GUP Magazine - Rare open call

Wait, you mean I can send my creative work to them, and they can use my creative work to sell their magazine, and they will keep all the money from the sales of their magazine (that my creative work helped facilitate), and I will get nothing but EXPOSURE?

WOW!!! SIGN ME UP!!!!!

This is not a slight to the OP, but this kind of thing drives me nuts. "We want to use your creative work, and we're not going to pay you for your creative work, and we're going to make money off your creative work, but think of the exposure you're going to get."

Exposure doesn't pay the mortgage, put food on the table, or pay for my kids education.

Again, no offense to the OP, but this kind of crap is why photography is such a difficult business to be in. Everyone expects you to give your work away for "exposure" and too many people are willing to do just that.
 
"Clean my apartment!"

"Will I get paid?"

"No, but lots of people know me and I'll tell them you did a really good job"

The End.
 
jsrockit said:
The right exposure (and I'm not saying this is it) certainly could lead to great things...
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming . . .

And it's that naive dream that publications like this are counting on. They perpetuate that dream, which is a total fallacy, to keep cheating artists out of their work.
 
They also like those folks who find the "exposure" and "recognition" payment enough. Much like winning the photo contest at the county fair. You get a ribbon and everyone 'round these parts will compliment you on your picture takin' abilities. ---- warm fuzzy feeling, ain't it?

Ask me how I know.
 
Timmyjoe said:
Keep dreaming . . .

And it's that naive dream that publications like this are counting on. They perpetuate that dream, which is a total fallacy, to keep cheating artists out of their work.
Click to expand...

So, no one ever got exposure from a group show that turned into one man show and then sold something? Sure it's rare, but it happens. Note I didn't say this magazine was the opportunity, I was simply pointing out that the right opportunity could be beneficial for all involved. But then again... you are the expert.
 
jsrockit said:
So, no one ever got exposure from a group show . . .
Click to expand...

This isn't a group show. This is a FOR PROFIT magazine that wants you to give them your creative work so they can publish it in their FOR PROFIT magazine, and make a PROFIT off of your creative work. I never said anything about a group show or one man show.

By all means, please submit your best work, and then come back and let us know about all the paying gigs you get from this.

Best of luck to you.
 
Timmyjoe, I never said this was that type of opportunity. I was simply saying that "exposure" isn't always bad. Mostly it is... but there are exceptions.
 
JSRockit, I've never said exposure was bad. It isn't.

What is bad is someone asking for your creative output so they can turn around and make money from it. Money that they are not going to share with you. And trying to convince you that "exposure" is as good as getting paid for what your creative work is worth. It isn't.

And if naive artists would stop giving these creeps their creative work for free, these creeps would have to finally start paying for creative work that they intend to make money off of.

Anyone who gives this publication their creative work for free (which is the "exposure" this magazine is offering), is hurting every other creative out there.
 
Timmyjoe said:
JSRockit, I've never said exposure was bad. It isn't.

What is bad is someone asking for your creative output so they can turn around and make money from it. Money that they are not going to share with you. And trying to convince you that "exposure" is as good as getting paid for what your creative work is worth. It isn't.

And if naive artists would stop giving these creeps their creative work for free, these creeps would have to finally start paying for creative work that they intend to make money off of.

Anyone who gives this publication their creative work for free (which is the "exposure" this magazine is offering), is hurting every other creative out there.
Click to expand...


Yup for profit institutions like this magazine do this not to help anyone but themselves.
But unfortunately the root of the problem falls squarely on the naivete of those that give them their work for free. If you value your work at $0, you really think the next gig will be a paying one?
They'll just use the next sucker who values their work at $0.
 
I agree with all the comments of working for exposure, etc. etc.

Has anyone thought of the possibility of a magazine that charges only to cover printing expenses, no profit, just for the love of it, would it be ok then to give away your creative work, just to get it out there..?
Not that thats the way this magazine operates, I know nothing about them. Just curious...
 
Even magazines that are like weekly publications and given away for free, those magazines are still FOR PROFIT in that they make all their money from the advertisers (not from subscriptions or newsstand price). And the advertisers pay higher rates for magazines that have larger circulations, so the more people who pick up the free copy of the weekly, the more money that weekly gets from its advertisers. And your beautiful creative work is why so many people are picking up a free copy of their publication (thereby making more money for the publisher). So they are still making money off of your creative work, even if they aren't "selling" their magazine.
 
Timmyjoe said:
Wait, you mean I can send my creative work to them, and they can use my creative work to sell their magazine, and they will keep all the money from the sales of their magazine (that my creative work helped facilitate), and I will get nothing but EXPOSURE?

WOW!!! SIGN ME UP!!!!!
Click to expand...

Depends on the magazine. An article in US magazines like Artforum, Aperture, Bomb, Art News, PDN can be be useful - or just another clipping to put in your files. I don't know GUP, or who reads it.

So your milage may vary.
 
jsrockit said:
The right exposure (and I'm not saying this is it) certainly could lead to great things...
Click to expand...

There have been quite a few articles written about my work over the past couple of decades. One article resulted in a New York gallery carying my work which rested in commissions for several major corporations. One was a huge comission for the Marina Bay Sands Casino. In all that gallery has sold around $250k (my half) of work. It resulted indirectly to my work being purchased by many collectors and now hangs in the collections of two museums.

B&W magazine featured my work 3 times as well such looks great in a resume. Several other articles helped contribute to getting into other fine galleries on their invitation.

The more you get your name and work out there the more attention it gets which directly relates to sales of your work. Collectors like to collect works from known artists not unknown.

It really depends on your goals as to whether it's worth submitting your work. For some of us it is.
 
x-ray said:
B&W magazine featured my work 3 times as well such looks great in a resume. Several other articles helped contribute to getting into other fine galleries on their invitation.
Click to expand...

I always give the advice that galleries love to "discover" artists, but it will never happen if your work it not out there to discover. As you note artists really need to help the dealers.

I often joke about artists I know -- who if they saw someone putting drawings up on a chain link fence -- would say "mind if I go to my studio and get some drawings?" These are the artists who end up with one person shows at the Whitney.
 
photomoof said:
I always tell others that galleries love to "discover" artists, but it will never happen if your work it not out there to discover. As you note artists really need to help the dealers.

I often joke about artists I know -- who if they saw someone putting drawings up on a chain link fence -- would say "mind if I go to my studio and get some drawings?" These are the artists who end up with one person shows at the Whitney.
Click to expand...

That's right. No one will ever discover your work if you keep it locked away.

Assignments are another matter. I recently had a publisher call asking for me to shoot an all day assignment for a magazine. It was out of town and the post production, editing would have been another half day. Anyway they asked me to shoot it and I asked what the budget was. The response was "we don't have a budget". My response was "ok I can bill my normal rate"? Their response was "no, we have no money". I then asked if I'd get some paid assignments and they responded they couldn't guarantee that I would. They stated they would gladly give my a byline. I said no thanks, I passed that point 47 years ago and never received a penny's work from a byline. I asked why I should do it for free when they were getting paid for my work.

This is totally different than a magazine feature of your work. Features are great, non paid assignments are not.
 
Very interesting perspective x-ray. Thanks for that.

I still think many of these "open calls", and sometimes "contests" are aimed at naive people who fancy themselves photographers. As others in this thread put it, the magazine ends up with free material and the submitters mostly get a short-lived euphoria of having been published. But, I can see some scenarios where "exposure" could have benefit. But, in general timmyjoe has it nailed. So many, so many, people willing to give away their time and talent diminishes and devalues (in particular, de-values) the work of photographers everywhere.

I'm not a professional...heck, I'm not even a decent photographer and I cringe when its assumed I will do a "job" for free. And I'm frequently asked. Why am I under-valued? Because any monkey can point the camera and click? That's the thinking out there.

I'll stop now before the tirade begins.
 
rfaspen said:
Very interesting perspective x-ray. Thanks for that.

I still think many of these "open calls", and sometimes "contests" are aimed at naive people who fancy themselves photographers. As others in this thread put it, the magazine ends up with free material and the submitters mostly get a short-lived euphoria of having been published. But, I can see some scenarios where "exposure" could have benefit. But, in general timmyjoe has it nailed. So many, so many, people willing to give away their time and talent diminishes and devalues (in particular, de-values) the work of photographers everywhere.

I'm not a professional...heck, I'm not even a decent photographer and I cringe when its assumed I will do a "job" for free. And I'm frequently asked. Why am I under-valued? Because any monkey can point the camera and click? That's the thinking out there.

I'll stop now before the tirade begins.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I've seen several major corporations soliciting photos for a contest. One was send your cute pix of your baby in and if we select it your photo will appear in our national ads. What mother wouldn't want to see their babies picture in a diaper ad? They get tens of thousands of free photos for future ads. The weather channel solicits current weather photos. No need to pay local sources when thousands of folks are eager to get their images on TV.

So many folks with cameras that see themselves as photographers eager to do anything to get their images published. I honestly believe the day is coming that magazine will only assign work to enthusiasts that are willing to pay to shoot the work and get a by line. Yes you heard me right, the photographer pay the magazine/ agency/ client to shoot the job for a byline and to see their work in print.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom