| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Time pays $30 for Magazine Cover
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
 |
McCall | ID | US | Posted: 12:17 PM on 07.25.09 |
->> Best part: They were supposed to pay $125 for an unlimited license.
Ouch. |
|
Renay Johnson, Photographer
 |
San Diego | CA | | Posted: 12:21 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> He's getting shelled by the posters regarding the 30.00 he was paid for the image. |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 12:36 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> We have reached a new low. |
|
Dominick Reuter, Photographer, Assistant
|
Renay Johnson, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | | Posted: 1:13 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> Sucks that the photo credit went to istock and not the photographer. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 1:24 PM on 07.25.09 |
->> Funny how people tell him it's a good tearsheet. Tearsheets aren't worth, well, sheet.
I also like somebody's suggestion to blow it up to poster size and frame it. A poster size print and a good frame job will cost at least ten times as much as he was paid for the usage. |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 1:42 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> Jar or paycheck? Jar or paycheck? Uhmmm... I guess I'll take the jar. No, wait! Okay,paycheck. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 1:51 PM on 07.25.09 |
->> It is the new reality.
There is absolutely no way to unring this bell. No amount of lobbying, education, guilting, etc. will ever fix the simple fact that there are people who are willing to do the work for this rate and they don't really care what professional photographers think about it. There is nothing illegal about it, and there is a market for low cost, high quality photography. That market will be taken care of, one way or another.
It's really time to stop being frustrated about it and just move on. All you're doing is wasting time and energy. Concentrate on your own little world, take care of the clients you have, find new clients by doing excellent work and presenting it well, and answer the challenge to create something you can't find on a stock site.
That's how I'm trying to stay sane at least... :-) |
|
Karl Stolleis, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Santa Fe | NM | | Posted: 2:01 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> Funny thing is Time is offering reprints of the cover for 15.95. If they sell two, they have actually made a profit. |
|
Albert McCracken, Photographer
|
Lockport | NY | USA | Posted: 2:30 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> Are profession is now a hobby, editorials for newspapers and magazines have find new way too get the photo with zero cost. Damn.... |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 6:29 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> There's more change in that jar than he got paid. |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 6:30 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> Yet that's still $30 more than I've ever been paid for a Time cover. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 6:33 PM on 07.25.09 |
| ->> Anyone who thinks digital is good for the profession well this 30 dollar cover is the answer to that thought. |
|
John Strohsacker, Photographer
|
John Strohsacker, Photographer
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 9:06 PM on 07.25.09 |
->> Wow. He's so happy! Now he needs only 99 more Time covers to pay for his d300 and a lens. I think there is a word in Italian for this sort of photographer..
Barista |
|
Nik Habicht, Photographer
|
Levittown | PA | USA | Posted: 9:45 PM on 07.25.09 |
->> I was once paid $125 for a headshot that ran inside Time magazine --- and it was an outtake from an assignment ca. 1994.....
$30 for a cover image? I think I'm appreciating nursing school even more now.... |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 10:58 PM on 07.25.09 |
->> While I think the photographer got hosed, the bigger issue is these intermediaries. I understand selling this stuff cheaply for some minor use, but Istock really should do a better job getting the market rate for their photographers based on standard usage. And they should do this not only to protect their photographers, but to protect themselves. I am sure this is some kind of 50/50 split or worse. They just gave away couple thousand dollars potentially.
When you see stuff like this and match it up with Getty undercutting contracts for NBA hoops at $1 a shot, how do photographers survive? It really is ugly. |
|
David Bailey, Photographer
|
Flower Mound | TX | USA | Posted: 11:17 PM on 07.25.09 |
->> Just remember that iStock is Getty and didn't they start the $50 image revolution?
It's just disgusting! |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Ogden | UT | USA | Posted: 11:34 PM on 07.25.09 |
->> Lots of people on this board who are selling their images at that price.
The demise is happening among us. |
|
Angel Valentin, Photographer
|
RIO GRANDE | PR | Puerto Rico | Posted: 8:35 AM on 07.26.09 |
| ->> My credit union is now accepting clips as payment for the mortgage which more and more keeps getting paid later and later... |
|
Daniel Brayack, Photographer
|
Charleston | WV | USA | Posted: 9:10 AM on 07.26.09 |
| ->> I made more than that when I was 11 and had a lemonade stand.... |
|
Mike Carlson, Photographer
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 9:40 PM on 07.26.09 |
| ->> Another shrewd move by a photographer. With tear sheets like that in his portfolio he is likely to move on to many more $30 jobs. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 1:08 AM on 07.27.09 |
->> There is no one single element to blame in all of this. It's a combination of things all adding up to the death of a certain market segment.
Low-cost, high quality digital cameras actively marketed to consumers by Nikon and Canon are a factor. Powerful computers with tons of disc space that cost $500 are another. High speed Internet connections allow anyone to upload gigs of data from their homes. A network of hundreds of millions of web sites with free how-to information telling you how to shoot everything from snaps of your dog to diving pictures at the Olympics. An almost-free distribution medium with insanely powerful search capabilities that allow people to search for imagery in any medium from any location on the globe. These factors, and dozens more, are why this is going on.
Photography is fun. People like taking pictures. There are also lots of people who are out there looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Money is not the goal.
The guy mentioned in the original post is probably having the time of his life right now. Nevermind the $1,500 to $3,000 he left on the table. Given the chance he probably would have PAID $1,500 to have one of his photos on the cover of Time. For a guy who does furniture for a living, it's a big kick, and one he would have never had a chance to do if he hadn't picked up a camera and snapped a photo of a jar full of coins.
There are people who will stand in freezing cold for hours outside of a TV studio in New York just for the opportunity to wave behind a bunch of talking heads doing a news show in the morning. It's the same basic mindset.
For professionals, it's about earning the position. None of us here wants to have our photo on the cover of Time because it was the cheapest one available. We want our picture on the cover because it's good. Good enough to be on the cover, sure. But also good enough that someone is willing to part with gold for the opportunity to use it. Because in a twisted way - that's really the only way to be sure they mean it when they say it's really really good. If they are willing to trade treasure for a license, they probably mean it. And to professionals, that means a lot. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
