July 7, 2007 by pmelcher.

…declares Mark Kuschner, now Getty’s new global VP of entertainment after leaving Getty to go to Wireimage and now back at Getty, bought as part of the Mediavast $200 million deal. In a Variety Magazine article (the Bible of the entertainment industry), Kuschner and many other players, comment about the overcrowding of the paparazzi scene. UGC’s become MOP ( Member of the Public) in this field while Getty takes a strong stand declaring it a “cyclical” fad. While they claim that they will never enter the “behind the bushes” scene, they do not make mention of what made wireimage famous, the set up “behind the bushes” photograph.

One great example is the infamous Tom Cruise / Penelope Cruse exclusive shot of them taken by red carpet and wireimage co founder Steve Granitz. It was the first image of the two of them together, taken as they were exiting a restaurant at the same moment as Steve Granitz happened to walk by. The images sold worldwide for a small fortune, helping launch Wireimage at the same time.
It is a notorious fact now that publicists will arrange for these shoots ( I would know, I am guilty of arranging some) as to control the information. These images can go for hundreds of thousands of dollars and I doubt Getty will pass on it, if offered. However, what happens to Getty’s famous journalistic integrity? Is a set up image photojournalism or does celebrity photography not obliged to follow the same ethics?

This will be a hair pulling issue for Mark Kushner and his team.

The article is reminiscent of what the traditional stock photo industry is already complaining about. Crowdsourcing becomes oversourcing. There are too many photographers, including the wire services, entering this field. Blame it on Paris Hilton who even forced World Press award winner Nick Ut to become one of these plebeian snappers. Blame in on Getty, who purchased Scoopt and is already adding some of the images to its website ( type “scoopt” in the search field). At a 70/30 commission, its a bargain. And a deviant and clever way to get MOP (or UGC?) images of celebrities without asking for it.

As Peter Grossman of US Weekly continues, papparrazi is not about to disappear. Never did and never will. If Getty wants to be a major player in the celebrity field, it will have to work its way into this very lucrative business and get their hands dirty. After all, when they bought Mediavast, they also bought the images of fame paparazzi shooter Ron Gallela. Would they dare delete these images because they are not publicity approved or will they hypocritically classify them as “historical”? And after how long paparazzi images gain this status? finally, one has to take those images in order to let them age to that “historical” status.

A hard call for agency eater Getty and certainly a wrong one if they believe this business to be cyclical.

Paparazzi are closer to real photojournalists then anyone would admit. Instead of taken pictures of what is offered to them as “news”, they actually go out of their way to capture  the real Hollywood. They are not embedded or pooled, and like the other photojournalist, will go to great length to capture the truth. Granted, they might not get shot, and they will never win the World Press, but they also contribute to showing our world the way it is, the way it truly is.
A very good article that one should read, if only to get a better sense of the celebrity space.

Posted in photojournalism, getty | Print | No Comments »

July 5, 2007 by pmelcher.

My father is a photographer. A happily retired photojournalist that not only took great pictures but also ran a few photo agencies, including Magnum. I grew up in this world: I was surrounded not only by the photographs ” of the best photo agency ever”, but also by the men, and women, who took them. It is easier for me to spot the one great image in a story than to tell my wife which dress fits her better.

I speak 3 languages fluently: French, English and photography.

When I grew up, I saw my father be excited when anyone outside of his trade would take notice. There wasn’t much exhibits in the fifties, and photojournalisms, even the likes of magnum, was not considered an art form and most photographers where talked about the same way as people talk about the paparazzi today. Pino Granata knows that and knows it very well. Therefore, when he points his finger at me, through the use of microstock news website Stockphototalk.com, I have to respond.

My father was always amazed when someone outside of his world talked about photography. Because it was a rare event. Capa, Cartier Bresson were far from being the beloved superstar they are now. The photo book industry was just emerging and no one dared do a photo exhibit. Finally, “normal” people took pictures of their families and the 2 worlds never collided.

I have never seen so many people with cameras in the streets. And they do not just take snapshots of their kids. They photograph their world and post it on Flickr. and they exchange, comment, compare, criticize. There has never been such an understanding of what photography is and what it takes to take a great picture. Some even license their images, finally bridging the gap between amateurs and professionals. And they finally understand what it means to be a photographer, one that sells images.

Those who use to just consume photography have a much better understanding of what photography is. And we should be happy about it.

An image that is not published is not an image. And to get your image published, you need someone to like it enough to pay for the right to use it for a limited time. That is photography. The rest is fine art.

Photojournalism and other form of photography are tied to money, whether we like it or not. Money is what pays for the equipment, the travel, the food and the books, that make that photo possible.

A good photo is always well rewarded. So even if we are not butchers, we have to live like them, in the same world. Not making money with your photography is not a sign of talent. My father always took pictures that people wanted to see. He had a family to raise.

Today, Mario Testini can afford to buy a multi million dollar apartment, Annie Lebovitz makes more than a million dollars a year in salary from Vanity Fair and some photo grants sometimes approach 6 digits.

What is killing this profession, Mr Granata, is not money. What is killing photojournalism is these so called specialists who scream loud and far that the art is dying, yet have never sold an image themselves. Those who create these photo festival, or now have photo industry blogs, those who curate exhibits or design books, the self proclaimed  guardian of the art. They have have never had a successful career in photography, yet they teach the world what a great photo should look like.

They are critics, like the food, book, music and movie industry already have them. They have “opinions”, strong ones. But when time comes for them to use photography, they do not pay, screaming poverty as if it was a virtue.

Getty brought photography to Wall Street. Corbis, through Bill Gates notoriety, made it mainstream. Multi million dollars investments are being made into companies whose main business is licensing images. This was impossible 10 years ago. And it something to rejoice about, not complain.

Finally, I see great images everyday. They might not be in magazines anymore. They are on the Internet. I can even see images taken by local newspaper photographers, like Todd Heisler, without living in that city. and there is great talent.

The medium is changing, the content is changing. It is being ingested and digested by huge volume of eyeballs who dare to compete. And where there is a high volume of people, there is a high volume of money. If you are really an European Socialist Dreamer, Pino Granata, then this should make you optimistic.

Posted in flickr, corbis, getty | Print | 6 Comments »

July 3, 2007 by pmelcher.

If we stop for a little while and catch our breath, we can see that the stock photo industry is doing better, not worse. 10 years ago, no agencies was posting revenues of $800 million as Getty now boast. Quite the opposite, Sygma, one of the big three (SIPA and Gamma being the other two) was loosing $20 million a year, when Corbis purchased them. Gamma was not doing better and Sipa was also financially wobbling.

For all the nay sayers of the stock photo industry, this might come as a shock. But the industry is doing quite well, thank you. Cepic has passed from 600 participants to 800 in one year, and the market itself is expanding. New blogs have appeared, there is so much new information . Even granddaddy PDN had to call in “kids friendly” PDNpulse to keep up with what is now a daily mass production of industry  related news.

New business model are thriving. Microstock, whether it is cannibalizing 8 or 15 % of the traditional market still discovered millions of new image buyers worldwide. Image Buyers that pay for a RF license. what is wrong with that ?

The editorial space has never seen so many new agencies in the last 10 years. And some great ones too:  VII, for one, created thanks to the Corbis purchase of SABA. In the celebrity space, there are more agencies now than ever, with sales of images that topped $4 million for one set, last year. I had never seen that before.

New Royalty free production companies are blooming here and there. Photoshelter, IPNstock and multi millionaire Digitalrailroad are throwing independent photographers into the market, hoping to cash in on the surge, along with Scoopt and other Citizen Image. Even Flickr, Zoomr and other  rrrr’s are good news. The worldwide interest for images is growing. If people are taking pictures and posting them for everyone to see, you can be sure that that they look at other pictures. and they want to see more. Where and how do you think they learned to be so good.

New photo festival are opening ( none are closing) and countries with little or no photo sales in the past are now building their own distribution channel.

Certainly, some price per image are dropping but the price per photo agency is certainly not. $200 million here, $35 million there. Could you sell your photo agency for that price 10 years ago ?

On the reverse side, I read or hear little of massive bankruptcies or  monumental crashes. The nay sayers  will say it is coming. But of course, even in a booming market, companies fail. But they fail by not recognizing opportunities when they  arise and holding on to recipes that worked 10 years ago.

The photo industry has never been healthier. In an extremely rapid state of flux, yes, but healthy.

Posted in flickr, SIPA, CEPIC, corbis, getty, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »