Silence of the Lambs

September 23, 2009 by pmelcher.

While the industry is  going through its most radical change of its small and short existence, it seems that everyone is caught standing and staring at the incoming headlights. Many violent issues are affecting the way business is done today, with possible long lasting repercussions, yet it seems that all are taking cover under a “business as usual” blanket.

Google Book: The DOJ has just concluded that the current agreement is not fair. This would be a good time for the photo industry to jump in and make its voice heard. why ? Because scanning books and offering them under a digital format requires a new license for the images and Google is not offering to compensate anyone for those. They are offering to compensate the authors of the books, however. Furthermore, the images thus scanned and available on line might become another source of orphan work and a playing ground for those looking for “free” images. The biggest providers of images to Book publishers ( think Corbis or Getty) have remained very, very quiet on this. Are they making their own deals ? But the real scandal here is the complete silence and lack of action from those associations who claim to represent the industry. PACA, ASPP, ASMP, APA and so on have not taken one step to seriously address the issue and only recently a single lonely voice coming from Europe has dared to express their concern (CEPIC) . It is not going to be enough.

Metadata: At a pivotal time where more images are being used online than on print, there is still no agreement between the photo industry and publishers on how to carry and protect metadata. You would think, since it’s their livelihood, that the photo industry would have spearheaded an effort to make sure information would travel, and stay, in each and every image published online. No. Nothing. Images can and will be published online with absolutely no credit outside or inside the image. Actually, software companies like Adobe, will gladly help strip any information inside an image, even when it’s a clear violation of the DMCA.  There used to be an agreement, sometimes still in practice, in the editorial world that when an  image was  miscredited or not credited at all it would be billed at twice the amount. Out of respect for the creator. Guess that will not going to survive.

Pricing: The latest quote I have heard was $5 for editorial usage on a website own by one of the biggest publisher in the world. The funny part was that the photo editor quoting me this price was amused that someone had actually agreed to this. Photo agencies, these days, are their worst enemies. They even get scared of themselves when they see a mirror. Everyone agrees worldwide that the future of editorial, and commercial photography, is online. Most form of print magazine will die in the next five years and be replaced by an online equivalent. Yet, everyone charges pennies for licensing rights . How will that ever replace the print magazine market as a source of income? It baffles me and any four year old with a calculator.

” Why did you go out of business ?”

” Me ? O well , for the price I was licensing my images, I couldn’t pay my bills”

“Mmm…brilliant !! What are you going to do now ?”

” I don’t know, maybe hit my head against a wall real hard. That sounds like fun too”

Getty and Corbis: One is using and abusing its dominance on the market to use and abuse photographers, and the other is playing unfair competition.  Yet, it doesn’t seem to bother anyone. I was recently having lunch with a commercial photographer from the New England area who mostly shoots travel and pharmaceutical images and who has a distribution contract with the oil company legacy company. He was proud to announce that he regularly sees, on his sales report, images licensed  to big companies, at $3. When asked why he accepted those prices, he said ” its better than nothing”. Needless to add that his overall revenue, from the same distributor, has dropped 40 to 60% in the last year. After taxes, those $3 images probably leaves him with a few bucks. I would not get out of bed for two bucks. Not only that, but Getty also pressures, threatens, blackmail and abuse contributing photographers on a permanent basis. Yet, no one seems to voice their concern. If that is not a monopolistic attitude, I wonder what is ? Next to them sits Corbis. Now, how many industries have a company that has not made a profit since their creation , 15 years ago ? How is that fair competition ? If Bill Gates likes loosing money so much, why doesn’t he open a car company ? Or bail out a few banks ? Why does the photo industry have to deal with a company that does not obey to the most simple and basic rules of business ? Sure, they are not a monopoly, although they could, but they are certainly unfair competition.

Trade Associations: Someone has to explain why the photo trade associations are so useless. Not one has any usefulness and all should be referred as clubhouses instead of associations. They do nothing to represent or defend their members. They mostly act as social organizers, as if nothing of importance was happening in our industry. Not one has a lawyer in Washington DC to help promote and defend our trade. Instead, they act as conduits for manufacturers and service companies, while receiving nice juicy kickbacks for their executive members.

It will not be long for us to see more closing, bankruptcy and  maybe a Ponzi scheme or two. It is not a surprise. As long as those who work in this trade think silence and apathy are the best tools to increase business, nothing will change.

“Brave Clarice. You will let me know when those lambs stop screaming, won’t you? ” _ Hannibal Lecter_

Posted in license, Search, newspaper, copyright, magazine, commercial stock, technology, google, web 2.0, editorial, law, corbis, transaction, finance, CEPIC, PACA, getty | Print | No Comments »