Cover ot TIME MAGAZINE

[leaf]

It would be nice (albeit confusing) to have more licensing options for images.  I think that a small image that is used on a website, or someones blog isn't neccesarily worth much more than $1.00, but if an image is used on a billboard, national compaign, or very popular magazine cover it IS worth more than $1.00, or $28.00

The problem is that in making images available for the 'fair' $1.00 uses it has also been made fair for big production uses. 

If there could be licensing which forced smaller print runs or else higher fees that would be nice.

[faber]

I don't know, would it really be so confusing (at least not more than RM/L)?

If a stock site would be able to properly manage a "you get what you need for the best/appropriate price" approach, everybody would be happy.

Prices could range from 1$ to maybe thousands of dollars depending on the use of the image. And all this heated microstock vs. macrostock discussion would just implode and vanish.....

Maybe that's naive - but being naive is one privilege of newbies...

[sharpshot]

Perhaps Cutcaster will do that.  I hope that site is a success.

[grp_photo]

I agree with Leaf.
I'm a contributor to micro and macro, and macro is not just Alamy for me i also have a (much smaller) RM-Portfolio at one of the biggies and several other RM- and RF-Portfolios at smaller Trads.
My Portfolios at micro and macro are extremely different (you probably wouldn't believe it it's the same photographer).
In general i like the idea of microstock and i also see the need for it, but i always had reservations against the nearly unlimited usage restrictions this is in my opinion completely unneccessary because a stricter restrictions for big usage wouldn't destroy the idea of microstock at all.

My personal experience of the last four years is that microstock was in the beginning very easy money no trad could compete with it even the biggies.
But these days are gone the trads in the middle (like Alamy) did suffer from microstock no doubt about it, but microstock become so competitive that even Alamy now can nearly compete the earnings possibilities of the micros (but please don't expect very typical microstuff bought through trads these times are gone) the earnings possibilities at the biggies are now much better than the micros unfortunately it is extremely hard to get anything in their collections.
Another note is that all my trads treat me much much fairer than the micros they all offer reasonable commissions (my lowest is 40%) and don't trying to fool me like FT did with how they introduced subsription etc. I feel very respected by them and not just like a number like the micros treat me.
I still produce stuff which simply perfectly fit in the microstock-market so i won't give up microstock completely but i put much more energy in the traditional market.
One advice for all which wanna go this way - you have to be very patient everything goes much slower there and you need reasonable sized portfolios to see any results.

[Gizeh]

A lot of people in the stock industry use the buzzword 'production value' when judging about the quality of an image. This is a mix of criteria like time and effort for shooting and postproduction, ease of imitation by others, market demand, availability of releases, etc.

Looking at the frustrating TIME example it might be a good idea to adapt this model.

For example put only stuff with low production values on sites with lots of subscription sales. Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.

This would allow you to play at all price points without different outlets cannibalizing each other.

[RT]

Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.

That statement is fast becoming redundant.

[Gizeh]

Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.

That statement is fast becoming redundant.

Meaning what? Do you disagree or do you feel this is already common knowledge?

[RT]

Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.

That statement is fast becoming redundant.

Meaning what? Do you disagree or do you feel this is already common knowledge?

No I mean that there aren't many sites that focus on single sales now, they're all adding subscription packages.

[Gizeh]

No I mean that there aren't many sites that focus on single sales now, they're all adding subscription packages.

Finally got it!

My current list looks like this.

Low End: SS, DT, FT, 123
Mid: IS with subs, StockXpert w/o subs
High End: Alamy and hopefully soon some others

[sgc]

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.

Wow, you obviously know more about my sales than I do.  This image have brought me about 40 dollars in total so far, $22.22 of those being the EL that Time bought from iStockphoto.    While it would be superb for a standard microstock image, for something that appeared on the Time cover it's nothing to write home about.  Yes, I can brag now, and I most certainly will, but I seriously started considering other options.

[Adeptris]

So it looks like we might be seeing SGC over on the Macro's some time soon!

[sharply_done]

... Yes, I can brag now, and I most certainly will, but I seriously started considering other options.

Tearsheets don't count for one iota in the stock business. Sure, it's nice to get a prominent placement, but the only thing to benefit will be your ego. If you were a client-driven commercial photographer, this would probably open a few doors, and you could certainly approach a few notable and well-connected agents with it.

As it stands, though, with you being a part-time amateur, the only thing you'll get out of it is bragging rights and a feeling that you should have been paid more. I can imagine the look on people's faces when you tell them that you received only $22.22! Kind of embarrassing, huh?

On the flip side, this is the kind of publicity that may really benefit IS. Potential customers that may have previously dismissed microstock as being "amateurish" may now take a serious look at it. Which is good for all of us.

[grp_photo]

Though i understand your post i don't know what iota actually mean?

[sharply_done]

Though i understand your post i don't know what iota actually mean?

I used it in an abbreviated context. It's normally used in the common English phrase not one iota of difference to signify a meaningless distinction.

[Bateleur]

Yes, I can brag now, and I most certainly will, but I seriously started considering other options.

Interesting. I found one of my images on a magazine cover too. Not nearly as prestigious as Time (congratulations on that one) but a glossy publication aimed at very rich Chinese.

On the one hand it's satisfying. On the other hand it's galling that they paid only $20 for it. I don't want to spread the news too widely in case I get the inevitable question "How much did you get for it then?" 

I too am considering my options. And I don't think we two are the only ones.

[litifeta]

For me the drama would be the lack of the "credit" not the money.

I have done a few front covers on assignment and got $450 each so the $ is not enough to make you rich.

Also, despite those front covers, I have never had another assignment job ...

[Pixart]

I've got a better rub.   The publisher contacted me to see if I was okay with my photo on this book cover (controversial) and asked me to provide a release (I mentioned a book cover before, but it was finally released this month so here it is)

To send the release it cost me a special trip to post office for a non-domestic 90 cent (plus GST) stamp and then my kid put it in her sticker book.  I had to buy another stamp, and another trip to pick it up (but gas was only around a buck a litre last fall...)  and I was paid a whole dollar on BigStock for it.

Microstock is what it is... but this is the first time it has cost me money to sell a photo!

Hmm... I think my tearsheet says How to RAISE a serial killer - but here it is.

[litifeta]

I also found it funny that a rock band had paid $1 for a photo for their CD cover and then had the nerve to complain about iTunes selling individual songs off the album "for a few cents".

[sgc]

Interesting. I found one of my images on a magazine cover too. Not nearly as prestigious as Time (congratulations on that one) but a glossy publication aimed at very rich Chinese.

On the one hand it's satisfying. On the other hand it's galling that they paid only $20 for it. I don't want to spread the news too widely in case I get the inevitable question "How much did you get for it then?" 

I too am considering my options. And I don't think we two are the only ones.

Indeed.  I don't feel ashamed by the amount of money I got from this, I think I can live with just the publicity.  Besides, Time updated the credits on the website, so I can use their link now.  But all in all I think I'll change my strategy on what I put and where.


Congrats on the cover, very nicely executed, by the way (I think I've seen it on the SS forum).

[etudiante_rapide]

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.

i will have to agree. 22 dollars is still a lot more than say 50 cents.
what if you were paid 50 cents, or 5 dollars without having seen your image was used on TIme.
i think you would be celebrating.

the way i see it ... i wouldn't moan, and the more you moan, the more ppl like Time will look at it and stop using your images.
then ... perharps, you will have a justified reason to moan

catch my drift?

[Adeptris]

Hi SGC

Did you see the bit in the Bottom, Buy this in a Frame from $15.99  

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html

I did click the link and it took me to another company, Barwells but the cover was not there.

[dullegg]

Hi SGC

Did you see the bit in the Bottom, Buy this in a Frame from $15.99 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html

I did click the link and it took me to another company, Barwells but the cover was not there.

NOW, that's just the thing I despise about newspapers,magazines,etc.
They charge their readers for a reprint and the photographer knows nothing about that.
I think in this case, the selling of framed prints,etc... is copyright infringement, or worst, hijack of an artist's work.
Booo!

[madelaide]

This thread reminds me of a discussion I had with a colleague from SP long ago, when I learned that he had some of his very professional work in microstock, and was so excited with SS (he always tried to make me join it).  He didn't care about the price those images were sold at, as long as money was pouring in.

I was surprised in my first contact with microstock that images could be used over and over.  It seemed such an unfair deal for the photographer, although I could see the reasoning behind this (once you sell it, you have no real control over it, especially in worldwide terms).

But I do think usages should be very restrictive to avoid a situation like this.  Even if there was work on the image to produce the cover, come on, it's a BIG magazine.  It's not that "they can afford it" (we don't require a proof of poverty from buyers...), but the fact that an image for this usage is certainly worth much more.

Regards,
Adelaide

[sgc]

Hi SGC

Did you see the bit in the Bottom, Buy this in a Frame from $15.99 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html [nofollow]

I did click the link and it took me to another company, Barwells but the cover was not there.

NOW, that's just the thing I despise about newspapers,magazines,etc.
They charge their readers for a reprint and the photographer knows nothing about that.
I think in this case, the selling of framed prints,etc... is copyright infringement, or worst, hijack of an artist's work.
Booo!

Thanks for the link, guys, I'll ask Time about why it does not work.
As for reprinting for profit etc., the iStock extended license allows all of that, so there is nothing illegal in their actions.  See the appropriate item in here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/extended_license_provisions.php [nofollow]

[j2k]

Wouldn't such use (cover + resale of prints) require purchasing two extended licences thou (unlimited run + resale)?