Author Topic: Cover of Time Magazine, Part 2 (Read 6590 times)

sharply_done · « **on:** June 07, 2008, 19:17 »

People are going to jump all over me for saying it, but I think the recent Time Magazine front cover placement may actually be worth LESS than even the small microstock royalty!

Time could have easily gone to Flickr and asked just about anyone there for permission to use one of their baby photos (as you can imagine there are tons of them). Very few would have turned them down. From some of the 'I'm stoked' comments I've read on this and other forums, I'm certain there are people here too that would have given them the image for free.

So ... if an internationally-recognized and well-respected publication (Time and National Geographic are the only ones that come to mind) approached you to use one of your images on their cover in exchange only for a photo credit, would you accept?

madelaide · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2008, 19:46 »

I voted yes, but assuming a few things, such as being credited as you said (which was not the case in the recent TIME thread), not giving it as exclusive and not allowing other uses.

I might be more lenient to NGM than TIME, I must say. The cover of NGM - WOW!!!!

Regards,
Adelaide

cdwheatley · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2008, 19:51 »

As others have mentioned, we all signed up for microstock and hopefully knew what we were getting into. The image only has this great value because Time magazine used it. Tomorrow maybe some guy with a startup diaper website will use the image, who knows? My point is, if the image is selling for macro prices your not going to get the diaper sale.
I see my images in magazines all the time, so what. I still get my money's worth when all the other people that are not going to publish it, buy the image. If your stuff is that valuable to you, then sell at macro prices, then you can feel satisfied when the big dollar sale rolls in. Then the image will go back on the shelf for another 6 months waiting for the next guy who is willing to part with a thousand bucks for your image.

I can't go anywhere without seeing one of Yuri's pics somewhere. I wonder if he gets all worked up everytime he see's one of his images in print? I think its a big honor to have your image on the cover of Time Magazine, would happily donate one for the cover anytime. Money isn't everything.

It just seems to me micro/macro are going in 2 different directions. Time will tell.

rjmiz · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2008, 20:01 »

I voted YES. It would be a total novelty me, and I could brag about it it all over these forums.
I would place ads in the local newspapers telling people it was my image on time magazine.

I would go down to all the local news stands and set up a table and chair, and then offer to personally sign
every copy that was bought. (that is if there were any left after I bought as many as I could).

But....and this is a BIG "But"....that would be the very last time. The mere thought of a national publication
making millions maybe billions of dollars buying my image for less than $5 and me getting just half of that would trouble me.

I realize it legitimate and totally legal but it would initially stir a up resentment. Then I would tell myself to grow up, ....and be fine after that.

Cranky MIZ

vphoto · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2008, 20:29 »

I voted, yes.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2008, 21:31 »

Having been a freelance photographer, and having worked in a myriad of areas in photography spanning photo-correspondence to fashion, since I graduated from NYI in the 80's, I would expand your list to the following magazines I would gladly contribute my best photo for their cover:
Life,National Geographics, GQ, Rolling Stone,New Yorker, Cosmopolitan, Playboy

Penthouse

Sports Illustrated (woman cover, not sports team)

heck, even the low calibre but high exposure National Enquirer (ugh,cough!cough!).

grp_photo · « **Reply #6 on:** June 08, 2008, 01:11 »

Free is much better than 22,22$.
I would it offer as free or for several thousands dollar but nothing inbetween.

Bateleur · « **Reply #7 on:** June 08, 2008, 02:49 »

Interesting question, but it's not one that's easy to answer with a straight 'yes' or 'no' (even though I did answer.

One of the things it could depend on is the time and effort you've put in to making a photograph. It's much easier to say yes if they're wanting a shot you snapped off by chance than if it's one you've spent a lot of time producing.

The other thing to remember is that Time is a heavily commercial operation. They publish to make money for their shareholders. As much as they can. I'm a commercial operation too (though a whole lot smaller).

How would a farmer react if Tesco (one of the big supermarket chains in UK) said, "Hey! Give us your carrots for free and ... we'll still sell them at the usual price ... but we'll give you full credit and put them on the front row of the vegetable stand, so everyone will see them first thing."

On the other hand, what would be the reaction of a little guy down the street, who grows carrots in his back garden?

I voted 'no'

faber · « **Reply #8 on:** June 08, 2008, 03:12 »

Quote from: Bateleur on June 08, 2008, 02:49

...
...
How would a farmer react if Tesco (one of the big supermarket chains in UK) said, "Hey! Give us your carrots for free and we'll put them on the front row of the vegetable stand, so everyone will see them first thing, and give you full credit."...
....

This is what crossed my mind too.

I doubt that the promotional aspect really works in the today's world of stock photography. So if you ignore this aspect, it comes down to the question: do you want to work just for the honour or for money?

If I look to the supply chain:
...
phog -> microstock agency -> web-designer/photoshop artist -> customer
.....
from a pure business point of view (who is creating revenue/benefit), than... ..well......judge yourself.

Plus, I realize more and more how clever/smart this microstock business model is.....triggering the right psychological/ego switches in the heads of the majority of phogs.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2008, 04:05 »

I voted yes. For my first TIME cover I can give a photo for free

This news might be related to the topic:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003811332

Time director of photography MaryAnne Golon is leaving her job after just over a year as the newsweekly's top photo editor.

Microbius · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2008, 04:28 »

Has anyone got a link to that Time cover? I'm just wondering how much editing of the photo was involved, or if it was used "as is"?

grp_photo · « **Reply #11 on:** June 08, 2008, 04:33 »

Quote from: Microbius on June 08, 2008, 04:28

Has anyone got a link to that Time cover? I'm just wondering how much editing of the photo was involved, or if it was used "as is"?

It was a photoshopped cover of several elements but the face of the baby (microstockpicture) was the most dominate.
I think you can find the link at the SS-Forums.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2008, 05:49 »

This is a great question. I answered no.

For me to give the photo away for free there would need to be value created somewhere else. An example being that if I gave one photo away for a magazine cover, I could use that to improve my credibility when trying to sell photos to other magazines to use on their covers. Or, this first photo is free but they agree to buy a number of additional photos for other uses.

But, given this is microstock, I don't see how this could be used generate additional revenue and so I don't see the value in doing it. I don't think microstock buyers care if your image was used on a magazine cover.

And although the cover would be nice for bragging, I think it would also irk me that a huge company making a fortune is trying to take advantage of me. I would still probably say no.

They will get value and make money from using my image. If they really need my image, they should pay for it.

BikeTourist · « **Reply #13 on:** June 08, 2008, 06:10 »

There are over a dozen covers framed on my wall. They are all from nationally circulated, but special interest, magazines. Each one made me feel great when it was published. But, the world did not beat a path to my door and the novelty soon wore off.

In the end I was glad to get the $100 or $150 they paid.

These days, one would be lucky to get even that much for cover. So — NO — I don't need the "prestige" of giving my work away.

Pixart · « **Reply #14 on:** June 08, 2008, 12:02 »

I thought about this overnight before I answered it.

I voted Yes. If this is a photograph that I knowingly placed on the micros, I would have to be very pleased. If you look at the placement of our microstock photographs, an appearance on the cover of Time would be almost comparable to an elite athlete making it to the Olympics.

Yes, I'm guessing I would be stoked. I would email a copy to my sisters and my friends. It would realize that it would likely never happen twice.

At the same time, I am also certain that I would have a sick feeling in my stomach. The reality is - I know what I am participating in. I know what Microstock is and I need to adjust my thinking to accept both the highs and the (23 cent) lows.

Some photographers would go out and aggressively seek opportunities to get magazine covers and big deal jobs. I can't say that I would ever be one of them. So - the opportunity of my photo appearing on Time Magazine would be a once in a lifetime deal. It is also a very realistic opportunity that all of us have, isn't it?

I might find a true niche some day that I feel I excel in and am finally in a position to exploit... but until that happens - I think that I would have to be happy with the $28 cover of Time.

I would still reserve the right to be disappointed that such a large circulation pays (now) $28.

And that sick feeling in my stomach would be 10 times magnified everytime someone (and they will) asks how much I was paid by Time.

But, that's the deal with micro. I must accept it for what it is. Just please Time Magazine, give me a credit.

mantonino · « **Reply #15 on:** June 08, 2008, 13:45 »

I voted yes. If you're in this to be a "business" then you need branding, name recognition and a whole lot of things that "Cover of Time magazine" gets you into. When I started doing weddings and portraits, I offered free shoots to generate word of mouth, get me practice, etc. If you weigh the benefits of "Cover of Time" and the fact that you have in your life experience "My photo was on the cover of TIME MAGAZINE!!!" I think yes, I'd do it free. It's a great, great story to have.

Alatriste · « **Reply #16 on:** June 08, 2008, 14:26 »

Voted no.
My images cost money and a well recogniced magazine must know that better than other so I dont see a reason to give an image for free.
I can give an image for free to a friends small magazine that I know he cant pay the standard price but in case of a famous magazine? and a cover? no way

sharpshot · « **Reply #17 on:** June 08, 2008, 16:19 »

I voted NO. It is all about making money for me. Hopefully they will find my photos on alamy

vonkara · « **Reply #18 on:** June 08, 2008, 17:25 »

I would not, but If they were taking another pics just because I would not, then a credit worth more than nothing I guess?

Bateleur · « **Reply #19 on:** June 09, 2008, 04:14 »

Quote from: mantonino on June 08, 2008, 13:45

I voted yes. If you're in this to be a "business" then you need branding, name recognition and a whole lot of things that "Cover of Time magazine" gets you into.

I think you're wrong there - certainly as far as stock photography goes. Buyers don't care who took the image. They don't search by name but by subject.

If you're doing wedding photography or portraiture it may possibly help. But, again, I'm not sure how much.

I mean ... if you're looking for a good car mechanic and some guy says to you, "Hey, I'm a great mechanic. I won awards for servicing tractors." what would you think?

I'd probably think ... Yeah, great. But what will you do to my car?

madelaide · « **Reply #20 on:** June 09, 2008, 06:02 »

I believe one aspect to consider is how established the photographer is. If you never had such exposure (as I never had), this could be a good opportunity, and you would save that in your portfolio of published works. Now, if you are an established photographer with perhaps a fixed client base, then it would be another thing and you would not have much to gain.

In my case, I would show everyone my image was in the cover of NGM. I would buy copies of it in all languages I could.

Regards,
Adelaide

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Would you allow free use of your images on the cover of a high-caliber magazine? (i.e. Time or National Geographic)

Author Topic: Cover of Time Magazine, Part 2 (Read 6590 times)

sharply_done

madelaide

cdwheatley

rjmiz

vphoto

etudiante_rapide

grp_photo

Bateleur

faber

Konstantin Sutyagin

Microbius

grp_photo

PaulieWalnuts

BikeTourist

Pixart

mantonino

Alatriste

sharpshot

vonkara

Bateleur

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors