It's pathetic. It's worse than horrible. Pretty soon the photography is going to be Free. And the only people making any money will be the lawyers that the "poor" (literally) photographers hire, after they realize what has happened to them. Quality and Good Creative is going down the tubes and we, as a visual nation, are going to pay the price. It's just a shame. We, as artists, should be standing up for the "VALUE" of what we studied, learned and try to teach our clients.

Just another form of outsourcing, what's wrong with that? If a photographer makes a living off of easy shots like a bomb and a jar, they need to reexamine their career path. Time is putting their energy and money into the concept, the creative thinking, and however that gets executed is of secondary importance as long as the ultimate goal is achieved. Plus with so many news publications on the brink, why spend more money when you can get exactly what you need for a mere fraction of the cost?

1) These are quality images, not Microsoft Clip Art

2) If an editor says 'get me a picture of a bomb' or a jar of money, how wise would it be to setup a photoshoot when these are available?

3) They didn't just print a photo unaltered. They paid a designer (okay, presumably on staff and salaried) to add AIG on a label, The New Frugality on tape, etc. Now, that's not a ton of work, but there are a lot of designers on CreativePro, so what's wrong with paying DESIGNERS?

4) At least they put Zac Efron in a small corner and gave the cover story and attention to the economy.

Years ago you could actually make a living as a photographer and originality and creativity were respected and encouraged.

How are these Time shots creative? The creativity is in the concept, and the impact of it comes from using banal images. That's the whole point - simple, direct, powerful.

There are still plenty of creative photographers out there making money. While the photographers of these Time shots may do other work that is creative, these particular shots are not creative.

I read 9 pages of the ModelMayhem.com rants & congratulations (on the coin jar image) and only one photographer mentioned something that struck me pretty quickly... almost all of them are using a model shot as their icon, and it appears many times - how many of them are paying the model for every time the shot occurs on this particular website? Isn't that pretty lady/lad due some kind of credit? After all, it's her/his body or face they are flaunting. And if they weren't so gorgeous, they wouldn't have chosen that image, right?

They insist that setting up a shot, adjusting the lighting, etc. is more valuable than the designer's time, creativity & effort in creating the cover. I mention this because that person's role is totally ignored. In their world, they are the only one who should make $10,000 off of a cover in a national magazine - and they all should make that kind of money no matter what the subject matter or layout is. Sorry kids - that is not life as we now know it.

Time doesn't use microstock on all of their covers. The images aren't free, and in fact have increased in price over the years. Sure, they morally (and maybe legally) should have put the actual photographer's name in the credits, but these things do get known in this cyber-oriented world of ours so it's not a total loss.

Is the photographer's happiness with making the cover of Time misguided? No - because no one from Time knocked on his door asking him to shoot a cover & he got a chance to increase the number of people who see his work without that direct contact.

Is microstock imagery going to kill all professional photograher's business or devalue it? Highly unlikely. The next Time cover may need to feature something/someone presented in a certain way that is only available by hiring a professional photographer with a specific vision. They won't be offering that person $125.

If iStockPhoto charged what a world-wide cover shot should draw, then fine, but to let Time get by so cheap was the real crime here. -instig8r

Time occasionally uses microstock for their covers, and look who's complaining. Not Time's customers, but potential vendors of Time. Photographers' complaints center around how this is bad for the industry and the sad decline of commercial art. That may be true, but their complaints are actually driven by their fear of losing work.

I remember when typesetters had similar complaints twenty years ago. They said that without professional typesetters, design quality would greatly suffer. It turns out, they weren't as irreplaceable as they thought. None of us are.

There will always be changes in the design industry. Some bad, but in the long run, more good than bad. The business of photography is changing also. Anyone that thought microstock was going to be confined to clients who couldn't afford a professional photographer was over idealistic.

Time Magazine is just like any business endeavor. It's under enormous competitive pressure and rightfully is more focused on its customers than its suppliers. Are photographers and designers really any different? Don't you spend a lot more time pleasing your clients than your vendors? Do you give your print jobs to higher quality printers than what the job requires?

My subject line is not about the TIME magazine.

Changes in the way how visuals are used are always welcome, as far as it effectively communicates the idea the editor want to express. There should not be a compulsion that a cover image should be a photograph...

