April 29, 2010 by pmelcher.

What is new is not always good. While everyone is trying to figure out where the world of licensed photography is going to, others are taking advantage of the void by figuring out parasitical way to profit from it.

We already do know that Google has figured out how to make money, and huge sums of it, by cashing in on others creative content. By slapping ads on the creation of others, they are the ultimate business parasite. At least, with Adsense, they have offered the creators a share of the income generated. Typical of a long tail type of business, they are, however, the only ones to really profit from it.

With a company called Pixazza, they have figured out how to feed upon the photography world. If you are not aware of it, Pixazza offers website the ability to attached on any image they publish, a pop up window that invites you to purchase the same clothes as the ones wore by the celebs in the images.

Websites that participate get a commission on every sale of clothes that is generated from their site. The photographers who took the images? nothing. Pixazza actually uses the image as a selling tool yet gives nothing back to the photogrpahers, only to the publishers. In theory, and maybe in practice, a publisher could easily purchase a license for an image and make a profit from it. Interesting no. Sure, it is not much different then what is going on in magazine or more traditional ads on website. After all, it is the business model for editorial publication to make a profit from ads attached to their articles and layouts. But in this case, instead of being a generic ad, it is actually 100 % dependent on the photograph and its content.

So now, on top of publishers making money on your images, there is this new company, who have done nothing more than create a piece of code. Do photographers see their income grow too from this added value ? nope.  Does Pixazza care? Certainly not.

It doesn’t seem like much right now for those not shooting celebrities, but it will very soon . They have just extended their offering to travel and sports images. And that is only the begging. Soon, any image will have this parasite on it. The near future, if all goes well ?

Well, why do you think Google invested in this company? Because it fits perfectly its business model. the parasite kind: Attach an ad to everything on the internet. The next step ? Well Google might decide to purchase Getty, make all the images available for free to everyone, as long as Pixazza is attached to them. Can you imagine the revenue they would get ? And the damage they would do to the photo industry?

However, they don’t even have to go that far. If Pixazza is succesful in implanting themselves on every website, they could make a huge fortune without ever paying a dime to photographers. Ever. Your images would become ad platform without you ever seeing a penny from it. Pretty cool, no ?

There is no reason for this to stop currently, as none of the photo agencies or photographers seem to mind. Some seem to think this is really great because it’s new and its Google powered, at least financially. Once they see their images licensed for editorial use hijacked into  a commercial , it is doubtful they will still be smiling . But it will be too late.

It’s not new, it’s just evil.

Posted in copyright, license, celebrity, technology, commercial stock, keyword, google, editorial, transaction, finance, filter, getty | Print | 3 Comments »

April 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

Details are still sketchy as the official announcement will be made at 5 PM ( UK time) but according to sources, the London staff has just be informed of the purchase. They might be waiting to inform the Berliner staff, located in Los Angeles, bought by Rex Features a few years back. This acquisition makes sense.

After many years of trying alone,  Getty Images has never succeeded in taking the number one place from Old timer Rex Features. They desperately tried. Thus, in a true and tried fashion, if Getty cannot beat, Getty purchases.

This is going to rock the photo agency world in many levels and in a lot of countries outside the UK. Rex Features does not own much content and has mostly been a distributor of various content. One thinks primarily of SIPA, which has been a key associate of Rex since its beginning.  Will SIPA continue to get Rex’s material for France ? Will Rex Getty still distribute them in the UK ? And what about the little celebrity agency Berliner in LA? Does Getty need another celebrity agency on top of Filmmagic, Wireimage, Buzzfoto , AFP and their own ?

Maybe the 5PM relase will give us more info. But then, probably not.

*******************

PRESS RELEASE “Celebrity and entertainment content is a growing and vital part of the editorial imagery industry and this acquisition positions us to meet and exceed the demand for nearly instantaneous material,” said Jonathan Klein, co-founder and CEO of Getty Images. “Growing our entertainment imagery business continues to be a key strategic focus. The real winners will be our customers, who can now expect to see greater choice and more easily accessible imagery.”

Getty Images intends to maintain Rex Features’ brand and with the combined resources of Getty Images and Rex Features, Getty Images will continue to generate new imagery for their respective celebrity and entertainment collections. Additionally, Getty Images’ global distribution channels will increase international customers’ access to Rex Features’ products and services.

The acquisition of Rex Features was driven by the continually evolving celebrity imagery business and gives Getty Images more coverage capabilities for events and portraiture and will expand the entertainment and celebrity imagery segment.

“Over more than five decades, Rex Features has built a strong heritage and reputation that Getty Images will build upon to the benefit of customers worldwide,” added Klein. “Getty Images has always been dedicated to making strategic investments that will provide long-term value to our customers.

Posted in SIPA, celebrity, magazine, transaction, editorial, news, france, getty | Print | 6 Comments »

April 22, 2010 by pmelcher.

You know what would be news ? Something different. No, not another microstock “save the world” launch. Nor another “look, we slashed our prices so low, it’s not funny anymore”. I am sure even image buyers must be fed up of receiving another flier, email, phone call, or goddamn tweet about another discount or super low pricing.

No. What would be news these days would be an archive, photo agency, even solo photographer announcing the launch of a premium collection of absolutely insanely beautiful images for a ridiculous expensive price. Hyper good images for Uber money. Now, that would grab everyone’s attention.

What this business has lost is the sense of luxury. In a world ( that sounds like a movie trailer, especially if you read it with a deep, deep voice), anyway, in a world where we are constantly reminded of recession, poverty, calamities, earthquakes, grounded air flights, bankruptcies, corporate greed, crooked multi-millionaire CEO’s, and price saving cuts and lay off, it would be a fresh breeze to see and enjoy luxury.

It would be nice to see and hear that this magazine or website has just published an insanely beautiful spread of amazing pictures that cost them a fortune to publish. No, not another blurry image of some celeb caught in some very common act ( like having a baby, or not wearing a ring). No, something as magnificent as Irving Penn, Lee Friedlander, Eugene Smith, Herb Ritts and so many others that have raise this profession so high. Something that you would look at and say “wow”. Not for what it depicts but how it depicts it. Something that would bring you bliss, joy, happiness, something that would inspire you, lift you, make you feel more than human.

In this cacophony of  discount merchants screaming helplessly on how cheap their images are, it would be such a relief to hear someone proudly announce how expensive his images are. It would be good to  see publishers stop taking their readers for idiots and uncultivated and start showing exquisite exclusive photographs. Stop taking the lowest common ( and priced) path by printing the same images over and over, not because they are good, but because they are cheap.

What has happen to brands that they have such a low esteem and associate their product and services with boring photogrpahy? What has happened to magazine, or website, that they do not mind anymore having the same images as their once dreaded competition. What has happened to readers that they do not seem to care what they pay for ?

There is a luxury market for almost every product and services out there. For every cheap car there are very expensive ones. For every cheap health club , there are luxurious ones. Why has the photography world given up on luxury content ? Especially at a time when everyone is a photographer. You would thing that the logical reaction would be to move away from the bottom feeders and start offering something of very high value.

So stop sending press release about how low your prices are, how you can have 3 images for the price of 2, how your company can out price any competition. Leave that to the Wal Mart’s ( Corbis and Getty)  and other discounters. Value your work. Value what you do for a living. Be proud, be expensive, be exclusive, be valuable.  Leave the crowd, become an individual.  Because at the end, you are how you present yourself.

Posted in license, newspaper, celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, web 2.0, prosumer, corbis, getty, editorial, transaction, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | 2 Comments »

April 20, 2010 by pmelcher.

In response to the entry : Dying in Africa  , Eliane Laffont wrote :

Photojournalists believe their photos can change the world and history show that, for the most part, they get results.
Lewis Hine photos changed the Child Labor law, Eddie Adams photo of the police chief executing a Vietcong soldier contributed in large part to the end of the war in Vietnam, Eugene Smith photos of mercury pollution made us aware of the environment, Stephanie Sinclair photo essay of child brides gave us a clear idea of the physical social sexual abuse these young girls endure and with these photos, most civilized countries have now defined the age of consent to 18 years, and thanks to the photos taken at Abu Graib, we know now that prison abuse really happened in Iraq and actions were taken to stop it.
The list of remarkable stories told by remarkable photographers is endless and I want to name a few who worked also in Africa. Their mission ‘’to raise global awareness of the problems of this extraordinary place.  Africa, vibrant continent in transition and ongoing wars, encompasses 53 nations, nearly a billion people and more than 800 ethnic groups but also plagued by wars, famine, and genocides.
James Natchway’s poverty in Rwanda, Marcus Bleasdale’s genocide in Darfur, Tom Stoddart’s Aids in Sub Sahara, Ed Kashi’s oil pollution in Niger, Sebastio Salgado’s North African immigrants, Brent Stirton’s killing of gorillas in Congo, JP Laffont’s child soldier in Angola, Pascal Maitre’s children orphaned by wars and Aids in Burundi and the list goes on.
Some of these photos will make you sick and hopefully they will make you angry as those problems matter and you want the world to have a good look at it and take action. To say that Africa has become a ‘’perverse playground ‘’ for photojournalists show a lack of knowledge and a lack of compassion.
Without these photos, no knowledge of the problems and without photojournalists, no action to repair them Photojournalism is a code of conduct and photojournalists are our modern heroes. Over the last 10 years, the landscape of photography has changed considerably and Visa Pour l’Image in Perpignan has become the capital of photojournalism, the last place that save defenseless people from oblivion, force you to have a look at problems that matter and reward the photojournalists who took action, sometimes at the risk of their lives.

Eliane Laffont fait a NYC le 19 Avril 2010

Posted in license, lens, photojournalism, slideshow, editorial, news | Print | 1 Comment »

April 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

Commercial stock photography is all about problem solving. The first is how to make a living shooting commercial stock. One way to do it, is to solve other people’s problems.

When image buyers go to a Web site, it is because they have been asked to provide a solution to a very specific problem: They have text, they have a layout, they have a concept and they have a client with a message. The task: fill in the visual space with the perfect image.

Seems easy in theory. If what’s needed is a picture of a tool, get a tool. If it is a concept, it is much harder.

A photographer’s job, one that shoots stock, is to preempt this problem and solve it. The more common the problem, the more successful the image. Potentially.

How does one figure what problems need to be solved worldwide? In a way, it is not that hard. As humans living in the 21st century, we share common experiences. We seek solutions to a lot of tasks and issues. Our lives, in a sense, are a continuous search to alleviate problems. And unbeknown to us, many are shared by our peers.

So, photographing our own problems, or at least solving them, is productive. Figuring out what the next problem will be is a better way to be a successful stock shooter. The image of the solution, however, should always be tied to the problem.

Once this is understood, that a stock photographer is a problem-solver, a big step has been made. But it is not all. A stock photographer should also know how to create meaning. And for that, we need to dive a little deeper in how the brain functions.

Our eyes, in a way, are very stupid. We receive light, and it bounces into the back of our brains, at the primary visual cortex, which only sees and recognizes basic shapes, like circles, squares, triangle, etc. However, this is not the end of how we interpret a photograph in our brains. It actually goes from there to at least 30 other different places in our brains, some of which we are still figuring out what actually they do.

Some we know:
We will skip quickly over the ventral stream, which is the “what” of our brain that recognizes what an object is and what it does. Sort of the catalog section of our brain. Photographs share this space, in the frontal lob, with words, and how we interpret them. We will also fly quickly over the dorsal stream. That part of the brain creates a map of where the object is. A sort of 3D GPS system that puts the object in perspective to its surrounding.

What is interesting is a third location where the information bounces, and that is called the limbic system. That is deep inside the middle of our brain and very old. Old in the sense that it has been with us throughout our evolution. The limbic system is the part that “feels” those basic emotions, from satisfaction to fear.

Those three parts are what create meaning for a photograph and what every single human being has in common, including your potential client.

That is what stock photographers should go after: create meaning. Images should tickle that part of our brains that recognize, put in perspective and make us feel emotions, because it also makes them valued.

