June 13, 2010 by pmelcher.

Posted in license, copyright, commercial stock, prosumer, transaction, corbis, law, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

May 28, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank Guys. we really needed that.

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

May 21, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 20, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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

April 29, 2010 by pmelcher.

What is new is not always good. While everyone is trying to figure out where the world of licensed photography is going to, others are taking advantage of the void by figuring out parasitical way to profit from it.

We already do know that Google has figured out how to make money, and huge sums of it, by cashing in on others creative content. By slapping ads on the creation of others, they are the ultimate business parasite. At least, with Adsense, they have offered the creators a share of the income generated. Typical of a long tail type of business, they are, however, the only ones to really profit from it.

With a company called Pixazza, they have figured out how to feed upon the photography world. If you are not aware of it, Pixazza offers website the ability to attached on any image they publish, a pop up window that invites you to purchase the same clothes as the ones wore by the celebs in the images.

Websites that participate get a commission on every sale of clothes that is generated from their site. The photographers who took the images? nothing. Pixazza actually uses the image as a selling tool yet gives nothing back to the photogrpahers, only to the publishers. In theory, and maybe in practice, a publisher could easily purchase a license for an image and make a profit from it. Interesting no. Sure, it is not much different then what is going on in magazine or more traditional ads on website. After all, it is the business model for editorial publication to make a profit from ads attached to their articles and layouts. But in this case, instead of being a generic ad, it is actually 100 % dependent on the photograph and its content.

So now, on top of publishers making money on your images, there is this new company, who have done nothing more than create a piece of code. Do photographers see their income grow too from this added value ? nope.  Does Pixazza care? Certainly not.

It doesn’t seem like much right now for those not shooting celebrities, but it will very soon . They have just extended their offering to travel and sports images. And that is only the begging. Soon, any image will have this parasite on it. The near future, if all goes well ?

Well, why do you think Google invested in this company? Because it fits perfectly its business model. the parasite kind: Attach an ad to everything on the internet. The next step ? Well Google might decide to purchase Getty, make all the images available for free to everyone, as long as Pixazza is attached to them. Can you imagine the revenue they would get ? And the damage they would do to the photo industry?

However, they don’t even have to go that far. If Pixazza is succesful in implanting themselves on every website, they could make a huge fortune without ever paying a dime to photographers. Ever. Your images would become ad platform without you ever seeing a penny from it. Pretty cool, no ?

There is no reason for this to stop currently, as none of the photo agencies or photographers seem to mind. Some seem to think this is really great because it’s new and its Google powered, at least financially. Once they see their images licensed for editorial use hijacked into  a commercial , it is doubtful they will still be smiling . But it will be too late.

It’s not new, it’s just evil.

Posted in copyright, license, celebrity, technology, commercial stock, keyword, google, editorial, transaction, finance, filter, getty | Print | 3 Comments »

April 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

Commercial stock photography is all about problem solving. The first is how to make a living shooting commercial stock. One way to do it, is to solve other people’s problems.

When image buyers go to a Web site, it is because they have been asked to provide a solution to a very specific problem: They have text, they have a layout, they have a concept and they have a client with a message. The task: fill in the visual space with the perfect image.

Seems easy in theory. If what’s needed is a picture of a tool, get a tool. If it is a concept, it is much harder.

A photographer’s job, one that shoots stock, is to preempt this problem and solve it. The more common the problem, the more successful the image. Potentially.

How does one figure what problems need to be solved worldwide? In a way, it is not that hard. As humans living in the 21st century, we share common experiences. We seek solutions to a lot of tasks and issues. Our lives, in a sense, are a continuous search to alleviate problems. And unbeknown to us, many are shared by our peers.

So, photographing our own problems, or at least solving them, is productive. Figuring out what the next problem will be is a better way to be a successful stock shooter. The image of the solution, however, should always be tied to the problem.

Once this is understood, that a stock photographer is a problem-solver, a big step has been made. But it is not all. A stock photographer should also know how to create meaning. And for that, we need to dive a little deeper in how the brain functions.

