GW Burns wrote:
I know we all have them but my biggest pet peave is magazines who desire to use your images in their publications but do not want to pay the photographer to use them.  We know it isnt a question of quality cause they want it in their magazine.  Then they want full release to do as they please with them and then wont even give you a credit!  Mind you these are some of the very top magazines in the world as well.  Now I do not look like Mother Theresa and I dont believe these magazines are raising money to find the cure for cancer so what gives?  What would happen if every photographer told them thanks but no thanks?  Perhaps they raise the suscription rate a quarter and finally throw a bone at the guys' who work fills their magazine.  So as for me I am officially starting the "If you print it you must pay" association of photographers.  Who's with me?

I recently responded to an ad for a new magazine that was offering "exposure" in exchange for free use of pictures.

Here's what I said:

"I'd love to submit some pictures to your new magazine. However, in retrospect, I find I will be so busy standing around on street corners giving away $100 bills to total strangers, that I don't have the time to put together a submission. Sorry!"

They were not amused. I sure know how to make friends! But the truth is, I felt a lot better having said something, and I'm glad I did.

I agree that sometimes it's worth doing free work for exposure, but more often, it's just somebody looking to cut their expenses -- at MY expense.

Paul

Christine Campbell wrote:

Are you trying to Tease um?

GW Burns wrote:
I know we all have them but my biggest pet peave is magazines who desire to use your images in their publications but do not want to pay the photographer to use them.  We know it isnt a question of quality cause they want it in their magazine.  Then they want full release to do as they please with them and then wont even give you a credit!  Mind you these are some of the very top magazines in the world as well.  Now I do not look like Mother Theresa and I dont believe these magazines are raising money to find the cure for cancer so what gives?  What would happen if every photographer told them thanks but no thanks?  Perhaps they raise the suscription rate a quarter and finally throw a bone at the guys' who work fills their magazine.  So as for me I am officially starting the "If you print it you must pay" association of photographers.  Who's with me?

Isn't that what a usage fee is? or better known as licensing?

Duncan wrote:
Ya know when My credit card co's call and I tell them I shot for Italian Vogue for free  and they were so amazed at what a great photog I was they said that I didn't have to pay my bills!

Duncan IF you EVER shot editorial for Italian vogue, I would bet you  would never have to worry about your credit card problems again. 

Any photographer who shoots fashion editorial for that magazine, even if they did it for free, would be RAKING in the money from advertisers...Not to mention Just ONE editorial in Italian Vogue, and you could get COMMISSIONED work from pretty much any other fashion mag on the planet.... You guys are cluless and shortsighted and uninformed... Sorry but it is true. 

Your sarcasim is pretty unwarrented concidering how little you know about this industry.

aref wrote:
Any photographer who shoots fashion editorial for that magazine, even if they did it for free, would be RAKING in the money from advertisers...Not to mention Just ONE editorial in Italian Vogue, and you could get COMMISSIONED work from pretty much any other fashion mag on the planet....

It doesn't get any better than Vogue Italy. If this magazine ever asks you to shoot a story for them...run...do not walk.

10-7 Photography wrote:
So it seems that submissions you don't get paid for.... only commissions for magazines like FHM, Maxim etc?   So how does one GET paid for that type of photography?  What steps have to be taken?  Do you just submit and get images in for free until they ask you to shoot something *hopefully*?

Yes, it would be useful to clarify the difference between assignment work and the variety of non-paid submission avenues.  Regarding the FHM/Maxim/Stuff 'hot girl' contests/submissions/teasers or what ever you want to call the amateur send-in shots, they're called front-of-book in magazine language, they are not considered the same as an assignment.  If a photographer sends material or allows material to be sent in for 'Hometown Hotties' 'Neighborhood Knockouts' or '20 Hot Dates' without negotiating a specific rate, especially if the magazine has a policy regarding submitted work, I think the photographer loses the platform for complaint.  They do pay photographers for assigned work.  It is as simple as that.  A good friend of mine shoots regularly for all of them as well as Rolling Stone, Blender, etc. 

However, submissions to other magazines like ULTRA For Men and Perfect 10 are paid at a rate established by each individual magazine.  The editors are good about letting any photographers know what the rates are and if a submission meets their criteria.  I have had more than 15 features published in ULTRA, almost all by submission.

The process for securing assignment work from magazines is generally thru portfolio review at the magazine's headquarters by their art/photo department.  They determine who is fit for which assignment.  It has been my observation that the magazines above do not use a great number of photographers annually and therefore the same names appear in the credits frequently.  Many of the US editions of those magazines use NYC- or LA-based photographers and much of the work is celebrity based.  They simply aren't going to give unknown photographers a shot at celebrity features or covers.  Often times the celebrity is given input on who the photographer is.  They also seem to pick up a lot from their forign editions for reprint.

Some edgier fashion magazines do not pay a fee or only cover expenses even for assignment work.  I shot many assignments from celebrity to fashion for PAPER Magazine who does not pay a fee.  However it is not a surprise to anyone involved.  If the result is not worth the effort, choose not to participate.

GW Burns wrote:
I know we all have them but my biggest pet peave is magazines who desire to use your images in their publications but do not want to pay the photographer to use them.  We know it isnt a question of quality cause they want it in their magazine.  Then they want full release to do as they please with them and then wont even give you a credit!  Mind you these are some of the very top magazines in the world as well.  Now I do not look like Mother Theresa and I dont believe these magazines are raising money to find the cure for cancer so what gives?  What would happen if every photographer told them thanks but no thanks?  Perhaps they raise the suscription rate a quarter and finally throw a bone at the guys' who work fills their magazine.  So as for me I am officially starting the "If you print it you must pay" association of photographers.  Who's with me?

GW I hear ya I get so many offers ....... I'm joining in

Tara Jane wrote:
one of my peeves is spelling errors, it doesn't look very professional (as in magazine paying you to shoot for them professional) to spell things wrong and have typos or worse uncommon or local slang. It hurts my eyes.

sorry, english is not my first language... excuse me!

aref wrote:
Not me.
I have shot for years for magazines that don't pay, or pay very little. It is called marketing.

being published in good magazines is the way for big advertising clients to see a showcase of my work. That is where my biggest paying clients have found me, that and magazines who DO pay.

I am not sure which magazines you are talking about though.  You say " ... and they are some of the top magazines in the world"... Hmm I know only a very few TOP magazines in the world who don't pay their photographers... but I only deal with fashion magazines...

Plus.. if Italian Vogue called me tomorrow to shoot for them for free, I would be there yesterday.. for free!

it is marketing. editorial has never been for profit. BUT... magazines traditionally paid a minimal amount to allow for costs. noone made much money, but noone dug into their pocket too deeply to provide the magazine with essentially free content. it was a partnership so to speak and of mutual benefit.

digital has changed that somewhat in that costs are not there for film/film processing. however, the biggest mover in this regard is the willingness of those who might not otherwise get published to dance to the publisher's tune.
this is NOT a completely healthy trend, although I applaud all publishing efforts designed to challenge the status quo (of conde naste)

Italian Vogue pays btw, as do all covers from or affiliated with major publishing houses.