| 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, Inc. new licensing agreement; Includes SI!!
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
 |
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 2:43 PM on 05.26.10 |
->> "Time Inc., the biggest publisher of magazines in the world, recently made an agreement with the AP, Reuters and Getty Images to license any and all non-exclusive images at a flat rate of $50, regardless of size or placement."
Read all about it: http://tinyurl.com/35mvunm |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 3:43 PM on 05.26.10 |
| ->> Interesting to see what kind of uproar from photographers if any. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 4:28 PM on 05.26.10 |
| ->> Do not quit your staff jobs. |
|
Thomas Boyd, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 11:33 PM on 05.26.10 |
| ->> There appears to be some question if this is true or not. Does anyone have any first hand knowledge of this agreement? |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 7:53 AM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> It might be worth keeping an eye on Getty's SEC filings (via the SEC's online EDGAR system) to see if they mention the agreement. |
|
Kirk Sides, Photographer
|
League City (Houston/Galv | TX | USA | Posted: 11:54 AM on 05.27.10 |
->> I am sorry for my ignorance but what does that mean exactly? Why would Time license images? Is that what they pay for images from those sources?
Thanks
Kirk |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:24 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> It's just a way of saying what they pay to use the image. |
|
John Strohsacker, Photographer
|
Rick Rickman, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 05.27.10 |
->> There is already discussions about this new policy going on in various places. It is true that TIME Inc is trying to make this policy the norm. Is this good for photographers in any way? Absolutely Not !!!!!!!
There have been some photographic agencies who have negotiated a temporary rate that is better with better language which is more beneficial to photogarphers so it is possible to do that.
However, It's not surprising that Getty and AP would just sign the agreement. Has AP or Getty ever really been interested in the well being of the industry? I'll leave that up to your assessment.
This is another really bad deal and if it sets precedent, it will further degrade the value of photography for everyone. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 1:49 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> There's no question that this impacts the entire industry, but if I'm reading this right, SI can now run a front page or Leading Off double-truck for $50 from AP, Getty or Reuters. Not good. Can you guess where most of those placements are going to come from in the future if this is accurate? "...regardless of SIZE or PLACEMENT". |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 1:58 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> I was making a sort of living freelancing sports up to the year 2000 in NYC. I am no longer there and am glad as I cannot imagine being able to make a living freelancing sports anymore. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:22 PM on 05.27.10 |
| ->> Imagine the THRILL of having a photo on the cover of SI or Time! With a paycheck like that you could fill the gas tank of an average sized car :) |
|
Aleksi Lepisto, Photographer
|
Sacramento | CA | United States | Posted: 6:48 AM on 05.28.10 |
->> I'm going to laugh when the rates get so low not even the amateurs can justify spending the money to shoot.
The cameras and lenses will go up in price because there will be less people buying the pro stuff - once they all run out of work.
So then we'll be left with a bunch of publications scrambling for good shooters, a bunch of broke ex-pros, and a ton of amateurs who can't afford upgrades.
Or, is that a jaded, unrealistic outcome? |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 10:15 PM on 05.28.10 |
| ->> This is as depressing as the mortgage meltdown, and I have the good fortune to be involved in both industries. Just trying to make a buck these days is so hard and so depressing. I have to confess the thought of selling all my gear and walking away has crossed my mind more than once lately. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 10:33 PM on 05.28.10 |
->> I'm going to laugh when the rates get so low not even the amateurs can justify spending the money to shoot.
That will never happen. Amateur math says a free sidelines pass is like getting a free $100 ticket to the game - only better. So by shooting for nothing they see it as actually $100 in the black.
Dave |
|
Kevin Seale, Photographer
|
Crawfordsville | IN | United States | Posted: 11:41 PM on 05.28.10 |
->> "The cameras and lenses will go up in price because there will be less people buying the pro stuff"
You forget that many of the amateurs have well paying day jobs so the cost of the gear is really not a consideration to them nor is profitability. However, a double truck or cover in SI is priceless. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 05.29.10 |
->> Aleksi- You have the law of supply and demand backwards. Prices will drop because there will be a huge surplus with no demand.
Michael- You're actually incorrect. You can't even get a full tank of gas from a cover because your cut is 50% for editorial use. That means you get $25. Parking at an NFL game costs you $20-$50 depending on the stadium plus whatever gas you spent to drive to the game. If you live 25 miles away that's about 2 gallons there and back in traffic so you break even if you get a COVER.
I think with this news, I'm cutting my losses and will keep going the portrait route. The glory days are over and soon the dark days will be over too. |
|
Manuello Paganelli, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 06.01.10 |
->> With any contract or magazines all you need to do is make sure that your work in no license by xyz magazine. You set your own pace. For gods sake is your own damn work and you own the ©.
Make it clear with their photo dept or their licensing dept.
IF any potential clients call them with interest on any of your photo work then the client MUST contact your studio directly for any usage. IF you action photo is a powerful one or was a feature story or an exclusive portrait then you can set your prices e.g 1/4 $450, 1/2 $600, Full page $1,000, double spread $1,500 cover $3K for a one time English print usage. These are some of the numbers I had used in the past and depending the image and the client you can get even more. This is why you are a freelancer to make money for you and for your future and your kids.
BUt you gotta be clear with your client, magazine you shot for, that NONE of your images will be send or license to a 3rd party without consulting with you/studio first. Always keep a paper trail and set your own prices.
More 2 Come
www.ManuelloPaganelli.com |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 2:55 PM on 06.01.10 |
->> Manuello- I think you're reading it backwards... The deal in place allows Time Inc. publications to license FROM AP/Getty/Reuters any photo for $50 regardless of size/placement.
The rest of what you wrote is correct to prevent the opposite flow though. |
|
Tony Leon, Photographer
|
Whittier | CA | United States | Posted: 3:11 PM on 06.01.10 |
->> After reading the story, and everyone's comments on the thread, I think that Manuello has it partially correct.
From the article,
"Time Inc., the biggest publisher of magazines in the world, recently made an agreement with the AP, Reuters and Getty Images to license any and all non-exclusive images at a flat rate of $50, regardless of size or placement."
With the key phrase there being "Non-exclusive" images. That means that all stock images, that anyone submits from freelance shooting for AP, Getty or Reuters is fair game for this deal. As I recall, and I could be wrong, if you shoot for Getty, AP or Reuters, they own the copyright, and they pay an assignment fee. They own the rights.
But anything you shoot on your own on assignment for a Time Inc, published magazine is yours to charge at rates you see fit. Of course you have to land that assignment first.
Now i'm just curious, for those of us who have shot for the AP, Getty or Reuters on a freelance assignment basis, would we be classified as Spec Shooters? You may get paid on assignment, but all photos that go out, are part of this agreement, so you MAY earn a 50% commission, IF you earn anything at all depending on who keeps those rights, AP, Getty or Reuters, get to keep the $50 bucks, .
With the rates so low at $50.00, what is the difference between the USPresswire shooters and a freelancing Getty, AP or Reuters shooter?
I know I may be opening a whole different can of worms here, but it's just in the interest of keeping the dialogue going. |
|
Manuello Paganelli, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 3:40 PM on 06.01.10 |
->> Thomas thanks for pointing that out.
Still ALL of you out there can have a clause with ANY CLIENT where your images cant be sold/traded/license to any other 3rd party without your written consent.
Folks that is where the power of owning your © comes handy. That is why signing BAD contracts only will buried you deeper. Remember always that if you think little you get little or nothing at all.
Your images should be making $$$, FIRST for you instead of the other way around. NO images ZERO $$ and nobody to license them too.
So be totally careful when signing deals and saying yes to bad negotiating.
Sadly in the photo industry your only friends are your mom, your dog and your working cameras.
Have it all in writing and make sure that is all sweet to your eyes. Protect yourself. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 5:12 PM on 06.01.10 |
->> "With the rates so low at $50.00, what is the difference between the USPresswire shooters and a freelancing Getty, AP or Reuters shooter?"
As far as residual sales on syndicated images, Some would say Absolutely Nothing. I do not know the inner workings of what any of the aforementioned are paid, but in just conversations with other photographers the consensus runs from some photographers receive nothing to at least others get a check, even if it is pennies on the dollar.
Either way it all sucks for everyone. Many of the other smaller agencies and wires have stuck to their guns and are holding the line but with all the "BIG" agencies signing, that line is eroding like beach sand as the tide pulls out. |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer, Assistant
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 6:04 PM on 06.01.10 |
->> I've had many smarter and better photographers than I, tell me more than once, there is NO MONEY IN SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHY.
It bears repeating. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|