![]() Posted Fri Aug 7, 2009 6:22PM | yup, that's my little cupcake on the Aug. 17 cover of TIME. thanks blaneyphoto for letting me know, very sweet of you! |
![]() ![]() Posted Fri Aug 7, 2009 6:52PM | Congrats! But don't tell John Harrington. He might claim that you are the newest poster girl for everything that is wrong with photography. I, on the other hand, am very happy for you! |
![]() Posted Fri Aug 7, 2009 7:36PM | I thought of that myself, lol...but then I thought hey, still, it's TIME Magazine (Edited on 2009-08-07 19:42:19 by stacey_newman) |
![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Fri Aug 7, 2009 8:02PM | congrats stacey! |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Fri Aug 7, 2009 11:45PM | Did you get your EL for 500,000 uses, and the EL for items for resale? That's great you got the in action! To be honest, however, I'm not a fan of the overall illustration: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20090817,00.html . It looks like they spent 5 minutes on it. |
![]() ![]() Posted Sat Aug 8, 2009 6:38AM | Did you get a credit, which is required by iStock on editorial usages of images? (maybe that's how Nathan recognised it?) |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Sat Aug 8, 2009 10:50AM | Posted By SoopySue: (maybe that's how Nathan recognised it?) That's it! |
![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Sat Aug 8, 2009 12:53PM | Posted By SoopySue: Did you get a credit, which is required by iStock on editorial usages of images? (maybe that's how Nathan recognised it?) She did get full credit! On the link that Sean provided above, you can see this under the cover image: PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION BY TIME, WOMAN: JAMIE GRILL/GETTY. CUPCAKE: STACEY NEWMAN/ISTOCKPHOTO. INSETS, FROM LEFT: EPA/KCNA; ART STREIBER FOR TIME |
![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Sat Aug 8, 2009 2:11PM | Items for resale EL does not apply in this situation (or any Time's cover situation). A poster of her cupcake alone would require it as that is the item that makes the poster a poster. Someone buying a print of the cover is buying the cover because it is Time magazine not because they wanted a poster of a cupcake. Just like people buy the magazine because it is the magazine, not because they want a photo of a cupcake. |
![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Sat Aug 8, 2009 2:12PM | Congrats Stacey! |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Sat Aug 8, 2009 2:27PM | WTG Stacey! Congrats!!! |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Sat Aug 8, 2009 2:34PM | bravo Stacy! mmmmmmm cupcakes |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Sun Aug 9, 2009 5:45PM | Posted By sylvanworks: Items for resale EL does not apply in this situation (or any Time's cover situation). A poster of her cupcake alone would require it as that is the item that makes the poster a poster. Someone buying a print of the cover is buying the cover because it is Time magazine not because they wanted a poster of a cupcake. Just like people buy the magazine because it is the magazine, not because they want a photo of a cupcake. I dunno. If they wanted a poster of Time magazine, they'd buy any one from the last several years, but they instead bought that one specifically for the illustration on the cover. Without the cupcake and girl, it is a white paper with a red border and "Time" at the top. It is being sold as a poster for the artwork on the cover, IMO, and deserves the resale EL. I think Time can afford it. Is that the official declaration from legal? |
![]() Posted Sun Aug 9, 2009 6:52PM | hey thanks gang. I was away at the cottage with limited internet, so thanks for all the replies. was wondering about the EL, but assumed what you said Rob since my cupcake is just a portion of the cover image. in any case, that one's going in a frame...just because. AND...it slightly alleviated the jealousy I was feeling looking at all the HQlypse fun! thanks TIME (Edited on 2009-08-09 19:29:44 by stacey_newman) |
![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Sun Aug 9, 2009 7:45PM | Hey Stacey, now you are a microstock celebrity |
![]() Posted Sun Aug 9, 2009 8:40PM | Posted By sjlocke: Posted By sylvanworks: Items for resale EL does not apply in this situation (or any Time's cover situation). A poster of her cupcake alone would require it as that is the item that makes the poster a poster. Someone buying a print of the cover is buying the cover because it is Time magazine not because they wanted a poster of a cupcake. Just like people buy the magazine because it is the magazine, not because they want a photo of a cupcake. I dunno. If they wanted a poster of Time magazine, they'd buy any one from the last several years, but they instead bought that one specifically for the illustration on the cover. Without the cupcake and girl, it is a white paper with a red border and "Time" at the top. It is being sold as a poster for the artwork on the cover, IMO, and deserves the resale EL. I think Time can afford it. Is that the official declaration from legal? btw Sean - thanks for questioning this on my behalf |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Sun Aug 9, 2009 9:16PM | Right on and congrats Stacey! |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:47AM | Congratulations Stacey, brilliant kudos to have a Time cover. I'm also surprised that an items for resale EL is not required here, on the basis that a buyer is buying a Time magazine cover reproduction, rather than a print of the image itself. Couldn't a similar argument be used in the case of a calendar (for instance)... the buyer is purchasing a calendar, which also has photographs, rather than buying posters/prints specifically of the photograph. But surely an extended license is needed for that. Anyway, I think it's great that Time are so enlightened with their use of iStock. Unfortunately the UK national press still don't comfortable to use iStock work, instead using the traditional agencies, plus the one large, UK based site that shall remain nameless. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:49AM | Congrats. Glad to see iStockers on the cover! |
![]() ![]() ![]() Posted Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:11AM | Congrats Stacey! |