Time Magazine pays $30 for cover photo

[dbphotos]

Instead of the normal $10,000 that a cover on such a magazine would garner, they bought an image from iStock Photos (Getty).

Here's the photographer's post on it: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?th...=480730&page=1

Here's some comments on SportsShooter.com: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message...html?tid=33646

[toverman]

Anybody who subscribes to Rangefinder magazine may have noticed that last month's cover art was a stock photo to illustrate the main article on how healthy the photography industry is. How ironic!

I don't know which is more embarrassing, getting paid only $30 for the use of the stock photo or the fact that it's such an earth-shattering image ... a jar of coins. Whoopee! Wonder if the coins in the jar are valued more than the use fee for the image.

[brad]

The irony of the subject matter of the photo and the cover story is almost unbearable.

[jeffkohn]

Skimming the comments in those threads, it amazes me that people are still whining about micro-stock and what it's doing to the industry. That ship has sailed, get over it.

[Rson]

It is what it is, I doubt Time would pay 10k for a jar of coins.....probably just buy the other jar of coins for 30$. This isn't Pulitzer winning imagery here.

They photog was happy with the $30 and publicity. 'nuff said.


Nike paid 35$ for it's iconic logo...I am sure Carol Davidson is pleased with it also.

[Crashoran]

The guy/lady landed a cover shot for Time Magazine. I'd say that's a huge accomplishment and a remarkable addition to any portfolio.

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by Crashoran

The guy/lady landed a cover shot for Time Magazine. I'd say that's a huge accomplishment and a remarkable addition to any portfolio.

It might be, if he had actually done anything to reach that achievement, beyond simply snapping a shot of a jar of coins.

Imagebuffet added 1 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Skimming the comments in those threads, it amazes me that people are still whining about micro-stock and what it's doing to the industry. That ship has sailed, get over it.

Yes, that ship has sailed. The bar has been lowered. It is only a matter of time before the effect completely permeates society. Now, none of your photos are worth more than $30, even when published on the cover of a major publication.

Yes, that is quite an accomplishment.

[ChristopherCoy]

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

It might be, if he had actually done anything to reach that achievement, beyond simply snapping a shot of a jar of coins.

I had made a comment, but apparently its been moderated... however I will say that the above is just wrong!

[Citex]

I agree with the opinion that this photog can make a great deal more money and exposure (duh they already have, I saw them post the story themselves) from this shoot. It was a stock photo and Time paid to use it, end of story. Move on.

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

I had made a comment, but apparently its been moderated... however I will say that the above is just wrong!

If a comment of yours has been deleted by a moderator you SHOULD have received a notice about it. I've occasionally thought I'd been 'censored' only to find out that I just never pushed the 'post comment' button.


This situation is like if I were to compete and come in second in the British Open Golf Tournament. I'd get a nice trophy and some publicity. I'm an amateur golfer.
If a pro came in second, they'd get some nice publicity and a check for $750,000.

Is this fair ? Not in my opinion.

[Teddington]

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

It might be, if he had actually done anything to reach that achievement, beyond simply snapping a shot of a jar of coins.

Imagebuffet added 1 Minutes and 29 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Not really. Note the high key background and lighting that was done. The decision on type of coin and how full the jar was and even what type of jar was used. Out of curiousity, I searched "Jar Coin" on iStock and 372 photos came back. They chose his.

[kenw]

Let's look at it this way.

You are a wealthy person. You go shopping and find a bargain at a flea market. The price tag on it says $30. You pay the $30 and take your purchase home.

Or is it that since you are a wealthy person, the seller decides that, no, you have to pay $10,000 for it?

The $30 price was decided when the photographer posted his image to the stock site. The fact that Time bought it is immaterial.

Fair is fair.

[Dobick]

The point about microstock -- how much should a person get paid for a very common image? you came up with 372 images for a single search phrase, and if you enter in more phrases, you will get different results, safe to say probably 500? but even if that is narrowed down to 100, not exactly a unique image or idea.

But do an istock search for "Timothy F. Geithner" or just "Geithner" and you get none. Search for "Kenneth L. Salazar " and you get just as many. So if time decides to do a story about the economy and focus in on Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury, or maybe they are doing a story of the Department of the Interior to use a shot of Secretary Salazar, not going to happen with microstock.

[johnastovall]

An excellent essay from a few years ago on the damage Micro Stock would do to photography.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

I know TIME has a subscription base that can't do anything about what they put on the cover or in the magazine (short of letting their sub lapse).

My question to TIME would be how many over-the-counter copies of this issue will they sell compared to one with a $10,000 cover? If it's $10,030 less than this really wasn't worth it, was it?

Will $30 cost them $30,000?!?

Do magazines release those types of numbers publicly? I know it's carefully watched internally...

Joe