Ray Holyer wrote:
They didn't use the image because it was cheap, they used it to sell the magazine.

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

Of course, Mr. Harrington didn't address this.  He didn't indict Time Magazine.  He didn't really deal with the underlying issues of stock photography.  He, instead, delivered a series of cheap shots and innuendo at Mr. Lamm.

In doing so Mr. Harrington has continued to merit the OP's admiration.  How nice.

Hugh Alison wrote:

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?

your missing the overall POINT im making..

Yuri Arcurs has reacted and gone with the times as has istock and others. this is whats happening today and some people turning negative into positives for them. a business. a businees of stock it high sell it cheap.. asda walmart and walmart dominate and all the independants are out of business

Essential Form wrote:

Ray Holyer wrote:
They didn't use the image because it was cheap, they used it to sell the magazine.

Of course, Mr. Harrington didn't address this.  He didn't indict Time Magazine.  He didn't really deal with the underlying issues of stock photography.  He, instead, delivered a series of cheap shots and innuendo at Mr. Lamm.

In doing so Mr. Harrington has continued to merit the OP's admiration.  How nice.

you've also forgot to mention the other half of his blog.. the part where he is talking with some very valid points

Essential Form wrote:

Ray Holyer wrote:
They didn't use the image because it was cheap, they used it to sell the magazine.

Of course, Mr. Harrington didn't address this.  He didn't indict Time Magazine.  He didn't really deal with the underlying issues of stock photography.  He, instead, delivered a series of cheap shots and innuendo at Mr. Lamm.

In doing so Mr. Harrington has continued to merit the OP's admiration.  How nice.

but you have good points yourself

Essential Form wrote:
Of course, Mr. Harrington didn't address this.  He didn't indict Time Magazine.  He didn't really deal with the underlying issues of stock photography.  He, instead, delivered a series of cheap shots and innuendo at Mr. Lamm.

In doing so Mr. Harrington has continued to merit the OP's admiration.  How nice.

paul cameron wrote:
you've also forgot to mention the other half of his blog.. the part where he is talking with some very valid points

You see, Paul, that's the problem with engaging in rants centered on personal attacks . . . one's point seems to get lost.   Mr. Harrington spewed a stream of flashing purple prose.  If his purple prose detracts from his "point" he probably should hire an editor.

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.

Then I'm sure his self-confidence and career will survive one man's opinion.

That Guy Designs wrote:
I'm sure the guy was happy... even though only got $30, he can frame the cover and say 'I did that'. Most of us can't because many of us haven't made it to the cover of TIME.

Some are understandably bothered by a peer being happy getting so little.

In the end it's just bragging rights and a measurable credential, but most likely will not impress the typical model or paying customer.

If the image was of a model or bride instead of a jar of coins, he could probably glean a lot more fame and fortune from it.

This all reminds me of the 70's song "Cover of the Rolling Stone", and I can just see him buying five copies for his mother.

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

Plenty of professionals operate their business without incurring studio rental fees, especially table top guys who don't need a lot of space to work in.  And I very seriously doubt any professional would require a stylist, creative director and assistant to produce a simple shot of change in a jar on a white background.  This would not be an expensive shot for anyone.

Regardless, TIME's usage is still worth considerably more than $30.

theda wrote:
Plenty of professionals operate their business without incurring studio rental fees, especially table top guys who don't need a lot of space to work in.  And I very seriously doubt any professional would require a stylist, creative director and assistant to produce a simple shot of change in a jar on a white background.  This would not be an expensive shot for anyone.

Regardless, TIME's usage is still worth considerably more than $30.

http://www.danieljouanneau.com/
http://www.danieljouanneau.com/Exhibiti … 1%2001.htm
some does and it makes another kind of image even if the subject is simple
because the subject does'nt matter to have a vision

MinisterC  wrote:
Is Mr Harrington jealous?

Have any of his photo's ever graced the cover of Time magazine?

Jealous, no.

Scott A Miller photo wrote:
And I pose the question, "What if I did your job for pennies of what I should, how would you feel."

Maybe if it was a "picture of a jar competition" and John stood around trying to sell his for 3000 and OP for 30, but thats not what happened at all.
It's way to far out of context to say that this "semi-pro" photographer, as John put it, intentionally stole any kind of work from anyone. It's called a recession people, AS IF this is the worst of it.

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.

makes me laugh, since I klnow 7 models who were brought in and signed by agencies through this site alone, I also know many bookers who either have a site here through photographer account, or ask someone to make contact for them here to find models and thats all top 6 fashion agencies on the models.com list.  The same companies do tell them to get off MM.  If they headed that advice to start they would still be back home working at the local Walmart or in school rather than in a top ten NY fashion agency getting to fly around the world and make no money after fees and expenses. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

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.

WTF difference does it make? The guy has a major cob up his ass regarding MM; probably got flaked on in front of someone 'important'.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
And that, is an example, of missing the point entirely.  Its not about not being happy for him.  Its about being disappointed that he doesn't seem to know he, and his work, are worth more.

So if you can't sell your oranges on this corner, you cry?

Or go find a different corner?

Adam King wrote:

So if you can't sell your oranges on this corner, you cry?

Or go find a different corner?

And you're missing the point as well.  Its about many people, this one simply being an example, selling their work for much less than its worth.  No one is crying, and that was a very silly, childish statement.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
And that, is an example, of missing the point entirely.  Its not about not being happy for him.  Its about being disappointed that he doesn't seem to know he, and his work, are worth more.

Actually *you* are missing the point.

It's very unlikely he'd get accepted into the major stock photo companies. It's also very unlikely he'd be noticed privately by someone like Time Magazine.

So in reality, his two choices are.

1) Sit on photo.

2) Sell photo for cheap and get it on a national magazine cover.

As an amateur, I'd choose number 2 every time.

----
-ASYLUM-

Anomalia Chin wrote:

And you're missing the point as well.  Its about many people, this one simply being an example, selling their work for much less than its worth.  No one is crying, and that was a very silly, childish statement.

If you've read the blog, the guy might as well have been crying.
YOU are missing the point. We are in a recession, have you noticed the CGI commercials and 5 second time spots yet? If not, check it out.
I'm not going to feel sorry for ONE profession in particular, everyone is suffering.

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

Actually *you* are missing the point.

It's very unlikely he'd get accepted into the major stock photo companies. It's also very unlikely he'd be noticed privately by someone like Time Magazine.

So in reality, his two choices are.

1) Sit on photo.

2) Sell photo for cheap and get it on a national magazine cover.

As an amateur, I'd choose number 2 every time.

----
-ASYLUM-

And I'm not sure if he'd appreciate that term being used to describe him.  Who is placing labels now?

The fact is, I understand that he is very happy to have his picture on the cover, the point is, and its causing some rage, is very simply that he was not paid sufficiently, even according to the price on the picture.

He was also not credited.  I am upset about the dirty business, and that he doesn't seem to realize that he's been done very dirtily.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
This also isn't about territory.  I recall a photographer pointing out in the other thread that the trend of selling ones work for pennies and two grains of salt, in this case exampled by the $31.51, creates a trend of buying cheaper work and puts people who do this for a living in a funny position.  Why not simply sell your work based on what its worth? 

This is the equivalent of a mechanic charging pennies for his work, and doing the same labour he used to charge hundreds to thousands of dollars for and putting in the same amount of time.

The only ones who lose are the artists, and in tough times the idea is for the industry to stick together and not attempt to undersell one another.  I'm not ragging on the dude, I'm just saying he needs to know his own worth, and its more than $31.51.

The market determines value.

In the past his value would have been $0, because he wasn't networked into the major stock players.

iStock, Alamy, etc give chances to amateurs to sell their work.

The only people losing out are the people who don't adapt to a changing market.

Adam King wrote:

If you've read the blog, the guy might as well have been crying.
YOU are missing the point. We are in a recession, have you noticed the CGI commercials and 5 second time spots yet? If not, check it out.
I'm not going to feel sorry for ONE profession in particular, everyone is suffering.

Not everyone.  Some are doing as they always have done. They are buying dirt cheap from those who don't know their own worth and sucking the life blood from the dying carcass of capitalism.

ASYLUM - Tattoo Project wrote:

The market determines value.

In the past his value would have been $0, because he wasn't networked into the major stock players.

iStock, Alamy, etc give chances to amateurs to sell their work.

The only people losing out are the people who don't adapt to a changing market.

All right.  And you look at this "market" from which perspective?  Is this "the American Market"? cause thats pretty fucked, I will grant you that.  But people all over the world have varying sums of money and I have to be honest with you, he could have made more money.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

Not everyone.  Some are doing as they always have done. They are buying dirt cheap from those who don't know their own worth and sucking the life blood from the dying carcass of capitalism.

I think your lack of actual experience in the industry has you blindsided here.
Photography has ALWAYS been a cutthroat business. This is nothing new.

Adam King wrote:

I think your lack of actual experience in the industry has you blindsided here.
Photography has ALWAYS been a cutthroat business. This is nothing new.

Ugh..

Lets try this in simpler terms.

Lowering The Expected Price Of Work, While The Effort Remains The Same Or Increases Is Bad For An Industry. 

Get it?