Kudos Steve - that's a great response.
Kudos Steve - that's a great response.
Great idea Steve.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I just stumbled upon this thread for the first time; I've got to say it's one of the most entertaining I've read (along with associated tangent threads). What drama and intrigue, and most of all, what a character this David Spivak is! Such a focused salesman he is (pun intended) it's tragic that he shoots himself in the foot with his horrendous PR and abrasive, disrespectful attitude.
Re: Bad Experience with Focus Magazine
Just returned from Barnes and Noble were I turned all the Focus Mags around and placed a couple Popular Photography Mags on top.
I can't believe this is STILL going on!
He must have lost the photos. Nothing else would explain this seemingly endless self-inflicted wound.
I am putting this post in public so everyone can see we have nothing to hide. The idea of twelve inkjet prints being worth more than $5,000 or somewhere even close to it is ridiculous and entertaining while bordering hilarious at the same time.Originally Posted by TLGG1
I will reiterate the policy of Focus. We are not National Geographic or Time or any other magazine that reproduces photographers in its Focus Gallery section for the sole purpose of exposure. We are not using submissions to the Focus Gallery to compliment articles. We are using them for the sole purpose of promoting photographers who are serious about their career in selling fine art photography to collectors. We are a magazine where photographers receive at least three issues worth of advertising for the purpose of selling their fine art photography to the reader of the magazine. Photographers who are seen in interviews are not part of the Photographer Marketing Program and their inclusion in Focus is based off of the importance of their career.
Any photographer, who does not understand the opportunity to exhibit his or her work in 3 issues, each of which have a potential to reach 45,000 readers (3 readers per copy with a circulation of 15,000 not including trade shows and photography fairs) simply does not understand the value of what we are offering and would not do well with the package. I understand that some photographers feel they should have their work reproduced for free and those photographers who value that old business model will only reach certain levels in todays market in my opinion. While other photographers, who agressively market themselves will be much better well-known and have an opportunity to make contacts with galleries, book publishing companies, collectors, dealers and other photographers for $357 a page for black and white.
Of course, Mr. Gordon rejected that idea. We wish him luck, as I've said publicly and privately, I think his photography is quite good.
I had to temporarily switch the building in which I run Focus out of in June and July and I moved back in August. It was nice having an office in the city...alass $5,000 a month for an office smaller most people's homes is something we could not afford. Sometime during the move most of Michael's prints were lost. We believed they were still at the old location and when we went there to retrieve them, we realized they were lost. This was just realized about a month ago when I asked Michael to call me and left him numerous messages. I'm not going to speak for Mr. Anchell who has done a tremendous job as Editor of Focus, or or anyone else involved in the publishing world, but it has happened numerous times where the staff of a magazine has misplaced a portfolio. I am sorry, there is no excuse except we simply misplaced it in our move from different offices. I put in numerous calls to Mr. Gordon so I could talk to him about this, but he has refused to return any of my calls and now has brought this matter to the attention of lawyers. Most, if not all of the prints submitted to us from March - August is still being returned to photographers...we have far exceeded the time we originally stated it would take to return prints. I have had to hire additional help to work with me on this.
His lawyers will be notified of this and will also be notified that Mr. Gordon's behavior has concerned us for quite some time. There seems to be some kind of intent to damage Focus magazine's reputation. For whatever reason this is, I don't know, nor do I care. It is simply unacceptable.
In a court of law, no magazine has ever been held responsible for lost or stolen prints. It is well known that if a photographer wishes to submit actual prints, that they submit copy prints for purposes of reproduction or if it is an inkjet print, such as Mr. Gordon's, that it be a print not included in an edition and that if it is lost or stolen, it is no loss to the photographer.
If Mr. Gordon takes us to court, then the offer is revoked and we will have to examine further some of Mr. Gordon's statements about the reputation of Focus. There is free speech and then there is the deliberate defamation of a company's reputation and business practices.
I just want to move on from this, which is why I'm offering to pay for the materials. I have the 2007 Guide to Collecting Fine Art Photography to put together, which includes current and upcoming exhibitions from hundreds of photography galleries from around the country, plus free listings for photographers and dealers. This is, by far, the largest task I have ever put together, but will be a huge reference for photographers and collectors.
Last edited by David Spivak-Focus Magazine; 22-Oct-2006 at 19:56.
I've been following this thread since it started. As your targeted demographic, I can say that my opinion of your magazine has been more influenced by your reaction and public responses than any negative feedback from anyone I've read. I know nothing about you, except from those responses.. and I can honestly say, you, not Mr. Gordon, have lost me as a customer (and before this all started, I was going to be a customer.
Jim Collum
http://www.susanspiritusgallery.com/...um/default.htm
"In a court of law, no magazine has ever been held responsible for lost or stolen prints."
I hope you didn't pay anything for research of that quality. Speaking as a lawyer who has handled "lost photograph" cases on behalf of magazines, I was convinced that you couldn't handle this situation in a less self-destructive manner, with less common sense. But you've topped yourself. You are spectacularly unaware of how you come across. What is cringe-inducing fingernails on the chalkboard to the rest of the world apparently strikes you a just good grooming. From thick headed bluster to petty sarcasm to this latest mock-aggressive legal delirium tremens -- you've done it. You've managed to make this even worse. And then after all of this to find this thread entertaining...
There is no sarcasm when it comes to losing someones prints. We lost his prints and there is no excuse for losing them. We were careless. We offer him the price it cost him to create his prints, which as far as I know, perhaps you know better, is more than any other magazine would ever do. I have heard numerous examples from people who are in the same market who have lost prints and have done nothing about it. We are doing something about it.
And there is nothing funny about the words Mr. Gordon used to describe Focus in other threads. There is no "mock-agressive legal delirium tremens." This is very serious. I'll admit, my previous posts were a bit off-handed. I don't know if you own your own law firm, but if someone attacked your law firm in a public forum, well perhaps you'd respond in kind.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks