Have you heard of these people?!

Toby Stone... and Ann Willett.
Founders of the "new" Louisville Retro Magazine. They've been trying to network like crazy! I'm sure if anyone is on facebook, you may have seen their name mentioned once or twice. Formerly owners of Louisville Nightlife, and Hometown Happenings... I'm not sure what other names they've gone by, from what I hear, it's a never ending list of failing magazines...

My personal opinion?
They may not intentionally con people (I only say this because in order to have the intentions of scamming someone, you have to know that it's wrong, and they apparently don't) but these people are nuts! Again, just my personal opinion.

Has anyone else had a run in with these folks? Just curious.

Sorry to rant, but I am royally pissed about the way they handle things, and I was convinced to start a discussion about it by several other LPC members... :) haha.

Tags: happenings, hometown, louisville, magazine, nightlife, retro

Views: 7

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JJ on April 15, 2009 at 6:23am
I haven't heard of them but I live in E-town so I don't really get contacted about those things much.
Permalink Reply by Ryan Armbrust on April 15, 2009 at 8:51am
Yeah, I know of these people.
Have they ever had a "Magazine" that has ran more than 2-3 editions?
Louisville Retro Magazine is the exact same "Magazine" as Louisville Nightlife. The owners bragged about this being the most successful magazine in the Southeast or some thing. I'm pretty in tune with what goes on in Louisville, yet I have never seen this AWESOME. super popular magazine!
Permalink Reply by Ryan Armbrust on April 15, 2009 at 8:59am
Louisville Retro Magazine might want to read up on copyright law...
They have an article on Taylor Swift on their website complete with pics. The photos CLEARLY did not come from one of their photogs, yet there is no photo credit given for the stolen images. I'm also pretty sure they did not get permission to use these.
Permalink Reply by Matt Lanham on April 15, 2009 at 11:33am
I've never heard of that magazine, or those people. I don't usually keep up with stuff like that, or even downtown happenings though. Sounds like Louisville Retro won't be around very much longer though, esp if they are stealing images!
Permalink Reply by Jami Guess on April 15, 2009 at 12:08pm
All I can tell you is that according to their facebook they are going to Honduras...
Permalink Reply by Nina Greipel on April 15, 2009 at 12:34pm
Leave it to Nina to ask them flat out if they have copyrights to these images. Ann's reply was "yes we do." Lemme respond then and ask why they never gave the photographer credit...stay tuned folks!

Ryan Armbrust said:
Louisville Retro Magazine might want to read up on copyright law...
They have an article on Taylor Swift on their website complete with pics. The photos CLEARLY did not come from one of their photogs, yet there is no photo credit given for the stolen images. I'm also pretty sure they did not get permission to use these.
Permalink Reply by bill ivester on April 15, 2009 at 12:53pm
my guess, from looking @ that fluff piece, is that it's a canned PR/promo piece from swift's record label and/or management. it's prob just a cut and paste job from a PR/media page available to anyone who wants to do a "feature" on her. if that's true, i would assume the photographer would have been compensated up front.

if the magazine content is as generic as the website, i wouldn't imagine it will be around much longer than the other attempts...

Ryan Armbrust said:
Louisville Retro Magazine might want to read up on copyright law...
They have an article on Taylor Swift on their website complete with pics. The photos CLEARLY did not come from one of their photogs, yet there is no photo credit given for the stolen images. I'm also pretty sure they did not get permission to use these.
Permalink Reply by Shane E. on April 15, 2009 at 1:34pm
No, these are the kind of people who compensate the photographer in the backside.

You can start a magazine and maybe sucker some investors, convince vendors to buy a 6-month or 1-year investment in advertising, and then decide on issue #2 that you are going out of business. Oh, woe is me, I have failed... to spend the money I was paid. Cha-ching. If anyone presses you, if they can find you, you can always cry bankruptcy. And, its this economy! Oh, woe is me! See ya next year when I try again...

Maybe that isn't the case here, but let's say it is. Why not.
Permalink Reply by Ryan Armbrust on April 15, 2009 at 3:23pm
I think you hit the nail on the head Shane!

Shane E. said:
No, these are the kind of people who compensate the photographer in the backside. You can start a magazine and maybe sucker some investors, convince vendors to buy a 6-month or 1-year investment in advertising, and then decide on issue #2 that you are going out of business. Oh, woe is me, I have failed... to spend the money I was paid. Cha-ching. If anyone presses you, if they can find you, you can always cry bankruptcy. And, its this economy! Oh, woe is me! See ya next year when I try again...

Maybe that isn't the case here, but let's say it is. Why not.
Permalink Reply by bill ivester on April 15, 2009 at 4:34pm
i was just referring to the mention of the taylor swift piece, there is no way that a small time publication like that got an exclusive photo shoot with her. based on the past info about the publishers/founders/owners you could be and probably are right on concerning the publication itself.

i was simply saying that the article and photos included were (probably) from a PR service retained by her label/management. and if so, i'm willing to bet the photographer (and writer) were compensated (by label/management) based on it being widely available and circulated to whomever they can get to print it. it's basically nothing more than an advertisement for her (that they get for free) that is presented in an "editorial" type context.

Shane E. said:
No, these are the kind of people who compensate the photographer in the backside.

Permalink Reply by Nina Greipel on April 15, 2009 at 5:35pm
Yes, they are PR shots supplied to the magazine, at least that's what one of the retro mags owners told me. I guess that is standard. The photographer for that Taylor Swift picture probably signed off some huge deal where the pics can get used all over and hopefully she/he was compensated accordingly.

I know they are currently asking for volunteer work from writers and photographers. But while their website has credit by-lines for writers, it simply ticks me off that no photographer has been given any credit. Even if some of these pics are made by the owners themselves. I just think it looks unprofessional to not have a credit line for people's work.

I guess my rant is just an old open sore from the newspaper days when I'd show up at an assignment without the reporter and the subject would ask "Oh are you the reporter/writer?" me: "No, I am the photojournalist. :-)" "OH! You are JUST the photographer!" arrrrrgh!!
Permalink Reply by Shane E. on April 15, 2009 at 6:13pm
Just think how unpopular you would have been had you been the dentist?

In the defense of the general public, a lot of photojournalists show up dressed like roadies for the Grateful Dead. But, yes, the lack of respect is a disappointment.

There are a lot of magazines out there who will *hire* a photographer and not pay them. Not reputable national magazines, but little stink-a-zines. They will sign a contract with you. They don't care. It'll cost you more to get your money than it's worth, especially if they are out of state. I suggest getting payment before they get the goods, but I can assure you, that their contract reads "payment will be issued upon publication". That's the big stinky lie. If someone is hiring you to photograph something, make sure they pay you. If you are submitting to a magazine unsolicited, then yeah, payment upon publication is cool.

RSS

© 2012   Created by Ryan Armbrust.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service