Why would I pay to commission a photo when the exact shot I need is available royalty-free? It wouldn't make good business sense.

IStock isn't even the worst offender. Dreamstime, ShutterStock, Fotolia, BigStockPhoto, 123RF, all sell images for LESS than IStock, with excellent quality

I'm a Creative Director by day and a periodic iStockphoto contributor on evenings and weekends. I work with professional photographers in my day job. Sometimes they do get paid $8-10k or more per day. There was a time when I would have been far too embarrassed to let my "real" photographer friends know I was doing stock. Now, my "hobby" pays for my house and car. I've come to view it as the music industry model. A band gets a fraction of the $.99 when you download a song – it's the volume of those sales that make it worthwhile.

Honestly, if sites like iStock didn't exist, my shots would be languishing on a hard-drive in my closet. Should I turn down a significant revenue stream in order to preserve the integrity of photographic arts?

I agree with the previous post that this situation is parallel to the typesetters. When the masses gained the ability to set type, there were disasters and discoveries. I'd say that typography as a whole suffered, but there's no stopping the train.

I shoot for istock, exclusively, and I do it for FUN! Thats right....its not my day job, or even my second job. I do it because I like photography and if my images make me a little money on the side I am not complaining. I make $100,000 a year at my day job and could care less if I get $1.25 or $1250 for an image.

There are plenty of photographers on istock that have quit thier day jobs and made microstock a full time career. If your a stock photographer and your "just that good" then it shouldn't be hard to take a step forward into the 21st century and make your microstock for you. Even if it is only $1 or $2 at a time. You can sell an image once a year for $200 or you can sell it 50 times a year and make $4 each time. I am no professor of math but I do believe that gives you the same end result.....

I am an exclusive iStock contributor. My cupcake was used on the cover of TIME this week and yes, to me it is worth the exposure. My name was credited inside the front cover. Conversely, I may never had had an opportunity to contribute to a large magazine simply as a pro photographer, but as TIME has used one of my images, I am now able to include that cover in my portfolio. The idea that microstock devalues photography is an archaic argument a decade into the successful microstock revolution. As a professional photographer, iStock has made me feel iincredibly valuable as an exclusive contributor.

Ok, how many of you subscribe to Time magazine? Would you be upset if Time increased the cost of your subscription so they can pay more for cover photography? How much more would you be willing to pay? How much does the cover determine whether or not you'll renew your subscription?

Although many of the commenter are focused on the cover image, Time's readers pay for the magazine's content. Subscribers may be willing to pay more for more stories, more in-depth articles, or better news coverage, but I doubt they would pay more just so that some photographers can make more money. Although it may irk--and even disgust--some of you, Time is more concerned (and rightfully so) about its subscribers and the value they bring to them.

Time produces 52 issues a year. If they use stock photos for a few of those issues it's not going to break the pro photog market. And it is highly unlikely that Time or any other Big Business will switch to using stock photos exclusively for any significant amount of time. The need to stand out, create buzz and massage corporate egos guarantees there will always be a market for custom work in any industry.

It is also true that above a certain amount the fee a commercial photographer commands is based on the market. If the buyers think photographer Smith is worth many thousands of dollars they will pay that. Smith needs to earn a certain amount to cover overhead and make a reasonable profit on which to live and beyond that it is gravy. And it is possible for a pro (in any field) to go overboard in attempting to get the perfect shot (Annie Leibovitz being the poster gal for rampant perfectionism). The video accompanying this article showed the day in the life of a shot of two iPhones. If semi-pro photographer Jones is able to sell a shot at stock, gets photo credit and as a result becomes in demand then Jones will be able to charge higher fees and with skill and some luck join the ranks of the fully pro photogs.

And as for smaller clients, a client who cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars, or even hundreds of dollars for a a custom shot is just as entitled to a decent photograph as Megacorp. If, one day, as the result of prudent management and well crafted marketing materials Small Company becomes Bigger Company, then they may well need to hire custom photography. If you are a professional and your business is threatened by lower priced competitors then you need to revisit your plan--are you offering a truly unique product/service, are you offering what the client is really looking for or are you demanding that the client appreciate you for the genius you are, is your pricing realistic in the current economy.