Our eyes, in a way, are very stupid. We receive light, and it bounces into the back of our brains, at the primary visual cortex, which only sees and recognizes basic shapes, like circles, squares, triangle, etc. However, this is not the end of how we interpret a photograph in our brains. It actually goes from there to at least 30 other different places in our brains, some of which we are still figuring out what actually they do.

Some we know:
We will skip quickly over the ventral stream, which is the “what” of our brain that recognizes what an object is and what it does. Sort of the catalog section of our brain. Photographs share this space, in the frontal lob, with words, and how we interpret them. We will also fly quickly over the dorsal stream. That part of the brain creates a map of where the object is. A sort of 3D GPS system that puts the object in perspective to its surrounding.

What is interesting is a third location where the information bounces, and that is called the limbic system. That is deep inside the middle of our brain and very old. Old in the sense that it has been with us throughout our evolution. The limbic system is the part that “feels” those basic emotions, from satisfaction to fear.

Those three parts are what create meaning for a photograph and what every single human being has in common, including your potential client.

That is what stock photographers should go after: create meaning. Images should tickle that part of our brains that recognize, put in perspective and make us feel emotions, because it also makes them valued.

When a creative director or a photo editor is looking for an image, it is not just a problem they are trying to solve, but a meaning they are trying to convey.

If you look at the stock industry, with photo libraries boasting millions upon millions of images, it is easy to see that maybe 90% will never sell. They aren’t useless; they just have no meaning to anyone.

Commercial stock photography, in order to strive, has to offer an emotionally meaningful solution.

Posted in copyright, technology, Magnum, commercial stock, license, multimedia, editorial, photojournalism, keyword, pictogram, news | Print | 1 Comment »

April 7, 2010 by pmelcher.

American Society of Media Photographers, the Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America, photographers Leif Skoogfors, Al Satterwhite, Morton Beebe, Ed Kashi and illustrators John Schmelzer and Simms Taback  have filed a class action suite against Google, not only for their rights Grabbing Google project but also for other of Google’s mistreatment of photography’s right. This is great news a first worldwide.

The “do no evil” company has been scanning millions of books and magazine to repurchase them for online usage ( including paid) without even asking for copyright clearance from photogrpaher over content. Millions of images are thus available or will be available online without anyone paying an additional license fee, required for such usage.

This class action will reopen the doors to the fame  11 year long legal action of  Greenberg VS National Geographic that terminated when the Supreme Court denied Greenberg’s petition for a writ of certiorari, which lets stand the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that the National Geographic Society – and by extension, other publishers – have the right to reproduce their magazines’ archive in digital format without paying any additional royalties to freelance photographers.

Certainly this judgment will be used by Google to obtain clearance to  continue their trampling of copyright, thus they are not the original publishers.

Obviously, nothing will be resolved quickly but it is the right step in the right direction. One question is, will this group have enough money to pursue this legal battle ? Will this push publishers to use more Royalty Free image as to avoid such issue? Will this impact what publishers are currently doing with reproducing their print publication for Ipad without paying any additional license fees?

More details on the legal move here.

Posted in copyright, magazine, technology, google, web 2.0, law, finance, Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »

April 6, 2010 by pmelcher.

It creeps slowly under your door when you are not paying attention. It looks friendly, but it’s not. It uses smiles and persuasion to convince you of things you do not need. It builds wall around everyone and breaks any form of human communication. It’s the ultimate relationship killer. May I introduce to you, the lawyer.

Like any business, the photo industry is being plagued by an overabundance of  over fed lawyers who want to intervene in every step of your relationships, whether with clients, colleagues, photographers, or anyone you might talk to, now or in perpetuity.

The photography world has been quite ripe for their intrusion. Traditionally a people-handshake business with hardly any paperwork , it is the perfect battleground for those who preach the ultimate rule of the LAW . Not only they have  destroyed the handshake, which had worked quite well for decades, they also succeeded in redesigning the world into a landscape of suspicion, fear, liabilities and potential horror stories.

They thrive on fear and that’s how they sell their service. They institute doubt into any relationship in order to take control of them. And then, they install a fee. Like a communication toll, they start generating their income every time you use their service to communicate with the other party. Note : no longer a person, but a party. Objectification is their key tool to turn confidence into hatred.

