May 8, 2009 by pmelcher.

  Getty made a huge mistake in blocking Flickr to create its own stock outlet. All they were concerned about was not allowing Flickr to become the biggest commercial stock agency overnight. So they could keep there dominance on distribution.
But just imagine, if you will, if Flickr had moved ahead. Everyone and anyone could have easily licensed their images. By doing so, it would have been a huge boost to the industry since all would have been knowledgeable on the value of images.
No more ” can I have this image for free in exchange to a credit line”.
It would have also made a huge blow to the Creative Commons and made everyone suddenly concerned about orphan works, not just the professionals. Imagine : more than 100 million people from all walks of life suddenly becoming license literate.  As more would have sold images directly, they would have understood first hand the value of an image, copyright issues, pricing, and different rights.
But Getty only thought about their declining market share and its own miserable profitability. They were afraid to see FlickStock take over Istophoto as the primary source of stock imagery worldwide. They were also afraid to loose the title, and the function of primary distribution channel.
Getty didn’t think, for a second, about helping the industry and the marketplace. It was very short sighted of them and will eventually backslash. What the corporate giant seems to forget is that it swims in the same waters that it pollutes. They are not immune to the poison they throw in.

They so desperately want a percentage of every image licensed anywhere that they will destroy any good idea if they do not have a hand in it. So they sponsor events or create funds and grants. They pay to be seen as the good guys, while they murder photographers and photography in their back alley.

FlickrStock would have been a breath of fresh air and the natural progression of the microstock industry. But with little or not commission taken, it would have taken the wind out of this industry that survives by artificially keeping the prices low. It would have educated millions of peoples on the value of photography and the need to protect copyright. It would taught bloggers not to reproduce with no rights and others not to ask for free pictures in exchange for a credit line.

It is certainly not too late. Maybe Yahoo will be smart enough to sell Flickr to someone with a brain. And that someone might see value, and certainly huge revenues, in making Flickr the open photography marketplace that is begging to be created.

Posted in magazine, technology, commercial stock, web 2.0, prosumer, getty, finance, flickr, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

May 6, 2009 by pmelcher.

There used to be something called “digital rights”. That is, when a publication wanted the right to publish a copy of an image to use in a digital format, it would pay an additional license fee. At first, like the internet itself or CD ROM (remember those ?) circulation, it was small. But everyone was preparing for the future. Now that its here, no one seem to notice.

Google is scanning books and will display them online, for a fee, without offering any compensation  to non book copyright holders.  That is 99% of images in books. They will however compensate publishers. Will the publisher compensate the photographers. Doubtful, since they are not the ones scanning and offering them.

Instead :

- A photographer with a blog even does a whole story on the scanning technology used by Google without worrying what they are scanning and if he will ever see a license fee on his images that might appear in these books.

- PDN  and others seem delighted to see how some websites seem to have huge traffic. Did they look into on how much these sites paid for images? Nope. Google Books issue ? Nothing.

- Photo associations, like ASMP, seem to be speechless about the whole issue altogether. They are seemingly too busy finding sponsors for their next summer picnic.

We could go on and on here about the complete lack of action by those who claim to be friends of photography .

Digital rights have been battered pretty badly. First by Google, when it won the case to publish images in their search result without paying anything, but then with  National Geographic and others that republished whole issues on CD ROM without wanting to pay any additional fees.

Then there is the magazine industry that has cried poverty since the beginning of their web presence and have gotten away with paying pennies for sites that now have a much bigger circulation then their print.

Yet, a lot of the photo industry seems to look at the web as its savior. The question is how so, if most of the images published online  are discounted dramatically. An image posted on the home page of a site that has 1 million hits a week is not licensed at the same price as an image on the cover of a weekly magazine that has 1 million readers. Why is that?

What makes publishers beleive that  image on-line are less worthy than print  ? What makes photographers and photo agencies agree? Most of the discourse is about how less revenue the online version of a magazine is making compared to their print brother. Since when has that been the concern of a photo agency/photographer? Is this now part of our business to guarantee revenue on top of licensing images ?

Getty Images has been the biggest fool to enter that trap and have now succeeded in licensing images for around $2.00 a pop to giants as Yahoo.com. No, not microstock material. Images from long time editorial pro-photographers. Images that request talent, education, experience, knowledge and special access. Images that took much more than $2 to create.

What is the solution? first, stop treating “digital rights” as an add-on to a license. Maybe make “print rights” as an additional right. Treat web usage  as a full blown license of its own.

Second, stop licensing images online as ” one week on home page”  or ” One day inside, 1/4 page”. A web site is not a magazine. And stop making a difference between Commercial usage or Editorial usage. Most editorial have a hundred more traffic than a corporate one. Treat the web as a entity. It has measurable traffic, much more measurable than a magazine. Charge a license based on traffic. That is how they charge for advertisers, isn’t it ?

Third, pull out of the poverty game. Most editorial sites have a budget bigger than their print siblings. As publications close their print edition for online only, they shift their budgets. Some with the biggest traffic charge $400,000 for a one day banner ad.

Fourth, stop thinking that “it’s good publicity”. Did you ever check ? How many images did you license because one of your image appeared on line? really. Would you offer an images for pennies to a print magazine because its “good publicity” ? That time is over.

Five, stop believing that because the image is of a smaller size and only 72 dpi, it has less value. That is exactly like saying that if an image is used in B/W, although it was shot in color, it has less value. Where does that come from ? The value of an image has nothing to do with the amount of pixel it has, nothing. Does a Cartier Bresson or Leibovitch image is less valuable because it has less pixels.

Six, do something about it. Stop sitting around waiting for someone else to show you the way. Google is ripping your rights away, yet you turn a blind eye.  Call that association you pay a hefty membership fee too and tell them to act. If you are a photographer with an agency, tell them to stop giving away your rights and your images. If they do not, leave them. It’s your problem, now. Not someone else ’s in the future. It’s not going to go away, it’s only going to get worse.

Seventh, stop worrying about what to shoot next  and worry more about how much you license what you currently have. Because if this goes on, what you will be getting for those magical pictures you will shoot in the future will only be a fraction of what you currently have on the market.

Eight, stop being beggars. Beggars are loser, as the expression says . Your images are needed. They are actually the core value of some publications or websites. They are not doing you a favor by publishing your work, you are bringing them the value they need to have a business. What you do is unique. Trust me, if they could do it themselves and keep you out, they would. But they can’t.

Nine, stop being technophobes. It’s not cute anymore. All the information is at your fingertips. Read, learn. Saying you don’t understand is no excuse anymore. You shoot digital, don’t you ? So stop the crap about how you do not understand RSS feeds or HTML, or anything web related. No one buys it and if they do, its only to squeeze more out of you.

Ten,  stop being afraid . Afraid of losing clients, afraid of tomorrow, afraid of big corporations, afraid of your own decisions. The images you shoot or that you license have the value you give  them. Not the value that some dude who will soon lose its /her job as some corporate company is willing to offer. Bargain if necessary, until you have no breath left. Leave the table. Those images are like your children, do not let them be  mistreated. Ever. By no one.

Posted in license, newspaper, copyright, magazine, commercial stock, technology, yahoo, google, law, getty, editorial, transaction, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

May 5, 2009 by pmelcher.

Recent Webby Award winner MediaStorm is offering a FREE course  on Advanced Multimedia Reporting Workshop to 8 lucky participant. But before your rush to sign up, please be aware that this is not for beginners. You have to already have a solid understanding of multimedia and its tools.

More information here:

” Given the tough economic climate and the critical need for multimedia training, MediaStorm will be holding a one-time, tuition-free Advanced Multimedia Reporting Workshop, in Brooklyn, NY from June 20-26, 2009.

The MediaStorm Advanced Multimedia Workshops are designed for multimedia storytellers who want to get to the next level. It is not an introductory course. Students are responsible for their own travel, room and board. Reporters are expected to have a high level of competency with still photography, and be familiar with audio and video techniques. Editors are expected to be comfortable in Final Cut Pro.

We only have spots for 8 participants as Multimedia Reporters, Editors or Observers so we are expecting a competitive process. Applications are due no later than Friday, May 15, 2009. Participants will be selected based on the content of their applications.

To apply, fill out the application form.”

If this works out for you, I would love to publish the resulting Multimedia here, on this blog.

For those who still don’t know MediaStorm ( who are you ?) or have not yet seen their latest award winning multimedia ( has any company won so many deserved awards ?), here it is :

Posted in mediastorm, magazine, technology, multimedia, photojournalism, editorial, slideshow, news | Print | No Comments »

May 3, 2009 by pmelcher.

Some people just do not know how to speak photo. You look at their images, and they are fine, properly exposed, nicely framed, perfectly lit. However, the images are just borderline of boring. They do not speak, do not convey any message, or meaning. They are flat as a line on the screen of heart rate monitor attached  to a dead man.

Universities, schools or private Institutes channel thousands of new photographers every year, teaching them equipment, lighting, composition, yet none seem really capable of teaching photographers to speak photography. To convey a message with their image, to speak beyond the words.

Take portrait photographers. When I see an image of a person, I would like to know more about the individual. Most photographers are content with a facial exposure, showing a face but no character. Some images taken in a photo booth have more feelings and depth than many portrait photographers. And that is a machine taking pictures. Why is that ? Mostly because they focused on appearance and not perception.

These schools seem to teach the pronunciation rather than meaning.  Not how to communicate with pictures, but rather how to pronounce photography well. The form precedes the meaning. The result is very blend and boring images. Technically perfect but not revealing.

When I see a portrait, i want to know more about the person I am seeing. And since I have never met that person, I want, I need to know everything with one photograph.

Studies show that 95 % of human communication is non verbal. That means the high majority of our language between each other does not use words. That is where photography should tap into. The unspoken world. Yet, rare and few are the photographers that actually know how to use that language and  make it work. They know how to read, yet they are incapable to write.

I don’t want to see just faces, I want to read story, an explanation in that face. I want o read the person the same way as I read people the first time I meet them. It can tap into my emotions as well as my intellect, tickle my intelligence as well as my feelings. It can be said with one image or many, that is irrelevant, as long as I understand. As some as something about this person has been revealed to me.

This is true beyond portrait photography, obviously. It is essential for news, or sport, or even celebrity photography. It is what makes photography so extremely hard, but yet, so compelling and necessary. It is not an instrument to show, but a tool to explain. And yes, if properly handled, it is not only necessary, it is indispensable.

There should be a core message behind each photograph, something we can understand as well as relate to. Not just on a personal  but also on a community level. Because photography is the ultimate viral element. If we like a picture, we will want, we will be compelled to share it with others. We will show it, make other discover it. As if it was ours. Because we are proud to share what it reveals and would like others, our friends, to share the same experience.

Obviously, that only works if the image is saying something.

Technique is important, like handwriting is with words. But mastering the language of photography is the key to great images and that can only be learned by first understanding it. Tell me a story I didn’t know, make me understand something new, let me meet someone special. Make me listen with my eyes. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in commercial stock, celebrity, photojournalism, editorial | Print | No Comments »