omg - this is a sad sign of the times for creative people
 

I was just on a photographer forum, this dude is a photographer, he picked up the new issue of TIME Magazine - one of his photos is the entire cover. They licensed it from iStockPhoto.com ............ for 30 dollars. :1orglaugh

Do you have any idea what just a few years ago TIME magazine would have had to pay a stock photo agency or to hire a photographer to shoot the shot they wanted for their cover - over $10,000

30 dollars :1orglaugh

My stock photo on Istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-pho...-glass-jar.php

is on Time magazine cover.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...090427,00.html

jeez. that hurts. I'm surprised you didn't mention the time title & editting -- that just adds insult to injury with the irony. ;)

Holy fuck... no kidding!

I sympathise, we all gotta pay the mortgage (or buy a new Merc), but it's not exactly a once in a liftime shot is it?

time got ripped off...they paid $30 and there is only like mabye $10 in change in the jar ;)

no shame in that

there's no shame in having one of your photos on the cover of Time magazine but the emergence of what is called 'micro stock' is a financial blow for photographers, illustrators, artists - rather than spend thousands of dollars hiring a talented artist to design a CD cover big companies can browse micro stock agencies like iStockPhoto's website with hundreds of thousands of images and with a little Photoshop work produce a CD or book cover cover for a hundred dollars.

that is not good for the creative arts profession. it's a race to the bottom.

Hey, at least he has bragging rights now.

take that to the bank:2 cents:

I would use it as something positive and note on my website;
"featured on Time Magazine cover" or "clients Time Magazine" and use that to raise the prices a little more.

Is iStockphoto really that cheap? There's supposed to be special licenses for magazines, and I'm pretty sure they would charge more than $30 for putting it in such a huge magazine.

Hell of a thing to have on a resume

that's being discussed now - it looks like Time ripped him off, they bought a standard license which doesn't look like it covers a magazine of its size. but even the most expensive license for that photo would only run a couple hundred dollars.

I don't think there are any restrictions on where you can use the image James.

Maybe Time magazine intentionally used a stock photo as it is referring to an article on frugality.

I'm pretty sure there are. Using the image as stock for web design, and printing it in a magazine is way too different..

It is just like selling a web template to the customer for his website, and the next day he sells thousands of sites using it.

Since the pic was used on such a huge magazine, he should definitely be compensated a little more than $30.

Yes there are, you need an extended license for print. Depending on how many copies you want to make of it, the license get more expensive.

In this case the license should cost 125 credits. That's around $100 or even cheaper if they have a subscription. Dunno how much goes to Istockphoto though...

Welcome to 2008. We have seen the magazine market shrink and shrink.

ouch fuckers went cheap!

Two ways of looking at everything.

The photographer chose to sell his photos on that site. If he hadn't have done that, somebody else would have got Time's $30, and the potential boost that he can now give his business by having one of his original photos on their cover, would have been somebody else's windfall.

It's not something to cry about, Time clearly no longer want to pay $10k for a cover photo, and he now has a great opportunity to trade on this.

Up to him how much he ends up benefitting.
:2 cents:

Magazines eh?

Cue Markham


:2 cents:

People still read magazines?

A designer still got paid to make that what it is, its not just a photo on cover, perhaps it is the photographers who were being overpaid? A photo of a jar of coins is worth about $30 lol not 10k

A few years ago you wouldn't have been able to buy such a photo for $30 and would have had to hire a photographer to take it. It's a time of the signs that we are able to do things cheaper and quicker. While in this case this photographer got screwed, the truth is normally he would never have a chance to have his photo on the cover of Time, and he (hopefully) makes up the difference by selling in bulk.

You are so right about that. I am one of those people that use istock but TIME doing it for their cover? If I was the photographer I would be in tears.

Its also a jar of change.. 10k for a pic of a jar of change??

I think that he/she should use it as a positive stepping stone for his career. Even if it were free, Id be bragging on it. He now has credentials and that may yield more in the long run

Are you sure they ever paid 10k for a simple pic like that? like cybermike said, it's just a jar of coins for fucks sake... Even 10 years ago, some photography student would have shot that exclusive for $50 I'm sure...

an Indian would do it for $1.99

FTW :thumbsup

stock photography is a huge business - where do you think all the money came from? before there were reasonably priced and cheap stock photo CD collections and websites like iStockPhoto that was the way it was, you paid what the stock agencies told you it cost and it was alot, magazines and newspapers were making big money, i'm sure they didn't think twice about it, just another business expense.

You can't really blame Time for looking for a deal, and you can't blame iStock for making a sale. It really is the Photographers fault he place his images with iStock in the first place. iStock has specific guidelines on how much their images cost based on usage. These are agreed to by the photog before any sales. An image like that would cost about $500 to shoot custom. So 10% for a non-buyout is fair. Keep in mind Time is a weekly, and a news editorial at that. Their cover budget is not like Vanity Fair or something like that.

Regardless of that, no "real" photographer is going to place his images in a rock bottom stock agency like that unless he is desperate anyway. Its just not good business sense.

:2 cents:

Mutt, as a creative person I can appreciate your sentiment and the implications of the internet and changes in the business of creativity. But, even still, that is only a photo of a jar half full of change. It's not like someone would have had to hire a photographer special to create some complicated shot with an expensive human model or animal or exotic location with special props. Without the existence of the stock agency online maybe the photographer would have gotten paid a day rate or flat fee, maybe $500 or a grand to shoot a cover? A quote of ten grand seems wildly excessive for such a simple shot. I guess one has to look at it that the photographer can get some publicity from it in today's internet connected world. Plus the idea that the existence of the stock photo agency to begin with gives him another outlet to make some residual money from his content, just like the pennies the big VOD companies give adult studios to license their content per minute or per download.

Having a photo on the Time cover is awesome exposure.

I know photographers that would gladly PAY to be featured like that. A Time cover is a great selling point, the photographer should be happy about it. I would be. I'd also be using that point on my website and business card, etc.

The cheese always moves. Why should technology or the web stand still to protect photographers' graving train? Smart photographers might figure out how they can license thousands of copies of their stock photos for a modest amount each. Or, start your own iStockPhoto competitor site. Or, or or...

that really only depends on your particular definition of creative......

Is the glass half empty or half full?

Where is the adapt or die crowd? Fuck like the one guy said. He should pay them to be on their cover as it is free advertising so he can sell his skills to ... well...

Ok never mind.