Toronto Photography Meetup Group

30 bucks apparently

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa ... 730&page=1


LMAO, that's what happens when an over-zealous amateur deals with big corporations.

I find the cover photo extremely ironic that he got "nickled and dimed" for the cover fees

Great for the resume though!

Except that at some point you need to move past building the resume and start making money. A major magazine cover is supposed to be a money maker, not a portfolio builder.

My bro-in-law sold a couple of pics to an advertising company in Austria for Aididas eyewear. They found the pics on flickr and contacted him! He made $350USD per pic. Not too shabby.

They got a deal because Masterfile etc sells images for $2500+ depending on what medium it will be used and how long a contract term is for.

No, not too shabby.

Downright pathetic, that's all.

Commercial use for $350 They didn't get a deal, they basically "stole" the photos and paid a token 700 bucks

Christ, soon enough people will be PAYING companies to have their photos used on campaigns and covers

Go ask Guy (assuming he's your instructor for fashion @ GBC) what he thinks of this

I think it's nothing to wonder about, as far as I understand it was submitted to stock agency, wasn't it?

Not a real stock agency, it was a microstock agency where anyone can submit images and be paid as low as $0.01 for an image and people wonder why photographers can't make a decent buck.

You have got the sellouts who are only interested in giving their work away because it's going in a "magazine".

It's the same when I am shooting at the race track, how can I compete with free? The worst part about it is people seem happy with sh^t quality because they got a free picture of their car no matter how bad.

Rant over...

Ouch!

It's cool on the resume and an experience i'm sure the person learned from.

You'd think Time would at least credit the person and not IStock..kind of a slap in the face

Get over it and create unique product, only that way you can compete. Market demand is much lower than its supply, you can't force others not to submit to stock, in fact you have to look into yourself and evolve/improve, not blame others

Time will credit whomever they are contractually obligated to credit. That's probably iStock.

$30 for a Time cover sucks. But it's interesting that Time would even consider using a stock shot for a cover. That's _very_ unusual for a magazine of Time's stature.

ad revenue for magazines are way down... grab any major publication from the last 6 months and compare its size to the same magazine a year earlier... it's probably 1/3 to 1/2 the thickness...

not surprising that even a magazine of TIME's stature is looking to save money... a non-stock cover photo might cost TIME ten's of thousands of dollars...

on the other hand, why should they pay ten thousands for a picture that they can find for $30, this smells like those designer clothes when you pay for brand name, not object itself (like you pay for photographer's name)

Well in his defence, the person who contacted him may have mislead him to think that it was a small agency. Actually he did consult with Guy on this. Rookie mistake, perhaps but what is the price to pay to have Adidas as a tear sheet on your starting portfolio?

The tearsheet is worth nothing really, if you can't land another job out of it. I doubt ADs weigh that highly, other than the fact that you've had a business dealing with clients.

Scott: How do you compete with free? You don't The guys who want their shit for free at the track shoudln't even be on your radar to begin with.

he's lucky he got $30.... I got a photo request from ESPN for their website over an amateur boxing match I shot - and they wanted the photos for free. I refused, and they just approached another photographer that was there, and they gave images for free. Shame on them.

Rather fitting, considering the article was on frugality..


I met someone while traveling who was selling microstock online as he traveled. He made about $700US a month - and his stuff was really nothing special.

My assistant was at Watkins Glen recently for the Indy race when Justin Wilson made his historic win for Dale Coyne (who had been trying for the past 50 bazillion starts to place 1st). She snapped a great photo of Wilson on the podium with Coyne looking on like a proud father. ESPN wanted to run the photo for their broadcast, and they pulled a huge guilt trip if she didn't give it up for free (which she did eventually). They ran the photo and apparently credited her in a font so tiny you could barely read it even in HD.

The thing is, like you say, if you won't give 'em an image for free, they'll just move on to the next photographer until someone does. And if they don't get the photo they need, it probably isn't a big loss for them. They know there are enough amateurs out there who are more than willing to give away their photos for the thrill of being published or broadcast.

That's what happens when you submit your photos to a royalty-free microstock agency. The whole point is a flat fee regardless of the scope of usage. I went to firstlight.ca to see what their rights-managed fee calculator said. For a single, full-cover insertion into a magazine with a circulation of 3 million copies, a stock image will cost $770.

Now for a cover shot like this, I agree it makes very little sense to commission a new work. We're not talking about Annie Leibovitz shooting a cover and spread for "Vanity Fair"... this is just a fairly generic photo of a coin jar, after all.

you going to pay your bills and feed your family with that? All I am saying is charge anything but don't give your work away for free.



I try but every once and a while you get a guy who say's that other guy did it for nothing, and once I stop laugh I tell him no and you wouldn't let anyone drive your car for free.

Problem is when people start getting things cheap or free they come to expect it from the rest of the industry.

Strangely enough, I've stopped worrying about that crap when it comes to racers.

All the club guys want it for free, well if they want free, just go bug Vic. Pretty sure he'd be happy to give it away for free.

Don't blame ESPN for that, blame your assistant.

She should've stood her ground. If the photo is that good? Show me, as a viewer how good you think it is, by parting with your gold.

my thoughts exactly

Also.. I wouldn't say it took a whole lot of talent or effort to take that shot