Quote from: dullegg on June 12, 2008, 19:02
never mind the quality or composition, have you seen how many images without model releases with identifiable faces?
not just tiny faces, it's faces full frontal and being the subject of the photographs.
now, how do you explain that to be approved?

It's called editorial.

Quote from: litifeta on June 09, 2008, 21:10
2 things really come home to me reading this thread.

1. The cheek of Time magazine not so much to use a stock photo on their cover, but to SELL the cover. I would imagine this is taking it way to far.

2. Why I would never upload images with a model, family member or not, to a microstock company. The stuff I limit to micro is everyday stuff that is basically only good for websites, or a little advertisement, or a PowerPoint demo. If I were you guys with access to models and good studio equipment, I would only send that to a macro or mid macro. At least you get a few bucks, and the model may even be able to get some credit.

1. There's nothing wrong, the EL (according to the link that I posted earlier) permits all that.  Maybe I didn't see what you saw.
2. Good point.  One possible strategy is "upload best shots to macros, outtakes to micros".  Don't know how that one works out, though.

Quote from: dullegg on June 07, 2008, 17:32

Quote from: Adeptris on June 07, 2008, 16:41
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!

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

Quote from: Bateleur on June 06, 2008, 22:32
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).

Quote from: timburton on June 05, 2008, 15:45
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.

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.