Scott A Miller photo wrote:
Dude, an 4x6 for $4.00 plus shipping.....

wow... 13 times what the lab charges (29 cents) to make the print..

At least you under stand that part of the biz ...

yes.  I run Furniture business since 1996 after graduated  BS EE from Unversity of Portland.

Stevie Lynn wrote:

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

lets shoot

brandy pruitt wrote:
Wow, there seems to be a lot of bickering going on round here

I just wanted to say congrats, OP! The cover of Time Magazine is a ridiculously huge accomplishment and a testament of your talent.

Put it this way - Versace hires you as a model for a national campaign.  You will appear as a model in say 3.4 million magazines for a one month stretch.  You get paid $30 whilst all the other models on set get paid $1500-3000 for the model fee.  You are all equally talented, beautiful and experienced.  Income to the client $120 million due to the adverts pay and public perception of "cool".

Sure you got the exposure (big kudos) but did you get hosed?   Why did you get only $30 when every other model and in this case every other photog gets $1500-3000?

It's usage not the effort, experience or money spent in production (example only)

Now, how do you feel about that rate if it were you?

mfpixDC wrote:
I'd be very depressed as should you. - There's a thing called usage!  Learn the business and don't accept this.  It's a slap in the face whether you are a professional or an amateur. Equal pay based on usage.

Better luck next time.

I am from Vietname came here with nothing. then run three successful  furniture stores at one time. please don't me how to do business...

R Studios wrote:
yes. I am happy.

Well, all the debate about iStock and your fee aside, congratulations on making the cover of Time.  You are now part of a very small, exclusive group of photographers who can say the same.

Stacy Alberto wrote:
I think the $30 is worth the bragging rights and the tear sheet. This thread alone has already gotten you 13 pages worth of MM discussion and exposure. Milk it for all it's worth.

MM threads won't pay the rent.  As an exceptionally talented photographer, Stacey you'll find it impossible to remain or gain in the industry unless you understand your worth or better yet what your photos are worth.

Please join your local chapter of ASMP, APA or EP (editorialphoto.com).

Your work is very fine but please don't show so much ignorance towards the business at hand.  None us professionals would have any problem if iStock had done it's representation properly or if the photographer was saying - "HEY, wait a minute!!". Instead, he tries to hid behind his chagrin whilst not being able to buy a celebratory drink for himself. He should be Po'ed and calling iStock.com to say "what gives?".

Richard Dubois wrote:

Well, all the debate about iStock and your fee aside, congratulations on making the cover of Time.  You are now part of a very small, exclusive group of photographers who can say the same.

thank

R Studios wrote:

I am from Vietname came here with nothing. then run three successful  furniture stores at one time. please don't me how to do business...

You may not know the business but iStock does and you should be calling them to say WTF!  This should have been a minimum of $1500!  If you look at some of the comments on Harrington's blog (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/) a comment points out that iStock failed you and possibly can exact additional fees for the usage.  If it was $1200-2700 in unpaid furniture walking out the I'm sure you would do something other than sit there and feel happy for yourself.

It's worth a phone call.  TIME has lots of money for this image - trust me on that!

MM kudos reinforce you being taken to the cleaners should be ignored and are meaningless drivel.  Every wanna'be photographer or model should be aghast at this treatment - you, your photos or likeness are worth way especially when the "storefront" of a major magazine.

Call iStock and make a fuss you have nothing to lose.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Ok I am confused, on your Istock account it has you as Robert Lam yet on the link to the Time cover it clearly states, photo-illustration by ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN, Coin Jar then mentions Istock, so who actually did the photo, you or the one credited?

He got no credit whilst the photoshopper who put on the label on the jar did!  As a non- professional who doesn't require photography to pay the rent this would matter much since no additional follow-up work would be expected.

Robert didn't do anything wrong but iStock failed him and TIME made the killing by saving about $1500-3000 which  is really a very small fee / a blip to them.  This is the problem with participating in microstock and selling your photos for peanuts.

If a model was included in the shot (example) she/he might require a fee or even sue you if you did or didn't have the release.  Not much to split or for legal fees in $30.
Be careful out there.

Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Ok I am confused, on your Istock account it has you as Robert Lam yet on the link to the Time cover it clearly states, photo-illustration by ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN, Coin Jar then mentions Istock, so who actually did the photo, you or the one credited?

Maybe one of the professional photographers that are so upset about this could tell you who Arthur Hochstein is. Hint: He works at Time Magazine and if you want to sell them a photo for the cover, maybe you ought to know him.

Red Square Photography wrote:
True, exposure on the cover of Time is a valuable thing.  But this is just an indication of the marketplace changing.

Just a few years ago, the only people Time would consider for a cover had to be limited to a few thousand editorial photographers who could properly expose medium format film to their standards.  It was worth $10,000 because Time knows that covers sell copies.

Now, there are literally hundreds of thousands of photographers and millions of amateur photographers who can create a 60mb file and are willing to take very small dollars plus the feeling of contributing to something.  So, a top editorial photographer like Brian Smith in Miami now competes directly with Yuri Arcurs in Denmark.  There are also some very talented photographers in eastern european countries and remote Asian villages who can shoot and upload images just as fast as anyone.  How much does a photographer in Guangzhou, China need to charge to make a living?

So, supply vs. demand is still what determines economics.  I am on the losing end of this being based in Boca Raton, Florida at age 41.  But, I think the result of all this will be two markets:

1. A massive amount of amateur and semi-pro produced work (most of it shit quality, some of it good and some of it surprisingly great) off the shelf, downloadable images.

2. A small amount of professional photographers who are capable of the more involved productions that require travel and coordination talent (lifestyle shoots, fashion, architecture, cars).  However, architecture is being replaced by AutoCAD and car shoots are being replaced by CGI.

Anyone hiring?

.

+1

Red Square Photography wrote:
True, exposure on the cover of Time is a valuable thing.

how? will someone please explain how it is valuable? What is his next step?

will he contact other mags and say
"hey I'm a great photographer, my stuff's on the cover of time."

and then they will say
"wow that's great, you made a pitch to Time and they approved you over other very qualified shooters, you then worked with their AD and met their production deadline indicating that if we hire you you will be able to deliver great results to our liking on our schedule."

"well no, actually they bought one of my stock photos for 30 bucks, I have no idea how to work in a production environment or even how to estimate a job for Time let alone deliver quality results on their deadlines working with their creative direction."

"oh.... well we'll take a look at your stock and see if we can throw you 30 bucks for something on the odd chance that it fits with what we are looking for."

It opens a lot of doors for him... to sell more $30 images.

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".

+ 1$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Stacy Alberto wrote:
I think the $30 is worth the bragging rights and the tear sheet. This thread alone has already gotten you 13 pages worth of MM discussion and exposure. Milk it for all it's worth.

$30 is not worth bragging rights.  The tear sheet is.  Big difference.

brandy pruitt wrote:
Wow, there seems to be a lot of bickering going on round here

I just wanted to say congrats, OP! The cover of Time Magazine is a ridiculously huge accomplishment and a testament of your talent.

This is not a testament to his talent at all.  This is a testament to how little photography/photographers are valued today. 

Did you read this thread at all?  The shot in question (and I am not slamming the OP) is a shot that any one of thousands of high school students could do who...oh never mind.

For Christ sakes it's a jar of coins on white.

mfpixDC wrote:

You may not know the business but iStock does and you should be calling them to say WTF!  This should have been a minimum of $1500!  If you look at some of the comments on Harrington's blog (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/) a comment points out that iStock failed you and possibly can exact additional fees for the usage.  If it was $1200-2700 in unpaid furniture walking out the I'm sure you would do something other than sit there and feel happy for yourself.

It's worth a phone call.  TIME has lots of money for this image - trust me on that!

MM kudos reinforce you being taken to the cleaners should be ignored and are meaningless drivel.  Every wanna'be photographer or model should be aghast at this treatment - you, your photos or likeness are worth way especially when the "storefront" of a major magazine.

Call iStock and make a fuss you have nothing to lose.

Except your time, since it was a properly licensed and used image.  There's nothing more to be had here, except the extended license for resale if that wasn't purchased.

R Studios wrote:
I am from Vietname came here with nothing. then run three successful  furniture stores at one time. please don't me how to do business...

Then you totally don't get a lot of what has been written on the previous 13 + pages of this thread.

I have said it so have others, think of it this way, I move to your town, open a furniture store and sell the product for pennies of what it should be sold for.

It damages the market, for EVERYONE, but I am happy. I am selling so who cares?

BS EE -- Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering?

If so, obviously you can do the math. So do it, do the math on what you should be charging. What iStock should be charging.

Take in to account the COB -- you run 3 businesses so you know what COB is.

Despite this being a hobby, you still need to treat it as if it is not and anyone who runs a business should know that.

And read/use these and hopefully this will help you and everyone else who doesn't get it:

http://www.nppa.org/professional_develo … stock.html

http://www.nppa.org/professional_develo … dbcalc.cfm

http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/

Find photographers in you area and talk to them about it.. and I don't mean hobbyist, GWC.. professionals who shoot stock for reputable agencies, not mirco sites that are taking advantage of you and everyone else the contributes to them.

PK Photo wrote:
It just happens to be that through things such as iStock and photo contests these companies prey on people who either don't rely on income from licensing or people (and in some cases GWCs especially here!) who are not informed or up to date with the latest industry standards where licensing or usage is concerned.

A lot of us would appreciate you not trying to paint us as ignorant children.  Thanks!

Digital Planet Design wrote:

A lot of us would appreciate you not trying to paint us as ignorant children.  Thanks!

I didn't see anyone being painted as "ignorant children."

Mis or uninformed about the business yes.

Cliff from NJ wrote:
selling a PRODUCT (stock photos)  vs. selling a SERVICE (producing custom photos for clients).  Product has become a commodity, while service never can.

Sure it can.

Photographer A sells stock photos for $100

Photographer B sells stock for $10

I'll use photographer B, he's cheaper.

Photographer A's day rate is $1000 -- he understands what COB is.

Photographer B will do work for a tear and $100 -- this is a hobby so he doesn't care what he SHOULD be charging.

So now all work is a commodity, it's the Wal-Mart approach to selling.

mfpixDC wrote:
Put it this way - Versace hires you as a model for a national campaign.  You will appear as a model in say 3.4 million magazines for a one month stretch.  You get paid $30 whilst all the other models on set get paid $1500-3000 for the model fee.  You are all equally talented, beautiful and experienced.  Income to the client $120 million due to the adverts pay and public perception of "cool".

Sure you got the exposure (big kudos) but did you get hosed?   Why did you get only $30 when every other model and in this case every other photog gets $1500-3000?

It's usage not the effort, experience or money spent in production (example only)

Now, how do you feel about that rate if it were you?

I was shopping yesterday when I passed a magazine rack and noticed the latest edition of Time... Sarah Palin on the cover. There were 16 full page ads in that rag, I didn't bother counting the lesser ads because there weren't that many. In previous years there would have been 75 or more full page ads. Your analogy is worthless and so is your argument. His picture was used by a news magazine, not Vogue, and no one in the equation made anything close to 120 million. I would guess the only one doing any hosing around here is you.

Scott A Miller photo wrote:

Sure it can.

Photographer A sells stock photos for $100

Photographer B sells stock for $10

I'll use photographer B, he's cheaper.

Photographer A's day rate is $1000 -- he understands what COB is.

Photographer B will do work for a tear and $100 -- this is a hobby so he doesn't care what he SHOULD be charging.

So now all work is a commodity, it's the Wal-Mart approach to selling.

From your bio page...

"Scott A. Miller is an award-winning photographer in Central Florida. He specializes in dynamic editorial, corporate, advertising photography, weddings and fashion."

I would suggest that if the business model you outlined above is having an impact on any of the areas you list as award winning, you should consider dropping those areas from your stable of work. It seems to me if your business can be eroded by an amateur hobbyist with a bent for tear sheets, you are in the wrong business.

Robert Randall wrote:

From your bio page...

"Scott A. Miller is an award-winning photographer in Central Florida. He specializes in dynamic editorial, corporate, advertising photography, weddings and fashion."

I would suggest that if the business model you outlined above is having an impact on any of the areas you list as award winning, you should consider dropping those areas from your stable of work. It seems to me if your business can be eroded by an amateur hobbyist with a bent for tear sheets, you are in the wrong business.

amen!

R Studios wrote:
yes only 30.00 from Istock

Hilarious - isn't stock making everyone rich?....

Robert Randall wrote:
From your bio page...

"Scott A. Miller is an award-winning photographer in Central Florida. He specializes in dynamic editorial, corporate, advertising photography, weddings and fashion."

I would suggest that if the business model you outlined above is having an impact on any of the areas you list as award winning, you should consider dropping those areas from your stable of work. It seems to me if your business can be eroded by an amateur hobbyist with a bent for tear sheets, you are in the wrong business.

No not effecting me personally, but effecting the industry as a hole.

I speak on this often and work shops and at trade gatherings.

My point yet again, is everyone who sells photos needs to understand the implications of selling images at such a discounted price is only harmful to EVERYONE. Because yet again, it effects everyone.

Now if you'd like to keep up the personal attacks feel free. 20+ years shooting just about everything, I can take it.

EDIT:

And Robert you should understand that this can only have a negative impact on the industry -- all of us in the industry.

Robert Randall wrote:

I was shopping yesterday when I passes a magazine rack and noticed the latest edition of Time... Sarah Palin on the cover. There were 16 full page ads in that rag, I didn't bother counting the lesser ads because there weren't that many. In previous years there would have been 75 or more full page ads. Your analogy is worthless and so is your argument. His picture was used by a news magazine, not Vogue, and no one in the equation made anything close to 120 million. I would guess the only one doing any hosing around here is you.

It's fascinating how even the talented professionals are so willing to fall on their swords say "WFT the end is near" -  I don't care-  "you are way off with a stupid example" - without coming up with something to re-enforce that $30 is pitiful.

Yes, it's an editorial magazine but also not your local pull-out.  It's TIME and they have established rates for this thing.  Vogue or not  - it is TIME - not exactly a "rag".

Digital Czar wrote:
As for an "accomplishment", it's not, unless his name is on it in the magazine(say at the bottom of the credits,etc. often on the page with the TOC, naming the stock agency and photographer). without that it means NOTHING, since he can't prove it's his image or someone copied his image.

So you feel you know more about what is meaningful to the OP than he does?  You must be God.

Matrix Photography Inc wrote:

Hilarious - isn't stock making everyone rich?....

I'm very happy with my returns from stock, but then again, I never deluded myself like some of the people that have so far responded. I realize I'm in this by myself, and the collective owes me nothing. Were I a communist, as it appears so many of you must be, then I would probably be upset at the inequity, and I might just ring up my party boss. I might get a bullet to the head for my efforts, but what else would you expect from the bullies that run a nanny state. Power to the people!

Scott A Miller photo wrote:

No not effecting me personally, but effecting the industry as a hole.

I speak on this often and work shops and at trade gatherings.

My point yet again, is everyone who sells photos needs to understand the implications of selling images at such a discounted price is only harmful to EVERYONE. Because yet again, it effects everyone.

Now if you'd like to keep up the personal attacks feel free. 20+ years shooting just about everything, I can take it.

EDIT:

And Robert you should understand that this can only have a negative impact on the industry -- all of us in the industry.

It is an evolutionary process... someone came up with the method, and the genie is out of the bottle. You can either learn to work within the system or be crushed by it. I personally don't give a crap about your participation in the industry... all of us aren't feeding me. The American tradition of root, hog or die is deeply instilled in me. I don't need anyone but me, to take care of me and mine.

There was no personal attack and you know it. If after 20 years of shooting, your business is impacted by a $30.00 stock sale, you simply are doing something wrong. If you can dish out the garbage you've been writing in this thread, you should at least be able to man up and take a little criticism about your theories with out crying about personal attacks. I find the people that use a deflection ruse in an argument, usually don't have a good basis for their argument.

You (lest you think I'm beating on you specifically, I'm referring to the collective you) can either shoot smarter or better, or you can be overwhelmed, its that simple. The APA is not going to help a crappy photographer get business.

Digital Czar wrote:
Regardless of what "he shoots for" it's hurting the business, lowering the value of photography by professionals.

If amateurs can regularly produce images that compete with those of a seasoned professional, yes you are correct.   

Competition by those willing to sell for less, happens in every field.  If you can't compete against novices to make a living, you are in the wrong field.

Scott A Miller photo wrote:
No not effecting me personally, but effecting the industry as a hole.

Tell me Scott... If you are so concerned about the industry as a (w)hole, shouldn't you be ecstatic that the number of buyers who can now afford images has hugely increased and that hugely increased buying budget is flowing into the hands of thousands of new photographers who had never dreamed of selling imagery?  I mean, you should be falling out of your seat with shear joy!  Even if that causes the casualty of the occasional for-hire photographer losing an assignment for Time?

mfpixDC wrote:

It's fascinating how even the talented professionals are so willing to fall on their swords say "WFT the end is near" -  I don't care-  "you are way off with a stupid example" - without coming up with something to re-enforce that $30 is pitiful.

Yes, it's an editorial magazine but also not your local pull-out.  It's TIME and they have established rates for this thing.  Vogue or not  - it is TIME - not exactly a "rag".

I didn't say the end is near, and I didn't fall on my sword. I simply pointed out the your argument, which is built on the back of a completely stupid analogy, is in error. I don't need to reinforce anything.

They have established rates... you just said that. What are those rates? I would advise you to stop posting at this point, because I'm just going to continue to skewer you every time I see a post you don't have the backup for. Assumption on your part doesn't make anything a fact.

If $30.00 is what the sale brought to the OP, and he signed a contract stipulating that fee is correct, then he made what he asked for. I would guess however, that the OP is new to iStock, and therefore his rate of return is a lower percentage than mine, and that the total sale of the image was probably closer to $100.00. The $30.00 is probably just his cut.



Now all you communists really have something to chew on.

intimateimaging wrote:
Please forgive my ignorance on this matter but I have a question that I would like clarification on please if someone could help.

After reading this thread and looking over the Istock site am I correct in assuming that when a purchaser buys a stock photo for say 12 credits or more for extended use, is that their total cost regardless  of wether the photo is to be used on a simple small run of say a leaflet or as in this case the front cover of an iconic magazizine.

No need to be ignorant - the license and usage are right here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php