February 25, 2011 by pmelcher.

In an interview given to the french blog A l’Oeil, the court appointed administrator of the defunct Corbis Sygma , the french company set up by Corbis after its acquisition of Sygma, declared that he is about to destroy millions of Sygma’s photographs.

You might remember that Corbis, during its heavy acquisition years, purchased the legendary French news photo agency Sygma for about $20 million in the hope that it would give them the reportage-news cachet it was missing so much. After strikes, mismanagement, business bloopers and other incongruity, Corbis forfeited this summer and declared total bankruptcy. They used the pretext of a lost lawsuit by a french photographer as the reason and very quickly closed everything.

You might also remember that they had open an archive facility amidst the cows of Normandy, similar to the underground facility they have in Pennsylvania . All the negatives and originals were transferred there to preserve them for eternity.

Well, apparently, eternity is now partly over.

Maitre Gorrias, legal administrator of the defunct Corbis Sygma and in charge of its dismantlement,   announced on February 8 that after a failed attempt to sell the images at auction he will destroy them. Yes, you read well : destroy.

What are we taking about ? According to Dan Perlet « Global Director of Communications of Corbis » : The Preservation and Access site  contains approximately 50 million photographic elements which about 75% are under the control of Corbis Corporation (photographers who signed a contract with Corbis Corporation) and 25% of photographic elements remaining under the control of liquidator (photographers without a signed contract with Corbis Corporation and is represented by Sygma). We have no precise figures on the number of photographers. “

The images about to be destroyed are the last 25%.  That is 12 million images !

Maitre Gorrias apparently doesn’t have any issue in returning those images to the photographers who took them. However, he doesn’t have the resources to try to find them.

Thus, if you or someone you know might have images in the Sygma archive, please urgently contact :

Maître Stéphane Gorrias SCP BTSG 1 place Boieldieu 75002 Paris – France

and tell him you would like your images back.

More on this story on the excellent french photography blog written by Michel Puech , A ‘L’oeil ( In French)

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

February 19, 2011 by pmelcher.

As the business world seems to be moving more and more towards subscription/ sharing model, why doesn’t the photogrpahy world ? Already very much applied by photo agencies that offer monthly/ yearly packages that provide, for a flat fee a limited amount of images, independent photographers could jump on the bandwagon too.

Here is how it would work. A photographer would decide how much he would need to live for a year. He would then sale shares of his time to numerous clients that would need him throughout the year. Once hired by enough clients, the “share” would be closed. Then clients would book him when need, using an online calendar, a bit like Zipcar.

In order to make this work, he would have to not think in terms of jobs but in terms of yearly revenue. So he might loose money on some jobs but make some on other. Everything would level out to make a nice profit. The client would be happy, since they would be able to manage their photo budget on a yearly basis instead of per jobs.

Let’s take a wedding photographer, for example. Right now, they run a hit and run operation: They try to get the most money out of a client they will see once and move on.

Under our model, our wedding photographer would not only offer wedding pictures, but baby pictures, family pictures and so on. He would get hired for a certain fee for 5 years. During that time, he would be on call to shoot whatever the couple would need. In exchange, he would get a steady revenue . It would coat the couple much less money up front to cover the wedding while guaranteeing the photographer steady work and income for the next five years.

Multiply this by 50 clients and a photographer could live comfortably and stress free. Because of the revolving pool of clients, high and lows in revenue would be minimize.

The same could be done for a corporate shooter. Replace the couple client by companies and there you go.

Obviously, you would need some incentive for the clients to sign up for the share/subscription model. Free unlimited online storage of images or 100 free prints a year ? The options are wide open.

More and more individuals seem to be comfortable with the subscription/ share model . From Netflix to Pandora, from Zipcar to Cell phone plans, it is all about simplifying billing and avoiding one time high costs. It just fits better with how they are being paid.

It will be interesting to see if this model takes root in the photography community and develops into an industry standard.

Posted in web 2.0, license, Social Media, prosumer, photojournalism, transaction, finance, editorial | Print | 2 Comments »

February 11, 2011 by pmelcher.

No slightly blurry, underexposed images. No, “look at me, I took these pictures with a broken down Holga standing on one foot” pictures. No, “I am so much more important than the story I am photographing” reportage. No, “look at my Lego skills dude”. Nope.

100 % pure photojournalism. This year World Press Awards are a photojournalism feast with a buffet of the highest quality. Sure, there are more independents than agency photographers ( who cares ?)  . Sure, little Getty images in favor of much more Panos ( I wouldn’t bury Getty just yet). Sure, much more color than Black and White. But that is irrelevant. The World Press Awards is not a crystal ball.

I would question the decision of using a portrait photograph as the number one winner. Not because the image is bad nor that the subject is not worthy. Not at all. I would question it for its potential consequences. Now, every photo reporter in shorts is going to think that the best way to cover a story is to take a bunch of people, stick them in front of a white wall and declare it photojournalism. This trend  is already plagging countries like France and this might make it more universal. Regardless, that should not be the jury’s problem.

I love the slap in the face given to AFP and Getty by attributing Daniel Morel Haiti’s images a well deserved award. I am sure they considered the little girl image as a first prize for a long time.

Not sure, finally, about the Google Street award. Isn’t that a funny subject for a magazine to put together but really not a World Press award contender? Furthermore, aren’t we fringing on copyright infringement here ? I suppose that was the World Press jury “social media” moment.

Now, if magazines ( especially in the US)  would only have the talent to publish more stories like these, the world would be a perfect place ( well, almost). If publishers worldwide would recognize how important these images are to their publications and pay a decent price for them, that would be heaven. Until then, we can hardly say that Photojournalism is dead ( or even dying for that matter). Congrats to all the winner and a double cheer to the talented jury.  ‘Nough said :

Posted in TIME, license, magazine, Social Media, photojournalism, wire service, news, editorial, slideshow, getty | Print | No Comments »

February 6, 2011 by pmelcher.

One of the interesting aspects of the launch of The Daily this week, for those of us who are in the business of licensing images, is how to price those images.

Traditionally, an image license takes in consideration the circulation of the publication. And with  print, it is no problem. A publisher will decide how many copies to print and hope that they will all sale. Thus, the circulation is clear, cut, precise.

With an Ipad only publication, well, at first, there is no circulation. The publisher releases an issue and waits to see how many people will download it. Thus, the real circulation numbers are only known after the issue has been replaced by the new one.

So how do you price that ? Well, the best you can do is price the license based on known numbers. Those would be the ones of yesterday’s issue and hope they will be close enough.

But what if it’s a new circulation and it has no previous numbers? Do you use zero as the circulation number ? probably not.

It used to be that the publisher took all the weight of the publication cost.  By deciding how many copies to print, they would, in effect, also decide the cost of an image. Now, it is up to the licensor to partly take over that responsibility. They have to try and figure out the licensing value of their images based on an educated guess. There is a good chance they will always be too low.

In a perfect world, the image license fee should be decided at the end of the day ( for a newspaper, like The Daily) based on how many downloads. It would be possible if the publisher would share these numbers with you. While they are more than willing to do so  with advertisers, they will not with image suppliers.

An ” intelligent image” could report back to you and automatically bill your clients based on downloads, at the end of the day. It would be fair, especially if your image( s) where instrumental in provoking a spike. Otherwise,  you are left to play a guessing game with a blindfold.

Slightly related :

Like everyone else, I have been following the events in Egypt. It is hard to say, and maybe see, the image or images that will remain as icons of this movement. However, they are plenty going around. However, one unnerving  item is Time Magazine. On their website ( and maybe in print), they have there sideshow by Dominic Nahr from Magnum. While the image are good, there are two main aspects that are wrong:

- One : they call it “Time Exclusive photos: The Clashes in Cairo.” . This make it sound like they are the only ones to have covered this event. Which clearly they are not.What is exclusive is that you will only see Dominic Nahr’s coverage of the clashes on Time.com.

Not sure if anyone cares.

- Two: The whole page has to refresh every time you switch to the next photograph. You would think that for a publication own by Time Warner, we could expect a better site design than one done by a 11 year old in 1994. Come on people, it’s 2011!!

Posted in magazine, license, Canada, technology, E Reader, multimedia, newspaper, finance, slideshow, photojournalism, TIME, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

February 3, 2011 by pmelcher.

Sometimes, away from the screams of the mainstream media’s ADD ( Attention Deficit Disorder) , you fall on some incredibly powerful story. This is one of them.

Beautifully photographed and edited by photographer Piotr Malecki.  ‘Nough said.  Take a look :

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

February 2, 2011 by pmelcher.

I was going to write a post on how selfish people in this profession had become. How, or so it seems, that there is no such thing as a photo community or a photography brotherhood but rather masses and masses of individuals looking after their own personal lives with stubborn fierceness and dedication.

The biggest irony, was I about to write, is that most, like  news, wedding or nature photographers, are deeply  committed in documenting the world for others. So how could they be so selfish?

Well, mostly by accepting jobs for so little retribution :  Doing 4 of 5 hours of shooting, including editing, captioning and transmission for $250, often leaving on the table their right to any further license fees. Or photo agencies ( can we still call them “agencies” anymore ? Doesn’t an agent represent the best interest of the people it represents ? ) agreeing to monthly subscriptions fee that end up being a few dollars per image.

Isn’t the thought behind these agreements as simple as : “The hell with everyone, I will accept those prices so at least I can get some money” ?

That’s what I was going to write about. And then, I fell on an article where someone was quoting, or so they thought, Ralph Waldo Emerson . I paraphrase here : ” If every man acted in its own best self interest this would be Paradise on earth “. And then I realized.

This industry is not selfish enough. If it was, if everyone was acting in its own self best interest alone, then we would never see this decrepitude of pricing.

Unlike other related industries, like music or movies, the photography world has not been challenged by disruptive technologies. It embraced, for the most part, digital much faster and better than any other industry. It was not pushed around by new distribution platforms or free file sharing of the magnitude of a Napster or  Bit Torrent. Sure, stealing has been made a little easier, but so has finding stealers. Besides commercial stock, it has not been overwhelmed by crowdsourcing and probably never will. Sure, there will always a lucky citizen journalist here and there but none will end up shooting the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

So what gives ? Why this pricing depression ?

That’s because in the process of accepting a pricing for a job or a license, each thinks not about the value of the image, the intended usage, the budget available and the consequences, but rather, they think of the Other. What  would the Other do? If I do not accept this price, will I loose the job/license to the Other that will accept it? Then shouldn’t I accept it so the Other doesn’t get it ?

The Other being, of course, the competition. As soon as the photo industry started to guessing about what the other would do, it started loosing its grip on pricing. And the sliding downhill continues. Because, like a self fulfilling prophecy, the Other did accept that price because they thought you would…So now you know they will, so you will too.

The wheel is in motion.

The buyers will not complain. They actually will play in your paranoiac game as they will tell you either : “but that’s what we always pay” or “Everyone else has accepted that price” .

This could be stopped quite easily. If everyone started publicly stating whenever they got a good price or when they refused another because it was too low. Making a clear statement : “yes, we will be undersold”. “Because pricing is not what I am/ We are about ”

You can replace less jobs/less license with more high paying ones. Quality can trump quantity. It’s a viable business model too.

But mostly, it could be stopped if everyone ceased to  think about the Other and  started to act in its own best self interest. Nothing else. If everyone priced themselves according to their value instead of what they think the Other ones value is, than this would cease.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson also said :

Every man has his own courage, and is betrayed because he seeks in himself the courage of other persons.

Posted in license, technology, commercial stock, photojournalism, finance, news, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | 2 Comments »