Author Topic: Cover ot TIME MAGAZINE (Read 19409 times)

faber · « **on:** June 05, 2008, 05:24 »

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38865

That's sure great for everybody who was involved.

On the other hand, I begin to understand why macrostock pro-photographers are so angry about the microstock business. Mixed emotions here....

epixx · « **Reply #1 on:** June 05, 2008, 05:51 »

Quote from: faber on June 05, 2008, 05:24

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38865

That's sure great for everybody who was involved.

On the other hand, I begin to understand why macrostock pro-photographers are so angry about the microstock business. Mixed emotions here....

It's a combination of two photos. The photographer of the face didn't even get a credit. He probably got an EL. I'm sure the Photoshop artist got a whole lot more. They don't work for pennies.

faber · « **Reply #2 on:** June 05, 2008, 06:02 »

I just browsed though the thread at shutterstock....and I only found one post that I completely agree with -> from epixx (page 4):

.......Am I the only one who see a dark side here? You get to the front cover of TIME, you are not credited and you're paid $28............

No big reaction of the other phogs, but a lot of "hurray, microstock rocks..."

There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well.

I began to upload to alamy last month so maybe this changed my point of view compared to what I thought when I started doing microstock in March 2007.......

grp_photo · « **Reply #3 on:** June 05, 2008, 06:10 »

He got exactly 22,22$ for it (Nice Schnapszahl for german speakers). So nobody can complain he got only a few cents for it

sharpshot · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2008, 06:20 »

What would they pay for that photo from a traditional agency? I would of thought a few thousand dollars. Nice to have that on the CV though.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2008, 06:37 »

We've asked in the past for the regular license to be written to be more restrictive. It's too bad this kind of usage is so "affordable".

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2008, 06:37 »

Yeech. Yeah nice tearsheet but the excitement would wear off quickly seeing the earnings.

This is one reason why my people shots and other stuff that is unique or difficult to capture will be going to RM.

j2k · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2008, 07:55 »

At the very least the license should require a full credit. And while it is a good tearsheet and it could be very beneficial for the photographer's portfolio, 20-odd bucks is really lousy.

but really I'd live with the payout, the lack of credit would drive me nuts

timburton · « **Reply #8 on:** June 05, 2008, 09:45 »

Wow you guys moan a lot... He didnt just get 20 dollars for it- he sold it probably hundreds of times. Time only pays a few bucks for this because that's what images are worth now! Nothing wrong with that. I certainly enjoy my massive payslips. We all obviously think it's worth it or we wouldnt keep doing it.

grp_photo · « **Reply #9 on:** June 05, 2008, 09:57 »

Yes you are right Tim it's his second best seller at IS with whoopy 12 downloads

Maybe it's better you start to make your third Batman-movie instead of posting nonsense

4seasons · « **Reply #10 on:** June 05, 2008, 10:15 »

Quote from: faber on June 05, 2008, 06:02

.......Am I the only one who see a dark side here? You get to the front cover of TIME, you are not credited and you're paid $28............

No big reaction of the other phogs, but a lot of "hurray, microstock rocks..."

There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well.

I began to upload to alamy last month so maybe this changed my point of view compared to what I thought when I started doing microstock in March 2007.......

Same thoughts here...

4seasons · « **Reply #11 on:** June 05, 2008, 10:16 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 05, 2008, 06:37

Yeech. Yeah nice tearsheet but the excitement would wear off quickly seeing the earnings.

This is one reason why my people shots and other stuff that is unique or difficult to capture will be going to RM.

right.

helix7 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 05, 2008, 13:42 »

Quote from: faber on June 05, 2008, 06:02

...There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well...

Betsy Reid? Is that you?

This is microstock. We all know quite well when we sign on with a company that our images will be bought by a wide variety of people and companies for an equally wide array of uses. If it leaves a bitter taste to see a microstock image in the cover of Time, maybe this isn't the right place for you to sell images.

grp_photo · « **Reply #13 on:** June 05, 2008, 14:07 »

Actually Helix nobody really complained! And there is no reason a usage like this could be higher priced and still selling normal usage for 1 dollar.
The Time could easily afford a higher price they charge six digit sums for an small ad in their magazine.
This is microstock and it can remain like that but some usages could be adjusted, we are speaking of a circulation over 4.000.000!

cphoto · « **Reply #14 on:** June 05, 2008, 15:25 »

Quote from: grp_photo on June 05, 2008, 14:07

Actually Helix nobody really complained! And there is no reason a usage like this could be higher priced and still selling normal usage for 1 dollar.
The Time could easily afford a higher price they charge six digit sums for an small ad in their magazine.
This is microstock and it can remain like that but some usages could be adjusted, we are speaking of a circulation over 4.000.000!

Yup, it's all about having appropriate Extended License.
To me there is a huge difference between a small local publication with 250,000 prints with a small budget and Time with more than 4 million prints and international coverage, don't you agee Helix7?

helix7 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 05, 2008, 16:08 »

I do agree that there is a difference, but the scale will look unbalanced no matter how you compare usages. You say 250,000 prints is small. Some would say that's huge, and 50,000 is small, or 5,000, which is more the scale of some local publications. So then do we create specific licenses for all those uses?

cphoto · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2008, 16:16 »

Quote from: helix7 on June 05, 2008, 16:08

I do agree that there is a difference, but the scale will look unbalanced no matter how you compare usages. You say 250,000 prints is small. Some would say that's huge, and 50,000 is small, or 5,000, which is more the scale of some local publications. So then do we create specific licenses for all those uses?

Short answer: yes, of course!
A bit like RM works.

EL should require the buyer to answer a small questionnaire, and based on his answers he would get a quote.

madelaide · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2008, 20:03 »

I find it funny when some people suddenly realize the cons of microstock...

Anyway:

Quote from: cphoto on June 05, 2008, 16:16

EL should require the buyer to answer a small questionnaire, and based on his answers he would get a quote.

BigStock's EL pricing is interesting because they have different prices for different uses. Not so many choices and price ranges as RM usually does, but it is an interesting approach.

I have asked it before and got no answer: can an image be used for a CD cover without an EL?

Regards,
Adelaide

HermanM · « **Reply #18 on:** June 06, 2008, 00:58 »

This is exactly why I just figured out that my portfolios on micros are just not going to get more pics in...

The last 3 months Alamy has lead my earnings without much hassle... Even ONE sale at Alamy outperforms most of my micros (at least 4 out of 6)...

And then this TIME thing... it is an absolute insult. It just proves that micros are targeting big time corporate buyers, pocketing their big earnings and leaving us peanuts...

Bateleur · « **Reply #19 on:** June 06, 2008, 01:09 »

Quote from: faber on June 05, 2008, 06:02

... No big reaction of the other phogs, but a lot of "hurray, microstock rocks..."

There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well.

Just to put some figures to this. I am also a writer, and I know that if you can get a 1-page essay into Time you get $1'000+ for it (I still live in hope of that).

This is, effectively, a 1-page essay (except it's just a visual one). On the negative side, the Shutterstock photog didn't create it, and his image is only part of it. On the positive side, it's the front cover of a magazine with massive circulation.

So ... bearing those points in mind, a $20 EL makes it look as if his image has been significantly undersold.

Quote from: faber on June 05, 2008, 06:02

... I began to upload to alamy last month so maybe this changed my point of view compared to what I thought when I started doing microstock in March 2007.......

Exactly. I think what's happening is that good new photographers are beginning to realise what their work is worth.

In the past, with film and it's limitations, photography was a specialist occupation. Now, with digital and microstock, loads of people equipped with little more than a good amateur's camera (and sometimes not even that) are getting in on the act.

As always, there are the crap, the average, and the good. The more this sort of thing happens, the more those good photographers are going to migrate away from microstock. They're going to move to agencies that will give them a decent return on their creativity.

And I suspect the microstocks are beginning to realise this.

Bateleur · « **Reply #20 on:** June 06, 2008, 01:13 »

There you go ... HermanM posted his response just as I was typing mine.

We're beginning to see a movement amongst the good photographers whilst the snappers stay on the Microstocks and post "Yay! iShutterstime rocks!" on their forums.

faber · « **Reply #21 on:** June 06, 2008, 01:19 »

Quote from: helix7 on June 05, 2008, 13:42

Quote from: faber on June 05, 2008, 06:02
...There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well...

Betsy Reid? Is that you?

This is microstock. We all know quite well when we sign on with a company that our images will be bought by a wide variety of people and companies for an equally wide array of uses. If it leaves a bitter taste to see a microstock image in the cover of Time, maybe this isn't the right place for you to sell images.

well, I don't know who Betsy Reid is....but otherwise I agree with you.

When I signed up at microstock sites I was fully aware of the regulations and I do not complain about being cheated by them (it was not my image anyway...).

But as time goes by, I learn more - not just about photography (hopefully) but about the photo - business (definitely). Based on this knowledge and insight my perception is changing. And therefore my decisions might be different in the future. I guess it's the usual learning process if you enter a new business. Nothing wrong with this.

faber · « **Reply #22 on:** June 06, 2008, 01:45 »

Quote from: Bateleur on June 06, 2008, 01:13

There you go ... HermanM posted his response just as I was typing mine.

We're beginning to see a movement amongst the good photographers whilst the snappers stay on the Microstocks and post "Yay! iShutterstime rocks!" on their forums.

Well, this was not my intention when I started this thread....I don't even know whether or not I'm a good photographer, that's up to the customers to decide (still have no sales yet at alamy....).

And I wouldn't say that everybody who praises microstock is a "snapper". A lot of excellent phogs are there. But all the time since I joined this business I asked myself: "why do the really good phogs sell their excellent photos at microstock sites - couldn't they earn more at traditional sites?".

It was just to share my uncertainty - and to receive sentiments of those who know more about this business than I do.

Adeptris · « **Reply #23 on:** June 06, 2008, 02:27 »

This just proves the fact that there is no gap Macro to Micro in quality and the cost of the Image is way down the list, and that top buyers shop everywhere and there is no stigma in shopping on the Micro's, this image was not really $28 to TIME, there was the research, the photoshop work etc:

They would have likely not even considered the source and price, it was the image they needed to tell the story and grab the attention of the readers, so they would have paid $20 or $1000 for the right Image, as a commisioned shoot would have cost a lot more.

How often do you read threads of doom when a Micro increases it's prices it they increased the price by 50% and sold 50% less, they would still make more profit as the overheads would be reduced.

What is the difference in selling two licences for a $200 net return on Alamy or 600 to 800 downloads for a $200 net return on Shutterstock, its the same return but the the amount of overhead to the Micro photographer in taking the images keywording and uploading is far greater.

I moved from Micro to Macro when one single Alamy download returned more revenue than 40 to 50 Images on the Micro's, this was when I saw the true value of my work, which I had thought was not good enough for the Macro site buyers.

David

Bateleur · « **Reply #24 on:** June 06, 2008, 03:18 »

Quote from: faber on June 06, 2008, 01:45

Quote from: Bateleur on June 06, 2008, 01:13
There you go ... HermanM posted his response just as I was typing mine.

We're beginning to see a movement amongst the good photographers whilst the snappers stay on the Microstocks and post "Yay! iShutterstime rocks!" on their forums.

And I wouldn't say that everybody who praises microstock is a "snapper".

Nor would I ... and I didn't say that. The microstocks have a lot going for them, and they've certainly opened up the market.

Quote from: faber on June 06, 2008, 01:45

A lot of excellent phogs are there.

I agree with you 100%. My post wasn't meant to be anti-microstock. I was just observing what could be a trend, one which would be good for photographers.

As it is, you've got to agree that getting paid $28 for the front cover of Time (or, at least, part of it), and without any acknowledgment of your work, is a significant underpayment and does the photographer down.

In the past, getting your image on the front cover of a magazine of that stature would mean that you had it made as a photographer.

It's interesting that it isn't until page 2 of the Shutterstock forum thread that someone says anything more that "Way cool!!!!" and it isn't until page 4 that someone comes out with it "Am I the only one who see a dark side here?"

Let's face facts. Time got a superb image at a giveaway price. I sense - from this thread as well as from talking to other people - that an increasing number of those who can produce such images are beginning to realise this, while others are still burbling "Way cool!!!!!"

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Cover ot TIME MAGAZINE (Read 19409 times)

faber

epixx

faber

grp_photo

sharpshot

Sean Locke Photography

PaulieWalnuts

j2k

timburton

grp_photo

4seasons

4seasons

helix7

grp_photo

cphoto

helix7

cphoto

madelaide

HermanM

Bateleur

Bateleur

faber

faber

Adeptris

Bateleur

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors