn't worth that much because it didn't cost that much to produce the image.

Jul 25 09 11:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
theda
Posts: 21,711
New York, New York, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
Well if times are so tough for Time Inc. that they are competing with the Walachutkascobi WI Girl Scouts in terms of publication budget and thus both are scouring RF microstock for images, maybe Time Inc should just switch all their covers to illustrations and save even more money?

But then they'd have to pay the illustrators!  The only real answer is for the publisher himself to draw a new stick figure every week.

Jul 25 09 11:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Grainpusher
Posts: 178
Dallas, Texas, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
Well if times are so tough for Time Inc. that they are competing with the Walachutkascobi WI Girl Scouts in terms of publication budget and thus both are scouring RF microstock for images, maybe Time Inc should just switch all their covers to illustrations and save even more money?

Unlike photographers,  illustrators know the value of their work....just ask Matt Mahurin what he charged Time straight of college for his illustrations.

Jul 26 09 12:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MisterC
Posts: 15,162
Portland, Oregon, US


Jul 26 09 12:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MisterC
Posts: 15,162
Portland, Oregon, US


Grainpusher wrote:

Unlike photographers,  illustrators know the value of their work....just ask Matt Mahurin what he charged Time straight of college for his illustrations.

What if an illustrator had a copy for sale for 30 bucks? And what if a major magazine bought that copy and used it for their cover? Would an illustrator feel ripped off?

Jul 26 09 12:03 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:

Well if times are so tough for Time Inc. that they are competing with the Walachutkascobi WI Girl Scouts in terms of publication budget and thus both are scouring RF microstock for images, maybe Time Inc should just switch all their covers to illustrations and save even more money?
theda wrote:
But then they'd have to pay the illustrators!  The only real answer is for the editor himself to draw a new stick figure every week.

It wouldn't be hard.   as a matter of fact, people would do it for free...the AD would just post on TIME online, possible cover subjects for the week, have people submit their best illustrations and then Time INC picks the best freebie and runs with it!!!!

here's mine for a White House meeting of The PResident, VP and Sec. of State, joint appearance in the Rose Garden:

http://i29.tinypic.com/yc7jk.jpg

Jul 26 09 12:04 am  Link  Quote 
Model
theda
Posts: 21,711
New York, New York, US


MinisterC  wrote:

What if an illustrator had a copy for sale for 30 bucks? And what if a major magazine bought that copy and used it for their cover? Would an illustrator feel ripped off?

The cost of a physical copy of the work does not compare with the cost of the usage rights to reproduce and distribute millions of copies.

Jul 26 09 12:09 am  Link  Quote 
Model
theda
Posts: 21,711
New York, New York, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
Well if times are so tough for Time Inc. that they are competing with the Walachutkascobi WI Girl Scouts in terms of publication budget and thus both are scouring RF microstock for images, maybe Time Inc should just switch all their covers to illustrations and save even more money?

It wouldn't be hard.   as a matter of fact, people would do it for free...the AD would just post on TIME online, possible cover subjects for the week, have people submit their best illustrations and then Time INC picks the best freebie and runs with it!!!!

here's mine for a White House meeting of The PResident, VP and Sec. of State, joint appearance in the Rose Garden:

http://i29.tinypic.com/yc7jk.jpg

Don't give them any ideas! And are those roses stock images?

Jul 26 09 12:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Grainpusher
Posts: 178
Dallas, Texas, US


MinisterC  wrote:

What if an illustrator had a copy for sale for 30 bucks? And what if a major magazine bought that copy and used it for their cover? Would an illustrator feel ripped off?

Yeah, because the magazine just violated copyright law.

Jul 26 09 12:14 am  Link  Quote 
first56789101112last   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