May 3, 2011 by pmelcher.

Up to now, images would only give you remote information in a passive way. More than often, they illustrate an accompanying article, with no more duty than to confirm what you are reading. As much as the photographer or publisher tried, it was a view and forget operation. No so anymore.

Thanks to new technology, the image has grown to becoming more intelligent, by permitting its viewers to dig deeper into it’s content. It is also now able to call home and inform on how it is being interpreted.

Thanks to a company called Stipple, photographs acquire a new dimension, an interactive layer, that finally allows viewers to communicate with them. Thanks to a mouse over generated interactive layer, small dots appear on specific parts of the images. Those dots, once selected, present the user with numerous options. They can save, share or shop for some of the items. They can also be presented with live feeds of tweets or links to additional information .

Viewers can then interact with this new set of information in ways never seen before. They can purchase the items that they like, search for local deals or even better, be presented with discounts. Last but not least, both publishers and the photography rights owners can see, in real time, how people interact with their images.

Stipple works with all images : sports, travel, celebrity, news, commercial stock. There are no limitations.

Not only Stipple adds intelligent interaction to photographs in a smart non intrusive manner, but it also engages viewers to explore photographs in innovative ways. Beyond the frustrating limitations of the IPTC caption field that can only give an overview of the content of an image, Stipple dots can easily display extremely precise information on specific areas within a photograph.

One might think that this would be hard to implement : not at all. Photo agencies need nothing else to do then send a parallel feed of their images the same way they already do to their clients, while publishers only need to add a simple javascript code. That’s it. No added workload. And it’s free.

To top it all, both publishers and photo agencies receive a commission on all transaction generated by their images. In a depressed market, this is very welcomed news.

Finally, Stipple offers a great tool against orphan work. If the metadata of an image is stripped, Stipple will automatically reunite it with rightful owner and display the original information. Even if the image has been altered.

Using some powerful technology built in house, Stipple is the first company to fully offer an intelligent image solution to both publishers and photo agencies along with a new inventive way to generate more revenue.

You can get more information on Stipple on their website at www.stippleit.com

Posted in celebrity, license, magazine, technology, Social Media, Search, SIPA, editorial, transaction, finance, web 2.0, news | Print | No Comments »

April 12, 2011 by pmelcher.

It’s the content stupid ! well, no more.

Some time ago, if you were lucky enough to have created an image that all wanted, you could easily sit on it and wait for your phone to ring. Not really anymore. The center of the business gravity has shifted. To those who create value around the content.

The downfall of journalism is a good example. The great site of journalism are not doing as well as those who couldn’t care less about quality. The Huffingon Post beats the New York Times. Sure, traffic will tell you a different story. But, finance will not. While the NY Times is struggling to find ways to create dollar value, the Huffington Post sells for more than $300 million. Why ? Because they are in two different businesses.

One is obsessed at creating content, the other in monitizing content. And, right now, the money is in those who know how to monitize content.  In photogrpahy, the same shift has happened. You could be the greatest photographer alive, it wouldn’t matter if you didn’t know how to create value around your content. Those who have experience in doing so are the publishers.

They can take cheap text from one place , a cheap photograph from the other and voila, done. Why ? Because in the internet age of fast and free consumption, people do not expect value for their money as they do not pay. They are fine in receiving what they have paid for : not much.

Thus, why should publishers pay a premium for any photograph ? They will not retain viewers longer, nor will it guarantee  fidelity . Rather, what they focus on is the volume and the management of expectancy. As long as they deliver the little that is expected from them when it is expected from them, than they will create traction. And Dollars.

Why bother paying for an exclusive image when that image can be copied and pasted in thousands of websites within minutes ?  Why pay more for a photograph which will grab someone attention for less than a second before they move on ? It would be a waste of resources.

Rather, it makes much more financial sense to have a repeated pattern of offering over and over, with accurate consistency, the exact expected result. That is where the revenue resides. Within a context, not within the content.  Furthermore, a context can be managed, not content. That is the economy we see all around us and that is why photography, by itself, has little or no value. It is just a very small brick of a much wider context.

Photographers, photo agencies and related have no experience in building value around their images. They sell a raw material that has devaluated because the refineries, those who transform it in consumables, the publishers, only use them as small elements of their final product. They are not the product.

Can it be changed ? Maybe. No one has really tried to create a publication with exclusive or high end photography only. Mostly because those who have tried with text, like the New York Times, have spend a lot of money and failed. Up to now.

Will it change ? It will certainly if paywalls start to be successful . Because as soon as people pay for content, they expect the content to match or surpass the value they paid for it.

