R Studios wrote:
My stock photo on Istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- … ss-jar.php

is on Time magazine cover.

Awesome. Did they pay for it or did the El Jack it? haha.

a2z Photo n Video wrote:
NICE!  congrats!!

thanks

R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock

You got screwed.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

You got screwed.

ok

R Studios wrote:

ok

There's value in the tear sheet. I'm speaking specifically to the $30.

MinisterC  wrote:
WOW! Congratulations. That's worth a shout. It's a bit unfortunate they don't pay a bit more, but such is the life of stock photography. Very cool. That means that thousands, if not millions of people will now view your work! Nice.

thank.  I will frame it

PYPI FASHION wrote:

There's value in the tear sheet. I'm speaking specifically to the $30.

last check.. 31.50..lol

Lee K wrote:
That's incredibly depressing.

Photographers get all the blame for that one.

R Studios wrote:

last check.. 31.50..lol

You'll be really depressed if I tell you the dollar value of a Time cover.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

You'll be really depressed if I tell you the dollar value of a Time cover.

tell me

R Studios wrote:
My stock photo on Istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- … ss-jar.php

is on Time magazine cover.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

I'm assuming that yours is the main photo on the cover - the glass jar with the coins in it?

edit: duh...nevermind - I just went to your first link!   

Through Garys Eyes wrote:

I'm assuming that yours is the main photo on the cover - the glass jar with the coins in it?

yes.

R Studios wrote:

tell me

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.

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.

The cover does say "The New Frugality."

PYPI FASHION wrote:

Photographers get all the blame for that one.

That's part of what's depressing.

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.

thanks. good to know.

MinisterC  wrote:
Very cool. That means that thousands, if not millions of people will now view your work! Nice.

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

Dark Life wrote:
30 dollars?  does the license they purchased cover usage on/in a national magazine with a huge print run?

i see the 'extended' license options on your file and they are worth alot more than 30 dollars - still not a lot but i would think usage on Time Magazine's cover would require more than just iStock's 'standard' license pricing that somebody would license it for a cheesey website banner.

I see the standard license does not require additional payments for runs over 500K for magazines.

Edit: I stand corrected. That's for advertising rate.

For editorial rate, Unlimited reproduction/print run license required for 500,000 or more impressions.

You may have more money coming OP.

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.

Uh oh, that depresses me and I'm not even involved in this discussion!

-The Dave- wrote:

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

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messag … adid=87339

Stevie Lynn wrote:

Uh oh, that depresses me and I'm not even involved in this discussion!

i am not depresses but happy

Living Canvas wrote:
The question is, if they'd had to cough out $10,000 would they have used that photo? Or did they use it because it was $30 and was exactly what they wanted?

Either way congrats! Maybe no big pay day, but I'd still chalk it up as an accomplishment.

Like I said, photographers are to blame for that $30 option.

R Studios wrote:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messag … adid=87339

So no photographers credit in the issue huh? That sucks!