Gibson Photo Art wrote:

That's my take. If the image was listed at 1000.00-3000.00 they probably would have bought it without blinking an eye. It matched what they needed and paid per the agreement.

Now as far as the blog. If the old dinosaurs of the photographic field are not smart enough and quick enough to adapt to the new environment then we will be seeing them in a museum next to their obsolete camera gear.

To John Harrington. Since you obviously read these threads. Nice job asshole. Way to make professional photographers look like whiny babies. Blaming everyone else for your shrinking business just shows how insecure you are in your abilities.

+1

Anomalia Chin wrote:

And my worry is that it will become a trend, and not just an occasional behaviour.  This was expressed before.

To further elaborate on your Rand comment in regards to this situation, anyone who is creating a product is presented with several options:

1) continue creating a product and offer it at whatever price you (not you personally) wish.Success will either follow or not based on what the consumer sees as your value.

2) complain that consumers aren't compensating  you for what you feel is your actual value. Seeking compensation through price fixing and antitrust measures.


3) Shrug. Refuse to provide a product at all. The market will determine the value of that loss.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
There are also people who do this as hobbyists, and people who do this for their living, as a career.  The attitudes of either side will vary on this matter.

This is one of the first things you've said I can agree with.  Yes, attitudes will vary.

If one is to make a living creating images and fears being "devalued" by images available from mere amateurs the answer might just lie in the production of images beyond the ability of amateurs.

I see no material difference in the photo used by time and the $1400 photo linked elsewhere.  Apparently, Time saw no difference either.  I do not see either photo as "art".  This is craft, not art.  Both images appear well crafted.

Many of the arguments being presented here strike me as ugly cases of elitism.  Ugly in that elitism is being combined with entitlement. 

Where the hell is John Houseman?  Maybe we could use an actor/spokesman reminding us of that old fashioned way of making money . . . earning it.

slave to the lens wrote:

To further elaborate on your Rand comment in regards to this situation, anyone who is creating a product is presented with several options:

1) continue creating a product and offer it at whatever price you (not you personally) wish.Success will either follow or not based on what the consumer sees as your value.

2) complain that consumers aren't compensating  you for what you feel is your actual value. Seeking compensation through price fixing and antitrust measures.


3) Shrug. Refuse to provide a product at all. The market will determine the value of that loss.

Why was it important for you to mention "not me personally"?  This isn't the most productive was to conduct a discussion.

You don't seem to understand my point, and that's fine.  Just don't assume that you do.

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.

Sounds kind of crybabyish.

Think about it...so Time used a photo from iStock.  It's not exclusive.  Another magazine can use that same photo for their cover.  Someone else can probably buy it to make a t-shirt.

That $3,000 they normally pay is probably for exclusive use.  By not needing/wanting exclusivity, they saved $2970.00.  So what.

This is no different than UAW complaining about losing jobs to robots.  It is not a problem.  It's progress.  Progress helps many people while hurting many at the same time.

it is what it is.  Learn to move with it just as wedding photographers are having to deal with the $250/day wedding photogs and hobbyist friends.

Anomalia Chin wrote:
Why was it important for you to mention "not me personally"?  This isn't the most productive was to conduct a discussion.

You don't seem to understand my point, and that's fine.  Just don't assume that you do.

Ironically, I added that so you would realize I was not specifically talking about you, but "you" as a generic pronoun. Ironic, because you still managed to take it personally despite my best efforts to clarify the opposite.


I understand your point completely. Lack of agreement in a flawed argument doesn't equate to lack of comprehension.

Gibson Photo Art wrote:
That's my take. If the image was listed at 1000.00-3000.00 they probably would have bought it without blinking an eye. It matched what they needed and paid per the agreement.

You don't seriously think that such a stock photo showing coins in a glass jar would/could ever be listed at such a ridiculously high price... much less even be considered for purchase?

Have you ever searched stock image houses for such image concepts. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of similar photos to choose from.

slave to the lens wrote:

Ironically, I added that so you would realize I was not specifically talking about you, but "you" as a generic pronoun. Ironic, because you still managed to take it personally despite my best efforts to clarify the opposite.


I understand your point completely. Lack of agreement in a flawed argument doesn't equate to lack of comprehension.

Ugh.  It's only flawed in your mind because you fail to comprehend it.  It is a failure.  Honestly, read what you wrote, and understand why I took it personally. 

If you wanted it to be read a certain way, then don't write it as if you're appealing to a high schooler.

Skydancer wrote:

Do you seriously think that such a stock photo showing coins in a glass jar would/could ever be listed at such a ridiculously high price... much less even be considered for purchase?

Have you ever searched stock image houses for such image concepts. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of similar photos to choose from.

Yes I have. I'm actually a member of iStock though I don't upload my work there. I still imagine iStock would be irked if they knew the missed out on easy profit. I have a feeling there was or will be a some meeting in regard to this at the iStock office.

afterexposure wrote:
As a bit of counter-point...

I haven't reall ALL the posts, but just so that we are clear on one point that seems to have been missed...

The TIME issue was on 'The New Frugality", right?

Can you imagine the furor that would erupt if they had paid $5000 for the image, and someone found a similar one on a microstock site for $5?

Very much an "eat your own dog food" kinda thing.

But there are still issues worthy of the discussion - no ducking that.

I just read that, as in your post, and I must admit, I get a chuckle out of it. 

What if they'd paid the man at least 200 for his pic though?  No shit storm.  =P

Anomalia Chin wrote:

Ugh.  It's only flawed in your mind because you fail to comprehend it.  It is a failure.  Honestly, read what you wrote, and understand why I took it personally. 

If you wanted it to be read a certain way, then don't write it as if you're appealing to a high schooler.

The " you don't agree with me because you can't understand me" is an example of circular reasoning, and one I haven't seen since high school, so your last sentence is quite apt.

Lumigraphics wrote:

I laugh at anyone who is "certified" because it means they spent a bunch of money for nothing.

I need to get certified!!!  I bet that will change everything!!

slave to the lens wrote:

The " you don't agree with me because you can't understand me" is an example of circular reasoning, and one I haven't seen since high school, so your last sentence is quite apt.

If you say so.  I'm done with you.

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

The above post was the only one in this thread that got right to the point as to the reality of the situation without all the B.S.
If you don't want a image being bought by a big company for $30.00 then don't upload it to I-Stock Photo.

Lumigraphics wrote:

Yes I realize who he is. Doesn't matter, its still a whiny rant. You'd think he would be above that kind of thing.

The more I read you posts the better I like you.  There is no bull shit about you.

Lumigraphics wrote:
The REAL winner here is iStock. This is fabulous publicity.

And a real looser for photographers.

Gibson Photo Art wrote:
I wonder if this issue was brought up. That if iStock had been really aware of who was buying this image they would have tried to get more money as well. They lost out as well on this deal.

Now that Time have used an iStock image on their cover there will be many other publications who will consider it.

iStock would probably have paid Time to use the image if they had been asked to do so.

Anomalia Chin wrote:

And I do know that.  I could speak to a couple of them about this, and they would agree, in fact, some of them are agreeing with me on this topic.  They don't think the little guy should be making little bucks for his work either.

Why do you think its acceptable?

Meh, its only personal if you're offended.

Riiight, so I can say, you're 5'3 and have no shot in mainstream modeling anyways
but its only personal if you take it that way?

Personal attacks are personal attacks.

Gibson Photo Art wrote:

To John Harrington. Since you obviously read these threads. Nice job asshole. Way to make professional photographers look like whiny babies. Blaming everyone else for your shrinking business just shows how insecure you are in your abilities.

Your not serious are you? Have you actually looked at his work? There is a reason he gets paid the money he does. His images are spot on. What the man is trying to say is when you give things away that companies normally pay a premium for you devalue every ones work as a whole. And is you expect to be paid as he does lift your game to that level.

The man is capturing live action in sharp vivid color correct images. Something people here aren't accomplishing with stages posed strobe lit shots. And you can roast me all you want. I'm speaking the truth.

Hugh Alison wrote:
Now that Time have used an iStock image on their cover there will be many other publications who will consider it.

iStock would probably have paid Time to use the image if they had been asked to do so.

Umm, many, many publications, including Time, have been using stock images on their covers and in their articles for decades. Same is true for advertising and commercial projects. This is hardly new, or news.

Edit: BTW, wonder if anyone knows that historians tend to agree that most of the imagery and artwork used on the American dollar bill was initially found and derived out of an old line art book printed in Europe... kind of like one of the first/original stock image books ever printed.

Adam King wrote:

Riiight, so I can say, you're 5'3 and have no shot in mainstream modeling anyways
but its only personal if you take it that way?

Personal attacks are personal attacks.

Why on earth would i want to do mainstream modeling?  I love art. 

I couldn't care less if that was your approach.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
BREAKING NEWS guys and gals!!!!!!!

according to UPEYE/ROOTERS, Time Ink, in an effort to save more money than before has contacted a number of first grade classrooms in Calfornia and is using the students for future cover illustrations. Reportedly the next cover article about the war in Afghanistan was illustrated by little 7 year old Jesus Hernadenez of La Mesa's Lincoln Elementary.   The young man was rewarded for his cover art with a box of 24 assorted crayons.

Don't you think it's insulting to Robert Lam to compare his photo to your fake 7 year old's drawing?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I need to get certified!!!  I bet that will change everything!!

I used to be certified, but they released me anyway:)