When a creative director or a photo editor is looking for an image, it is not just a problem they are trying to solve, but a meaning they are trying to convey.

If you look at the stock industry, with photo libraries boasting millions upon millions of images, it is easy to see that maybe 90% will never sell. They aren’t useless; they just have no meaning to anyone.

Commercial stock photography, in order to strive, has to offer an emotionally meaningful solution.

Posted in copyright, technology, Magnum, commercial stock, license, multimedia, editorial, photojournalism, keyword, pictogram, news | Print | 1 Comment »

April 15, 2010 by pmelcher.

Amusing story from the BBC today about when Microstock goes terribly wrong. Two competing political parties in Northern Ireland used the same model for two opposing ideas. As if the world was too small to find two people with diverse opinions.

To top it all, both parties breached Istockphoto, and most microstock and royalty free usage agreement , who specify that pictures cannot be used in a way that “depicts personal endorsement by model”.

Those are the risks with any royalty free image. Up to now the same image, or same model has been used on numerous website, but never, it seems, for two competing political parties. Doesn’t get any better than that, does it?

The unseen irony here is that this happened in Northern Ireland where CEPIC will hold it’s annual “merchants at the temple” meeting.

More on the BBC website.

Posted in license, technology, commercial stock, prosumer, CEPIC, Royalty free, getty, transaction, Microstock | Print | 2 Comments »

April 13, 2010 by pmelcher.

Photography is an investment. No, not the “I buy a lot of expensive equipment  and resell it later ” type of investment. It is an investment for the image buyer.

A photograph, or a series of photograph, can increase the value of anything around it. Like a multiplier. In it’s raw format, few images have any power. It sits on  hard drive, or on a print, and does nothing. Once associated with words in a magazine, or slapped next to a product or service, it start doing its magic. It blends, merges, and adapts to its surrounding and creates a powerful communication  funnel with the viewer.The message is suddenly increased.

The trick is to match the right image. That is where the investment comes in. A photo editors job, or anyone that purchases images, is to find the raw, and if possible cheap, image that will make the perfect combination. If it’s properly done, the returns can be spectacular. For a few hundred dollars a magazine ( think LIFE Magazine) or a campaign ( think Marlboro) can achieve legendary status.

Like any investment, there is part gamble, part luck, part intuition, part research. When licensing an image for a particular project, one has to juggle these skills in order to get the proper result.

Why is this important? Because those who license images should keep that in mind when they license their images. Sure, pricing can be based on usage, or size, or a subscription, if you so desire. But what about pricing based on predictive impact ?

An image buyer calls you because they want to purchase one of your image. They have a definite feeling that your image will enhance their message, whether an ad campaign or an article . You will ask about usage because that is quantifiable. But will you ask about the expected impact and enhancement value of your image ? No ? Probably because you do not expect them to tell you the truth in order to keep the price low. However, that is where the real value of your image is. Not how many times it will be used and in what format but rather how it will be perceived by those who see it in its new environment. Not in usage, in result.

Of course not all images end up creating value for its surrounding. Most often, it does nothing and sometimes even devalues its surroundings.  But that is not the fault of the photogrpaher but rather the photo editor, or the art director.

So, how do you price potential impact? Well, the same way the image buyers does : Part gamble, part luck, part intuition, part research. Mix them up properly and you have the correct price.

And like an investment trade on a stock market, the final price resides in a perfect balance between offer and demand. Not in quantity but in quality. The buyer has a price based on his perceived value of the image and the seller has to find it and match it. In the end, the market will decide its real value, but only after price negotiation has been finalized.

Maybe a new way to price images should be after a campaign or a article has been published . Both party would reunite and review how well the image did, or did not do, its enhancing job. Did people rush to stores and purchase that item? Did the magazine  double it’s readership ?  Then the image (s) were successful and thus should licensed at a very high price point.

Sure, these are hard to measure values. But quite frankly it would be a better system than to price an image based on how many pixel it has.

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, newspaper, photojournalism, Royalty free, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

April 12, 2010 by pmelcher.

The acquisition of Plink by Google marks the debut of a potent revolution for the photo world. Not because Plink is a special company, nor that Google really cares about the photo world, but for the technical implication that it implies.

As it is frequent with Google, it is not the company they purchase, but the talent.  Plink, if you do not know, is a company that does  ( did ?) visual search. Take a picture of a painting and it will find the original along with the information. All from your cell phone. Nothing really new : LTU Technology has such such for the Iphone and Idee or Picsout could easily replicate same in ten minutes if they were not so busy trying to find a sustainable business model.

No, what is interesting is the what they how Google intends to expand this technology and use the migrating talents. They will integrate with Google Goggles , their project of photographing with your cell phone a place, object etc and returning a search result.Thus eliminating text based queries. The smarts ones here can see where we are going with this

For that to happen, Google needs to improve object recognition technology. If anyone can do it, and do it well, they can.  There will now be a thousand companies competing in that field, if only to  be  hopefully acquire by Google ( which is a more popular exit strategy then doing an IPO, these days). So what does it mean for the photo world?  Well, at first , the end of manually entered text keywords. With this, an image can be scanned and all content automatically identified and added to the keyword list. Goodbye to the thousands ( mostly in India), that currently provide this process manually. The hard, if not very hard part, will be the conceptual keywords.

What is fresh ? what is happy ? what is “in love”  ? Computers will have a very hard time to decipher human emotions and concepts. It’s not impossible, just very hard. However, 90% of the process will be done already.

It will place Google in a very advance part of the search technology as it will not be easy and simple to replicate. It will accelerate the camera to desktop cycle for photo agencies that use it well, it will make Microstock even more automated and cheaper to process.

So, while you think on how and what to invest in your keywording  work flow, think about what is just around the corner and about to make your competition more cost effective than you. Think about how to reduce manual labor in favor of automated processes. Think about abandoning those endless discussion about how to handle your keywords because so, it will not be an issue. Finally, if you are a company making revenue solely or primarily on providing keywording, the time to change is now.

More on Plink acquisition here.

Posted in Search, commercial stock, keyword, google, prosumer, web 2.0, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

April 9, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s been a long week. You and everyone around you have worked hard, really hard. Even if you have be looking for a job, it had to be hard. So let’s relax a bit and compare salaries at the two photo mega corp. Not sure if these numbers are correct, nor do I really care actually, but it makes for a pleasant carefree read.

Honor to the oldest, Corbis :

And here’s the Coldest, Getty Images :

All data, information, fact checking, source, and liabilities are from Jobs Salary. com . Looks like we are going to have a nice week end.

Posted in web 2.0, technology, finance, news, corbis, getty | Print | No Comments »

April 7, 2010 by pmelcher.

American Society of Media Photographers, the Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America, photographers Leif Skoogfors, Al Satterwhite, Morton Beebe, Ed Kashi and illustrators John Schmelzer and Simms Taback  have filed a class action suite against Google, not only for their rights Grabbing Google project but also for other of Google’s mistreatment of photography’s right. This is great news a first worldwide.

The “do no evil” company has been scanning millions of books and magazine to repurchase them for online usage ( including paid) without even asking for copyright clearance from photogrpaher over content. Millions of images are thus available or will be available online without anyone paying an additional license fee, required for such usage.

This class action will reopen the doors to the fame  11 year long legal action of  Greenberg VS National Geographic that terminated when the Supreme Court denied Greenberg’s petition for a writ of certiorari, which lets stand the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that the National Geographic Society – and by extension, other publishers – have the right to reproduce their magazines’ archive in digital format without paying any additional royalties to freelance photographers.

Certainly this judgment will be used by Google to obtain clearance to  continue their trampling of copyright, thus they are not the original publishers.

Obviously, nothing will be resolved quickly but it is the right step in the right direction. One question is, will this group have enough money to pursue this legal battle ? Will this push publishers to use more Royalty Free image as to avoid such issue? Will this impact what publishers are currently doing with reproducing their print publication for Ipad without paying any additional license fees?

More details on the legal move here.

Posted in copyright, magazine, technology, google, web 2.0, law, finance, Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »