December 31, 2007 by pmelcher.

As much as I could understand the music industry for trying to stop the free for all downloads initiated by the old Napster , as much as I can’t agree with the Recording Industry Association of America latest move:

According to the Washington Post of December 30, 2007 : ‘In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.”

The RIAA says you cannot make a copy of your legally purchased music unto another medium.

This is important because the RIAA is using the same laws as we use in the photo industry. And the RIAA is giving copyright laws a bad rep. Under the same principle, it would be the equivalent of  suing a publisher for scanning one of our slides.

I am all for copyright protection and believe that the laws should be unforced but there is a limit to how to interpret the law. There is also the need for old businesses to adapt with the current times and find a better way to handle new challenges, not bigger threats.

The photo industry doesn’t have such an organisation as strong as the RIAA. The closest we have is CEPIC or PACA, none of which is allowed to take any legal action on behalf of its members. Even if they had, I would doubt that they would go suing their customers for making a copy of an image they just purchased. How else would they be able to send it to the printer or designer ? As long as those copies remain in the belly of the beast and are not exposed, we keep our eyes shut and our mouth closed. It is not legal but no harm is done, so who cares ?

The RIAA, but its actions will soon trigger a backslash that will affect anyone who uses copyright laws. The winners will be the “Commoners”, those who have been promoting free exchange as other where promoting free sex back in the 70’s. The San Fransisco based Electronic Frontier and Creative Commons who are still flying high from the pot and acid left overs. Those who see themselves as the cool dudes that will finally create the ephemeral idealistic society where everything is free and traded.

There is not much the photo industry can do while we wait for the pendulum to swing back in our faces and force us to change our policies. Without choosing camps, we will very soon be the bad guys as we will be swallowed in a vicious battle of digital rights and grabs. We will probably have to give up more than we wish, or can, before we can emerge. Or we can set our own rules. Clearly, simply and with efficiency.

We can separate ourselves from the RIAA and shark eating lawyers and specify our own code of conduct that clearly specify what can and cannot be done with our images. Post it loud and clear on our sites and in our communications. This is what we stand for and this is what we authorize you, our customer, to do.

An iniative as worthy, and useful, as the PLUS Coalition.

Happy 2008 !!! May all your wishes become true and your resolutions become reality.

Posted in IPTC, license, copyright, web 2.0, CEPIC, law, editorial, news | Print | No Comments »

December 28, 2007 by pmelcher.

There are many ways to kill. Many different ways that we manage to find somewhere in ourselves to destroy the things we love the most. The violent murder of Benazir Bhutto earlier this week is a prime example. During a period during when most of us enjoy the comfort of our simple lives, the world continues to rip itself apart in what seems to be an incontrollable violence that goes beyond our understanding.

Like many others I am still in shock and appalled by the event in Pakistan and the brutal assassination a woman that stood for change and democracy against relentless nihilism. I took a tour, from my distant home, of the photographs taken that day, and thanks to Daryl Lang of PDN, watched the two sideshows done by the New York Times and CNN with the images of John Moore of Getty Images.At the end of the CNN slideshow, I looked at this image :

and thought to myself, how did John Moore ever think of doing a zoom effect in the middle of this commotion ? Three shots where fired, and explosion just happened, people are lying dead all around him and he still find the time to create a zoom effect. Even think about it. My second thought is that he didn’t do it on purpose and just happened to zoom out when he took the frame. Still, this image puzzled me.

Until I saw the same image on the New York Times slideshow:

And then I realized, he didn’t. And here I made a false assumption. I previously wrote :

[ Someone at CNN thought that it would be more dramatic, more intense to add that stupid zoom effect]

Thanks to avid reader Gary Gardiner who checked the Getty site, we now know that both images were taken by the same photographer. Apparently, due to his shooting with a motor drive, both images are very similar, one probably shot as he was zooming out to get a full length of the man. That will teach me to write a blog before finishing breakfast. My apologies to CNN and to those I got confused. More from Gary in the “comment” section below.

PS: I forsee a World Press photo here…

Posted in multimedia, magazine, Cnn, photojournalism, photoshop, news, editorial, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

December 24, 2007 by pmelcher.

and so it seems that Getty Images has launched its consumer site. No press release, no party, no singing. just a plain site.

You can see it here.

then go back to what you were doing .

Happy Holidays!

Posted in celebrity, magazine, prosumer, editorial, news, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

December 22, 2007 by pmelcher.

by Paul Melcher

ImageSource, the number 1 independent royalty free company who bravely resisted the Getty web ready price cut to $49 is going midstock with Fotolia. A few days ago, French microstock company Fotolia announce the creation of a premium value collection called “Infinite” that would be priced around $20. The announcement came, surprisingly, a few days before the industry, buyers as well as sellers, go into the holidays slump. Inside the announcement, there was a mysterious allegation that the new collection was populated with images from pro photo agencies. However, no names were given.

I had to find out. It wasn’t too hard. It’s ImageSource.

This is the original, priced at $119 for the smallest size ( or $14.97 if you buy the whole CD):

This is the Fotolia version, priced at 16.60 Euro :

And finally, there is the Getty version, who, as you might remember, was not allowed to price it at $49.00 :

As you can see, same image, different prices. So, depending on where you shop, you can get a nice rebate.  ImageSource will have a lot of explaining to do when they come back from their vacation. This surprising move seem to indicate that even they are under the pricing pressure of microstock but are either ashame or afraid to admit it. It also shows that the Midstock model that companies like Zymmetrical.com have followed since its inception is becoming more the norm.

Getty, Corbis, and now ImageSource and Fotolia are following the trend of pricing images at budget value rather than dirt cheap. Istockphoto is also slowly raising its price and entering the dance.

I am sure that we will see more traditional royalty free entering the midstock arena, probably at first with retired images and later with new production. Pro photographers already do, so why not the agencies?

The merging of micro and traditional is not far away anymore and 2008 should see the final steps, this time in the open.

Posted in Midstock, Search, license, Jupiter, Zymmetrical, copyright, filter, finance, getty, Royalty free, corbis, france, transaction, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 19, 2007 by pmelcher.

This is a good week for the “no sense” entry. Seems that the approaching holidays are making some of us loose a little bit of our sanity.

First, there is this basement-made German photo industry news blog that post a happy go jolly satire video about the web 2.0 bubble. It just so happens that one of the image is stolen, along with the music. Pretty good for a site that brags to be an expert on the photo industry. Support those who steal images.!!! While some cry fair use and other brandish the “community” flag, the news/blog community picks up the story and even involves pro legal expert. Opinions are posted half way across the world and everyone, it seems, is suddenly a freakin’ photo licensing expert. The battleground is separated in two, with the web 2.0, community, mashup, everything should be free, on one side, and those who rely on copyright and licenses on the other.

Last I read, the video has been stripped of the image and re uploaded. My question is why didn’t these guys (who made the video) asked for permission in the first place ? Is telephone or email not cool in the web 2.o world ? It would have avoided all this nonsense.

Today, the same basement based blog throws a story a free celebrity website, allaccesspass.com. that has just launched. The site offers bad red carpet photography for free. Since this basement blog is ran by a man who has no relations in the industry and thinks journalism is having a few hundred RSS feeds running all day and copy and pasting most of them as quickly as possible on his site, the story is not investigated. A vague WHOIS search is done and that is it.

Turns out this site is run by a Peruvian celebrity fan, based on the West Coast, who buys images from red carpet photographers for $300 and post them for free. The idea is for those pro photographers that shoot red carpet day in and day out to make more money than if they were to shoot for Getty’s meager $150.00 day rate. One pro photog has already been busted and fired by his photo agency and publicists have decided to go after anyone that submits to this site. In the mean time, the hope is that the site will generate enough traffic to make advertising advantageous. Dubious, at best.

Than there is this other industry blog, owned by a huge publishing company that tries to find out if a photographer that has been bitten by a dog actually exists. Closely followed by another famous photo magazine blog that complains that New York is not close enough to Mars. Mmm, must be a slow news week.

And finally, the SAA stormtroopers go after the poor guys who bought Index Stock. It is common knowledge in the industry that Index Stock was poorly managed by the guy who invented microstock and owed money to its contributors. Luckily, instead of filing for bankruptcy it was purchased by the Australian Photolibrary who now has to deal with late payments. The SAA finds nothing better than to harass them over an issue they are trying to solve. Hey SAA, push them to the edge and force them to shut down. That will be a success to brag about. On the other hand, the same SAA had nothing to say about Corbis releasing images to bloggers for free. Why not ? Why do they not investigate the type of payment photographers will receive ? It cannot be better than the Getty web $49

Indeed, a good week.

Posted in Search, No sense, copyright, celebrity, magazine, web 2.0, editorial, getty, Royalty free, corbis, news, law, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 19, 2007 by pmelcher.

It has been a rather busy year in the photography business world but let’s not forget photography itself. For all those naysayer claiming that photojournalism is dead, that photography will soon be replaced by video, and for all the others that enjoy great photography, here is the msnbc.com year in review slideshow:

As usual, very biased towards American centric news ( one day they will expand their field of vision) , it still contains my favorite image of the year : a couple stranded on a california highway after their trailer has been blowned off by extreme winds while the fires rage behind, taken by David McNew. Since I do not beleive in fair use and do not wish to pay Getty for a license, you will have to see it in the slideshow.

sit down, take your time and enjoy. Slide show here 

Posted in copyright, magazine, multimedia, photojournalism, editorial, msnbc.com, news | Print | No Comments »

December 18, 2007 by pmelcher.

From Canada, again. Seems like every thing good or innovative in photography these days is coming from Canada (istockphoto, Veer, Idee, Zymmetrical, ….) . The TV channel and website CBC ( Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ) has posted an interview of uber-humanitarian and extremely talented photographer Marcus Bleadsale.

You can, and you should ( it’s an order ),  view it here:

Marcus, for those who might not know, is the new member of the VII photo agency and recipient of many, many awards. However, as much as he appreciates the attention of his peers,  he would much rather people do something about the situation he photographs. In a way, he would love being out of a job.

I had written an entry about Marcus a while back.

Via Mediastorm’s blog ( another site you have to visit)

Posted in idee, magazine, Canada, mediastorm, multimedia, editorial, photojournalism, news | Print | No Comments »

December 17, 2007 by pmelcher.

A rather big parallel universe to the photo industry is the copyright industry. According to the Copyright Alliance, “The U.S. core copyright industries accounted for an estimated $819.06 billion or 6.56% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005.” That, of course, includes music, graphic, video on top of photography. One has to assume that this number is about copyrighted and licensed products.

No wonder it has become a battlefield. On one side, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and its followers who preach that the internet and everything on it should be free and exchanged. Its a virtual world, after all, and all content should be distributed equally as to facilitate new creations. A global, unrestricted mash up. They are behind the Orphan Work bill and would probably like to see copyright laws disappear entirely, at least on the internet. Not a completely insane proposition if you believe that there is more to life than making money and that we could all be more creative if we did not have to worry about our budgets. I get to use your image and you get to use mine. We share. It would be great if photographers and agencies where also in the business of creating websites for consumers. But besides Getty and its upcoming Jamd.com, none are. Since photography is a raw material, like oil, and used in the process of creating something new, like a magazine, book, or ad campaign, it is hardly exchangeable. But, regardless, the free-for-all, “private property is evil”, lets trade community is here to stay.

On the other side, you have those who would like a piece of the pie. Take Creative Commons, for example. Currently a non for profit organization that has managed to raise a lot of money since its creation. By redefining how work of art can be used, albeit in a very simple way, it is positioning itself to become a major and inevitable player in this field. Right now, it is entirely free to use, making it extremely viral. But just think that even if they charged 1 cent ( euro, canadian, US or other, you decide) how much would that generate. If they grabbed just 1 % of the copyright industry, it would be $8 billion a year. And that is for the US only.

Besides the CC, the photo industry is familiar with the PLUS coalition, also in the same space. PLUS intends to charge a fee per license used. Recently, the very rich and powerful newspaper industry has also launch its own standard, the Open Access Data. Without going into long and boring details, it is obvious that whomever manages to create a worldwide standard will be sitting on a mega goldmine.

Where does that leave the photo industry that solely depends on copyright to defend its turf ? Well, depending on who wins the “copyright/license definition” battle the outcome will be completely different. But one can already envision a not too distant future where, one way or another, every image licensed on the web will have an additional fee that will have to be paid to one of these “Standard license owners”. Probably a “service fee”, it will resemble a tax on copyrighted material and proceeds will go in the pockets of those who have no other creative talent then bending the rules in their favor. The idea is simple : you create a standard and you make people pay to use it.

Most people would enjoy paying for a service that simplifies the licensing model and will not mind. If it makes RM licensing easier ( as easy as RF !!), it is sure to attract more buyers to the game. Considering the volume, the fee will probably be extremely low per transaction. Imagine, getting a fee for every image licensed on the web. Quite an income, isn’t it ?

Posted in Search, license, copyright, Plus, IPTC, prosumer, law, transaction, finance, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

December 14, 2007 by pmelcher.

Funny thing about newspapers and magazines these days. They have a hard time jumping over the fence and taking full control of their future. It is obvious that dailies and weeklies, in their current format, have no chance of surviving against the web. But they all think of their web presence as a supplement to their print presence. It should be the opposite and most should be looking on how to make their print presence a supplement of their web presence.

Take the latest downsizing at Business Week. The reason behind it is to combine resources between print and web, with print still  being the chief operator. It will save money by trying to fit online what cannot wait until the ink dries up. It gives the impression that there is speed where there is none. Why not, I ask, shift the whole operation completely and once and for all. make it a full range web publication with a weekly print supplement? Focus efforts where the market is growing and adapt to the new economy instead of being forced into it, dragging and screaming.

There is obvious connection here with the photo industry for whom the internet is still an accessory, a second thought. although forced to accept a new reality much faster than the publishing world, there are still some, too many, who are reluctant to invest in online sales and distribution solution.

It is everyone’s understanding that the price of photography will continue to dip down. How soon and how fast, it is anyone’s guess. It would absolutely not surprise me if someone like Getty would take a deep plunge into bottom cheap imagery in order to get rid of any competion and clean the landscape, a bit like a whale plunges deep below to get rid of parasite fish, only to return to a new, stronger marketplace. Everyone knows that there is too much photography available, both in stock and editorial. It is time to force the medium and lesser photographers and agencies into a rapid bankruptcy in order to sanitize the offering.

Let me step back and explain: The market, currently, offers the false impression that anyone can make money in the photography field. Since it has become easy and cheap to enter, everyone and his brother is now either a photographer or a stock agent. Since there is no tangible market research on the size of our industry, $2 billion, $5 billion, $3000 billion, it is anyone guess on what the payout will be. If someone paid attention, I am sure that we would see that there has been more stock agencies of all type launched in the last five years then at anytime in its brief history. And it is only growing exponentially. More agencies, more photographers, more photographers, less relevant images. It seems that there is money to be made because of Microstocks and Flickr’s successes. And as much is there might be an increase in the number of images used in one year, there has not been an increase of revenue generated by this spike. It has been almost cancelled by the fall in pricing and Getty has been a witness to that.

The only way to really profit form that growth would be to get rid of the overflow of images. And the best way is to force as many people out of the market as possible, as quickly as possible.

~    In a related note, I am very sad at the departure of Business Week Picture Director Larry Lippmann . For those who had a chance to work with him and his staff, it is a huge lost. He is one of the true gentleman of photography, has created a fair and balance agreement with stock agencies and photographers. Business Week is the only publication that pays for foreign edition usage up front, that reports usage with a tear sheet and one of the few that is always polite and professional. They asked and used a lot of images per week at different sizes and over the years I have never, ever heard any complains. Doing assignment work for them was a pleasurable breeze and always correctly paid. All this is to the credit of Larry Lippmann who deserves an award. It would be nice if our industry would officially recognize such professionals. Thank you Larry for all you have done for the photography world.

Posted in newspaper, prosumer, license, copyright, magazine, flickr, photojournalism, getty, news, editorial, finance, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 12, 2007 by pmelcher.

Do no evil, they said. Google is one of the worst tool for photography ever to appear on the internet.

Think about it. It makes a mockery of IPTC standards by completely ignoring it . Instead of searching within the carefully inputed metatags of images, Google images only displays image results based on the text and links surrounding an image. It ignores images that have been correctly keyworded, allowing for a better introduction of an effective Orphan legislation. These thumbnails you see, generated by Google, not only rip all metadata but also destroys the original file name of the photograph, creating an orphan duplicate. Instead of being a catalyst for even better informed images, it does quite the opposite by showing that it is more than ok to ignore relevant information.

With this process, it has pushed to the surface some of the worst images I have personally seen. Since there is no quality control, we suddenly see photography at its worst, with the top images challenging each other for the most horrible composition to the most appealing quality. It is as if someone had pushed the dirt out of the bottom of a lake to make it reach the surface.

It has helped the concept of stealing. With no enforcement of copyright information, and being an unofficial infringer itself, Google perpetuates the idea that images are for free and can be used with no regards to copyrights. It literally grabs images from other sites, properly licensed or not and displays as is, with no regards to where and how to contact its owner.

It doesn’t even search the thousand of professional image database worldwide from photo agencies or photographers, completely ignoring the best of the best. Search for Corbis, Getty Images or any photo agency and you see for yourself. For an untrained individual, it seems that this is it, the whole offering of image on a particular subject.

It is not an agent of discovery but an agent of banality. Since it ranks images the same way it ranks website, by looking at how many time an image has been linked too, thus seen, it bubbles the images most used, not the best. For someone looking to find some creative novelty, there is no inspiration. Quality, in Google engine eyes, is a factor of longevity and popularity. Quite the opposite of what a good photo editor should look for.

Finally, a photograph, for Google, is the same as graphics, logo or anything saved as a jpeg. A 5 year old drawing could easily compete with great photography. Or some banner. Terrifying.

The scariest part is that most photo editors will admit they use Google image to find images. It pushes photo professional to twist and bend their websites to be Google friendly while not being so much people friendly. It makes our industry’s effort to have intelligent search engines producing the strongest relevancy almost meaningless. And it spits in the face of creative photographers by putting their work next to unqualified snappers.

Although there is no law against misrepresenting an art or profession, Google should however be summoned to question its usefulness and purpose. Who and what really benefits from the Google Image search. Because it is certainly not the photo industry.

A big unrelated PS : Brian Storm and Jessica Dimmock have created one of the strongest multimedia yet. When two great talent collide. Not easy to watch but impossible to ever forget . see it here

Posted in mediastorm, multimedia, Search, keyword, google | Print | No Comments »