Time Gets Frugal & Photographers Get Screwed

August 9, 2009 | Category: Photographers

There used to be a time when snagging the cover of a major publication like Time was a huge achievement for a professional photographer. In addition to getting a nice payday (cover images typically get upwards of $3k) , it meant (if not fame) instant bragging rights among other professional photographers and an impressive tear-sheet for the portfolio.

Welcome to the 21st century folks… the cover photo above cost Time magazine $30 + whatever fee iStockphoto charges these days ($150 I’ve been told). Robert Lam, the photographer of the jar of coins, is having a lot of scorn heaped upon him from other photographers and bloggers on the the web for not only allowing himself to be screwed over by two large corporations… but actually being happy about it.

Frankly, it’s a sad state of affairs when Time magazine decides to turn to a micro-stock house for their cover image instead of paying a photographer a fair market rate for their work. It makes me wonder how much of the (rather forgettable) photography that I see in magazines these days comes from the stock houses… and if there’s much point to even trying to be a commercial photographer anymore.

To be certain, economic conditions are pretty awful for the publishing industry and ad rates are down… or so we are told by the billionaire owners who fret about becoming merely multimillionaires. And yes, Time magazine has the right to buy whatever photograph they want at the price that it’s offered… but Mr. Lam should get more than $30 for being on the cover of a magazine with a print run of over 3 million and we should not be outraged at him… but at the corporations that exploit his desire to be a working photographer. The fact that he seems pleased to just be on the cover goes to show what a great job our society has done to convince creative artists that being famous is more important than earning a living.

Mr. Lam’s situation is one that most creative people find themselves in these days. There is so much decent quality content being created with cheap digital cameras that in order to be able to get exposure for your photographic work… you’re forced to give it away to as many people as possible… or charge as little as you can stand to be able to get an assignment… and hope for something better. And $30 is better than $0… which might as well be the Mission Statement at iStockphoto.

While I hope that this leads to more lucrative paid work for the artist… I suspect (and hope that I’m wrong) that this cover will be the high point of a his artistic career… a memento of the time time he tried to make a living as a photographer. And I hope that he eventually gets angry about THAT, if nothing else.