Thus, the future of photography, or at least the future of photography  online, depends on the success of paywalls.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, technology, license, Search, finance, photojournalism, web 2.0, editorial | Print | No Comments »

March 15, 2011 by pmelcher.

It used to be that photojournalism could be done by everyone. Lately, this seem to have shifted.

When Bob Capa decided to go cover the Spanish civil war, he took with him ( or was it the opposite ?), photographer Gerda Taro. Probably because she died much earlier than Capa ( in 1937), her work is less extensive and much lesser known.

When Margaret Bourke - White photographed the Death Camps at the end of World War II for Life magazine, no one cared if she was a woman or not. Her images told the story and that was that.

Today, more and more, it seems that photojournalism wants to define itself by its gender. More and more, do you see cooperative, workshop, panels, etc for women photographers only. As if your gender was  influential in your photo-journalistic process . Who are we trying to fool ?

I have worked with many, many women photojournalist and I can tell you that if i hadn’t known, I would have never been able to tell the gender by just looking at the images. There is the same talent, or lack of, whether you wear a skirt or not .

It seems that political correctness has now started to reach the shores of the previously sexless island of photography. It appears that some people, with a highly develop social conscience, want you to know what sex was that photographer whose picture you admire. As if it made any difference.

Readers hardly read a photo credit, so why would they care ? Photo editors, the talented ones at least, a gender blind as long as the story is perfectly visually told. So who is behind this and why ?

And if was this was such an issue, why not create a group for black photographers, Jewish photographers, Muslim photographers, gay photographers, or left handed photographers ?

It is bad enough that photographers find the need to categorize themselves in one activity ( Sports, fashion, news, celebrity, etc..) but now they will also have to pick an appropriate social group ?

Why ?

To protect their photographer group against other photographer groups ? Or to make some kind of stupid statement that women photographers are better than men photojournalist ? or have more sensibility ? or are more tuned in other people misery ? Or is it to influence women photo editors to hire women photographers first because of gender wars ?

This self segregation of an already endangered species of artisan is not only ridiculous but pointless and harmful. It will only lead to creating a unnecessary distraction to those who only want to create, publish or view great images.

Posted in magazine, Waste of time, celebrity, No sense, editorial, photojournalism, news | Print | 1 Comment »

January 6, 2011 by pmelcher.

Right on the heels of the decision made by Judge William H. Pauley of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York in the Morel VS AFP case ( read all about here ) , things are heating up. According to a press release published by photoarchivenews , news photo agency WENN has made a deal with photo sharing site, PIXLI.

Hold on tight here as things could get complicated. According the succinct press release : “Celebrity photo agency WENN has announced an exclusive worldwide arrangement with the social photo sharing service PLIXI, to represent images posted by celebrities through their platform to Twitter and other social networks.”

PLIXI ( ex Tweetphoto) is a TWITPIC wannabee.  That is, anyone that would like to post an image to TWITTER would have to upload it here before, as Twitter does not host images. There are many sites like these ( yfrog, twitgoo, mobypicture, or img.ly). As per their site, PLIXI is also a member of Celebuzz, a division of BUZZMEDIA ENTERTAINMENT, a deal recently sealed ( November 2010). BUZZMEDIA is in the business of Celebrity news blogs and properties ( more info here).

Still with me here? you can take a break if you would like. I’ll wait.

Ok, what is important to retain here is that they are all in the celebrity news business with a heavy  penchant for photography. Except PLIXI, who happens to host a few celebrity Twitter photo accounts.

So, if you are a celebrity and you or someone uploads an image on your account, WENN becomes de facto the exclusive worldwide licensor of those images.  As the PLIXI Terms of Service specify :

With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Plixi, the license (with the right to sublicense) to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content, whether on the Service, or through other media. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Plixi removes such Content from the Service; provided, however, that if Plixi distributes or authorizes distribution of any Content prior to your removal thereof from the Service, Plixi’s (and it’s sublicenses’) rights with respect to such Content shall be in perpetuity.

Yes, in perpetuity, even if you don’t like it.

There is no mention of compensation to the photographer or celebrity. However, you can be sure that Plixi will certainly retain a part of the WENN obtain license fee.

It’s a smart move for both companies. WENN secures itself intimate photo feeds of celebrities while PLIXI generates revenue and publicity. The question is whether the celebrities will continue to use the service knowing  this. It will also be interesting to see if AFP or Getty makes the same deal with TWITPIC after the Morel fiasco, enabling them to legally license images from anyone.

The irony is that Twitter, the company that makes all this possible, does not see a penny.

Ok, you can go outside now and breath.

Posted in magazine, celebrity, technology, Tweet, Social Media, copyright, license, transaction, editorial, finance, prosumer, web 2.0, getty | Print | 2 Comments »

December 27, 2010 by pmelcher.

PicApp is no more.  Launched a little bit earlier than GumGum, PicApp was an image portal offering free images via an embed option in exchange for advertising. The idea was noble, in sort. It allowed for cash-poor blogs or websites to use images from major image providers,  like Getty Images, Splash or Newscom, for free. In exchange, photo agencies, as well as Picapp would share revenues made by clicks on adverting.

It didn’t work for many reasons :

It was impractical. If you found an image you liked on one of the photo agencies and wanted to embed it, you had to leave it and go to PicApp to do so. A bit if you went to a supermarket, decided to pay via credit card and they told you to leave the merchandise, leave the store and go somewhere to redo a search and finally pay the way you wanted.

It was competing against its own image providers. Instead of being a sales partner for those agencies who participated, they had to lure customers way from them in order to be succesful. However, not only the photo agencies have an advantages by having their credit along every image published but PicApp never really launched a marketing campaign. They were probably hoping for a  viral explosion.

The business model was flawed. People do not click on advertising embedded in images. They might click on the image, not on it’s advertising. Furthermore, PicApp had to go out and sell it’s advertising space. With little or no knowledge on who would see the ads and no prior experience in the business, it was also a failed task.

It never became open to users. The only images available were those of established photo agencies. A maybe wiser idea would have also allowed users to upload their own images  in order to seek revenue from them. Having your users participate in the growth of your services in exchange for money is now becoming the norm for any succesful web enterprise.

It never reached critical mass, if it does exist. The fundamental assumption of PicApp was that enough users would publish enough embedded images generating enough clicks to make it a viable business. Either via a few images embedded an obscene number of times or many, many different images published a few times.  There is not been any examples of any editorial images going viral. Photographs that go viral are mostly user-generated and have nothing to do with regular editorial coverage.  PicApp was hoping for some kind of  Google type of acceptance. It never got it.

The company is not dead . Instead, it has shifted it’s attention to offering on the fly slide shows to those who put up a snippet on their website. Their new offering doesn’t make their business model obvious but it seems that those slide show will soon have advertising on them.  It is also very unclear how participating photo agencies will benefit from this, if at all. They will now see their images available on websites who have  will have no need to officially request them. It is nice of these photo agencies to let PicApp experiment with their content until they find a viable business model.

GumGum, PicApp infamous competition, has been very quiet for a while. After getting some funding, they have disappeared into super stealth mode, also probably trying to figure out how to make money with the embedded image idea while they burn VC money.

The real issue with those PicApp, Gumgum type of companies,  is :

- They work as photo portal and have to take traffic away from photo agencies in order to be succesful

- They work a third party licensing system for photo agencies, taking a commission for every sale they perform

Thus they take a commission of every sale they take away from the image providers they work with .  How does that make any sense for a photo agency ?

Posted in celebrity, Plus, technology, license, Search, finance, web 2.0, keyword, editorial | Print | No Comments »

December 24, 2010 by pmelcher.

So you lost your job at a fancy newspaper and wedding photography is not you thing. Or you spend years behind a photo desk editing others’ pictures and you want in on the action. War is too far and too dangerous. Studio is expensive and tedious. Microstock is just that : micro. what’s left ? Well you heard over and over that the big dough is in celebrity so why not try that. Well, here is a little “how to become a paparazzi” DIY kit.

First, head on to California, where most of the celebrities live, at least the most notorious ones. Once you are settle, book a tour with ” Rolling With the Paparazzi”

as the website says :

Individuals have the opportunity to run with, rather than from the paparazzi, and see celebrities they otherwise wouldn’t have access to.  The new Rolling with the Paparazzi Tour takes you all around the city by car, so that as the tips come in, you can get there much faster than by running.

In the Rolling With the Paparazzi Tour, up to three people are teamed up with Rick Mendoza, a real-life paparazzi, for the Hollywood experience of a lifetime.

 “Rolling with the Paparazzi is available as a stand-alone tour for $150 per person for up to two people and $400 for three.The Rolling with the Paparazzi Tour is offered daily, with three-hour segments beginning at 8:00AM all the way until 10:00PM.”

After those 3 hours of basic lessons, you should have  a good idea on what to do. If still unsure, you still go to You tube and hit one of the hundreds of videos of paparazzi chasing celebs.

next, you should get a map of the stars and figure out where most live and hang out. Those maps are sold in the street of hollywood and for those who are map reading impaired, tours are organized that will actually show you where everyone lives . Some websites can be useful too.

Now, you need to know who is where when. Nottaproblema : website like Just spotted.com can help you with that . Using a combination of users tips and website searches, it delivers the recent location of whom you would like to search. You can also, if you like, just follow your target star’s Twitter feed. They sometimes reveal their location real time.

Finally, once you are all set up, you need to figure out how to price your images. Here to help you is a real quote from a top Pap agency :

……………………………………………………………….
100 Non + Exclusive Pics: $500/ month ($5/pic)
100 Non Excl ONLY: $400/ month ($4/pic)
250 Non + Exclusive : $750/ month ($3/pic)
250 Non Excl Only: $500/ month ($2/pic)
Unlimited Non + Exclusive: $2000/ month
Unlimited Non Excl Only: $1500/ month

 …………………………………………………………….

Now, go ahead , make millions !!

Posted in magazine, Tweet, Waste of time, celebrity, license, editorial, No sense, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 10, 2010 by pmelcher.

The two sides of Getty Images :

Getty images : “we will drown you with our images”

Getty Images : Cool Year in review

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

December 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

Here’s to the future of photography : yes the Ipad has launched and yes it seems that it is successful. The era of the tablet/ Ereader/touch computing, whatever you want to call it is upon us.

And yes, publishers from all over the world are jumping on the bandwagon and releasing their Ipad editions in droves. Most do not make more effort than just scanning their print edition into an electronic version. A repackaging of some sort. Others will add a bonus section here and there in order to make it appear like a new product. Others, finally,  have put a lot of thinking into what can be done and try to innovate.

And all that is fine, except for one important item. None will pay for additional usage of your images. Somehow, they have all decided that using your images on an Ipad should not be considered for an extra license fee . No, they say, it’s an” exact replica” (ya, right) so go to hell with your license fees. Or, they pay peanuts, (because peanuts is what we eat, us little photo squirrel) , saying, “well it is an experiment..we are not sure we will continue”. Ya right ( again). Didn’t we hear that before, at the emergence of websites ?

Here’s the deal : one one side, you have multi-million dollar companies who sit in 80 stories high skyscrapers and on the other, a multitude of mom and pop size store crammed in a closet space in  a shady back alley. The big guys come around and say; “we are going to launch a new product which our studies show will generate billions in new revenues for us and we would like you to give us a discount”.

C’mom, what do you say to such a juicy deal like that ?

The reaction ? well, for the first time in it’s history, photo agencies , who are fierce competitors, are talking to each other. They are even creating associations in order to stand united and strong against corporate bullying. Here, in the United States, EPAG ( Editorial Photo Agency Guild) was created and going strong. In Australia, a coordination is coming together, in Italy, a new association is born, the A.F.N.A. (Agenzie Fotografiche Nazionali Associate ). More will appear.

It is not the Spring of a new revolution and you will not see photo agencies walking the streets hand in hand waving the flag of freedom and liberty. It is just a reaction to what is perceived as unfair business practices. It is important for the future of photography, because  E readers will become the most used platform to read magazines in the very near future And thus, the majority of images used in an editorial manner will reside on these platform. If  photographs used on E Readers are not being compensated fairly then there is no future for editorial photography.

Zero, nada. None. Think about it: Website don’t pay enough and print will no longer be able to afford current prices.

So yes, as a platform, the Tablet/ Ereader/ touch computers show a lot of promise for photography. However, right now, it could be its doom.

( For those who like to know what to do, please contact your local organization or create your own. Do not fight the process but work with editors to find a fair and balanced agreement where images get rewarded their fair due. Engage in constructive dialogue. If anything, images used in Ipad should be compensated at the same level as if used in Print)

Posted in technology, E Reader, Corpocrates, magazine, celebrity, transaction, photojournalism, license, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

November 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

What is the relation between celebs and the war in Afghanistan ? No, it’s not yet another fundraiser. Actually, it has to do with advance technology.

Recently slammed with a new law ( in California only, for now) that will seek damages, even jail,  for any photographer caught endangering the lives of others while in the pursuit of a celeb, they are now looking to escape in the skies. Faced with growing anger from both regular citizens and celebrities alike,  who a fed up with their relentless pursuit of anything famous, some paps have decided to apply war technology to their trade.

The Wall Street Journal revealed today that SPLASH news is working on an airborne remote controlled drone that will hover above the celebs . Instead of shooting missiles, it will shoot stills and videos, beaming them back to the new age pap probably quietly sitting in his SUV not far, sipping a beer and talking to his girlfriend on the phone. No need to run with the pack, no need to use elbows and shoulders to secure a spot, no need to bump into ignorant passer buys : the sky is the limit.

Because FAA (the agency in charge of air regulation) regulations are extremely lax regarding leisure drones, it will now be possible for anyone with a remote control to spy from above. And not just in streets, but in gardens, pools, beaches, you name it, as long as it it outside, it is fair game. With licensing prices of Paparazzi images falling down, it is not surprising to see the pap industry  dropping ( figuratively) their helicopters and going for lesser expensive, more efficient solutions.

Soon, the skies over Los Angeles will be filled with the buzzing sounds of quadri-motored, remote-operated Canon 5D’s scouting for any signs of any celebrities. If it becomes anything like the sidewalks, it will be hundreds of these machines competing with each other for prime-position air space and maybe, eventually, shooting missiles at each other. Better take cover.

With just a tad more technology, they could even mount a face recognition software on an solar power unit, allowing for complete automation. They would throw it out the window in the morning and the machine would scout, identify, follow and shoot pictures remotely while the high tech pap could stay at home and just pick the best images to send out to magazine. The ultimate pap machine.

While we are on this subject, one could also build the automated red carpet machine . Installed on the red carpet of a movie premiere or award show and shape a bit like a body scanning gate you see at airport, it would function like this : The celebrity would walk in, the machine would take a full length and  head shot picture, as well as close ups of any accessories, use face recognition to identify the celeb, use object recognition for the dress and accessories, caption the image and send it real time to any interested magazine. No more need for endless lines of screaming photographers with blinding flashes. Boy those movie premieres would be quietly creepy. Besides maybe for the noise of those quadri motor drones above..

If you want to see some cool results of aerial photography/video done with a drone, head over to Perspective Arials.

Posted in technology, magazine, celebrity, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

October 29, 2010 by pmelcher.

You know what’s funny ? I’ll tell you what’s funny. By continuing to put so much financial pressure on photographers and photography, the media will loose it’s source of imagery .

With declining space rates and assignment rates, increasingly obscene rights grabbing bordering on copyright infringement, unacceptable usage agreements and overall disrespect of the photography trade, publishers are literally pushing the photo industry to look for new revenues, and respect, somewhere else.

Already photo agencies like VII with news and X17 with celebrity have entered the publishing arena in direct competition to those who used to be their best clients. Others are aggressively investigating how to license images to the million of blogs worldwide while others, like Black Star for example, have left the editorial world almost entirely in favor of the greener pastures of the corporate world.

Independent photographers do not bother approaching publications  anymore for assignments and have long gone with either NGO’s or Foundations. Even new technology companies like Mediastorm already make most of their revenue from foundations/NGO’s. We talk a lot about the desertification of entire regions of the world, soon we will see the same happening in the editorial landscape: Magazines, whether on Ipads or not, filled with nothing more than text and lonely generic images. Textbooks forced to use the same images over and over because there are no more “image suplliers”, preferred or not. Not far is the day when, calling on the phone, a photo editor will hear over and over” Time magazine who ?”.

It is not the will of anyone in the photo trade to cease doing business with publishers. However, the business conditions are becoming so unbearable that they have no other choice than to look elsewhere for revenue. And overall respect.

There will always be photographers because it’s not a job, it’s a passion. But like any passion, it needs to be fed with substantial income. In it’s short history, photography has had a strong love affair with the editorial world. Now the editorial world is treating it’s favorite mistress as an old whore. The bond is being broken.

However, it is not like photogrpahy doesn’t have anywhere else to go to be treated as a princess again. The internet has opened new revenue streams and while it is still a wild west, it promises a lot of new beginning. A lot of new love stories.

There is really no logical reasons for this change in attitude. Publishers have seen a lot of pressure on their industry, certainly, but none brought forth by photography. However, if circulation goes down, it’s photography that pays the rough price. Cuts are made, because, unlike electricity, it is deem unessential for the survival of a magazine. Almost as if, completely rid of the cost of photography, a magazine or book would actually do better. Well, soon, that might just become reality.

With licensing fees coming close to insulting, there will be no one to take those images anymore. No one to shoot wars, politics, archeology or even movie premieres. No one left to service them with their needs. Just an obscenely huge amount of crowd generated images of everything that doesn’t really matter. Pretty, certainly, but of no interest. It will be cheap, but useless.

For now, the old whore still clings to its lifelong lover in the hopes of a change of mind. But for how long?

And yes, you are right, it’s not that funny after all…

Posted in magazine, celebrity, technology, Newsweek, Good Enough, license, mediastorm, finance, editorial, TIME, Search, multimedia, news | Print | 3 Comments »