SLE Photography wrote:
I posted to his Blog, for some reason my Google ID didn't post correctly so it came up anonymous. 
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 8913491412

+1

Star wrote:

I said no such thing. I said that the people replying were hobbiest photographers? true yes?

I then talked about what people should be focusing on, that TIME violated the usage agreement and did not buy the correct license nor did they do the correct crediting

No, Star, what you said was:

I think the responses you are getting are great examples of how people who do this as a hobby tend to think of these matters.

If "by thinking of these matters" you mean us "hobbyists" are more likely to request polite discourse focused on the issues then you're right.

If instead you meant (in line with your posts in these threads and others in the past) "these amateurs just don't understand the real world of us pros and should STFU" (for that's certainly how your posts often read) then you're wrong.

azzara wrote:
There are clearly 2 sides to this. On Model Mayhem which is predominately an amateur site, most photographers would have given the image to TIME for FREE to get that kind of tear sheet. Then you have the "professional photographers" who after 25-30 years are getting peanuts for their work now since digital photography came along. Let's face it, without digital there would be no Model Mayhem and most shooters here would have a day job and instead of shooting models would have a bowling night.
As a 30 plus year photographer, it makes me sick as my monthly statements come in with the lines:
Your share $6.32
I agree Mr Harrington took a cheap shot with the TFP remarks, however for those who USED TO GET $600 to shoot NEW models and take some of that money to pay experienced models like Theda to shoot with them are finding this a thing of the past as well. Professional photographers who have been supporting their families with their CAREER for the past 30 years are finding it harder and harder to do so. They are angry, they feel betrayed, they are screwed. Picture the same happening on your day job and you will understand.
So I tend to understand WHAT was being said but I agree with the complaints of HOW it was said.

This is very well said.  However, there is one reality now and forever..... THINGS CHANGE.   Were the Scriveners upset when the typewritter came in?  Yep.  Where the Silent Film Actors aghast when the talkies came?  Sure.  Where Computers shocked when computers came in (look up the pre-1930 definition of the word "Computer")?  Yes.

Business models change and must change to keep up.  Do I like penny stock?  Hell NO.  Do I wish it never came?  YES.  But, it is here and business models will need to change to deal with it.  I know an amazing editorial photographer here in town.  He is rep'd out of London and NYC.  He just did a wedding.  Yup.  A wedding.  Business is down.  I know another more moderately successful photographer that just put his camera down after 25 years -- too hard to make it.  Yet, I know of two Eastwood and Randall right here on MM that say that bookings have never been better.

New opportunities and new pitfalls will come out of the economic recovery.  Some will make the transition, others won't.  It is the nature of business.

Star wrote:
They bought the WRONG USAGE. They stole the image, violated the license agreement and are illegally reselling it.

One presumes that istock lawyers are now talking to Time Mag about this very detail!!!

Star wrote:
one of the great photographic business minds of our time

Maybe one of the great photographic business minds of the last century.

Bob Randall is on iStockphoto. I'd class him pretty high up on the list.

If you want to see a great business blog for the next century. look at Yuri Arcurs's blog.

SLE Photography wrote:
I posted to his Blog, for some reason my Google ID didn't post correctly so it came up anonymous. 
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 8913491412

My hat's off to you.

It's not like the photographer negotiated the $30 compensation from 'Time'.  I'd think most of the "blame" if there's any to be assigned, should go to iStock.

Star wrote:

They bought the WRONG USAGE. They stole the image, violated the license agreement and are illegally reselling it.

I would not go so far because we only have a small view of the transaction. For all we know, Time may have a special arrangement with iStock. The violations you pointed out are minor and will not amount to much.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
I would not go so far because we only have a small view of the transaction. For all we know, Time may have a special arrangement with iStock. The violations you pointed out are minor and will not amount to much.

I was thinking the same!

Phil Neff Photography wrote:

My hat's off to you.

It's not like the photographer negotiated the $30 compensation from 'Time'.  I'd think most of the "blame" if there's any to be assigned, should go to iStock.

iStock didn't take the picture and priced it at $30. The photographer did that.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
I understand what both sides are saying but you have to understand the dynamics of what is happening here. Deservedly or not, Model Mayhem/OMP has a very bad reputation in the mainstream world. Sure there are a lot of very upstanding and professional members here but they are hidden beneath a deep layer of amateurs, hacks, and GWCs. This causes all members to be painted with a broad stroke.

Legitimate modeling agencies tell the models to get off of it and many professional models won't touch these sites with a ten foot pool. It is what it is. Despite what IB may claim, Model Mayhem is not a site for professional careers in modeling or photography. It is primarily a hobbyist site. That does not mean true professional do not exist here. It just means from a numbers standpoint, these sites are dominated by photographers looking for hot models to model TF, often nude or wearing very little clothes.

Don't be so surprised when outsiders with a cursory knowledge of these sits perceive them to be amateur at best.

Pat, you're correct & I understand that and always have.
My issue, as is usually the case when this topic has come up, is both the thinly veiled assertion that Mr. Lam must be a pervert, and the sneering condescension towards us amateurs mixed with telling us we should cleave to standards the standard bearers would tell us we have no right to.
In fact, going out of the way to stress Mr. Lam's amateur status in such a derogatory way detracted from the valid points Mr. Barrington was trying to make by ensuring that some of the people he should be reaching would be so offended that the message wouldn't get thru.

Star wrote:
Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

Who the guy is has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he's reasonably perceived as whining.  Some of you people talk about other photographers as if they're worthy of worship.

"Great photographic business minds of our time" ?   ((chuckle))

What's a "photographic" business mind?  Either a person is good at business or they aren't.. whether you're selling photography, pharmaceuticals, widgets, illegal drugs, or your vagina doesn't matter.

SLE Photography wrote:

Pat, you're correct & I understand that and always have.
My issue, as is usually the case when this topic has come up, is both the thinly veiled assertion that Mr. Lam must be a pervert, and the sneering condescension towards us amateurs mixed with telling us we should cleave to standards the standard bearers would tell us we have no right to.
In fact, going out of the way to stress Mr. Lam's amateur status in such a derogatory way detracted from the valid points Mr. Barrington was trying to make by ensuring that some of the people he should be reaching would be so offended that the message wouldn't get thru.

I don't view a blog post the same way I view an in depth article by the NY Times or the Washington Post. I look at well written articles by professional journalists as a presentation in a university setting.  I view many blog posts as half drunk rants in a bar. Different standards apply.

And when print media dies because TMZ makes more money than the LA times, it will be a sad day for people of intellect.

Star wrote:

They bought the WRONG USAGE. They stole the image, violated the license agreement and are illegally reselling it.

The above is a very strong statement. I am certain that TIME Magazine is well aware of 'what they purchased'. Can you imagine a company so large not being able to comprehend - that the image - would be seen by millions of people - and likely the 'shooter' themselves.  The shot was put on a stock site  was purchased - was used - now everyone but the photographer is upset.  We do not know the detailed information, have the agreement, or any other legitimate information on this at all. We have opinions which are invaluable, useless and in most cases pathetic.  Even a lawyer would not make a statement like this as it is nothing more than conjecture.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

iStock didn't take the picture and priced it at $30. The photographer did that.

I stand behind my statement.

Digitoxin wrote:
, I think that the fact that Time - part of a multi-billion dollar organization and one that has ad budgets in the tens of millions -- can pay $30 for the cover of the magazine is dreadful and certainly nothing to be proud of as the photographer.

Harrington is a pompous twat who loves self-aggrandisement.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

ON MM?????

are you kidding me?  OF course they would. 

What people rant about on here are about escorts and photographers who perv and models who flake and panties that have been worn and does nudity = porn and are his/her/their boobs too big, but certainly not getting paid too little.

You we don't often agree on things, but I totally agree with you on this one.

Bearz Images wrote:
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!

Do you think Time would have bought the picture if it was on a stock library shelf at $1,500?

No, they'd go somewhere that's cheaper.  The cover DOES have a value other than a pure monetary one to Mr Lam. But yeah, he got screwed. Doesn't mean that Harrington should be a twat about it, though.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
I understand what both sides are saying but you have to understand the dynamics of what is happening here. Deservedly or not, Model Mayhem/OMP has a very bad reputation in the mainstream world. Sure there are a lot of very upstanding and professional members here but they are hidden beneath a deep layer of amateurs, hacks, and GWCs. This causes all members to be painted with a broad stroke.

Legitimate modeling agencies tell the models to get off of it and many professional models won't touch these sites with a ten foot pool. It is what it is. Despite what IB may claim, Model Mayhem is not a site for professional careers in modeling or photography. It is primarily a hobbyist site. That does not mean true professional do not exist here. It just means from a numbers standpoint, these sites are dominated by photographers looking for hot models to model TF, often nude or wearing very little clothes.

Don't be so surprised when outsiders with a cursory knowledge of these sites perceive them to be amateur at best.

Should be in the FAQ of this site :-)

Jay Cain wrote:
Do you think Time would have bought the picture if it was on a stock library shelf at $1,500?

No, they'd go somewhere that's cheaper.  The cover DOES have a value other than a pure monetary one to Mr Lam. But yeah, he got screwed. Doesn't mean that Harrington should be a twat about it, though.

A reactionary are you? Well why not chill your ego & apparent lack of reading comprehension. Read my post again & if you do, you'll notice I'm not defending Harrington.  An agreement on a point, is not the same as defending him. If you bothered to read it, you clearly see I'm in support of Lam.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
And it's not really just too fucking bad for him.   The implications of all of this actually have a bearing on a number of people who made/make a living wage doing stock that's not micro and/or RF.

this is the point the professionals are making which is true and a concern and its not just for stock photographers. its not whiney and its a valid point. its also the watering down of the perceived value of an image and the thrown aside point where hard work and graft goes into making an image and its not just one person making an image its normally a team effort.. you can not compete with free and tf* when companies are taking full advantage of it. the quality of the image goes down and so does your income. unless the few clients that do come back realize you do get what you pay for. personal imagery is just that personal there nothing wrong with personal

anyone under the non professional umbrella cant see any of this. some think its an attack.. and some are to busy trying to defend their righst to do what they want when they want and the free world they live in.

Jay Cain wrote:
Do you think Time would have bought the picture if it was on a stock library shelf at $1,500?

No, they'd go somewhere that's cheaper.  The cover DOES have a value other than a pure monetary one to Mr Lam. But yeah, he got screwed. Doesn't mean that Harrington should be a twat about it, though.

yes they would buy it because that would be the market value and cover the costs of making the image.

nudes by paul wrote:
isn't it the mind set that photography isn't worth anything that is driving this?  Think about the fact that time's circulation is huge, it's insulting to photographers that a photo made only a portion of a cent per print.  Hell, even if time's circulation was only 10,000, the photo was sold for 1/3 of a cent per copy.

Would ANYONE on here even consider a third of a cent payment for a portrait?

yes i believe this is what its about

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

ON MM?????

are you kidding me?  OF course they would. 

What people rant about on here are about escorts and photographers who perv and models who flake and panties that have been worn and does nudity = porn and are his/her/their boobs too big, but certainly not getting paid too little.

lmao

Bradley Nichol wrote:
We do not know the detailed information, have the agreement, or any other legitimate information on this at all. We have opinions which are invaluable, useless and in most cases pathetic.  Even a lawyer would not make a statement like this as it is nothing more than conjecture.

*pokes Bradely on the shoulder*

*points him to iStock's web site*

The agreements are published publicly... this isn't conjecture on Star's part it is fact.

The reason the agreements are being overlooked is because of the multibillion dollar deal ongoing between Time and Getty which owns iStockphoto

paul cameron wrote:

yes they would buy it because that would be the market value and cover the costs of making the image.

You aren't seriously suggesting that it cost $1,500 to create the image?

SLE Photography wrote:
This's very interesting.  Like I said, I posted this (anonymously by accident) to Mr. Harrington's blog:

SLE Photography wrote:
While you make some valid points, your tone and unnecessary personal attacks on Mr. Lam (especially your comments implying he has ugly motivations for what he does) do nothing to aid the credibility of your statements and make this whole thing sound like this's a personal issue rather than a professional one.

The world of full time commercial shooters is a small one, with few opportunities for success. Something like this is a big deal for hobbyists & part timers who often go their whole lives without this sort of exposure. None of them are trying to take your job, nor are they likely to do so.

Calling out screwy business practices is fine, but attacking a little guy who got lucky & saying he's probably a pervert is uncalled for.

He responded:

He CLEARLY doesn't understand how MM works & has a skewed perception of it & its members.  He also exhibits even more of the bias I previously mentioned.  What's fascinating, tho, is that we see here a big time pro admitting that a) he IS threatened by the little guy shooting microstock (something they often strenuously deny while excoriating us for doing it) and b) for all that they like to set themselves part from us & heap scorn on us some pros are worried about us affecting perceptions of them.

Unfortunately, like too many of those individuals, his solution is not to reach out for mutual dialog but to try & force a set of standards on us from a world we're not part of or welcome in, or to try & get us to simply "go away."  It's disheartening to see this attitude.

I responded in a 2 part post:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 7407824696

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ … 2687588175

I'll be interested to see if he chooses to engage in an open & constructive dialog.  Unfortunately my posts were broken up by someone posting anonymously & name calling, but posts like his will inevitably breed that sort of angry response.  All in all the sort of fighting & negativity that's likely to be inspired by all this do FAR more to make us all look unprofessional & impugn the credibility of photographers than Mr. Lam offering TF.

are you making this into a David and Goliath issue here? pro's against amateurs? i dont see any attack on the vast majority of amateurs semi pros and hobbyists work and their PERSONAL WORK. its when the pictures are used for more than personnel use and also the companies using it to heir advantage. its the bigger issue here not a one off event

Michael McGowan wrote:
And I'm surprised that the blogger is just now noticing a trend that has been going on for years.

and that it took a thread on a MM forum to prompt is blog post.  The cover was published three months ago.

Hugh Alison wrote:

You aren't seriously suggesting that it cost $1,500 to create the image?

okay i will give you a run down. to run a business and produce images similar to this one in question.

as a proffesional photographer if you are comissioned you have a studio rental cost straight away. equipment hire fee, product sourcing and costs. you would have a stylist, creative director assistant and photographer and also misc costs. does this sound like its costs $30?

if your not running a business you can use your table at home X2 bedside lamps doe the styling your self and use a jar at home with your piggy bank of change = this equals $30

whats the difference?

professional / amateur

paul cameron wrote:
i dont see any attack on the vast majority of amateurs semi pros and hobbyists work and their PERSONAL WORK.

Let's quote John Harrington again for you:

"Robert Lam, who works for a furniture store in Culver City, who, according to his website, is "...always looking for models for TFCD."

For $30 (the sale went through iStockphoto - image here) Lam got screwed out of several thousand dollars in income. In a dialog on ModelMayhem, Robert was asked about the payment, and responded "yes only 30.00 from Istock", followed by some online-atta-boys and then he says "yes. I am happy." When another commenter wrote to him "you got screwed", his response was "ok", followed by what can be characterized by his laughing at his last check from iStockphoto, when he writes "last check.. 31.50..lol". The only one laughing, really, is the Time Magazine Photo Department -- who is laughing all the way to the bank. A continued cast of characters then go on to somehow just accept that the $30 is fair and reasonable, and I expect the rest of the part-time photographer part-time furniture salespeople, accountants, IHOP servers, and so on to come out and defend what he did here, and elsewhere.

Congratulations Robert, you've just become the poster-boy for exactly what is wrong about iStockphoto. A stock rate previously known to be $3,000 for the cover of Time Magazine you just sold for $30 - a 99% discount. After all big "wins", the winner usually gets asked where they'll go to celebrate. I'd ask you where you're going with that dough, but you can't even go to Disneyland, like winners in the past. I know, as I was just in the Disney Store an hour ago buying tickets for the trip I can afford to Disneyland because I don't make the dream of the profession of stock photography into a nightmare as you have done. Try talking to the owner of Natural Tique where you work if his business could survive by offering 99% discounts to his customers.

You write on your Model Mayhem page "NO SECOND CHANCES FOR FLAKES", and then go on to say "Photography is an enormous passion for me", but then you say "I am open for TFCD with female models at this time. email to me if you are interested." So, is that passion a ploy to work with female models for trade? What's with that?"

Mean-spirited petty personal attacks.

Star wrote:
Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

Really?

How about this for advice (from him in a reply to criticism to his rant):
"If you are really looking to grow your portfolio, you would be just as eager to photograph men as women. You would have more than just one guy on a website that is otherwise filled with women. You would want the variety of images that demonstrate your abilities. "

Really?  Is he implying that the market for men or men's fashion is a large as the women's fashion market?  His great business mind might want to go back and check his numbers.  Also breadth in a portfolio is not the prevailing logic in the industry.

Star wrote:
Do you understand that you are calling one of the great photographic business minds of our time a whiny ranter?

Next time maybe you should research who you are calling names before actually calling someone a name.

Dan Howell wrote:
Really?

How about this for advice (from him in a reply to criticism to his rant):
"If you are really looking to grow your portfolio, you would be just as eager to photograph men as women. You would have more than just one guy on a website that is otherwise filled with women. You would want the variety of images that demonstrate your abilities. "

Really?  Is he implying that the market for men or men's fashion is a large as the women's fashion market?  His great business mind might want to go back and check his numbers.  Also breadth in a portfolio is not the prevailing logic in the industry.

actually I took his retort to suggest that most of MMers are a bunch of horndog glammer shooters who are into shooting scantily clad women for arousal and calling it art or portfolio building as a matter of convenience rather than fact.

Hugh Alison wrote:

Let's quote John Harrington again for you:

"Robert Lam, who works for a furniture store in Culver City, who, according to his website, is "...always looking for models for TFCD."

For $30 (the sale went through iStockphoto - image here) Lam got screwed out of several thousand dollars in income. In a dialog on ModelMayhem, Robert was asked about the payment, and responded "yes only 30.00 from Istock", followed by some online-atta-boys and then he says "yes. I am happy." When another commenter wrote to him "you got screwed", his response was "ok", followed by what can be characterized by his laughing at his last check from iStockphoto, when he writes "last check.. 31.50..lol". The only one laughing, really, is the Time Magazine Photo Department -- who is laughing all the way to the bank. A continued cast of characters then go on to somehow just accept that the $30 is fair and reasonable, and I expect the rest of the part-time photographer part-time furniture salespeople, accountants, IHOP servers, and so on to come out and defend what he did here, and elsewhere.

Congratulations Robert, you've just become the poster-boy for exactly what is wrong about iStockphoto. A stock rate previously known to be $3,000 for the cover of Time Magazine you just sold for $30 - a 99% discount. After all big "wins", the winner usually gets asked where they'll go to celebrate. I'd ask you where you're going with that dough, but you can't even go to Disneyland, like winners in the past. I know, as I was just in the Disney Store an hour ago buying tickets for the trip I can afford to Disneyland because I don't make the dream of the profession of stock photography into a nightmare as you have done. Try talking to the owner of Natural Tique where you work if his business could survive by offering 99% discounts to his customers.

You write on your Model Mayhem page "NO SECOND CHANCES FOR FLAKES", and then go on to say "Photography is an enormous passion for me", but then you say "I am open for TFCD with female models at this time. email to me if you are interested." So, is that passion a ploy to work with female models for trade? What's with that?"

Mean-spirited petty personal attacks.

still dont see an attack on the VAST MAJORITY!! this is one guy he is talking about and a noticeable trend when personal work is no longer personal and is sold on for buttons

paul cameron wrote:

okay i will give you a run down. to run a business and produce images similar to this one in question.

as a proffesional photographer if you are comissioned you have a studio rental cost straight away. equipment hire fee, product sourcing and costs. you would have a stylist, creative director assistant and photographer and also misc costs. does this sound like its costs $30?

if your not running a business you can use your table at home X2 bedside lamps doe the styling your self and use a jar at home with your piggy bank of change = this equals $30

whats the difference?

professional / amateur

Professional = http://www.arcurs.com/who

"Yuri Arcurs is the world’s top selling microstock photographer and sells over 1,1million individual licenses per year. The list of clients that have bought and used his pictures, include Time Magazine, MTV, Sony, MSN.com, Microsoft, Canon, Samsung, Hewlett Packard, Tyra Banks Show, Late Night Show and many more."

It doesn't cost him $1,500 to photograph a cookie jar full of change.

Can you produce a picture of a cookie jar full of change that's 500 times better than the $30 one?