| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/01/2005 08:10:39 PM · #1 |
Funny Inquirer Story
See also:
previous coverage
Message edited by author 2005-06-01 20:11:19.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2005 08:11:42 PM · #2 |
Just realised after posting .. fixed URLs
|
|
|
|
06/01/2005 08:40:03 PM · #3 |
Good on em!
I am glad this penny a shot attitude is showing its downside.
with the budgets these companies have they should realize they need something with exclusive rights.
Cant wait to see her in a herpes medication ad.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2005 11:44:06 PM · #4 |
| I find it kinda amusing to see this girls photo all over the place, sort of like "Where's Waldo". Actually, I feel the need to defend the stock photographers again. The photographer was able to sell photos of a girl many times thru stock agencies,(admittedly probably cheaply) when he may not have been able to locate a buyer interested in even one picture of this girl on his own, therefore accomplishing his goal of bringing in a little cash from photos that may have been otherwise trashed. I mean he could have approached any one of these places that actually used this photo ( given alot of time and information to find them and on the day they needed it ) and they may still not have bought her photo straight from him, just because someone was actually asking them to. After all, selling something that isn't already fantastic in the consumers eyes is not an easy thing to do and there is nothing really fantastic about this girl. It looks like the companies that bought the photo got what they wanted from it---it added a little scenery to their brochures where alot of other photos could have worked just as well. They didn't seem to be building their whole campaigns around a "pretty face" like the gerber baby, so they got what they paid for and both sides seem happy enough. I would think if the company was going to try to build their whole campaign around an image they would research it enough to purchase exclusive rights and know that they have to pay more for that. It probably wouldn't even cause a ripple in the sell of their product if she showed up everywhere including in a herpes ad, might even generate more publicity and bring in sales, the public is weird that way. Anyway, I think in my own personal opinion that stock photographers should submit "good" re-usable photos with general appeal that they are pretty well convinced won't be used as the foundation of an entire advertising campaign to the lesser paying stock agencies for cash instead of sending them to trash. And save their photos that are better than "good" for a better market. Sometimes it's hard to tell where a photo will go, but that is life. |
|
|
|
06/02/2005 12:27:07 AM · #5 |
| She's a Getty girl. Not from a cheap micro payment site. Just thought I'd point that out in case someone was confused. |
|
|
|
06/02/2005 03:59:13 AM · #6 |
Indeed - Getty is hardly "penny a shot" territory!
Message edited by author 2005-06-02 03:59:24. |
|
|
|
06/02/2005 06:23:52 AM · #7 |
That is so amazing. Thanx for the link(s).
My friend Gil's, face is posted up all over Chase Banks across the world. He got around $35(maybe less he said)for the 1 hr. shoot and the Photographer (his friend) is around $30 richer off that and 6 other images that Chase and a few other companies bought combined.
Message edited by author 2005-06-02 06:25:20.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2005 08:14:17 AM · #8 |
Sorry, didnt mean to say that that immage was from one of those low cost sites, but the risk of all non exclusive photos.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 03:59:06 AM EDT.
