May 27, 2011 by pmelcher.

With $1.2 million dollars of fresh investment, a new company enters the world of photography monetization.  Called Fotomoto, it allows,  with a  simple javascript installation to transform any existing photographers websites into an e commerce site. Visitors will quickly be able to purchase your images for framing or other usages.

The great part of it is that it is free to use and install. A simple javascript and your done. Fotomoto gets a cut on your sales, if you sell an image. Simple enough.

However, the consequences are disturbing. First, their is an option to download. For a fee obviously and for personal use.

One, some buyers might not abide by the rules

two, some photographer might use this to price their images at micro stock prices for RF usage .

The result, even more confusion on the marketplace, where already pricing is all over the place ( towards the low end, mostly). Sure, allowing photographers to sell their work directly and easily is a great idea. However, opening the floodgates of free for all pricing, maybe not.

Since individual photographers will make a few sales from their respective sites, the big winner here will be Fotomoto who will accumulate all the sales done with this tool . Using a now well known economical practice called the long tail, they could generate millions in revenue while the photographers themselves will have to continue to do most of the work : shooting, editing, marketing.

It will be interesting to see how well this model is adopted and how it might effect companies like LicenseStream or even Photoshelter. Obviously, some investors seem to think it will succeed. This also confirms that the walls of traditional photo licensing are falling ( microstock being the first and strongest blow), leaving non-innovative  photo agencies in a dangerous position.

For now, you can learn more here :

and visit their website.

Posted in copyright, technology, commercial stock, license, prosumer, transaction, finance, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

March 5, 2011 by pmelcher.

Is it the end of microstock and royalty free ? No, not because of decline in usage but rather as a result of powerful litigation. A french organization certainly thinks so.

The Union des Photographes Professionels , UPP (Union of professional photographers) just recently held a round table 0n the damages of royalty free, it’s damages to the photographic trade and what they intend to do about it.

We can skip the part where they talk about royalty free and it’s damages to the industry as we have all heard it before and there nothing new here. Rather, the panel gets interesting when the lawyer, Maitre Jean Vincent speaks. He explains that after months, years of careful study, they have found various aspect of the law that they can use to challenge royalty free. A couple we found noteworthy was deceptive advertising and pricing. let’s review:

French law designated as void  any sale of goods, product and services that is priced at infinitesimal price.  For example, if one was to purchase one image on Istockphoto for let’s say $5 and use this image for a book, a magazine, an ad campaign, a brochure, on a TV set, in a Movie set, over and over again for 70 years ( life of a copyright), it would amount for less than a cent per usage. Under this law, that pricing is so low that it would not constitute a sale. Thus become illegal. Furthermore, even a third party, not involve in the transaction, can bring this sale to court and have it voided. Nothing in France can be sold for a derisory price, even if both parties accept. Anyone can condemn such a sale, which is exactly what UPP intends to do against the microstock agencies licensing in France.

The second is deceptive advertising. Royalty free, in French, is translated by “libre de droits”, brutally translated to “Free of any kind of rights”. Maitre Jean Vincent explains that definition is deceptive and not true : Royalty free images are neither rights free nor free of royalties. Again, grounds for a legal action.

The organization is  seriously involved in bringing a couple of RF companies - Fotolia seems their primary target - to court in order to create legal precedent. That would facilitate the process for the rest.

Those outside of France might be smiling right now thinking this is more kakaboula crap coming out of the country of whiners. Not so fast.

Remenber that story, Save the Passport photo ? Well, they just have won. President Sarkozy has just agreed to remove all remaining free passport photo machines located in city halls across France ( about 1,000). This will force people to get their passport pictures to be taken by approved professionals.

France is not a consumer oriented economy. Rather, it is strongly entrenched in a long tradition of protecting trades, regardless of their public utility. Thus, there is a good chance that the UPP might win their legal challenge and force Royalty Free companies ( microstock included) to readjust their commercial approach ( raising prices, adjust their license agreements). Some might even close, not seeing any profitability in the new environment.

Could this spread out in other countries ? The challenge could be elevated to become a European issue and, depending on the politics of the time, certainly pass. However, it would take a long time and allow RF companies to find new ways to market themselves. The US ? Doubtful, as this Adam Smith based economy revers its consumers as semi-gods and would never impair in their ability to get “a good deal”

Nevertheless, this is a new development in what seemed the finished war between RF and RM. It could also be the last salvo.

Posted in copyright, commercial stock, license, CEPIC, transaction, france | Print | No Comments »

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 »

January 18, 2011 by pmelcher.

What has been the plague of social network might generate a tool that could become a standard for image licensing on the web. A German company has announced that is about to unleash a software that will automatically make an image posted on the internet inaccessible after a certain time.

