login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover Search   Reply
first678910111213last
Photographer
PBK Photography
Posts: 1,109
Dallas, Texas, US


R Studios wrote:
yes. I am happy.

Just happy? My ass would be freakin estactic! I'd take that 30.00 and buy scratch offs! :p

Congrats!

Jul 26 09 12:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


theda wrote:

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

lol.

and Time INc would be safe with the roses, they're PS brushes!!!

Jul 26 09 12:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 62,626
Danbury, Connecticut, 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?

You do realize that the cover we're discussing is an illustration, right?

"PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN. COIN JAR FROM ISTOCKPHOTO."
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

Here are some other recent Time covers using images from iStock:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 30,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 06,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 09,00.html

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


Patchouli Nyx wrote:

lol.

and Time INc would be safe with the roses, they're PS brushes!!!

But they'd have to buy PS...

Jul 26 09 12:26 am  Link  Quote 
Model
The Main Man
Posts: 4,135
Sacramento, California, US


Brian Diaz wrote:

You do realize that the cover we're discussing is an illustration, right?

"PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN. COIN JAR FROM ISTOCKPHOTO."
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

Here are some other recent Time covers using images from iStock:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 30,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 06,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 09,00.html

Wow. It almost seems like you can shoot any object with a white Back drop and Time can do a cover story about it. I can see it Now, "Whats Eating America?" as a cover story with a picture of Krispy Kremes set with a white Back drop as the cover

Jul 26 09 12:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
lol.

and Time INc would be safe with the roses, they're PS brushes!!!
theda wrote:
But they'd have to buy PS...

I bet they could find a student version or get one of their interns (free labor) to find a freebie copy.

Jul 26 09 12:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photobymhanly
Posts: 352
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada


R Studios wrote:

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

Congratulations, your acomplishment it is  commendable with all due respect. I hope that everyone realizes what is involved, in fairness to the other 222,000+ photos it is likely, largely the success of a team of very expensive search optimization Gurus "masters of a complex magical "Meta World" working for Istock, buying key word search placements from Google amongst other things. I do think the Irony of this cover may be a stark warning.  Meta tags may well replace allot of staff photographers and even high end agencies, and commissioned photographers.

Jul 26 09 12:32 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 62,626
Danbury, Connecticut, US


This one is interesting.

It's a combination of this Getty image:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/200290212-001/Iconica

And this iStock image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- … read-4.php


The iStock image has been downloaded over 700 times.  I don't have information on how many times the Getty image has been used, but I wonder which one has profited the photographer more.

Jul 26 09 12:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Grainpusher
Posts: 178
Dallas, Texas, US


Brian Diaz wrote:
"PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN. COIN JAR FROM ISTOCKPHOTO."
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

l

That's another sad part of this story, the art director got credit for the work and the photographer is "coin jar from istockphoto". One of the perks of editorial work is the credit and people attaching your name to the photo.

Jul 26 09 01:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Brian Diaz wrote:
You do realize that the cover we're discussing is an illustration, right?

"PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN. COIN JAR FROM ISTOCKPHOTO."
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

Here are some other recent Time covers using images from iStock:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 30,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 06,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 09,00.html

and by illustration they mean photoshop stretch job by Arthur Hochstein.

They paid more for the insets than for the copyrights to make the arguably derivative work of the coin jar image...

EDITED: PS... I only say arguably derivative work because it is obviously considered a derivative work by TIME magazine, but not by TXPhotog in his recently reposted and resurfaced post about models photo editing.  but that's another rant entirely.

Jul 26 09 01:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15,842
Richardson, Texas, US


I am amazed that I am on the same forum as someone who was the subject of a discussion on a completely different forum.

I guess I should say, "Congratulations." Unfortunately, I and several others feel disturbed by what this means to photographers. It means that now, our work is worth little more than $30 an image, even on the cover of a major publication.

Believe me, this is the topic of conversation in many photography forums.

Jul 26 09 02:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


R Studios wrote:
222,000 + photos and I am the one that picked.
photobymhanly wrote:
Congratulations, your acomplishment it is  commendable with all due respect. I hope that everyone realizes what is involved, in fairness to the other 222,000+ photos it is likely, largely the success of a team of very expensive search optimization Gurus "masters of a complex magical "Meta World" working for Istock, buying key word search placements from Google amongst other things. I do think the Irony of this cover may be a stark warning.  Meta tags may well replace allot of staff photographers and even high end agencies, and commissioned photographers.

oooooh how about a new social networking website called  "meta mayhem?"

Jul 26 09 02:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68,937
Orlando, Florida, US


Readers of this thread might want to take a look at this:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=481066

A major commercial shooter (not an MM member, but he's been reading this thread) has used this as a basis to attack the OP, and MM and its members in general, as a way of decrying the business decision TIME made.

Some of us have been pointing out both in that thread and in the blog in question that, while questions about how this affects the health of the industry are legit, the personal swipes at the OP and MM as a whole are out of line & hurt the discussion.

I personally congratulate the OP, I'm kind of envious.  smile
Jul 26 09 02:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


some other writings on the matter:

http://alexblackwelder.wordpress.com/20 … er-ironic/
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_di … ?tid=33646
http://dfjphoto.blogspot.com/2009/07/ti … ching.html
http://www.photographersdirect.com/sell … _sites.asp **not directly related**

http://photocritic.org/microstock/ **not directly related**

Oh and just in case you didn't already know, Time Warner is deeply in corporate bed with Getty which owns iStock...
Jul 26 09 02:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
dave wright phx
Posts: 13,509
Phoenix, Arizona, 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?

Exactly.

Obviously there are some people who have figured it out, and have set up full-fledged stock photo production houses. Nobody's going to pay $2,000 for a shot of an orange isolated on white, or a match on fire on black when the microstock is out there.

Or a jar of coins on white.

Jul 26 09 02:18 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


dave wright sf wrote:

Exactly.

Obviously there are some people who have figured it out, and have set up full-fledged stock photo production houses. Nobody's going to pay $2,000 for a shot of an orange isolated on white, or a match on fire on black when the microstock is out there.

Or a jar of coins on white.

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.

Jul 26 09 02:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68,937
Orlando, Florida, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
some other writings on the matter:

http://alexblackwelder.wordpress.com/20 … er-ironic/
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_di … ?tid=33646
http://dfjphoto.blogspot.com/2009/07/ti … ching.html
http://www.photographersdirect.com/sell … _sites.asp **not directly related**

http://photocritic.org/microstock/ **not directly related**

Oh and just in case you didn't already know, Time Warner is deeply in corporate bed with Getty which owns iStock...

It's nice to see that all of those discussions focus on the business practices and not the OP or MM in a negative way.

Jul 26 09 02:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
dave wright phx
Posts: 13,509
Phoenix, Arizona, 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.

why would anyone - a major corporation, or a new small business - pay 2,000 to license an image, when they could license a similar image for $30?

they "should pay a fair percentage of the profit for the image that obviously helped sell the magazine in the first place?" out of the goodness of their hearts?

Jul 26 09 02:28 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


dave wright sf wrote:

why would anyone - a major corporation, or a new small business - pay 2,000 to license an image, when they could license a similar image for $30?

they "should pay a fair percentage of the profit for the image that obviously helped sell the magazine in the first place?" out of the goodness of their hearts?

Like I said... there's a little thing called ethics... some people have it, some people don't.

Jul 26 09 02:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68,937
Orlando, Florida, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
Like I said... there's a little thing called ethics... some people have it, some people don't.

Sadly there're way too many people that will tell you "the invisible hand of the free market" trumps ethics.

Jul 26 09 02:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17,919
Los Angeles, California, US


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Items for resale — limited run license required. Note: there are quantity restrictions dependent on the type of item"
Jul 26 09 02:43 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15,842
Richardson, Texas, US


SLE Photography wrote:

Sadly there're way too many people that will tell you "the invisible hand of the free market" trumps ethics.

I know you are right.

So, what are we to do, now that our images are worth no more than $30, even when published on the cover of a major magazine? Kind of hard to make a living on that.

Jul 26 09 02:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


SLE Photography wrote:
Sadly there're way too many people that will tell you "the invisible hand of the free market" trumps ethics.

Which is why many business universities have made a sudden switch after this economic downturn to re-establishing business ethics as a primary concern in business schooling.

Yes, "free market" is purely without ethics.  Eventually a system without ethics destroys itself.


[business ethics rant feel free to skip]

In the simple example of this situation, the photographer, who made an image which in and of itself is "common" enough that any of us could have made it (or at least we can say it could have been an image of anything), was plain and simple taken advantage of.  Now this was not economics, or market valuation, or digital revolution, this was poor positioning on the part of the photographer combined with unethical behavior on the part of TIME magazine's art department.

TIME magazine has established a going rate for an image for their cover.  That going rate was established because TIME magazine long ago realized that people looking at news stands bought the shiny image before they bought the block of text... heck... that's how TIME magazine got started and why we have magazines now instead of only news papers.  TIME magazine established their rate back in the days when the ethical treatment of contributors to a work was de-facto standard, and they did it by realizing that a large part of the profit they made was due to the efforts of the guy or gal who created the image for the cover of the magazine that got people to pick it out of the thousands of offerings on the news stand next to it.

TIME magazine did well for itself.  The print market did well for itself.  These things happened because by paying appropriate percentages based on ethical distribution of profit created an ECONOMIC SYSTEM.  In this economic system, TIME magazine was able to pay a staff, who were able to consume the goods which the advertisers bought ad space in TIME magazine to advertise.

Go to this example... TIME magazine has payed a hobiest photographer a rate of $30 for his valuable image which does not afford him one single thing on any of the pages in the magazine ads.  TIME magazine has made money, but that money is going nowhere.  The economic system collapses.  The photographer doesn't buy anything, the advertisers don't sell anything, the advertisers don't buy ad space, the magazine makes less... etc.

Now, you might say, well this is only one image and only one photographer and only one magazine... but the unethical way in which we've trained modern business people means this is all magazines, all images, and in fact all areas of the magazine production line... writers, editors, photographers, designers, etc...
[/rant]

Jul 26 09 02:44 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17,919
Los Angeles, California, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

TIME magazine did well for itself.  The print market did well for itself.  These things happened because by paying appropriate percentages based on ethical distribution of profit created an ECONOMIC SYSTEM.  In this economic system, TIME magazine was able to pay a staff, who were able to consume the goods which the advertisers bought ad space in TIME magazine to advertise.

Go to this example... TIME magazine has payed a hobiest photographer a rate of $30 for his valuable image which does not afford him one single thing on any of the pages in the magazine ads.  TIME magazine has made money, but that money is going nowhere.  The economic system collapses.  The photographer doesn't buy anything, the advertisers don't sell anything, the advertisers don't buy ad space, the magazine makes less... etc.

Once again I feel compelled to state thsat by violating the usage agreement TIME magazine in essence stole the photograph. They are REQUIRED to credit the photographer, they are REQUIRED to buy a larger license for a larger print run, and they are NOT ALLOWED to resell the image or a derivative work created from it.

Jul 26 09 02:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Star wrote:

Once again I feel compelled to state thsat by violating the usage agreement TIME magazine in essence stole the photograph. They are REQUIRED to credit the photographer, they are REQUIRED to buy a larger license for a larger print run, and they are NOT ALLOWED to resell the image or a derivative work created from it.

I don't disagree with you, but if you examine the corporate relationships you'll notice that TIME magaizine would in effect have to sue itself.  The only one who can make any headway in this would be the photographer, and he seems happy with his $30

Jul 26 09 02:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17,919
Los Angeles, California, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

I don't disagree with you, but if you examine the corporate relationships you'll notice that TIME magaizine would in effect have to sue itself.  The only one who can make any headway in this would be the photographer, and he seems happy with his $30

actually i am considering calling istock photo on monday morning. They could make a lot of money off of a violated usage agreement.

Jul 26 09 02:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Star wrote:
actually i am considering calling istock photo on monday morning. They could make a lot of money off of a violated usage agreement.

Make that at least six violated usage agreements...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe … hoto+cover

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 09,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 06,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 26,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 19,00.html

Notice how a couple of insets are istock photos not credited properly...

here's why they won't care:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfdSx4SwQz4

Andrew Blau, SVP and General Manager, Time Inc. Interactive and President, Life Inc. and Catherine Gluckstein, VP, iStockphoto and Consumer Markets, Getty Images unveil the reinvention of LIFE Magazine at MIXX

Jul 26 09 02:58 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Solas
Posts: 9,486
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock

....excuse me?

I hate microstock..but I'm happy if you're happy. But for chrissake; get educated and leave microstock alone

I can't get over that, Time magazine of all magazines..what a joke, fuck them..

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


SLE Photography wrote:

It's nice to see that all of those discussions focus on the business practices and not the OP or MM in a negative way.

Ironically I don't see any discussions on istockphoto as to why the photographer got hosed:
1) because Time didn't even fully pay for an unlimited lisc.
2) didn't even get credit for the image.

Jul 26 09 03:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:

Ironically I don't see any discussions on istockphoto as to why the photographer got hosed:
1) because Time didn't even fully pay for an unlimited lisc.
2) didn't even get credit for the image.

ANSWER: Because Time and Getty which owns iStock are doing a multibillion dollar deal and are treating eachother nicely so the deal does not get fubar.

Jul 26 09 03:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bearz Images
Posts: 816
Asheville, North Carolina, US


John Harrington is spot on about Lam being screwed. The real value here may not be the several thousand dollars Lam is out. But rather what has been learned from this experience with i-stock/time? The truth in hindsight is rarely, if ever palatable to the one who was willingly screwed. Robert has demonstrated he's clearly capable of making sale-able images. Start your own personal stock photo company Robert. Don't let naiveté or the opinions of others stop you from pursuing your passions & interest in Photography. We all start somewhere & as far as wake up calls go, you still have all your body parts & it's a brand new day man!
Jul 26 09 03:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
Ironically I don't see any discussions on istockphoto as to why the photographer got hosed:
1) because Time didn't even fully pay for an unlimited lisc.
2) didn't even get credit for the image.
James Jackson Fashion wrote:
ANSWER: Because Time and Getty which owns iStock are doing a multibillion dollar deal and are treating eachother nicely so the deal does not get fubar.

I would imagine the corporations are providing each other plenty of lube, but my question is why aren't the mobs on istock, the creatives at least asking why isn't the company that is supposedly representing and protecting their interests doing what it's supposed to do, that is require downloaders to purchase the correct license?

Granted $120 or whatever it is appx $90 more than the current cover payout, but hell, it might at least buy 9 deluxe doublelattedecafmochafrappiciono's with sprinkles hold the cream from Starbucks.

Jul 26 09 03:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JJ Art
Posts: 1,330
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
I would imagine the corporations are providing each other plenty of lube, but my question is why aren't the mobs on istock, the creatives at least asking why isn't the company that is supposedly representing and protecting their interests doing what it's supposed to do, that is require downloaders to purchase the correct license?

Granted $120 or whatever it is appx $90 more than the current cover payout, but hell, it might at least buy 9 deluxe doublelattedecafmochafrappiciono's with sprinkles hold the cream from Starbucks.

now that would be interesting... iStock's ceo waking up to some 50,000 emails in her inbox protesting the TIME magazine screwup.

Jul 26 09 03:28 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,930
Richmond, Indiana, 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.

Hardly a chill going up my spine.  I see it as good business and common sense.  One thing that is painfully obvious is that a large number of photographers stereotypically assume that microstock isn't the pool that large businesses dip their feet in.  Totally untrue of course.

Remember the old days when people refused to shop at K-mart and would go to the mall to get the exact same brand/item that they could've gotten at K-mart for $20 cheaper?  Only a fool in business would see a photo or run of photos that meets their need(s) from a microsite,  and then turn right around and pay a premium for virtually the same photograph & quality at a full service stock site.

What the heck does Time magazine being "prestigious" have anything to do with buying a piece of photographic work that measures up to Time's standard, and getting that piece of work at the best price?  Whether it's Time magazine delving into microstock, or grandma sifting through microstock for photos that will help her garage sale...  it doesn't matter WHO is doing the buying.

It doesn't take a whiz kid to figure out that stock photography as an industry, doesn't hold the same value as it once did.  Big woop- the industry simply changed.  So what.

Navigators and Flight Engineers aren't nearly as prevalent as they were several decades ago.. so?  That's life.  Why pay someone $80k per annum to do what a flight computer can do 10x better?    Conversly, why pay a thousand dollars for an item when you can be-bop over to any number of microstock sites, and often get virtually the same photograph for less than 1/2 of what you would've paid at a traditional stock site?

Adapt and move on.

Simple.

Jul 26 09 03:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Teila K Day Photography wrote:

Hardly a chill going up my spine.  I see it as good business and common sense.  One thing that is painfully obvious is that a large number of photographers stereotypically assume that microstock isn't the pool that large businesses dip their feet in.  Totally untrue of course.

Remember the old days when people refused to shop at K-mart and would go to the mall to get the exact same brand/item that they could've gotten at K-mart for $20 cheaper?  Only a fool in business would see a photo or run of photos that meets their need(s) from a microsite,  and then turn right around and pay a premium for virtually the same photograph & quality at a full service stock site.

What the heck does Time magazine being "prestigious" have anything to do with buying a piece of photographic work that measures up to Time's standard, and getting that piece of work at the best price?  Whether it's Time magazine delving into microstock, or grandma sifting through microstock for photos that will help her garage sale...  it doesn't matter WHO is doing the buying.

It doesn't take a whiz kid to figure out that stock photography as an industry, doesn't hold the same value as it once did.  Big woop- the industry simply changed.  So what.

Navigators and Flight Engineers aren't nearly as prevalent as they were several decades ago.. so?  That's life.  Why pay someone $80k per annum to do what a flight computer can do 10x better?    Conversly, why pay a thousand dollars for an item when you can be-bop over to any number of microstock sites, and often get virtually the same photograph for less than 1/2 of what you would've paid at a traditional stock site?

Adapt and move on.

Simple.

that is the biggest load of crap spewed since the beginning of this thread... congratulations... you win a prize

Jul 26 09 04:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,930
Richmond, Indiana, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:
that is the biggest load of crap spewed since the beginning of this thread... congratulations... you win a prize

Call it what you want, but the decline in ''perceived value'' across the most common markets in photography, is one of the largest factors affecting pricing in photography today.  What I described above, is exactly what has been going on with many government offices and subcontractors who use to pay for photography services, and is prevalent and common trend.

Don't tell me what I'm spewing, but rather be objective and tell me what I've written that isn't true..

[Edit]   Some of the largest contractors in the U.S. are now regularly slumming for low-cost photography.  That's fact not fiction.

Industrial shoots stipulating "All-rights" with sale is becoming far more common.  That's fact not fiction.

Jul 26 09 04:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11,039
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Teila K Day Photography wrote:

Call it what you want, but the decline in ''perceived value'' across the most common markets in photography, is one of the largest factors affecting pricing in photography today.  What I described above, is exactly what has been going on with many government offices and subcontractors who use to pay for photography services, and is prevalent and common trend.

Don't tell me what I'm spewing, but rather be objective and tell me what I've written that isn't true..

[Edit]   Some of the largest contractors in the U.S. are now regularly slumming for low-cost photography.  That's fact not fiction.

Industrial shoots stipulating "All-rights" with sale is becoming far more common.  That's fact not fiction.

See here's the breakdown of business society in a nutshell... It isn't an objective factual situation... it is one of ethical backsliding and unethical profiteering.  There is no quantitative analysis that can tell you when you're doing business wrong (other than the last moments when you go out of business)... there is no factual basis for ethics.

Learn to conduct business ethically, as almost our entire business class needs to, and you'll understand that this isn't a simple supply demand problem... this is an ethics problem along with much of our business failings.

Jul 26 09 04:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Pollack
Posts: 1,928
Sherman, Connecticut, US


R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock

I hate to be pessimistic, but this is about the saddest thing I have seen in, well probably ever in the world of photography. I have been with a legitimate stock agency since 1984 and seen the explosive growth and sad demise of this industry. Ten years ago I was netting over 15K every month in stock sales, my average sale was $600 per use. My average sale is now under $60. and this through a legitimate, service based, client oriented stock house. My total net is also significantly lower than it was 10 years ago.

Now that everyone with a camera is willing to sell images through micro stock agency at $30 for a national cover and be proud of it, there is no reason for Time or anyone else to pay fairly for the use they acquire. Fifteen years ago, a Time cover would have paid about $3,000 for rights from a stock agency or in the case of a still life such as yours, paid about $3,000 PLUS all expenses (ie stylist, film, processing, possibly even a model maker, assistant.) if it was an assigned shot. So basically, what the internet and digital cameras and non professionals have done is just throw a million images at the wind and if a couple stick they are happy. Time Magazine sells how many copies a week?? Do you really think $30 is fair pay for them to use a photo on a cover. Even today, they pay a hell of a lot more for the spot use of a news photo of for an assigned photo. While you did not set the selling prices on your micro stock site, you are willing to give away your work.

Sorry, but that is the bottom line, you gave away your work. On your web site you say that photography is an "enormous passion." Unfortunately, at $30 for a national cover, it can never be much more than a hobby, one could not make a living by selling licenses at these prices and this not only hurts you but it is destroying an entire industry.

I am not trying to be negative, just felt a fair and reasonable look at the economic and a look at the reality of what it eans to sell a national cover for $30 does.

Jul 26 09 04:58 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,930
Richmond, Indiana, US


James Jackson Fashion wrote:

See here's the breakdown of business society in a nutshell... It isn't an objective factual situation... it is one of ethical backsliding and unethical profiteering.  There is no quantitative analysis that can tell you when you're doing business wrong (other than the last moments when you go out of business)... there is no factual basis for ethics.

Learn to conduct business ethically, as almost our entire business class needs to, and you'll understand that this isn't a simple supply demand problem... this is an ethics problem along with much of our business failings.

Objective and factual- sure it is, and it isn't complicated at that- quite simple actually.  "Ethical Backsliding"?  .. I don't think so, the mechanics that are in play today are no different than they were 20 years ago, except for today business is more polarized, superficial, and (unlike 20 years ago) people have far more options in the buyer market.  Ethics hasn't budged, the game has simply changed.

Here's a snap shot of real life:  The quantitative examination begins with a simple ethic, moral, and financial parameter.  Different people/business entities have different parameters.. however, when a business or individual steps onto a playing field, knowing how clean or dirty the game is being played is a facet of conducting business.

Further.. whether or not one is doing business right or wrong is indeed quantitative. One simply monitors how well the business is doing *within the pre-set ethic, moral and financial parameters that have been set for the business*.

Lastly, anyone who doesn't realize that they're going out of business until the last moments... probably wasn't ready to be in business in the first place.  A business owner/operator should know the health of the business at all times, and should know how the business is doing compared to last year, last week, yesterday or even an hour ago, at the drop of a hat.  There is no excuse not to know. 

We throw around terms like "ethics" and "morals", but the truth of the matter is that in general, "business" is a shrewd arena that exists for the purpose of making money.  Period.
I think you're confusing free enterprise with church  ..or disneyland, because when it comes down to it, "ethical standard'' is a fanciful mouthful that we use to describe what is projected and seldom what really 'is'.. not unlike a corporate mission statement wink

Jul 26 09 05:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 934
Oak Park, Illinois, US


StephenEastwood wrote:

If you had to book them for a full days shoot,
A good one, starts at 2500, a decent one maybe 1000, a great one can be up to 5000, a crappy one maybe 250, a craigslist one that may well produce a crappy photo or a fantastic photo, maybe free.  To have the shot you need on a time crunch, Istock 30$


Paying 2500 for a shot like that is because that person can charge that much because of what they can do, this is well below what that skill is, and if you want a more simple shot, he would be the wrong person to hire for this.


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

I don't think the OP was saying Time paid $30 for the photo, but that he got $30 for the photo. What did iStock charge?

Besides, you can't run a photobusiness where from stock sales you get $30 per image. Period, unless of course you're independantly wealthy or wealthy enough and bucks don't matter and I know a few of those.

Jul 26 09 05:26 am  Link  Quote 
first678910111213last   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