All this would be quite reasonable if what they said, or did, was useful . But it’s not. From the Corbis lawyer who compared Chris Usher’s images to nails to the NY Times counsel who declares that because a print was send once for usage , it thus belongs to them forever (see link at end), it’s the rule of “anything goes”, the absurd. Because they were bred and fed by law, they start to beleive that everything that comes out of their mouth is automatically law. They confuse their roles as that of a judge.

Many fall into their traps and let them take over their business decisions. Because they beleive in their paranoia. It’s like giving the wheel of your car to a juggler who doesn’t have a license. They are expert in their field, surely, but have no idea where to bring you.

A lot of very fruitful cooperation have been destroyed by their insistence on protection every disaster scenario. They are the kings/queens of the the zero-risk management.

Sorry to say, but photogrpahy is all about taking risks: from the news photographer going to shoot a war, to the photo editor hiring a new photogrpaher for the first time, we all take risks daily. Photographers take risk every time they shoot before being paid. It’s just the nature of our business. 99.9% of the time, all goes perfectly well. Because we are all professionals and we know what we do. Lawyers, however, want you to think that things will go wrong 99.9% of the time. With that kind of risk, I would get out of bed in the morning and that, in itself, could be risky.

This industry is getting overrode, and tired, of lawyers everywhere . It is not necessary. If you do not want to take some calculated risk, get out of this business right now instead of imposing a greedy lawyers to other people. If you are afraid, stay home, don’t send incompetent to talk on your behalf and waste everyone’s time and money.

A signature at a bottom of a piece of paper has never saved anyone. Declare war against the systematic invasion of lawyers in very part of our profession. break away from these useless expensive chains that will never help your business grow. Invest in marketing, invite photo editors for lunch or drinks instead. Create a relationship of trust. It will go so much further than surrounding yourself behind a wall of legal paperwork.

PS:  Please read this incredible exchange of letters between George Zimbel and a Counsel at the New York Times

Posted in license, copyright, No sense, photojournalism, law, transaction, corbis | Print | 1 Comment »

March 16, 2010 by pmelcher.

Dear Copyright Advocates,

The Obama Administration is asking to hear from YOU, the creative backbone of our country, about how intellectual property infringement affects YOUR livelihood. The Administration is also seeking advice on what the government could be doing to better protect the rights of artists and creators in our country.

  HERE’S A CHANCE FOR YOU TO BE HEARD!

BACKGROUND:

Last year President Obama appointed and the U.S. Senate confirmed Victoria Espinel to be the first U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. Her job is “to help protect the creativity of the American public” by coordinating with all the federal agencies that fight the infringement of intellectual property, which includes creating and selling counterfeit goods; pirating video games, music, and books; and infringing upon the many other creative works that are produced by artists in this country.

As you know, the unauthorized copying, sale, and distribution of artists’ intellectual property directly impacts the ability of artists and creators to control the use of their own creativity, not to mention their ability to receive income they have earned from their labor. This impacts U.S. employment and the economy, and our ability to globally compete.

As required by an Act of Congress (The PRO‐IP Act of 2008), Ms. Espinel and her White House team are preparing a Joint Strategic Plan that will include YOUR FEEDBACK on the costs and risks that intellectual property infringement has on the American public.

Here’s how to make yourself heard!

1. Send an email to Ms. Espinel and the Obama Administration: intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov and copy the Copyright Alliance on your email: info@copyrightalliance.org

2. Begin your letter with “The Copyright Alliance has informed me of this welcome invitation from the Obama Administration to share my thoughts on my rights as a creator.”

3. Include in your email: your story, why intellectual property rights are important to you, how piracy and infringement affect you, and what the U.S. government can do to better protect the rights of creative Americans.

4. Also include in your email: your name, city, state, and what type of artist you are 5. DO NOT include any personal or private information as all comments will be posted publically

on the White House website. All comments must be submitted by Wednesday, March 24 by 5:00 p.m. EST.

Don’t be shy! Take two minutes today to make your voice heard, and don’t forget to spread the word to everyone you know. Forward this notice using this short URL ‐ http://bit.ly/cjDZJt ‐ by email, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and more!

Best,

Lucinda Dugger

Posted in license, copyright, technology, google, web 2.0, news, law, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »