Author Topic: My shot used in new Bruce Willis movie art "Looper" (Read 9198 times)

Phadrea · « **on:** December 14, 2012, 06:42 »

This is a first for me. I am with SS, IS, Dreamstime and Pond5. I have just discovered my image used in this movie poster

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/still/looper-poster02.jpg

It's amazing and made my weekend BUT I want to make sure it's been bought and not stolen. Can anyone advise how I can trace this ? I haven't received any amazing sums for it's use yet LOL

This is my image.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-91733150/stock-photo-abandoned-industrial-warehouse-interior-with-old-iron-door.html

stocker2011 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2012, 06:48 »

Congrats!

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** December 14, 2012, 06:54 »

congrats. Make sure you pick up a movie poster!

Not sure you can trace the use though..

Phadrea · « **Reply #3 on:** December 14, 2012, 06:58 »

Thanks

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

Reef · « **Reply #4 on:** December 14, 2012, 07:02 »

Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 06:58

Thanks

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

Only if you are Exclusive with iStockphoto

Looks good!

JPSDK · « **Reply #5 on:** December 14, 2012, 07:04 »

you can be proud, it is a very good image!

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** December 14, 2012, 07:05 »

Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 06:58

Thanks

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

Not any more than your $0.38 from Shutterstock no. Unless they needed to buy an extended license that is, then you should see $28

Reef · « **Reply #7 on:** December 14, 2012, 07:09 »

Quote from: leaf on December 14, 2012, 07:05

Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 06:58
Thanks

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

Not any more than your $0.38 from Shutterstock no. Unless they needed to buy an extended license that is, then you should see $28

It almost breaks your heart when you think of the vast sums of money spent on producing films.

Phadrea · « **Reply #8 on:** December 14, 2012, 07:11 »

Oh well, the fact that they used it makes me very happy. Looks like it could be a cult film too. It's been a year of nice surprises for me. I have one of my music tracks A-listed for use in the new Raging Bull 2 movie (renamed The Bronx Bull) If that comes off I will be popping champagne but I feel this poster also warrants a cork being popped.

heywoody · « **Reply #9 on:** December 14, 2012, 07:19 »

That IS a nice find - interesting what they did with it also, congrats.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #10 on:** December 14, 2012, 09:12 »

Sweet!

Congrats.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 14, 2012, 09:20 »

all the whining about low sales and it turns out an amazing picture in action, congratulations!

rubyroo · « **Reply #12 on:** December 14, 2012, 09:23 »

Great result! Well done!

Phadrea · « **Reply #13 on:** December 14, 2012, 10:30 »

Quite surprised they took this from a Jpeg and didn't want to use it from the RAW file for a movie poster.

click_click · « **Reply #14 on:** December 14, 2012, 12:16 »

Congrats - Hollywood movie poster, nice!

fotografer · « **Reply #15 on:** December 14, 2012, 12:27 »

Very nice use. Congrats

Dantheman · « **Reply #16 on:** December 14, 2012, 12:47 »

Congrats.....it looks really cool in that poster

ARTPUPPY · « **Reply #17 on:** December 14, 2012, 13:29 »

Nice feather in your cap - congrats! Use it in your blog, website or whatever... interesting to see what can be done with your images in production work.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #18 on:** December 14, 2012, 13:37 »

I really like what they did with it. Makes you wonder if you could sell some edited versions of the original too...

Congrats

gostwyck · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2012, 13:52 »

Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 10:30

Quite surprised they took this from a Jpeg and didn't want to use it from the RAW file for a movie poster.

It's plenty big enough as it is. Posters are intended to be viewed from a distance, I'm sure it wouldn't look so good from 30cm away.

It's a great image though! Well done for spotting it's stock potential.

Oldhand · « **Reply #20 on:** December 14, 2012, 14:22 »

Well done, great film as well! Oldhand

ffNixx · « **Reply #21 on:** December 14, 2012, 14:59 »

Congratulations on "winning the business", and commiserations on a royalty that's way too low for the usage. But that's the game we're in.

What truly surprises me, is why on earth they opted to use a stock image in this poster. They paid for the central object in the image to be created, with a little more expense, the whole could have been done. Or they could have sourced an RM image on an exclusive basis.

There's nothing stopping anyone using the stock photo in another dark, blue toned composite. What recourse would that leave the film-makers? It's practically impossible to protect copyright of an image if it is a derivative of another. "Penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.

Megastock · « **Reply #22 on:** December 14, 2012, 15:46 »

Quote from: leaf on December 14, 2012, 07:05

Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 06:58
Thanks

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

Not any more than your $0.38 from Shutterstock no. Unless they needed to buy an extended license that is, then you should see $28

Shouldn't they need to buy an EL if they sell the poster? From SS Standard terms:

"Standard -- print run limited to 250,000. Posters must combine words with the Images and must be used to promote the sale of products other than the posters, etc., containing the Images"

And the EL:

"Incorporated in merchandise for resale or distribution, including without limitation, clothing, artwork, magnets, posters, calendars, mugs and mousepads"

Seems to me as a poster for a movie they can go with a Standard License, but if they sell the posters they need an EL. Bottom line I'm surprised that for a movie this large they wouldn't just go for ELs to cover themselves later...

In any case, fun to find that one!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 14, 2012, 15:50 »

Quote from: Megastock on December 14, 2012, 15:46

Quote from: leaf on December 14, 2012, 07:05
Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 06:58
Thanks

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

Not any more than your $0.38 from Shutterstock no. Unless they needed to buy an extended license that is, then you should see $28

Shouldn't they need to buy an EL if they sell the poster? From SS Standard terms:

"Standard -- print run limited to 250,000. Posters must combine words with the Images and must be used to promote the sale of products other than the posters, etc., containing the Images"

And the EL:

"Incorporated in merchandise for resale or distribution, including without limitation, clothing, artwork, magnets, posters, calendars, mugs and mousepads"

Seems to me as a poster for a movie they can go with a Standard License, but if they sell the posters they need an EL. Bottom line I'm surprised that for a movie this large they wouldn't just go for ELs to cover themselves later...

In any case, fun to find that one!

and make them pay you a little more than 28$, just a little

ouchie · « **Reply #24 on:** December 15, 2012, 23:59 »

38 cents

28 bucks

What the heck are we doing (have we done) to ourselves!

I dont know whats worse the money or the fact that we go around bragging about it?!?!?

cidepix · « **Reply #25 on:** December 16, 2012, 00:23 »

Quote from: ouchie on December 15, 2012, 23:59

38 cents

28 bucks

What the heck are we doing (have we done) to ourselves!

I dont know whats worse the money or the fact that we go around bragging about it?!?!?

well I see your point but let's say the OP was from a third world country.. What are the chances for him to shoot images for hollywood without microstock? Yeap! no chances at all..

if microstock didn't exist, hollywood would then turn to a bunch of exclusive photographers who would rake in millions of dollars while the OP got nothing for his photography talents.. at least the guy has a nice piece for his portfolio and could use it to advertise his photography business..

after all, reputation is what makes money if you can advertise it the right way..

Elenathewise · « **Reply #26 on:** December 16, 2012, 00:30 »

Quote from: ouchie on December 15, 2012, 23:59

38 cents

28 bucks

What the heck are we doing (have we done) to ourselves!

I dont know whats worse the money or the fact that we go around bragging about it?!?!?

There is nothing bad about it. It didn't take a lot of money for the OP to produce this image - why should the movie company pay a lot of money to use it? Just because they have the money? That's a strange logic - should I never buy stuff on sale just because I can afford to pay full price? The reality of today's image market is that stock images are cheap, and there are a lot of them to choose from. The reality is also that a lot more people are buying images than before, that's why a photographer still can make a living selling images at low prices.
It is interesting that they didn't care to go for RM, I guess the odds of that same image being used in the same industry are pretty slim.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #27 on:** December 16, 2012, 00:34 »

Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 07:11

Oh well, the fact that they used it makes me very happy. Looks like it could be a cult film too. It's been a year of nice surprises for me. I have one of my music tracks A-listed for use in the new Raging Bull 2 movie (renamed The Bronx Bull) If that comes off I will be popping champagne but I feel this poster also warrants a cork being popped.

Congrats to you, and that's an awesome thing to put in your "where used" portfolio:)

ouchie · « **Reply #28 on:** December 16, 2012, 02:52 »

Yea.....i know, but it still hurts to see this.

I got one of mine in a book.
I was so excited, yippie my pic is in a book.
i purchased the book for 19.99.
I assumed it was a extended lic.
then i found out it was not and the pic was actually purchased from SS......for a grand total of 25 cents!

Well, congrats to the op, sorry for raining on your parade with my pessisisim. But it just does not do it for me, it actually embarases me to tell the above story.

Microbius · « **Reply #29 on:** December 16, 2012, 04:23 »

Well done, very cool and super high profile use of a great image! Congratulations!!!

OM · « **Reply #30 on:** December 16, 2012, 06:48 »

Congrats. Great shot and looks really good in the poster. I suspect that even had you received an EL rate for the SS sale, the fee paid to the graphic artist in converting shot to poster would have made the SS price paid pale into insignificance. Must say that I had to look twice to compare both renditions to see whether the phone number on the poster wasn't there in your original.

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** December 16, 2012, 07:16 »

Quote from: Megastock on December 14, 2012, 15:46

Quote from: leaf on December 14, 2012, 07:05
Quote from: Herg on December 14, 2012, 06:58
Thanks

I take it I won't get any kind of royalties from it ? Not really that bothered as it certainly adds weight to my portfolio.

Not any more than your $0.38 from Shutterstock no. Unless they needed to buy an extended license that is, then you should see $28

Shouldn't they need to buy an EL if they sell the poster? From SS Standard terms:

"Standard -- print run limited to 250,000. Posters must combine words with the Images and must be used to promote the sale of products other than the posters, etc., containing the Images"

And the EL:

"Incorporated in merchandise for resale or distribution, including without limitation, clothing, artwork, magnets, posters, calendars, mugs and mousepads"

Seems to me as a poster for a movie they can go with a Standard License, but if they sell the posters they need an EL. Bottom line I'm surprised that for a movie this large they wouldn't just go for ELs to cover themselves later...

In any case, fun to find that one!

You'd need to know which agency they'd bought it from to be able to chase it up. iStock has similar conditions and would need an EL for items for sale; I don't know about P5.

cathyslife · « **Reply #32 on:** December 16, 2012, 07:30 »

Congrats!

grafix04 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 16, 2012, 07:35 »

Awesome, congrats.

I like what they've done to it. What was the text that they've scrubbed out before the word "FLOOR" where they've added the number?

Phadrea · « **Reply #34 on:** December 17, 2012, 02:41 »

I think it was "first" floor, you can see it on the original. I have still to find out who sold this for me. I have looked on SS for EL and this image doesn't come up. The phone number on the door is added as it's some code in the film.

It does get me a bit that posters of this image are being sold everywhere. I might sell prints of the original to the people who are into this film on Ebay as I do have a business account

jonbull · « **Reply #35 on:** December 17, 2012, 07:33 »

multibillion production paid from 8 cent to 28 dollar for their billboard...that's a sad story and why microstock is a lose game for everybody apart the owner of ss and hobbist.
last year i sold a asimilar image for a compo for hugho boss, a tiff, for a worldwide campaign, a lot of money...i was lucky they didnt looked through ss or is for similar images at 28 dollar. in alamy i sold last photo for 600 dollar.
good catch and i'm happy the photog is happy, but 28 cents....luckily microstock will be a good remind one day and well go back to serious royalty scheme.

gostwyck · « **Reply #36 on:** December 17, 2012, 07:42 »

Quote from: jonbull on December 17, 2012, 07:33

multibillion production paid from 8 cent to 28 dollar for their billboard...that's a sad story and why microstock is a lose game for everybody apart the owner of ss and hobbist.
last year i sold a asimilar image for a compo for hugho boss, a tiff, for a worldwide campaign, a lot of money...i was lucky they didnt looked through ss or is for similar images at 28 dollar. in alamy i sold last photo for 600 dollar.
good catch and i'm happy the photog is happy, but 28 cents....luckily microstock will be a good remind one day and well go back to serious royalty scheme.

^^^ Oh __ hello again! Looks like someone's just re-registered under a brand new moniker for our benefit.

jonbull · « **Reply #37 on:** December 17, 2012, 07:53 »

im first time here. i just said the untold truth. microstock was nice, and is nice for penny, some 30 60 photog earn nice money, the rest is a bunch of hobbist who earn money to pay for lens. this at the end will destroy the market. every signals point to this. and im a microstock user, i earn some good money, but i don't thinkl microstock is a good option right now.

lisafx · « **Reply #38 on:** December 17, 2012, 13:19 »

How exciting! Great image! Looks like it will be a really good movie too. Love JGL and Emily Blunt.

Poncke · « **Reply #39 on:** December 17, 2012, 13:22 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 17, 2012, 13:19

How exciting! Great image! Looks like it will be a really good movie too. Love JGL and Emily Blunt.

Great story, nice pace, but halfway through it just loses momentum and is kind of boring

Oldhand · « **Reply #40 on:** December 17, 2012, 13:24 »

Held my attention - a lot better than the usual run of the mill movies. Worth a viewing

EmberMike · « **Reply #41 on:** December 17, 2012, 13:31 »

Quote from: ouchie on December 15, 2012, 23:59

38 cents

28 bucks

What the heck are we doing (have we done) to ourselves!

I dont know whats worse the money or the fact that we go around bragging about it?!?!?

We all know the deal getting into this. It's about lots of small sales, not a few big sales. If you'd rather have the fewer big sales, go for it. Good luck finding those, though.

lisafx · « **Reply #42 on:** December 17, 2012, 13:37 »

Quote from: Poncke on December 17, 2012, 13:22

Quote from: lisafx on December 17, 2012, 13:19
How exciting! Great image! Looks like it will be a really good movie too. Love JGL and Emily Blunt.
Great story, nice pace, but halfway through it just loses momentum and is kind of boring

Too bad. Thanks for letting me know. I'll wait for netflix then

leaf · « **Reply #43 on:** December 17, 2012, 13:53 »

Quote from: EmberMike on December 17, 2012, 13:31

Quote from: ouchie on December 15, 2012, 23:59
38 cents

28 bucks

What the heck are we doing (have we done) to ourselves!

I dont know whats worse the money or the fact that we go around bragging about it?!?!?

We all know the deal getting into this. It's about lots of small sales, not a few big sales. If you'd rather have the fewer big sales, go for it. Good luck finding those, though.

Exactly. If the poster designer is happy with an image everyone else can use then he doesn't need to pay any big fees. That's the whole concept behind RF

loop · « **Reply #44 on:** December 17, 2012, 13:57 »

Congrats.

If we put images on sale for 28 cents... we shouldn't regret these images being bougth for this price.

btw... "Looper", I like the title!

Phadrea · « **Reply #45 on:** December 17, 2012, 14:02 »

I hear the violence is a way over the top. Not my kind of thing. Shame they have to spoil it with that.

Simplyphotos · « **Reply #46 on:** December 17, 2012, 20:23 »

Well here's my idea... send to the Bruce Willis and explain how excited you are his movie is chose one of your photos to use for their poster and see if he will send you a signed poster. Then you can take and sell the poster to pawn stars on TV and maybe make some money!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: My shot used in new Bruce Willis movie art "Looper" (Read 9198 times)

rubyroo

Microbius

grafix04

lisafx

Poncke

EmberMike

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors