May 17, 2012 by pmelcher.

It is going to be interesting to see how the market reacts to Shutterstock IPO. For once, the stock photo market will be taken out of its own little world and confronted to the business world.

Also of importance, obviously, is KKR investments in Fotolia for 50 % of the company. Obviously, this is a revelation of perceived value from traditional investors.

It is clear that the recent sale of Instagram for 1 billion has impacted those decisions and will probably also affect their outcome.

Both companies, Fotolia and Shutterstock brand themselves as tech companies first, photo agencies (or a variation of sort) second (or third..or last). They are predominately sales platforms for crowdsourced goods. The fact that they are selling photograph instead of widgets is almost irrelevant.

How will these two investments impact the growth of these companies will be the real revelation. If both succeed in transforming this massive influx of cash into market shares, it will definitely signal the burial of traditional RM models and the end of those photo agencies that cling to it.

It will also declare the end of the professional stock photographer as we knew it ( hasn’t that happen already ?)

More importantly, it might signal the weakening of Getty’s formidable machine.

Bothe Fotolia and shutterstock are going for the more traditional marketplace, the up to know reserved hunting ground of Getty. Shutterstock clearly states it in its filing while Fotolia remains more general. However, both see their growth tracing a highway into the professional image buyers market.

In the process, they might force Alamy, who has a similar business model than they do, to revisit it’s own approach to the market and abandon RM while extending their crowdsourcing.

Fotolia and Shutterstock are both visibly aiming at becoming the only platform to buy and sell photography, similar to what Itune has done with music.

While the concept is not new, Getty has been flirting with success in that matter for years, it is now becoming closer to becoming a reality.

Think there is still a need for RM ? Let take editorial. Recent years have shown that no publication care for exclusive anymore. Time and Newsweek, for example, could never publish the same image. Today, they both use the same three source of images , Getty, Reuters and AP and could care less if they publish the same image. If they want exclusive content they just assign it .

Online, speed and volume only matter. Wether another site publishes the same images is irrelevant since whatever happens, the story can be, will be, copied.

Book publishers are tired of paying fees based on print run, language, digital , etc. With their need for multiple platforms publishing, RF is a much better model.

Advertising ? Sure, for large project. But then again, that is more the domain of assignment than stock photography.

Nothing new here.

What is really new is the amount of money being invested. Never since Getty’s entry in the market has the stock licensing world seen so much cash fire power infused so quickly.

Whatever the result, the impact on this already battered and lethargic industry will be phenomenal.

Posted in TIME, technology, Newsweek, commercial stock, web 2.0, prosumer, Royalty free, getty, transaction, finance, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

May 1, 2012 by pmelcher.

In a financial report hardly seen by anyone, it is mentioned that Getty Images will take a loan of $275 million in order to pay dividend to it’s shareholders. Those are well known. It is a equity firm called Hellman & Friedman . This payment will, in addition to previous ones, cover the cost the equity company had to pay to take the company out of the public market. $1.3 billion dollars. What does this mean ? Probably that, incapable of selling the company, it is paying itself back. Was that part of the plan when they initially bought it? Probably. It would certainly make sense. Does that mean that when the payment is fully done, Getty Images returns into the hands of Klein and company ?

However, what is really important in this report is that Getty has made $945 million in revenue for 2011. That is close to one billion dollars ( Instagram anyone ?). Nothing is said about how much it took to get to this number or about profits, so we can only speculate. Furthermore, since it doesn’t give any breakdown, this revenue certainly includes music and video licensing revenues.

Regardless, last time Getty had announced revenue, it was around $800 million, a few years back.

So what do we learn ? That Getty, despite terrible market conditions, is growing. At what cost, we don’t know.

If the overhaul stock photo market is indeed at $3 billion, then it owns a third of it. If it’s only at $1.5 billion, as some others claim, they control 60 %.

Undeniably , Getty is number one in the US. By a large margin. In other markets, in most European countries, they are certainly in the  top 3 position. Are we close to a monopoly ? Certainly. The question should rather be, is Getty using its massive dominance in the market to shut others down. Difficult to argue since it seems that every week  a new photo agency is born. Existing photo agencies all seem to continue to be in business ( 500+ expected attendees at Cepic this year), albeit at what cost?

When Getty first entered this market in the 90’s, no one believed that a photo agency could post a billion dollars in revenue. Most were happily satisfied to be in the tens of millions and only dreamed of bringing it to the hundreds.

So what is the key to Getty’s success ? Continued adaptation to the markets needs, regardless of the cost to photographers. Getty’s strategy has always been, ever since the famous Klein statement of ” photographers don’t pay our bills”, to meet or exceed their clients demands in pricing and content. If they acquire a company it is not so much to eliminate competition than to have what clients obviously desires.

On a related note, it seems Shutterstock, the subscription only microstock company is going for an IPO. This will be one of the very rare times when a stock photo agency enters the public market ( Getty tried and retracted after a few years) . There is a good chance that Shutterstock will heavily put the emphasis on the technology part of their company and stay away from the stock photo part. They are probably encouraged by the huge evaluation of Instagram and figure there is an opportunity here. If this IPO is successful, it shouldn’t be long we see the others, like Dreamstime or Fotolia, also attempt it.

On Getty here

on Shutterstock here

Posted in copyright, technology, commercial stock, license, CEPIC, transaction, finance, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

April 25, 2012 by pmelcher.

There is a story in Greek mythology that says that long ago, an Italian sailor on his way to Italy heard someone screaming from the shores of Greece: “the great god Pan is dead”. It was later on interpreted as meaning that the last of the Greek gods has passed away and it was the end of the Greek dominance on world knowledge.

When I read Ellen Boughn’s blog post this morning, it reminded me of that story. Not that Ellen has suffered any health issues ( thank God). Rather it’s the interpretation of her entry that has similarities.

Ellen wrote “ This blog is done. Almost anything anyone would want to know about taking and selling stock photos from my knowledge base has been covered and more.” only to continue with “ I’m writing another book…but not about photography”.

It is a significant milestone. Ellen has been educating thousands of photographers and agency owner with her infinite knowledge of the stock photo industry. She has been a leading figure who has been at forefront of every evolution this industry has gone through and has never hesitated to put herself, and her knowledge in question, if she thought it was appropriate. Along with her legendary outspoken style, she has touched everyone who has ever been in her contact with her intelligence and brilliance. In a time where everyone is an expert, when anyone can post on Facebook, twitter, blogs, Quora, forums just about everything and anything, her voice was dissipating. Some even thought wise to directly confront her ideas, even thought they had little less than a few sales on Istockphoto as experience. Now, with Ellen’s disappearance from the community voices , we have lost that trail of wisdom that could lead us safely out of the wilderness of this business. The cacophony has increased two fold. Surrounded by snake oil merchants and self proclaim gurus and coaches, we are left swimming in a sea of gluey opinions that leave us little chance to learn how to swim. Those who enter the stock photo industry market today, or those who wish to grow have little or no options anymore, besides relying on the questionable mutterings of those who have little to teach. Those who have too much time on their hands and flood all and every available public forum with their insipid blabbering.

Ellen’s blog will be missed as will Ellen’s insight and knowledge. We will no longer have access to a glimpse of truth. We will forever miss her writings about photography. And as we continue to travel on our journey into an unknown future, we too will have heard : “the great Ellen’s blog is dead”.

Her blog was here 

Posted in commercial stock, Social Media, copyright, CEPIC, corbis, PACA, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

April 16, 2012 by pmelcher.

Who said there was no money to be made in photography ? Sure you could snap the first pictures of Angelina Jolie’s baby: $2 million. Or you could be the collector who recently sold a Gursky print for $5 million. But better yet, could you be the person who just sold his photography based company for 1 billion dollars . 
Instagram just did and showed to the world that there is no limit to what photography can earn. 
Let’s step back a few years. In 2010, cell phones are already a hot commodity and very well established. All come fitted with low resolution cameras that people just love to use. Problem is, the images look crappy and there are no easy way to get them off the phone and shown. 
Come in two guys from the west coast of america. First they set up a very simple process that allows you to very easily add filters to your images. Inspired by the Holga and Lomography cameras, they create a set of 10 fashionable looks that anyone can add to any iphone photograph. On top of that, they make it extremely easy to post those images online and share them on your Facebook, twitter or any social media network you might have. A simple one, two, three. Snap it, filter it, show it. The interface is so easy, anyone can learn to use it in seconds. They put all that into a free iphone app and let history do the rest. The iphone flies off the shelves and so does Instagram.

As the adoption of iphones and social media exploded, so did Instagram. As the saying goes, if you make people look good, they will love you. Instagram does just that. It takes any boring image and turns it into a captivating image. 
The filters are all artsy, offering blurs and leaks at just the right places of your frame. 
At a time were photography pioneer Kodak is struggling to remain afloat, it is significant that a two year old, six people company who has never made a penny, is now one , if not the hottest company in the world. 
Photography evolves by leaps . From the massive camera to the instamatic, it was sudden. From the manual metering to the automatic, it was also sudden. From the manual focus to autofocus, it just took a few years and from film to digital, well, that was also brutal. While the technology on how we take pictures has violently evolved, how we distribute it took a while to follow. We relied on print to show and share until very recently. Even digital files were, until recently, shared on paper. However powerful and nimble our cameras had performed, however antiquated our means to communicate them. Until social media. 
Being able to shoot and share, immediately, that is the real power that Instagram brought to the table. Others, like Facebook or Twitter only allow you to share. Not shoot. To top it all, Instagram makes your images interesting. All in the same breath.

What does this means for the future of photography ? well, for one, it’s certainly confirms that we are addicted to it. Not just at looking at the images of the masters but to participating in its creation. We are slaves to the shutter, even if, that too, is poised to disappear. 
We have also have entered the area of the disposable image. Shoot, beautify, share and forget. Repeat. Hundreds, thousands, millions of time. Because it is so simple and easy, we can photograph leisurely, for free, with no worries whatsoever. Its the era of the instantaneous image, not only because it is easy to take but also because it is easy to share. It’s the fast food of photography. Fast, cheap, appealing, and easily forgotten.

There is no saying where photography will take us next. With Instagram’s such high acquisition value, we will see thousands of entrepreneur worldwide launching new products, apps, platforms mixing photography with our insatiable need to produced them and consume them . We will see more cameras everywhere, in our fridges, cars, watches, glasses, etc allowing photography to become even more ubiquitous than it currently is.

The danger here is that like fast food, we might end up with a painful indigestion.

This article was originally published in La Lettre de La photographie

You can follow The Bohemian daily in his Facebook page

Posted in license, technology, Social Media, web 2.0, prosumer, transaction, filter, editorial | Print | No Comments »

March 23, 2012 by pmelcher.

In this video, Jonathan Klein from Getty images explains the company’s strategy regarding image sharing. In a few words, he confirms that Getty is fine with image sharing as long as it is non commercial. As soon as a site starts earning revenue, Getty will show it’s teeth. This means, for example, that Getty will let Pinterest freely do it’s thing as long as they are not making any revenue.

Getty’s overall strategy is to avoid suing it’s customers unless if there is a clear criminal intend. Non commercial image sharing is tolerated  for the purpose of “visual education” in the long term hope that they will become so essential to our communication, we will have no other choice then eventually license them from Getty when the time comes.

See full video here, taken at SXSW by Techcrunch ( Techcrunch is photo happy these days) :

Posted in copyright, technology, commercial stock, Social Media, license, Search, law, editorial, finance, web 2.0, getty | Print | No Comments »

March 22, 2012 by pmelcher.

Stipple’s Rey Flemings Wants to Turn Pictures into Dollars :

you can read more about Stipple here.

Posted in celebrity, technology, commercial stock, Social Media, copyright, license, transaction, finance, keyword, IPTC, editorial | Print | No Comments »

March 14, 2012 by pmelcher.

When I was a kid and I had a new toy that I liked, I wanted to show it. Today, if I had a car, and it was new, I would want to show it and even brag about it. And those are things I didn’t even built myself. So just imagine if I had something made out of a perfect combination of my imagination and my hands ?

You couldn’t make me shut up.

That is what photographers do almost everyday. They take pictures and want to share them with others. And they do. They post them on their website and try to sell them. Because the more they get for them, the more it means other people like them. And if published more see it.

So what’s the boohoo about Pinterest ? It’s a photographers dream. You can post images and actually see how many people like it. It’s not like a magazine since there is no editorial and no advertising. Just pure simple sharing for the sake of sharing.

Furthermore, it does nothing more than what Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr have been doing for years now. No one sued them or question their copyright ethics. In fact, a lot of image professionals use them actively. Some actually call themselves gurus and give lessons to other photographers on how to master them. So what’s the fuss about Pinterest?

Photographs even get posted with URL so that interested users can explore some more.

We had written here before that the photo industry has to grow up and stop being ignorant and resistant to the changes happening online. They have to embrace it and adapt. It is offering huge opportunities that no photographer ever had before. There is nothing wrong with wanting to share photographs, especially since they come with url.

Recent numbers show that Pinterest leads to more referral than Twitter and in some cases, Facebook. Yet, a lot of of photo industry pundits will tell you to consider suing Pinterest, or they users, for copyright infringement. Yet , the same people will urge you to tweet or Facebook like insatiable addicts.

Already some photographers are showing elevated levels of interest just by creating Pinterest boards mixing their images with others that they like, exposing a more clear vision of their taste. If you don’t think that art directors, art buyers and photo editors, all visual people, are not going to use Pinterest, you are greatly mistaken. It is a great discovery engine and a great tool to feel the visual gestalt. In fact, if its success keeps growing, we wouldn’t be surprise to see Google acquiring it or making a clone, like they did with Facebook.

Use it or don’t use it but whatever you do, don’t fight it. It will be a waste of time, energy and resources. Like all other social media past and future, learn to live with it and adapt accordingly. Those who do will have no trouble achieving success.

 Update: here is everything ( almost) that you ever wanted to know about Pinterest and more : Techcrunch 

Posted in technology, celebrity, commercial stock, Tweet, Social Media, copyright, license, editorial, prosumer, web 2.0, Search, law | Print | 5 Comments »

March 7, 2012 by pmelcher.

Now, this is an interesting twist : This Belgium photo studio will shoot your products for free if you, in exchange, let them sell those products once the shoot is  finished. Thus, they make money not on the photo shoot but on the product they sell afterwards.

Here is how it works :

You are a company needing some pro images for your catalog. You contact them, they create the images, for free, deliver them to you and off you go .

They keep the products they used for the shoot, as well as copies of the images they created and post all that on their online store. With the money they collected, they cover the cost of the shoot, and more. Because they  pay very little for the products,  they can offer them at huge discount. Also, because they have a very limited inventory, they are not really a competition to their clients.

It’s a great idea on paper. Question is : How do they get themselves known as retailer? How do people know they have products to sell. Also, what happens if its products are not aimed at the consumer market, like factory pieces or pharmaceutical equipment.

Here is a short video  :

And here is their site : http://www.yoopia.com/

It’s a gutsy idea which we would love to see more of.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, Social Media, multimedia, Search, transaction, finance, web 2.0, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

February 23, 2012 by pmelcher.

Historically, ( we are talking pre internet here) the only two places one could find images was either at a photo agency or via a photographer. You could, of course, always check if your neighbor had any photographs you could use but chances that there would a match was very, very slim.
During that time, both photo agencies and independent photographers controlled production, as they decided what to shoot  as well as where and how. There was no alternatives to the images produced by professionals. It is not longer the case. It hasn’t been, actually, for a long time.
Take Flickr for example. It has, and for a long time, offered a new channel of distribution to anyone looking for images, whether free or paying. Sure, Getty Images has tried to put the lid on that massive leak but with little success. The majority of images on Flickr are used without ever passing through a Getty representative. Why ? Because they use Creative Commons, a licensing tool that exists outside of the photo industry, invented and used simply because existing ones were inadequate.
The vast majority of photographs today are now used without any contact with the traditional photo industry, whether via CC, direct arrangements or just plainly borrowed ( shared is the proper word). Often, even if the image comes from a photo agency or a pro photographer. Spend some time on Facebook, for example and ask yourself if any of the image you see have been licensed ( or even asked for permission). In fact , a recent study by PACA has shown that 8 out of 10 image on the web is stolen ( used without permission).
Production? it has also been a long time since pro photographers and photo agencies no longer have any control. They have massively been overtaken by the decisions of the masses who now dictate to the photo industry the type of images that are successful.

This Infographic should give you a clearer picture :

The traditional photo industry has attempted to react in numerous ways. First by accepting this new source of production in their tradition distribution channel : microstock. Thus Most stock photo agencies have now lowered their bar of entry and are accepting submission by non professional photographers, forever changing the production landscape.
In order to compete with the widening of distribution channel, they have also increased dramatically their offering.  When a traditional photo agency used to keep a few ten of thousands  photographs maximum, they are now in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of million.Still a speck of sand in the overall universe of available images.
They have also, repeating the mistakes of its peers ( RIAA), try to engage image thieves into hopeless lawsuits. While some have anecdotal success here and there, the vast majority, here again, simply do not have the manpower and resources to fight back. It is anyhow, a self defeating process, as it will never be an effective solution against sharing. Piracy, you see, is not about stealing but accessibility. People do not steal images because they are evil, they steal because they are no practical alternatives if they want to use an image they like.
The industry continues stubbornly to apply old rules to a new landscape. For example, It still hopes to enforce the antiquated rights managed model on a space that obviously is not adapted to negotiate every usage, every fee, every image and where everyone is a publisher. It has failed to understand that in a world of Tweeter, Tumblr, Wordpress, Pinterest, Facebook, their client universe has changed from a few publishers to almost everyone in the world. We have switch form the “one to many” ( one magazine, millions of readers) model to the many to many (Millions of users sharing with millions of users). Everyone is a publisher.
Royalty Free might seem a little better adapted, but most images end up being used hundreds, if not thousands of time without the owner ever knowing it.
In other words, the stock industry is horribly in-adapted to the current market. And, instead of adapting, it is fighting it. Sounds very much like the dinosaur scenario to me.
The absurdity, for example, on trying to sue every copyright infringement borderlines with complete insanity. If people steal your images it is because they like them. For some reason, they either can’t pay for them (too expensive) or cannot find who to pay ( poor accessibility). Rather than find a way to accommodate this huge opportunity with a creative licensing solution,  the industry reacts with lawsuits or despair. Thus pushing these opportunities to seek out other friendlier ways to use images.  In other words, they are forcing their potential clients to find alternatives that fit their needs.
If the photo industry wants to survive, it has to quickly understand that it is not the amateurs that are taking their bread and butter away from them but their own infantile stubbornness. They do not seem, or purposely want to ignore, that their model does not fit the current needs and thus are chasing their customers away.
It is clear now, that the photo industry has completely lost control of production and distribution. It has now to face the challenge of becoming relevant in an economy that has no patience for inadequate business models.

Posted in magazine, copyright, technology, commercial stock, Social Media, Tweet, license, web 2.0, transaction, getty, finance, PACA, prosumer, flickr, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

February 10, 2012 by pmelcher.

The new crop of world press winners is out and as in every year many reflections come to mind.
Reminiscent of Eugene Smith’s Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath , the winning image, from Spanish photographer Samuel Aranda lacks all the required W’s that makes a great news photograph. By looking at it, you have no idea who,where, when, or why this picture was taken. It’s only after a required reading that you finally find out. Then you can return to the image. But even after, it is hard to connect. Mostly because there is a total lack of visible faces, making it hard to understand the feelings.

We are told by the jury that this image was chosen because it represented both the Arab Spring and the role of women.

See ? This is what happens when you think too much about photography. You end up thinking that the more the hidden meaning, the better the image. It’s becomes more about the underlying message than the actual reporting. It needs to have lots of keys and drawers.
This image, while nice, is certainly not a great photojournalistic photograph. If anything, it is a great image in a photo essay.

No, a great image is the one of this girl crying in the middle of a devastation :

General News, 3rd prize singles, Toshiyuki Tsunenari

Here, it is hard  not to understand what is going on and most important, hard not to want to cry with her or comfort her. There is both compassion and understanding, something totally lacking in the winning image.
In an age where there is so many images available all the time, it is sad to see that the jury would pick one that would have, and has been, missed in the flood of reporting because of it’s total lack of connection.

Again, it sends the message that great photojournalism pictures need to be explained to be appreciated.

The World Press needs to readjust its positioning if it wants to remain relevant. If it continues down that path, intellectuallo photo journalism, it will loose its otherwise passionate audience. In a time when there are more images available then any time in the history of photography, and where viewers are also photographers , it needs to avoid  the reclusionist trapping of the “too smart for you ” attitude of the salon photojournalists. It needs to step away from the temptation of seclusion brought forth by a handful of over protectionist photojournalists who would like nothing else then to wall themselves into a “you don’t understand” citadel.

Photojournalism is a popular art made for the masses. It is only succesful if it is vastly consumed. It belongs to everyone, everywhere and should be reaching to the lowest common denominator in order to get a point across. There is no need to try and transform it into an academical experience. It needs no priests.

What it needs is the widest audience possible. That can be only achieve if it continues to be a tool for powerful information.

You can see the winners of the World Press here : http://www.worldpressphoto.org/

Posted in magazine, photojournalism, slideshow, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »