iStock

joxby

joxby

Messages
8,782
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
So this guy shoots a seamless backdrop of coins in a jar and puts it up at iStock.
Somebody buys it for the usual fee of $30, knowing iStocks T&C's there is no excuse for what has followed.
It seems the credit crunch is effecting many areas of photography, its a front cover for Time magazine now, and quite ironic it is too, still, he gets his $30 and no credit.

iStock image

Time Magazine cover

He started a thread on ModelMayhem, which has turned into a tough talking discussion about the value of work and the perils of TC's in microstock/stock.

Gotta feel sorry for the guy, Time have a circulation of 3,000,000, but would they have chosen that image if it wasn't priced at $30....:shrug:
 
Interesting matter, though a bit sad too.

On another note, I always thought it to be illegal to photograph money and stamps.
 
I'd be chuffed to mintballs if I got my pic on the front of Time!
 
POAH said:
and I don't get what the problem is
Click to expand...

The way I understand it ....

Time magazine have a circulation of a good few million copies sold per week. They are up there with Play Boy, Vogue, etc. in terms of house-hold names for magazines.

So, to offer him a mere $30 is significantly low-balling the "value" of his photo, if such a highly-regarded magazine wanted it - which obviously they did - for front cover!
 
If you want the picture it's 12 iStock credits = £12.50. The Photographer gets between 20-40% .

But then with stock photography you play the percentage game.
 
The guy signed away all his rights accepting iStock's T&C's, there is no argument there, its just plain stupid but that's the name of the game with microstock, pile em high and sell em cheap, its a numbers game.
Whilst that's all well a good for one individual, but trying to sell 10,000 $30 images a year to make any kind of living, impacts the whole industry.
Maybe his image would never have been used if it hadn't been seen at iStock, maybe it would never have been used if it cost more than $30, and maybe its a two for a penny image anyway, I dunno, but it hardly seems the point.
If a cover for Time magazine is only worth $30, is any image worth more than that.
If Time magazine or anybody else for that matter stop spending money on editorial images, less money is put into the industry, take a look at the current economic climate to see the results of that.
There's something funny going on with it besides that anyway, Time Warner obviously owns Time mag, they also own iStock, and various other stock agencies, they have entered into an un-holy alliance with Getty and also own over a hundred magazines.
Anybody spot where this is going....:lol:

Anyway, just to rub money jar man's nose in it, he can buy his own photo from Time as a framed Time cover, for just $19.95...


:shake:
 
the way I see it Time looked to get a cheap photo, they used a microstock site to get it. He put the image on istock, they bought it where is the problem?????


Wail said:
The way I understand it ....

Time magazine have a circulation of a good few million copies sold per week. They are up there with Play Boy, Vogue, etc. in terms of house-hold names for magazines.

So, to offer him a mere $30 is significantly low-balling the "value" of his photo, if such a highly-regarded magazine wanted it - which obviously they did - for front cover!
Click to expand...
 
It devalues everybodies work by lowering prices and makes it harder for people to make a living out of stock photography. There used to be people who made massive incomes out of stock photography cos they were very good at it. Now, with the current quality of digital cameras and lenses it is very easy for most amateur togs to fill the stock sites up with pocket money images. Fair enough, if they are good images and they sell, then props to the tog who took them. These market forces have forced many stock photographers to diversify or give up completely.

There is only a finite amount of cash spent on photographs every year and it is getting distributed amongst a wider base of people now. Very economically democratic.

Its mostly stock photographers who bitch about it. Same as it's mostly tradesmen who bitch about foreign workers taking their jobs, instead of lowering their prices or competing on other areas than price.

Bet none of complain about the thousands of mp3's they have downloaded for free though, eh?

Its not good though, same as it isnt good for musicians. The digital revolution is all very nice for creating an equal artistic footing for everybody, but if it means that no-one can make a living out of it then you have probably taken away a source of great joy from a lot of people who are lucky enough to be able to make money doing something they love.

Same with news photogrpahy now too :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top