Richard Majerski wrote:
In my humble opinion this is just another way someone on either end of the camera can say "published" on their social media pages.To me being published means in a hard copy item which you had no control over and not self published either.I'm old school.I had to school a few younger people on being wary when someone uses roundabout language of their credits.As an example I physically appeared in the background of some NHL hockey photos printed in Sports Illustrated.Can I say I was in Sports Illustrated and not be a fib-yes.That's the kind of  statement that needs further clarification.That way I can say hey I never said my pictures were in SI just me.

The people I know who get legit published did have some control over it, but they didn't buy their way in. I 100% agree that it's just bragging rights for social. I did a couple of less popular magazines for fun and sure I post the pics on social, but I don't get the paying and going out of your way for a bunch of these.

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
I find it kind of strange that a certain model/friend of mine will drop everything and shoot TF for photographers that will feature her in some fake magazine to the point of bragging to her friends and family.

When she was trying to get listed with an agency she asked me for advice on what to do.  Among the few suggestions I gave her was not to brag or even mention the fake magazines she appears in.  I told her 'they'll see right through it' which could go against her.

The funny thing is I recently had a casting call for a model to appear in a REAL magazine, a travel publication that's been around for several decades and can be ordered by subscription of purchased at news stands,  This particular model was the  first person I thought of, and yes she did apply for the casting.

The problem is that the magazine wanted the photos taken at a specific location for an article they were doing about the unusual but relatively unknown historic markers.  The model wanted me to do the shoot at a cliche, overused location that every photographer and their brother shoots at.  When I told her that's not a place that the magazine wanted photos of she discontinued communications.

She would have gotten paid fairly well plus a tear sheet in a REAL publication.

How silly is that?! Well I love history and I love traveling, so I'll step up and take her place next time

amandawebster wrote:
Is anyone else annoyed by the cropping up of dozens of print on demand "magazines." Kavyar has made this process quite common now and I swear I see new magazines every day online.

Models and photogs pay (sometimes significant) fees to be featured in or be on the cover of them. They are typically $25-40 an issue and you know dang well the only people buying them are those who have been featured in them. They'll accept any halfway decent work.

Is this vanity? Do some people get some kind of professional value from this? What the heck?!

Very annoyed.

There are several local amateur Models and Photographers who tout themselves as being 'Published' in this manner with prospective Models buying into the 'I can get You published' bullshit and the consumer, the 'fans' eating it up as both are clueless.

Is it vanity?  Partly, part ignorance and knowingly or unknowingly part deception.

Richard Majerski wrote:
In my humble opinion this is just another way someone on either end of the camera can say "published" on their social media pages.

I've been mystified when I read that a model wants a photographer who can guarantee published images. Now I understand how that works.

Al_Vee Photography wrote:
*shrug*

It's not my place to judge how other people use their work, print it, or promote it. Sometimes it is gratifying for people just to see what their work looks like printed. That is a positive experience to some, and in that way, the experience carries value.

"Published" in general is a very diffuse term today, in various arts. A good many new authors, for example, must self-publish their first work, no matter how good (or bad) it may be. If they can get enough of an audience online and a solid fan base after self-publishing, they may eventually get mainstream representation, and more traditional publishing opportunities.

I'd imagine this mentality makes a lot of sense for some folks in visual arts as well. Being pretentious about it doesn't change the fact that self-publishing art, and self-producing music, is a key aspect to finding mainstream acknowledgement now, in many creative ventures.

I think you made some very good points

Al_Vee Photography wrote:
*shrug*

It's not my place to judge how other people use their work, print it, or promote it. Sometimes it is gratifying for people just to see what their work looks like printed. That is a positive experience to some, and in that way, the experience carries value.

"Published" in general is a very diffuse term today, in various arts. A good many new authors, for example, must self-publish their first work, no matter how good (or bad) it may be. If they can get enough of an audience online and a solid fan base after self-publishing, they may eventually get mainstream representation, and more traditional publishing opportunities.

I'd imagine this mentality makes a lot of sense for some folks in visual arts as well. Being pretentious about it doesn't change the fact that self-publishing art, and self-producing music, is a key aspect to finding mainstream acknowledgement now, in many creative ventures.

Yes I agree ... well said too!

SayCheeZ!  wrote:

Congrats!

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
I find it kind of strange that a certain model/friend of mine will drop everything and shoot TF for photographers that will feature her in some fake magazine to the point of bragging to her friends and family.

When she was trying to get listed with an agency she asked me for advice on what to do.  Among the few suggestions I gave her was not to brag or even mention the fake magazines she appears in.  I told her 'they'll see right through it' which could go against her.

The funny thing is I recently had a casting call for a model to appear in a REAL magazine, a travel publication that's been around for several decades and can be ordered by subscription of purchased at news stands,  This particular model was the  first person I thought of, and yes she did apply for the casting.

The problem is that the magazine wanted the photos taken at a specific location for an article they were doing about the unusual but relatively unknown historic markers.  The model wanted me to do the shoot at a cliche, overused location that every photographer and their brother shoots at.  When I told her that's not a place that the magazine wanted photos of she discontinued communications.

She would have gotten paid fairly well plus a tear sheet in a REAL publication.

I may know exactly who that is....but in any event, I recently got in a bit of a legal tiff with a POD bottom feeder who received my work from a model I have worked with extensively and “Published” same without anyone checking on actually securing a license from me to do so.  When I learned of it because my brand got tagged on Instagram and called them out on it,. I received the license agreement....and a quick scan of it quickly said “There’s no way in hell I would agree to this”....but then I research the magazine a bit....as said before, no advertising, no editorial to speak of,  no audit numbers re distribution, no MASTHEAD for Gawds sake.  As for the content....most of the “Models” looked like the day shift at the second best strip club near the airport, shot by uninspired GWCs. No way I would let my content appear in such a rag, Frankly I would view any association with it to be injurious to my brand and business.

So, I did the needful.  Hit em with a DMCA takedown.  This parasite, who is not paying models or photographers but wants free exclusive lifetime rights to the images WE create and the ability to sell them in his magazines and calendars, actually tried to make a case that this was fair use of some sort.    My response basically was “OK, lawyer up, muthaphucka, I know where I sit here, exactly, and I will bankrupt your ass for spite”.   

The whole experience led me to start thinking about publishing a small, ethical, real, model and photo magazine, with at least local distribution, real editorial copy and advertising, audit numbers, masthead, the whole thing. I dunno if I want to take that on, (Could be a real money loser as I would need to make sure models, photographers and other contributors were equitably treated) but the POD guys, at least THAT guy, are about the lowest form of publishing I could imagine. I would consider credits listing a bunch of POD publishing means nothing more than you are gullible.

Studio NSFW wrote:
[The whole experience led me to start thinking about publishing a small, ethical, real, model and photo magazine, with at least local distribution, real editorial copy and advertising, audit numbers, masthead, the whole thing. I dunno if I want to take that on, (Could be a real money loser as I would need to make sure models, photographers and other contributors were equitably treated) bu....

I'm not sure how old you are or how long you've been in CA, but Western Photographer magazine was THE publication to go to.  It was sort of like Model Mayhem but in print way before WWW was around, and it was pretty much limited to activities in So. Cal but did have appeal to people in No Cal, NV,and AZ. 

It was around for about 25 years and folded in the 90's.  It started off as a small, black and white tabloid and evolved into a larger size magazine with color on the cover. 

I really wish it was still around, and sadly no modern website can match the influence WP had on Models and Photographers in the locations they were geared to, and it's improbable that any publication can duplicate the readership,subscibers, or influence it had.

amandawebster wrote:
Is this vanity? Do some people get some kind of professional value from this? What the heck?!

Its actually called Vanity Publishing....Lol

Znude! wrote:
I've had many images published in hardback editions.

Shot for my high school and college yearbooks.

TaDa!

Some would argue that  school enticed a minor into providing free labor for the school.   As someone who shot and did darkroom work for both my school newspaper and yearbook, I disagree.   It's an internship of sorts.  Same with my athletic contribution.

(back before digital photography was a thing.)

ROUA IMAGES wrote:
I have open submissions available for the following magazines: Standard submission fee: $50  (Make the cover for only $150!)
Submit to any, or all, conveniently from one website!  Get your name out there!

"No Filter Mag!"
"Mid-day Majestic"
"Pimp Lee Cheex"
"HARSH! Light and Shadow"
"Same Outfit / Same Pose" (12 image submission minimum)
"FOCUS SHMOCUS!" (Prestige)
"I Took This!"
"Rolled My Aperture Didn't Look!"
"Oily and Tired"
"Deez Props Doh!"
"Moodless Beauty"
"MEH Magazine" (Prestige)

This made Me

much appreciated!

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

This made Me

much appreciated!

There's still room for satire, humor, and parody out there!
Cheers, FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY.

*Though I am gunning for bragging rights for the cover of FOCUS SHMOCUS, myself.

"Did you see my shots?"
"- Sorta'."

Dan Howell wrote:
What it does say is that opportunities for me to hire professional models for editorial publication have simply gone away. Emagazines and vanity publishing is simply not generating enough money to justify a serious production. For me, it is not a credential.

Maybe it means people will have to actually look at a model or photographer's individual images and make their own judgement. How old school...

i'm going to update and modify my own statement in this thread instead of editing the earlier version. I have to admit to having an 'evolving' opinion about vanity publication. I recently completed an editorial styled shoot  which was planned and shot with the intention of my own portfolio/website and future promotions.

I was weighing various options on how to present it and I had even gone as far as talking to a graphic designer to do some presentation graphics that would have been in the form of a magazine layout. I then stumbled upon magazines associated with Kavyar and saw one that was taking submissions for the September Fashion edition.

I made my submission and was accepted immediately. I think that can mean either one of two things: it is not a high barrier for acceptance or my submission was within their interest area. Or possibly both. The interesting thing is that once I began my Kavyar profile I was contacted by three other magazine encouraging me to submit (for free) to their editions that had fast-approaching deadlines. Again, they may have been in great need for content or they saw content that fit their scope. Or both.

As far as my original submission, I feel like I had already been seeking to have a presentation in magazine layout form. I plan on using it on my Instagram, possibly my website and even printing it out as a mailer to targeted clients. I guess what I am saying is if you think that e-magazines/submission publication are simply vanity for the photographer to sit back and bask in their display, then they are truly a vanity. However, if you consider that it is a tangible image asset that a photographer can actively use as a part of their promotional efforts, then I think you have to consider however low the barrier to entry is 'vanity' publications can be a legit avenue for photographers to pursue--though possibly easy to go overboard with.

Francisco Castro wrote:
Unless the magazine in question actually has a barcode, I don't really consider it "published". I have and know how to use Adobe InDesign. As long as I have the text and photos ready, I can layout a quick magazine in about 30 minutes. But that doesn't make me a publisher.

Actually you can put a barcode on any home printed publication. What you might be thinking of is a bipad number which refers to magazine rack space distribution. That is often put on by the distributor not the publisher. Mailed subscription issues often don't have the barcode on them.