The idea behind X-Pire is to allow people to post images of “that party last night” for everyone to enjoy for a month after but then make them disappear so that those incriminating pictures of you will not appear 10 years from now. We all make mistakes, don’t we ?

The system is quite simple : you drag your image via a software that tags it with a code and an expiration date . Once online, that image is linked to a database that holds this information. Once the date has expired, the image is no longer visible. Pretty straightforward.

For image licensors, like agencies or photographers, that could be a great tool. You license an image online for one month, let’s say, and after that time period, it is no longer visible. If the client wants more, he pays accordingly and you can reissue a time based license.

During the period when it can be seen, the image can be copied without the embedded key. Thus, It will not prevent the image from being used maliciously elsewhere, although they could certainly tweak the system to do so.

For now, this system, entirely geared for Social network users, is per a subscription model ( 3 months = 6.99 Euros) .

Not sure who will use it : You have to be the one posting the image in order to use it: Who really posts damaging images of themselves, even with a time limit ?

However, with a few tweaks, this could be the basis of a strong system to license images online, even automatically. A website would come to your site, select the image it needs, put it the time it needs it for and download the hi- res before posting it. In the background, your top of the line website will have inscribed the time limit key inside the image. Once the license expires, poof, the image is gone.

This could revitalize the RM  ( rights managed) model in exciting new way. Another step closer to reaching the “intelligent image“.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, Social Media, copyright, license, editorial, filter, Search, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

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 29, 2010 by pmelcher.

Along with publications refusing to pay any additional licensing fees for Ipad usage, declining space rates, horrific day rates for assignments, the new trend in photography is the legal mumble jumble that now accompany  emails from researchers and photo editors looking for images.

Example ? sure :

” By agreeing to this request, you grant Microsoft a royalty-free, worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual license to use the Image on Microsoft’s MSN, Windows Live and/or Live Search websites, and you agree Microsoft’s use will not infringe the rights of others or give rise to any third party payments.  You agree this email is our entire agreement regarding this license, and merges all prior and contemporaneous communications. ”
More and more, photo agencies and photographers are receiving emails requesting specific images along with dictatorial usage terms.

“All requested photo licenses are for **Company Name** magazine and any digital replica thereo “.  What if you do not want your images on any “digital replica”

or you could get this along with a request for invoice :

” for editorial purposes on its web site now known as ****.com  and on its affiliated online services and to promote the editorial content in which the photo(s) are used, for the life of ***** Online for a fee of $xxx per photo, for a total fee of $xxxxx.  Please indicate your approval by  sending a return email approving the license request or sending an invoice for the above usage. This email exchange constitutes our entire agreement with respect to ****’s license for the photo(s) and supersedes any other agreement, discussions or terms regarding the photo(s). ”

Does that means that even if you had a contract or previous agreement with that company with different terms, should you reply by sending an invoice, all bets are off ??  If you invoice them you are screwed since it means you agree to these new terms, if you don’t you are screwed, as you will not get paid for your images. Nice.

We could go on and on with many variations of these.

( Disclaimer:) THE FOLLOWING IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney directly. Do not go to court with my blog as it will get you nowhere, besides maybe in more trouble.

You should know that these “end of emails agreement” do not constitute a viable agreement. However, if nothing else was agreed upon in a more formal way, then it could be used as bidding terms. What does this mean ? Well, if you had not previously or afterwards agreed in a more formal way on the terms, then you should, immediately.  Have them agree to your terms.

What used to be an informal hand shake between two people or companies is now  turning into a legal tug of war between lawyer-obese companies and legally uneducated  photo agencies.

Posted in copyright, Corpocrates, license, transaction, editorial, law | Print | No Comments »

November 6, 2010 by pmelcher.

Always dreamed to be a Getty contributor but could get yourself accepted? Or did you wish your images screamed “come and purchase, this is dirt cheap ” ? Or you simply thought the Getty Images logo was so beautiful that you had to photograph it over and over ? Well, so did Getty.

Thanks to those genius in marketing,  you can now include a 3D plastic glass self-supporting Getty Images logo in all your images and thus give them your rights without even signing anywhere. In the spirit of ” we own your every images, everywhere”, they built this ugly little logo holding stand that they then decided to place in front of famous landmarks  photo motifs so that anyone could include their logo in their images. How cool is that ?

Instead of your girlfriends, kids, parents, best friends posing in front of a famous building, you can have the Getty Images logo posing.  We couldn’t think of anything more desirable than that. “look honey, I went to Berlin on vacation, visited all these famous places, euh..sorry Photo motifs, and captured them with the Getty logo in the top left of the frame !!!”

We can just imagine how the reaction of your peers will make you feel like a real, honest to G~d photographer.

“Why are you looking at me like that ?” ” Honey ? Honey ? say something..”

We have a tip for Getty Images : Why don’t you buy all famous monuments in the world and encrust your logo on them once and for all ? Not only you get credit every time someone takes a picture of it ( after all, didn’t you guys invented the Pyramids ?)  but you could charge exorbitant property releases . Why not have all your employees tattoo your logo on their foreheads ? If you dispatch them in all the happening places of the world, you can be sure no one can get an image of any event without having your freakin’ name in the frame? Why not beam your logo on the moon  a la Batman ? Is there any limit to your pathetic arrogance ?

Video here :

On a side note, the banks who own Getty images debt ( JPMorgan, GE Capital, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs ) have lowered the interest rates due to strong investor demand. ” Getty Images, a provider of photographs and music ( ..and super cool free standing plastic logos..), plans to use the proceeds from the $1.27 billion term loan, along with a $100 million revolver, to refinance debt and fund a dividend payment to its private equity owners, Hellman & Friedman and Farallon Capital Management.”

So, if you work at Getty and do not get a bonus this year, you should rejoice yourself by knowing that the owners of the company will, however, receive dividend on your hard work. Hey, and who knows, they could even let you pose next to their super cool free standing plastic logo  and become a photo motif yourself…..

Posted in commercial stock, Corpocrates, lens, technology, No sense, copyright, getty | Print | 2 Comments »

October 27, 2010 by pmelcher.

While the French are busy protesting about how many years it will take them to retire, the French Parliament is about to also pass a law governing orphan work.

Up to now, a publication could just slap the credit “DR” ( Droits Reserves: Right reserved)  under an image and ignore any licensing fees. This worked well when those images were handouts send out by publicist for promotion. However, in the last few years, the practice has extended to any and all images where a credit was not immediately identifiable,regardless if a search for the copyright owner was done or not.

Since no legislation was in place, it became  a common practice, some using it to avoid paying for any fees at all. Not so anymore. The law will define how and when DR can be used, as well as creating an organization whose role will be to monitor and collect licensing fees to redistribute to legitimate copyright holders. It will receive the money for usage when the copyright owner cannot be immediately found and will have up to 10 years to redistribute the funds to the owner. If never found, the money will then go to help a project involved in helping photography.

The Union des Photographes Professionels, the main union of independent photographers in France is 100 % behind the bill.

This bill could be a good example for the United States to follow while it still awaits a resolution on it’s own Orphan Work legislation.

Posted in copyright, commercial stock, license, transaction, france, law | Print | No Comments »

October 20, 2010 by pmelcher.

We have been advocating the emergence of the “intelligent image” here for many years.  Images that are able to call back home to deliver pertinent data, images that can automatically find their way to the expecting viewers, images that can self edit according to viewership and a lot more.

Some aspects are already in circulation in one form or another. Companies like Fotoglif or Embedanything, for example, already allow licensors to track number of visits on a published image and eventually reap revenues from associated  advertising.

Daylife, partly owned by Getty Images, allow sites to bypass photo editors and have images edit themselves based on surrounding content.

Now, thanks to a company called Netbat ( What’s with all the horrible stupid names ?),  images can be linked to any and all relevant information, thus making them even more informative.

The process is simple. When a image is published, it is also populated with links for more information on the subject, being at Youtube, Wikipedia, or any other sources. Thus the image becomes the starting point for a relevant web-wide search on the topic.

 The company apparent business plan is to sell that search link space to advertisers so that topic/subject can be linked to a brand. Already Pepsi has signed up. Instead of advertising on random images, netBat can make sure a brand is always associated to a personality or a topic and nothing more/less. It’s not a big surprise as the parent company of netBat is in the business of selling celebrity endorsement. But that is not what is interesting here.

What is interesting here is how, once again, a company from outside the photogrpahy space, find another way to monetize images . While countless of photo agencies and independent photographers are moaning and bitching about the declining space rates/ day rates  / whatever rates being offered in the traditional licensing space, other companies are hard at work in redefining paying usage of photography.

NetBat, like Pixazza, another image monetizing company (this one partly owned by Google), has no intention of splitting revenues with image licensors. For them, once an image has been licensed by a publisher, the licensor is out of the profit sharing scheme.

Thing is, photo agencies should be the ones offering these services to their clients, not third party companies. It would make sense for a photo agency to offer a tool like NetBat that would allow visitors to go  beyond the metadata.  To transform their offering to a vast array of option that are up to pace with current and upcoming technology.

Currently, besides having painfully switched from analog to digital, none are being pro active in redefining image delivery and licensing. Some have timidly put a toe into third party initiative but none have taken a full plunged into uncharted territory.

We are not saying netBat will be a success. Actually, it is so heavy, it is doubtful it will ever be. However, the idea of helping viewers to go beyond the image is a great concept. One that fits perfectly  with the unstoppable maturing of photography into an intelligent experience that can take you places far beyond it’s current solitary confinement.

Posted in copyright, celebrity, magazine, technology, license, Search, transaction, finance, photojournalism, google, editorial | Print | 2 Comments »

October 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s not there yet but it is certainly starting to look like one. The Morel Vs. AFP lawsuit has all the ingredients of a circus stage, without the tent.

Morel, if you remember, shot some images of the earthquake in Haiti, put them of Twitter/Twipics, only to see them taken by AFP to be sold world wide. Both parties are now suing each other, provoking many public debates, to which we would love to add our voice.

To be a photojournalist is to be a witness.  Those who become the best of the best and pursue a life time career in photojournalism are driven by one passion that is stronger than photography: The urge to report what they see. Photography is only a vehicle to that passion.

Thus, how can one be surprised that a photojournalist would use social media ? It is a witness tool. Jean Francois Leroy, Kriegmaster of Visa pour l’image, self-proclaim Pope of Photojournalism,  has been decrying the lack of space in magazines devoted to these images. Yet, in an interview in the BPJ, he criticizes those who use social media as a vehicle for their images, including Morel. In a nutshell, he is happy Morel got his pictures stolen by AFP. That will teach him, and others, a lesson. He probably believes that photojournalism belongs only in the pages of magazines and in his Festival. Nowhere else. How so quaintly XX th century of him. Can someone hand him a computer and show him how it works ?

While Morel pavlovian’s reaction was to, of course, share his image with the world (Not AFP) via Twitter, it was also AFP’s duty to take that image and distribute it. Let me explain: Similar to a photojournalist, a wire service intravenous gut reaction is distribute images that show a news event. As quickly as possible. Not only because of the competition, but because of the urgency of breaking news, especially in the first few hours when little or no visuals are available. AFP did not take that image out of greed ( they are partly owned by the French government and will probably never go bankrupt). They took it out of duty. They, also, had to inform the world.

Morel and AFP were build to work together. They think the same way. Except, in this instance, they had not reach any agreement and both acted on instinct.  Who was right, who is wrong?

Let’s do an experiment. Put a table full a brand new Ipads in the street with a sign next to it saying ” Free, Take one”. Sit next to the table and wait. What will happen ? People will come to the table, read the sign, see you next to the table and ask you ” Can I take one ?”.

On the Internet, because no one is visible, no one asks anymore. You take. Everybody takes. No questions asks. Regardless if you have an contact info clearly marked. It’s a free for all. Especially photography. It is one of the most used asset of the internet, yet no one thinks they should pay for it, let along ask permission.

And this is where AFP is terribly wrong : Regardless of the terms and conditions of Twitter/Twipics, they should have asked. Common Courtesy.

They should have resisted their instinct and remain human : just ask for permission.

Instead, they turn to their sharks lawyer and desperately try to make a legal case of what should be a human courtesy case. The worst is that other photographers seem to take their defense and claim proudly ” The law is above human courtesy”. That is sad.

No “terms and conditions”, whatever they are, should prevent one company, one individual to politely ask another the permission to use a photograph. Ever. No one should hide behind these “Terms and Condition” and forget the most  basic laws of human interaction.  Especially if they have a common goal : Inform the world.

Considering the financial discrepancies between the two parties, it is quite obvious that AFP will prevail in this issue. That is the way law works in the  USA ( well, the world actually). The one who throws the most money on a trial wins. Laws are made for the rich and powerful. Quite frankly, it is not that important.

What is important is the role of social media and photojournalism. Twitter has been many times labeled as  the new journalism destination for breaking news ( see the Hudson plane landing, Iran,  Michael Jackson death, etc). It has become faster than news outlet, including the wires.  The confusion comes from misinterpretation of what social media is : A end product and not a distribution platform.

Morel, and many like him, use social media as a means to inform the world.  Morel posted pictures on Twitter/Twitpic for the world to see. AFP does not beleive that Twitter/Twitpic can do that properly. They still think  that, in order for the world to see these images, they had to go on the AFP wire.

What is important here is that AFP are, like JF Leroy and others, misunderstanding the role, the reach and impact of social media. Morel lives in the present, they live in the past.

Everything else is a comedy.

Posted in magazine, copyright, technology, Tweet, Corpocrates, Social Media, license, Search, editorial, law, transaction, wire service, photojournalism, news | Print | 1 Comment »