May 28, 2010 by pmelcher.

Photography, like most industries affected by a center of gravity shift to digital, has experienced more than a migration from film to data packets. One of the most fundamental shift, however,  is how the decision process moved from quality of content to cost. Let me explain:

For a long time, the key decision in purchasing a license for any photograph had been it’s quality, it’s relevance to the intended usage. Sometimes, the photograph even outperformed its intended use, it was so good.  Cost, because it was perceived as a tool of value, was not an issue. Magazines had absolutely no problem in spending a lot of money to send photographers around the world and back in order to get the best images.

In fact, a lot of the magazines’ competition was done on newsstands with whom had the best cover. It was a badge of honor.

As images became easier and cheaper to transport thanks to falling memory prices as well as more readily available and cheaper bandwidth, the prices also started to drop. The cameras, the lens, the post processing, the traveling certainly did not drop. Just the cost of getting an image form A to B. Somehow, however, the belief that digital was cheaper to produce took root and, like a bad venom, infected  the whole industry.

Getting the best photographer to the location suddenly did not become a necessity. Getting the images faster took over. The best images was replaced by the fastest. Let’s just pick a photographer that is there already and get those images in. Assignment no longer included transportation to and fro. That lasted for a while as the still high cost of technology paired with the difficult technological learning curve kept the competition to a select few. However, that did not last long. Cost of equipment as well as it’s ease of use quickly lowered, allowing more and more to enter the competition for the fastest image.

Since it is impossible to transmit an image before it is taken, the competition hit a wall where everyone found themselves at the same level, transmitting as fast. So what happened ? prices dropped. The competition, as well as the usage decision, shifted again, this time to the cheapest.

Today, this is where we are : Decisions are no longer made on the quality of content but on its cost. It really doesn’t matter if your the next Cartier-Bresson, if you are too expensive, you won’t get published. If the photo budget is already spend on two or three subscriptions to photo agencies and your images are not part of the “feed”, forget it. You might as well go fishing. They will like your images, they just won’t use them.

What magazine readership do not see, is that they are paying to read publications that do not show them the best pictures but rather the cheapest. It is a very deceptive procedure. Don’t magazine attract your attention by the promise of delivering what they consider the best ?  Yet, as far as photography is concerned, they don’t. The rule has become to fit the image purchasing process within a pre-established budget. No longer do editors beleive that great images can boost readership. Instead, they beleive cheaper images will save them from oblivion.

How long would you continue to go to your favorite restaurant once you knew that they didn’t even try to purchase better product but just the cheapest ? This reminds us of those houses build with cheap dry wall imported from China that eventually made everyone badly sick. Sure, they were cheaper, and yes, cheap photography is not bad for your health. At least, not that we know of.

Photographs have a better chance to be published these days if they are cheap, not if they are good.

It is sad. Sad because there a great images being shot everyday that will never, never be seen because of this dictatorship of the wallet. Sad, because readers are being lied to by this money censorship. Sad because it is helping no one.

As magazine or website publishers continue to think in terms of broadcasting (One to many), our world is changing to social (many to many). Consumers are quickly evolving from passive participants to active contributors. As this migration is deepening, more will search for their own sources of photography that they will in turn grab and share. They will start invading the publishing world with images that they like rather than those that are being force fed to them by penny-pincher corpocrates. They will deconstruct and break the barriers of the conglomerate publishing world in order to resubmit their own vision of the world. It is already going in the world of text journalism, it will not be long before photography gets swept in.

It is no longer a viable proposition to beleive that image consumers will continue to just passively absorb cheap content. The barriers  that kept the suppliers of images invisible to the readers  have fallen, permitting them, for the first time in the history of photography, an unprecedented access to the source. They can now see where publications get their content from and make their own decisions. Ironically, as publications divert more and more what they use to the cheapest, the rest of the production become more and more visible, making their money censorship more obvious.

Obviously,  this uncomfortable situation is not going to last long. Photographers and photo agencies will soon be forced into finding lucrative ways to supply their images directly to the readers, by-passing those publishers who have refused to use them for monetary reasons. Some already do.

There is another revolution lurking here and once again, the photography world will never be the same.

Posted in copyright, license, multimedia, celebrity, magazine, E Reader, technology, newspaper, web 2.0, transaction, editorial, news, finance, wire service, prosumer, photojournalism, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

May 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

It used to be the recession. Companies would shed dead branches and blame it on the recession even if it wasn’t the real cause. But not Corbis. it missed that boat. Instead, and what irony, it blames photographers. The announcement, at the eve of a long three day week-end, of the total and complete liquidation of Corbis Sygma, came as a surprise.

Never before did the Seattle based Bill Gates owned company had ever admitted failure is such a big scale. It used to be that they would acquire healthy companies, get rid of all the people that had made them succesful, water down the archives , integrate them into a vast digital mash up and the job was done. Promises were forever abandoned, names synonym with success would forever vanish into oblivion, pictures would sink deeply into a immense tasteless database. The triumph of the corpocartes. The rule by committee at it’s best. The Borgs (resistance is futile: You will be assimilated) of the photo industry had talent at erasing any and all traces of those companies it had so proudly acquired. In  it’s typical corporate arrogance, it never admitted failure. Just successive strategy changes.

Back in the 90’s Bill Gates wanted a  news agency. He had the Bettmann Archives, he now wanted something more lively. The Co-Ceo’s at the time went shopping for the boss. For a while, it was the financially weakest (at the time) SIPA that was heavily courted. But it’s legendary owner, Goskin Sipahioglu, could not surrender himself to the idea of being run by incompetents, whatever the amount would be. So all eyes turned to Sygma. In a more precarious financial situation with an exhausted management team, incapable to fund it’s much needed transition to digital, it surrendered much easier. Like others before, it thought that Corbis would help. Instead, it tried to swallow it.

This one was just too big. Arguments, strikes, misunderstandings, culture shock,  mismanagement, incompetence followed. Instead of listening, Corbis send it’s minions to make the Sygma beast surrender to it’s will. That cost some more millions. Since Sygma was losing money when acquired, there was no reason for the senior management of Corbis, at the time, to listen. Or so they thought. They proceeded with their assimilation plan. However, when you have a news photo agency run by people who are trained in licensing commercial stock or archival images, it doesn’t work. When decisions cannot be made without marathon meetings, and least, 2 to 300, 000 exchanges of emails, there is little, or no chance, for a news agency to survive. No way. And since Corbis thought of itself as infallible (probably some Microsoft legacy carried over by it’s owner), whatever they did was right…Or so they thought.

But they couldn’t stop the bleeding. And they couldn’t completely swallow it. So after reducing it to 29 people, changing it into a stock agency, spending what they claim is 20 millions dollars into a remote facility to protect it’s assets, it is now, for the first time, throwing the towel.

It used a ridiculous judgment as an excuse : 1,5 million euros for 750 lost images. That is 2,000 Euros per image. Corbis has just recently claim victory, in the USA, for a $7 per image verdict. What a difference. But let’s not be fooled. Even if their assets had been seized by the French justice, this was too good an opportunity to pass. As it’s current not for long manager said, Stefan Biberfeld,  ” Our tax debts  have risen to 73 millions in the last 10 years and we have lost 2 millions Euros just in 1999″.

Let’s stop right here. A few things to note. Why is a lawyer running a photo news agency ? Does that make any sense . Stefan Biberfeld was Senior Corporate Council, EMEA,  overseeing the Sygma Preservation and Access Initiative before becoming its managing director. Why else if it wasn’t to run a “straight to the ground” strategy?

Side note : EMEA, for those who don’t know, is a corpocrate lingo to say “Europe,Middle East, Africa” because, as we all know, it’s the same thing. Well, at least for Americans.

Another note : Sygma was losing $ 2 million in 1999, when Corbis acquired it. The tone of the phrase hints at this going on, maybe even worse after. 10 years at $2million, that is $20 million. Same as what Corbis spend on the Facility. That is $40 million total. Plus that $73 million in tax debt. That’s $113 million. Dominique Aubert’s claim to $2 million for lost transparencies seem very little in comparison, doesn’t it?.

So let’s cut the crap here: Corbis closes Sygma because it was bleeding money and didn’t know what to do. Corbis closes Sygma because of poor management. It closed Sygma because they couldn’t make it work, like everything else they bought. But not after securing distribution contracts with the best photographers so that Daddy Corbis can continue to license the content . The rest ? thrown into the air. Who cares? 29 people will lose their job, which, in this economy, is also nothing.

According to Michel Puech, the judgment, executed yesterday in Paris, was a lonely event. No screams, no cries, hardly anyone. Corbis management representatives were on call to acquiesce and leave. That beer must have tasted quite good.

Photographers have 4 months to claim their images, after which they become “rights free”, meaning whomever purchases them has  the rights to license them.

Sygma, the name, the legacy, the history, the people who build it, the photographers who died for it, it’s impact on the world, forgotten. Forever.

Thank Guys. we really needed that.

Posted in finance, license, copyright, commercial stock, transaction, editorial, news, law, france, corbis | Print | 2 Comments »

May 24, 2010 by pmelcher.

When technology meets photography, handled by creative minds, this is what you get :   The Museum of London has just launched an iphone App that mixes the present with the past.

Works only in London, for now : You point your iphone camera to a location and  you can click on the “3D view” button and the app will recognize your location and overlay the historic image over the current view. See examples below. Of course they do not have an images for everywhere you go, so they give you a map where you can play with this historical enhance reality.

It’s free to download so if you are in London, and you have an Iphone, you should really try it.

Posted in technology, lens, multimedia, web 2.0, filter, photojournalism, editorial | Print | No Comments »

May 21, 2010 by pmelcher.

According to an article in the French press, the subsidiary of Corbis, Sygma, has just filed for bankrupcy protection.

“I am unable to pay my creditors,” said Stefan Biberfeld, director of Sygma, which was founded in 1973 and was purchased in 1999 by the American company Corbis, owned by Bill Gates personally.

The reason  (something we wrote about here a while back) :  Sygma was found guilty of losing original images  of photographer Dominique Aubert and fined 1.5 million Euros ( about $2 million Dollars) . The company had then its property, equipment and bank account seized by  the French Justice.

Apparently a bankruptcy would not work as any buyer  would  also be face with the same fines and possibly more brought forth by other photographers .

“Our tax debts  have risen to 73 millions in the last 10 years and we have lost 2 millions Euros just in 1999″ continues the manager. 29 full time employees currently working at Sygma risk losing their jobs and the destiny of millions of images is unknown. Corbis had just recently spend a huge amount of money to relocate the Sygma in a safe and climate controlled facility just outside of Paris.

Obviously, Corbis  has decided not to protect it’s company and decided, probably after crushing numbers, that it was no longer worth it. While it won a judgment against Chris Usher for losing thousands of his negatives and paying back a ridiculous $7 per image,it couldn’t do anything against the French legislation that is more pro photographer (and certainly more against big American businesses)

More on the fate of Sygma will be known at next Tuesday’s hearing.

Posted in finance, photojournalism, copyright, celebrity, transaction, editorial, corbis, news, law, france, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

May 20, 2010 by pmelcher.

Sports Illustrated seems to be highly dedicated in making their publication valid in the digital age. They have just released a  video of what it will look like on the new HTML 5 browsers soon available. There is no mention if this will be behind a paywall but it certainly starting to look enticing enough. Since it is all in HTML 5, it is also very portable ( think different tablet manufacturers, not just Ipad) thus  widely visible. The very near future looks really good :

Posted in magazine, technology, E Reader, copyright, photojournalism, editorial, slideshow, news | Print | No Comments »

May 14, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s black and white, it simple, it is quiet and disturbingly peaceful. It is a series of images of death without a cry, a tear or a drop of blood. It screams loudly about the injustices of war, yet there is no guns, no bullets, no helicopter shadow. Just a series of empty bedrooms. Tightly neat and cleaned bedroom, almost like hospital beds. Except that these are the bedrooms of fallen soldiers that will never, ever occupy them anymore.

These images by Ashley Gilbertson are the most powerful images of war I have ever seen. They are dramatic by what they do not show: The fallen boys. Instead we see the remains of Life brutally interrupted, the trophies, posters, gadgets that once made them happy and proud. Suddenly, their absence within these personal space become unbearable. And death, the death of a US soldier takes a new dimension. It is no longer a soldier from within many, an anonymous face under a helmet, but a person, an individual, a life that is missing.

19 rooms , published by the New York Times magazine is an extraordinary feast of photojournalism. The work involved ( finding the soldiers, convincing the families,..) must have been grueling and extremely painful to pursue. It is a great example of how,  by moving away froman event, you can sometimes better capture it’s essence ( Sorry Robert Capa). This essay tells the tale of war, of any war, better than anything I have ever seen. It will haunt you. trust me.

There is also an interview of Ashley Gilberston here:

Posted in lens, magazine, photojournalism, slideshow, editorial | Print | No Comments »

May 13, 2010 by pmelcher.

What is going ? I ‘ll tell you what is going on : Recently, Time, inc, the biggest publisher of magazines in the world has made an agreement with AP, Reuters and Getty Images to license any and all non-exclusive images for a flat rate of $50.00, regardless of size or placement . Magazines like Time, or Fortune, or Sports Illustrated, that used to easily pay $200.00 for a 1/4 page will now have the same images for $50.

It is not the first deal of the sort. Recently Getty Images had a similar arrangement with Bauer publishing for a 3 months try out. Probably because of photo editors resistant clamor and the very negative reaction of other photography suppliers, it did not last.

What does all this mean ?  Well, for one, big publishers are trying to cut costs as drastically as they can. After laying of hundreds of staffers, they are now squeezing suppliers as much as they can. It is somewhat predictable considering the hit they have taken on the advertising side.  Some magazines , like Time, know it is just a question of time ( no pun..) before their paper edition vanishes. It is the same for most weekly celebrity magazines who already suffer heavily from the onslaught of free celebrity website that are much faster at breaking news.

But why would AP, Reuters and Getty would agree to such prices ? Well, for AP and Reuters, born and bred on the subscription model, who hardly pay any commissions to photographers, it is not too much of a stretch.  Furthermore, each one must have thought that the other would have taken the deal and thus be shut out. Dividing to better conquer is something that just doesn’t belong to Julius Ceasar.

Getty images in all this? Well, they have recently change their strategy completely. They are moving away from the fully wholly own content to the mega distributor. They no longer care if they pay any commissions or not and where they get their content from. They want to become indispensable so there is no way to avoid them. Be a monopoly without appearing to be. Thus, they will be willing to sell images for pennies (which they already do) as long as they are the sole distributor. In a way, they are applying the istockphoto model to editorial : “if it cost me nothing to get content, then I can sell it for nothing”

Obviously this is extremely damaging to the world of photography . It will continue to force thousands out of this business, including some very talented elements. It will further eliminate the need for good photo editor as their choice will only be a factor of price. It will devalue the role of photography altogether.

Together with the apostles of the free internet, the Creative Commons barbarians of the Free Frontier foundation, those who are accomplice to these ravaging pricing policies , sellers as well as buyers are contributing to the complete destruction of the photographic landscape. Sure, you will always find “push buttons” ready to execute for a few dollars while they search for another job, but you will no longer be able to see great passionate photography done by amazing eyes. It’s going to be the battle of the crabs, pushing and shoving each other for pieces of crumbs in an ocean of boring banality.  There will no longer be careers in photography.

For those photographers contributing with a smile to these “agencies” thinking they bet on the right horse, they will realize soon that they are no better than slime sticking to a rotten ship . Your photos will soon be free, the exact value that these companies have for your miserable little lives. If you think you are in control now, we shall talk in 5 years from now.

For the others, those who continue to stand against these increasing polluted waves, there is still hope. The hope that mediocracy will destroy itself in a vast self sucking black hole, that those nose-in-the-sky corpocrates who destroy the very own land they try to build upon for pure self interest will finally go the way of the dinosaurs, like so many before them. For those who stand for well rewarded quality work, for making and maintaining a trade made by individuals with a soul, with a passion, with a dedication for truth and respect, there is hope.

There is hope in the knowledge that soon readers will be fed up of seeing the same images everywhere, regurgitated by the same gross pipeline of photography. There is hope in knowing that soon, not every website, every magazine will want to have the same exact images that their competitors have, even though it’s cheap. There is hope in knowing that exclusive will soon regain their value and their grace, that talent attracts eyeballs and that pleased eyeballs bring money, lots of money. Finally, there is hope that by committing to these prices, these companies will fail to find anyone able to live to sustain their production.

What we are witnessing  are the first final steps of those who wanted to be giants who will  collapse on their own weight. Because, once you have reached critical mass, once you have cornered every major aspect of this market, there is only one way to go.

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, technology, TIME, photojournalism, editorial, transaction, finance, wire service, getty | Print | 20 Comments »

May 6, 2010 by pmelcher.

There used to be a time when stock photographers used to submit images to a stock agency. Long wait. Images sold, commissions were paid and the cycle would start all over again.

Then came the arrogant Getty. With the creation of Photographer’s Choice, anyone with a little bit of talent and some extra cash could submit images. At $50.00 a pop. Pay to play. This program is still operating apparently, although it is unknown if it anyone still submits.

Today, things have change, again. Corbis-owned Veer Marketplace, the microstock arm of the Seattle based Stock Agency is paying people to submit to them. Not much. Up to $1.40 per image. In this economy, it might more than you will ever make. Since you have to submit more than 400 images to get in this higher bracket of payment, that’s a whooping $401.40 or more.

So, you are a pro RM photog, you have to pay to play. You’re a bored housewives , you get paid to submit. Make sense, right ?

There is an explanation:

Veer is trailing behind its competition, badly. While they all navigate between 500,000 to  2 Million visitors a months, Veer has a hard time breaking the 100,000 barrier. Not good for a microstock offering. Unlike RM, microstock is a popularity contest and the more traffic , the more sales.

It is not unusual for a microstock to pay contributors to submit. However, up to now, it has been limited to start ups desperately trying to jump start their  offering. Up to now, all that have done so have failed and closed not long after. In an industry segment where the margins are so tight, it is not wise to squander them in content acquisition. Actually, it is because the content is free that microstock companies are able to make a profit.

Seems the super brilliant black turtleneck  Starbukcs Latte induced management of Corbis is going all out in a desperate effort to increase volume offering in a confused assumption that a cry of quantity will attract image hungry buyers. The results : at best, doubtful.

On another note on microstock, it seems that content offering is getting so diluted due to its popularity that income per  contributor is now falling. Some are reporting as much as 10% decrease year over year, careful, this doesn’t mean that microstock is doing badly, not at all. They are probably doing very well, at least for the top 4.  However, them cheering so loudly on how contributing to microstock can make you rich quick, it has reached a point where content increases faster by number of contributors than number of images submitted per contributor.

This is diluting the average income per contributor to a point that many have hit a ceiling  that seems to go down month after month . If this trend confirms, it will have the effect of making some contributors quit altogether. Will it affect the volume of content. probably not. Althought there is no public numbers, it is however very clear that new contributors joining highly exceeds those who interrupt their submissions.

Since microstock companies live on the Long Tail principle, it will not affect them. They do not care who submits, as long as many, many people submit. So, for those who can’t sustain their last year revenue, there is only one option : submit to Corbis Veer and get paid for doing so, even if they never sell your image.

The Veer Dash for Cash program here

The Getty Photographer’s Choice here.

Posted in No sense, license, technology, commercial stock, web 2.0, prosumer, getty, corbis, transaction, finance, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

May 4, 2010 by pmelcher.

There has always been a major obsession in our lives. From prehistoric times to today, we have feared the same demon.  We have crafted a lot of fixes and patches but it has been really recently that we have seemingly find a cure.

A sense of definition.

This demon we live with is the constant fear that we might be living useless lives. Lives that start on a birthday that we celebrate year after year until we perish, leaving, seemingly, nothing behind. We have struggled and we are still struggling to find meaning in everything we do, however trivial. Since we are incapable of defining what a meaning would be, we leave it to others to define it. After all, what better way to give depth to something than having it seen by others. Same goes for our lives.

Enters photography : For the last 150 years, it has made many, many lives meaningful. Not only by making lives finally visible by others , but making the lives of those who photographs them, meaningful. It would have been incredibly hard for Gandhi, for example, to have made his life, and his actions meaningful without photography. His force, his presence was made a lot stronger, and effective, thanks to those photogrpahers that brought us the images of an almost naked frail old man defying the biggest empire of the time. But this is a bad examples, as Gandhi’s life and action always had a meaning.

What about the middle management, married, one kid man around the corner from your house. He is living the simple regular life, the one made of 8 hours labor days, busy house keeping week ends and sometimes  interrupted  by the common tragedies (death, unemployment, sickness, loss). Where is the meaning of that life?

Nowhere. Until it starts getting more dimensions by being photographed and seen. Photographed by friends, family, passer bys and ending up on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter. If any of these images goes viral, a simple ignored life becomes suddenly highly meaningful. Never mind that the meaning might be puerile, it is still a meaning.

Photography has put an end to the dreadful unobserved life. Probably for ever. What started as simple drawings in a cave somewhere in the South of France that said “look, I am here and I did this” has evolved to today’s ” Look at me, I learn to jet ski during my vacation” photograph ; I exist.

In between Gandhi and your neighborhood, there are thousand upon thousands of lives that suddenly spring into meaning because and only because of photogrpahy. That man in front of the tanks in Tiananmen square, the  monk that burned himself in Vietnam, that other man holding his bandage as he walked away from the London bus explosion. Or that woman who held her baby after an earthquake. or even Paris Hilton ? What would be the meaning of her life without photography ?

Fear no more the darkness of oblivion, photography is here.

In the cacophony of individuals screaming for attention and thus justification, some have even taken photography to yet another level. It is no only who they photograph who’s life become amplified, it is also themselves. Its not longer “look at me, I exist”, but rather, “Look at me  looking at others, I exist”. This has lead to everything from a variety of extremely brilliant photographers to a pool of highly pretentious narcissists.

Regardless, what we have let quietly slip into our lives has now become the primary form of “existence justification” for all of us, something unthinkable . The question now, as the cries for meaning increases, how do manage it?

Posted in celebrity, technology, flickr, photojournalism, filter, Microstock | Print | No Comments »