|
Forums >
General Industry >
Fake/Mock Up magazine "covers"
Sometime back in the dawn of time, I recall using an early version of PS to mockup a cover of National Geographic, featuring a particularly unflattering shot of a buddy at a deer camp, with a headline that read something along the lines of "When a family tree has no branches...a look at genetics" or something to that effect. It was passed around as the gag that it was, and since then I've seen similar things done a million and one times, at least. But now I'm seeing models, and worse, photographers, with mock "covers" in their online portfolios. While I appreciate that some may be merely trying to scratch a graphic design itch, I question how many actually think that something like that belongs in portfolio? Frankly, I find it seems a little desperate and sophomoric....any other opinions? Jan 21 06 06:42 pm Link This has been addressed a few times but... I find it funny. I've seen so many people on here with mocked up FHM and MAXIM covers that you'd think those two mags put out about 52 issues a year! It doesn't bother me because it's much easier to just be amused and... the mocked up covers are pretty "sophomoric" and obvious anyway (which, as far as I'm concerned, is punishment enough for the culprit/poster!). So... Don't let it annoy you, just do like I do; fish around for the most absurd ones you can find and email the person congradulating them for shooting that Armani ad (even though they're in Iowa, the model has on an out fit straight from wal-mart and, just so happens to look like the shooter's cousin.)! Jan 21 06 07:49 pm Link Thats very common. A while ago I worked at Time magazine for a few years doing a graphics job and it's easy for me to catch the phony Time and Sports Illustrated covers. I've seen "dozens" that are fakes; there is also a web site that contains all the Sports Illustrated covers, so it's easy to verify. I guess many are ignorant and don't understand that while having "Fun" placing the fake magazine online, they're probably violating trademark and/or copyright laws. But even more amusing are the folks that place an impressive list of credits, yet offer no evidence to back up their claims. Robert Jan 21 06 07:57 pm Link Just to make sure I understand. You're saying that you believe that they are trying to misrepresent their work and pretend it had been used as cover art? I just take it as trying to see a dream and maybe if you can see it, it will help you to make it happen. When I was in college, my old roommate used to have a banner that hung over his bed saying "I AM a computer programmer". I think he's a fry cook or something now, but you get the point. Jan 21 06 08:06 pm Link Carlton Primm wrote: If a model looked at a magazine cover, on a portfolio hosting web-site, why would she think it is not legitimate ? Jan 21 06 08:27 pm Link U240Robert wrote: I'm just not entirely convinced that the covers are meant to fool anyone. It's like the stuff you see in the mall. You know it's not real. Just for my own curiosity, if you know of any out there that look real enough to fool anyone, (privately) send me a link. I'd be interested in seeing one. Jan 21 06 08:39 pm Link [MODERATOR]Just a reminder, if you are displaying fake magazine covers on Model Mayhem you need to identify them as fake and they must have some twist in the logo to make it not a trademark violation.[/MODERATOR] Jan 21 06 08:40 pm Link I've seen some spoofs (change a letter, or a color, or use a unique name) that were really funny and done very well. I think it speaks volumes about the photographer who deliberately tries to fake a real magazine cover, or use a fake name that looks real. Whether he's (or she's) tring to fool themselves or their audience, they loose all credibility in my book. Same with bogus claims that are patently obvious. The "I've been an award winning photographer for over 80 years" kind of thing from a guy that has nothing but really bad snaps in his port. Unfortunately, too many people can't seem to tell the difference. Then there are those E-zines, but that's another whole subject. :-) Hoot Jan 21 06 08:55 pm Link U240Robert wrote: Have you asked them for back up? Jan 21 06 09:04 pm Link For models, I admit, it's pretty cheesy. But when I shoot babies, I use a made up cover that I created. Cheesy or not, it sells alot of 8x12s Jan 21 06 09:05 pm Link And those little flaps on coffee lids!! Gawd I hate those things!!! Jan 21 06 09:14 pm Link UdoR wrote: Well you bring up a good point. Jan 21 06 09:14 pm Link Carlton Primm wrote: I suppose that depends..I have seen a few where the UPC code is included...I can't think of a valid artistic reason for tossing that in. Jan 21 06 09:41 pm Link U240Robert wrote: Well, yeah, that maybe true..., probably if you shoot as a staff photographer and there is some contractual thing going on... still... if a photographer claims to have work or worked for a publication... he/she should be somehow able to either verify, or if no verification, in any form can be provided... shouldn't even mention that one. Jan 21 06 09:48 pm Link |
