Forums >
General Industry >
Publishing on the internet doesn't count
You are not a REAL model or photographer if you've only been "published" on the internet. Hey. What's the 3 letter acronym for gals who like being shot by GWCs? May 09 06 09:54 pm Link Really? You don't think there are any worthwhile online "tears"... New media has no legitimacy? Its vetted through an equally arbitrary selection process as print magazines... is funded by ad revenue... has readership... Or does the capital required to print a magazine in print give them a solid grip of "realness"? May 09 06 09:57 pm Link ohhhhhh this promises to be a fun ride....= ) May 09 06 10:00 pm Link Visual E wrote: GWP Girl with pictures May 09 06 10:00 pm Link Collin J. Rae wrote: i know! and the best part is that i don't plan to make a scandal tonight..but you never know *plots something evil* May 09 06 10:01 pm Link Visual E wrote: Hmmm. Many, if not most Fortune 100 corporate web sites (along with hundreds of others) utilize stock photography from the majors such as Getty and Corbis. Perhaps you weren't thinking along those lines, but that is a form of legitimate published work on the 'net. May 09 06 10:03 pm Link By the way, I wasn't just trying to be an ass. I am actually curious as to what people think about online magazines and the practical usage of that publicity. I mean to my understanding editorials were/(are?) important, because they were selected, and read by art directors (looking at their own ads, and products in the spreads). So one got a little bit of prestige, but recognition of their work and style if and when their book ever got in front of an art director who had seen the editorial. Another plus was that stylist could pull for things that were going into print, with ad houses wanting the free publicity. Do make-up artists, and stylists find that they can pull for online publications? I mean that for me would determine whether they were real or not... other people deciding that it was worth their time, companies thinking that it was worth their product, agencies thinking it was worth their models. May 09 06 10:11 pm Link paper may never go away but newspapers are not losing 3 to 7% of their revenue a year to nothing. Its the internet. Playboys online presence makes more than the magazine. Soon most revenue for publishing will come from online. I know several models who make decent money off their personal website. Money is money whether it comes from print or web. May 09 06 10:16 pm Link area291 wrote: Corporate web sites may have a bit of photography, but isn't it mostly illustration and graphics? Aren't corporate web photos still mostly copies of material shot for print? May 09 06 10:20 pm Link The same thing has been said about independent film making, self publishing, and digital Photography. They were wrong about that too! Thank goodness! May 09 06 10:27 pm Link Exhibitionist With WebCam? May 09 06 10:32 pm Link Internet credits are bullshit unless it's with a reputable company and comes out in real world print. May 09 06 10:34 pm Link Visual E wrote: Such an ignorant statement. In todays world, Internet has surpassed traditional advertisements. Ask any MAJOR CORPORATION for a breakdown of there advertising budget, and at least 50% will be dedicated to internet related advertising. The internet has become the cheapest, and most efficient way to advertise. Internet Advertising allows a company to directly see the impact of their ads, by means of tracking, and website stats. A print magazine can't tell you how many people recognized your ad. So why should being published on the internet mean any less than being published in print, obviously the major corporations don't see it that way. So if you were getting paid to do work that was to be published on the internet then its not a real job? BullSh1t, try telling that to the people that are making the money, or the people paying the money. Being published on the internet still takes the same resources, and effort it takes to make an Ad for print. In print and web there are good images and bad ones. May 09 06 10:44 pm Link Web Rage wrote: Not talking about the advertising industry in general. May 09 06 10:48 pm Link Yes but the point I'm trying to make is that this shows the legitimacy of online publishing as being just as important as print. May 09 06 10:53 pm Link Web Rage wrote: this isn't quite true going to press takes a bit more work and a bit more financil resouces but the same amount of talent (or lack of ) May 09 06 10:55 pm Link I concede that web content creation is publishing. But I was just talking about publishing of model photos. There are the tiny photos of clothing models on eStores. Ok. Maybe that's being published. But that's in a different league than being published in Cosmo or Marie Claire or FHM. May 09 06 10:56 pm Link Visual E wrote: I prefer to say, "You're not a REAL model or photographer if your images suck." May 09 06 10:56 pm Link Visual E wrote: That's a good question and the answer is both yes and no. Ad agencies pull stock that can be used for both and in many cases it is far cheaper to do so. The agency is saving money and those creating worthy stock are bringing in buckets of money. May 09 06 11:03 pm Link area291 wrote: a lot of major corperations have either reduce the quanity of or stop printing a great deal of marketing material and annual reports, etc. opting instead to have the information as part of their website or downloadable as PDFs May 09 06 11:15 pm Link Visual E wrote: Being published is being published, regardless of where, sheesh. May 09 06 11:16 pm Link Visual E wrote: That is kinda like sayin AAA Baseball is not baseball, no? May 09 06 11:19 pm Link You better believe web tearsheets count. Newspaper & magazine circulations are down, Way down. In fact, they were reporting that on CNN tonight. With those two mediums becomming irrelevant there's only two more places to mass advertize, the net and television. May 09 06 11:19 pm Link Glamour Boulevard wrote: That depends on if you play for the Sacramento Rivercats! Sorry, GB, couldn't help it! May 09 06 11:27 pm Link area291 wrote: Talk about them and the Kings all you want. I am not really from here and do not claim to be a fan of either team or sport,lol. May 09 06 11:31 pm Link Glamour Boulevard wrote: I hear AA baseball players have a hard time finding, um, baseball bats...? May 09 06 11:34 pm Link Are you suggesting that online 'tear sheets' are not legitimate additions to one's book, and are not professional?? Seriously? Don't you think you're being a little short sided here? There are both online magazines and online advertising campaigns that have far greater visibility than that found across all forms of print media combined, including newspapers. I am baffled that anyone could think that being published in a highly reputable online magazine like ZooZoom (www.zoozoom.com) does not count as being published. These days, a tear sheet from an online mag like ZooZoom can be just as beneficial for one's book as being published in InStyle or Elle. And, being published online does not mean less pay than being published in print, either. Ask folks who have been published in Zink how much they've been paid for their submissions! Trust me... they do it for the tear sheet! For that matter, what about being in a Volkswagen ad that runs on the VW site? Or being in a Hewlett Packard or Coke commercial that airs online? Do you have any idea how much big companies pay for their online advertising budgets? Any clue at all? Now, show me ONE single amateur model or GWC that could even get one of the above jobs! Go ahead! Oh, you can't? Hmmm. You will not hear me complain about being hired for an online advertising campaign, or seeing some of my work in an online publication. And, your opinion on whether I'm a "real" model, art director or stylist won't mean a bloody think while I'm laughing all the way to the bank, either! Enough said! May 09 06 11:51 pm Link Visual E wrote: area291 wrote: Would be very interested to hear more from those with first hand experience in "legitimate publishing in the vaste world of modeling at the net level". Not the porn, but the other commercial work you talk about on the internet. May 10 06 01:11 am Link Andrea-Anderson wrote: Getting a tear from ZooZoom looks like getting published to me. As would getting into Lucire, etc. Reasonable sized and quality images. At least the models are recognisable. May 10 06 01:25 am Link Try getting to the ROOT of what "publishing" anything is... it is settled law that "publishing" is accomplished by making something [writing; graphics; photographs; designs; ect] available to the public. The medium of distribution does not matter. You could "publish" [whatever it is] on a beer mat and it would be "published" as soon as distribution to the public by any means occurred. The Internet certainly qualifies as "publishing" More important, however, for this thread at least, is the relative, and even the absolute, VALUE of that publishing/publication in the eyes of someone else. In that sense not all Internet publishing/publications are seen to have equal value, or in some cases any value at all. The courts are wrestling with this question now... is the "XYZ News Blog" equivalent in it's value to the "BBC News" website. If one is to have the protection of being seen as legitimate journalism should the other be treated the same in many issues such as confidentiality of sources; access to news conferences; ect. Should the same rules and standards of libel and defamation apply to both? Should impartiality and fairness rules apply to both? Can a blogger take sides in a political debate, and solicit donations or support for one side in that debate, and still be seen as legitimate journalism? If a model has their own website featuring their own images should that be treated, and valued, exactly the same as a national or international magazine that publishes their image on the Internet? Is it of the same value to be "published" on one's own website; as opposed to XYZ's blog; as opposed to Suicide Girls; as opposed to Maxxim's webzine; as opposed to the Playboy website? I think not. Studio36 May 10 06 05:38 am Link DigitalCMH wrote: Amen May 10 06 05:40 am Link Surely if your work is good enough to be published by a reputable company it doesn't matter what media it's in, books, magazines or the net.......that's like saying if you shoot on digital they are not real photographs.......welcome to the 21st century. May 10 06 07:19 am Link I've done work for the Northeastern IL University's Drama department. They used the images to advertise on thier website. So you're saying this doesn't count as a tear?? May 10 06 09:09 am Link Brian Diaz wrote: lol May 10 06 10:18 am Link This thread is a classic example of a badly executed statement yielding predictably bad responses. Visual E wrote: Contained within that are at least three different notions: May 10 06 10:34 am Link Visual E wrote: First.. your statement is nothing but BS. Others here have made that very clear. May 10 06 10:52 am Link well i tend to agree with the OP to the extent that if you're only "published" on your own personal pay website, or if you are only "published" online in a "online presence only" magazine then chances are its not the real deal, but if you are published in the net versions of brick and mortar mags, companies, etc then its quasi real, MAYBE even real. for example, would i be considered a TV personality, if i only appeared on the Bravo "dinner for 5" podcast, or webcast show and not the actual TV show? or an internet soap opera? or if i only appeared in Japan on Fuji-TV shows? probably doesnt make me a bonafide TV personality (yet) AAA baseball is not real baseball, European football, or Arena football is not real football they're certainly many great athletes and players, who can have a great performance, but they are still not up to the caliper (i always think of Dr Evil when i say 'caliper') of the NFL, or MLB and if your book is self published you're not really an author im sort of in the middle on Indie films and if you're a dancer or actor in the broadway musical Cats, but its the Cruise Ship version or its playing in Toledo Ohio (here we go again LOL), can you really be considered on par with NYC Broadway actors/dancers? ditto for the standup comedian at open mic night at any comedy club. i once did a 10 minute bit as a standup on a cruise ship: "Women are like Cars, cuz Men think with their Penis" ( my little take off on the men from mars, women from venus bullshit) but it doesnt make me on par with George Carlin, or Chris Rock. i once shot a elephant in my pajamas, doesnt make me...nevermind just my opinion May 10 06 10:55 am Link Chili wrote: ok, just how did an elephant get into your pajamas? May 10 06 10:59 am Link studio36uk wrote: Interesting point. By "being published" we are not referring here to the legality of the term publishing, and whether posting photos on the internet is publishing. That's been well covered in other threads. May 10 06 11:39 am Link Chili wrote: You would do well to not write about things you know nothing about. Triple A and to a great extent Double A is the farm system platform from where players rise to the Major League. Rarely does a player just land in the Major Leagues without "professional" Minor League experience. Even A level carries great credibility, A-Rod's first assignment was with the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers, a single A ballclub. As well, many that go on the DL do their rehab at that level before returning to the show. May 10 06 11:53 am Link |