I know that it sucks for you folks who want to make a living as a photographer, but hell this isn't the third world. Shooting photos is a luxury compared to harvesting coffee beans in Colombia and stitching clothes in China for $1 a day.

As incredibly frustrated as I am by many posts in this thread, I just cant be bothered having a full on rant.
I will say this though- if photos are worth publishing then they are worth paying for.

For the record I have I have talked to Joe about this. I think there's a lot to be said for understanding what you are worth & sticking to your guns.

Actually Gwungzow, the reason I PM'd Mike is because I don't think it's appropriate to discuss certain things on this forum.

But in order to set the record straight; in fact CRUX operates on a different business structure to a normal magazine.
We are a small community based magazine made up of a bunch of friends (currently myself, Simon Carter, Neil Monteith, Simon Murray, with a few others helping with advertising, proofing etc) that prints articles & photos by us & our mates & their mates kinda thing. We have a very small print run, and only have enough advertising to cover print costs (about 14 pages, in a 112 page thrice-yearly magazine) & none of the staff get paid a cent for our work- in fact we all lose significant money not only in direct expenses but also in massive amounts of time taken away from our own businesses.
Basically, the relatively small Australian climbing market is currently incapable of sustaining such a magazine if we were to pay full market prices, so it became a labour (and a labour it is!) of love project for the community instead of a business venture for a few people.

But thanks for your concern about my business ethics...

Putting spin on it does not change anything. You cant rip a guy for underpaying INYOP and then under pay yourself. makes you look like a tool. Typically small circulation rags pay $10 to $20 per photo, certainly you could at least try to cover that.......

As incredibly frustrated as I am by many posts in this thread, I just cant be bothered having a full on rant.
I will say this though- if photos are worth publishing then they are worth paying for.

For the record I have I have talked to Joe about this. I think there's a lot to be said for understanding what you are worth & sticking to your guns.

Mad Rock, a fairly small company...

Looks like an attack to me. Of course, I have been wrong before.

^^ add to that, whiners with an extreme sense of entitlement.
.

Or maybe shoes and crashpads?





There is ALWAYS going to be someone willing to work for less. Its too bad that they don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. Not to mention dragging industry standards down too.





Way to keep undercutting everyone else to make yourself another buck Joe.

Actually Gwungzow, the reason I PM'd Mike is because I don't think it's appropriate to discuss certain things on this forum.

But in order to set the record straight; in fact CRUX operates on a different business structure to a normal magazine.
We are a small community based magazine made up of a bunch of friends (currently myself, Simon Carter, Neil Monteith, Simon Murray, with a few others helping with advertising, proofing etc) that prints articles & photos by us & our mates & their mates kinda thing. We have a very small print run, and only have enough advertising to cover print costs (about 14 pages, in a 112 page thrice-yearly magazine) & none of the staff get paid a cent for our work- in fact we all lose significant money not only in direct expenses but also in massive amounts of time taken away from our own businesses.
Basically, the relatively small Australian climbing market is currently incapable of sustaining such a magazine if we were to pay full market prices, so it became a labour (and a labour it is!) of love project for the community instead of a business venture for a few people.

But thanks for your concern about my business ethics...

The comments you quoted were citing my frustration at some of the 'photographers' in the forum, NOT at Joe.

Your other comments in your last post demonstrate your complete and utter lack of understanding of the industry & how/why it works.

Editor of CRUX here:

There is a big difference between advertising and editorial photography. If an image is featured in advertrising, the talent and photographer are in effect 'endorsing' the product. It then means the talent/photographer is then eliminated from working on rival manufacturs (ie conflct of interest). 'talent' in advertsing photos are also required payment. The larger advertising photo rates encorporate these sorts of additional costs into what seems like inflated costs. Also, most advertisers will want to OWN the photo outright, and thus they pay a heap more to have sole use of the image.

Photo contributions to small magazines are in effect just a way of sourcing a compilaton of work to be enjoyed by the wider community. I treat a magazine as a condensed (edited) version of the web, a place where people can enjoy the best bits without wading through piles of crap posts/images. We offer considerable value prizes to randomaly drawn contributors to our magazine (ie $200 worth of gym holds is an example). Photos contributed to CRUX are still the property of the photographer, they can be re-submitted to advertising clients and other magazines wihout gaining our permission.

To compare CRUX to Madrock is ridiuclas. We are a tiny regional mag with an annual turn over in the low tens of thousands. Mad Rock on the other hand is a 'made in china' manufactuer and distributer to a huge world wide market.

What comment are you referring too? I would love a rational explanation, not an emotional response.

I never compared your magazine to Mad ROck, what I said was you co-owner couldn't bitch at photographer for participating in Mad Rock’s poster contest because MR is paying low when he doesn't pay at all.

I originally did start to disect your post and give a detailed explanation, but to be honest it was doing my head in.
If you would like to discuss this properly & in detail via email I'd be happy to. My address is photos@joshcaple.com
Though it is not something I believe to be entirely appropriate to do publicly, I must disagree with some of CRUXMAG's comments...
While a surprising number of companies originally request ownership of images, when they are properly educated as to the costs involved in such a thing (tens of thousands, or much higher depending on the client) they usually rethink their specific needs. 'Licensing' is the name of the game these days.

On the note of royalty-free stock, it's something I steer well clear of. If you need the 'throw images at them & let them do the rest' marketing power of a stock library, check out the fantastic rights-managed options available. As far as I'm concerned, RF is selling yourself WELL short.

EDITED TO ADD:


I also believe that you did & still are making that comparison...but whatever.
I am not bitching at photographers for wanting to participate, hell I think it's a great idea! I am just encouraging those who choose to participate to realise the value of their images & stick to their guns in terms of rights & reimbursement.

There is ALWAYS going to be someone willing to work for less. Its too bad that they don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. Not to mention dragging industry standards down too.


Way to keep undercutting everyone else to make yourself another buck Joe.