Info

You are currently browsing the archives for the Corpocrates category.

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  
Categories

Archive for the Corpocrates Category

Volume based photojournalism

Taking a cue from the succesful microstock model here is where photojournalism is heading.  It is happening under our eyes, right now and in four steps.

The decline of traditional photojournalism.
Nothing really new here. Rising cost of living (travel, lodging, food) has made it almost impossible for current print and web publishers to send top talents on stories anymore. The profit margins are not there anymore. Although there is a bucket full of very talented photojournalist available, there is just no funds to make them do what they do best. Furthermore, with the deaths of traditional photo agencies who used to pay for half of the costs, there is just not enough financial support to keep it going. It’s not photojournalism that is dying, it’s the funding that is going dry.  Furthermore, photo editors that championed the great stories have long gone, either retired or pushed out due to corporate restructuring or cost saving measures.

The rise in volume of the me-too photojournalism.

Here again, nothing we haven’t heard or seen before. Automated cameras that can nail an image in the even poorest conditions has helped introduced a new wave of photographers that can, and will snap at anything and everything and force distribute it via every channel possible. Force distribute because we really do not want to see it but thanks to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and other social media, we get to see them anyway. The poor state of our economy has not help, obviously, making this forced free lance job even more appealing to many. It also has become easier to get published, at least once, giving everyone the false impression that this is easy. Anybody can become a photojournalist these days : you just need to be where the media attention is focused upon.

The death of the photo agency.
Photo agencies used to be the gateway to the media. With trained professionals, they filtered out the bad from the good and edited the work of the talented to make it even more compelling. They would also seek out news stories and send the best photographers to cover them, not only creating the news, but partly covering  for the costs. It was a gamble, where talented journalists would scout newspapers worlwide for that snippet of information that could be turned into the major news of the week thanks to the talent of a brilliant photographer. Those editors are gone now. Gambling on stories is just not an acceptable business model in our corporate world. Photo agencies are not agencies anymore, they are image distributors.

Speed vs quality.
Thanks to digital, the key decision element for an image to be published is how fast they get to a desktop. Thus a bad photographer can very well become successful if he is the fastest.  More and more, this is what we, viewers, are being served with : the first images rather than the best. Thus the key to becoming a published photojournalist is where you are and not who you are.

Where does it lead us to:

Where everyone can be a shooter, with no money to be spend on travel, no editors acting as gatekeepers and speed as the key factor, the decision us easy;

Forget the photo agency as an agent of talented photojournalists. The key now is to have a lot of contributors worldwide and hope that one will be at the right place at the right time. With photographers everywhere chances you will get the right image at the right time will increase, like buying a lot of lottery tickets.
In the film age, the cost of film, processing, shipment was too prohibitive. Now, you can receive and store million of images for a buck or two.
This well know photo agency recently proudly claimed representing 40 photographers in Gaza only. For a territory 140 square mile ( 360 Km2), that is one photographer per 3.5 square mile.

Thus, taking a queue from the microstock model, photojournalism is now switching to the volume based model. While profitable for a photo agency, it is devastating for photojournalism and photographers themselves.

Relocating

“Thoughts of ” is relocating or expanding :

On Facebook :  Thoughts of a Bohemian page  for the daily snippets

On La Lettre de la Photographie for 2 columns a week. One column is dedicated on the best there is to discover about photography on the web while the other, brand new, is about the world of photojournalism and photo agencies. You can read it and subscribe, for free, here : La Lettre de la Photographie.

what about about the typos ? they will follow me everywhere I go…

Obviously this blog will remain open, while quite not as often,  for longer thoughts and  hair raising revelations

The personal experience

Can the memory of a photograph be better then the image itself ? Do we tend to embellish what we have seen and liked ? Most probably so. The memory of a photograph contains , on top of the graphic visualization of the image, the sum of all the emotions and memories linked to it : The personal experience. It contains all the subjective association that we have made while looking at it, thus creating a highly personal layer that the original vision did not have. Thus, what we remember of a photograph we love is much better than the original. Are we disappointed when we see it again ? Most often not. Since it had triggered all these satisfying internal connection the first time around, it will do so again and again. Unless, if for some reason, when we had first looked at it, we misinterpreted it. Of rare occurrence, but it can happen when we are in a non typical heighten emotional state when we were first exposed to the photograph. Or our lives has taken us down a different path. A photograph you thought was great during your teenage years my not seem the same when you are a 50 years old . It can still, however, connect you back to comfortable memories. The memory of a photograph is always better than the original because of our personal input.

Thus, in pure logic, the more generic an image the better. It should serve a canvas for personal experience, right ? Well, absolutely not. because a generic image doesn’t trigger any emotions. It just stays blandly generic. in order to communicate to its viewers, a photographers needs to be as personal as possible . He should forget about trying to please everyone, everywhere. And this is where commercial stock photography has failed in the latter years. Obsessed with RPi numbers, they have flooded the market with one size fits all images empty of emotional triggers. When the miccrostockers came into the market, they brought back in the emotions that had left the industry for a while. And besides pricing obviously, they beat their pro elders on content. They just got more response to their images.

Of course, they are now doing the same mistake as the pros and relying on charts, equations and past revenues to dictate their next images. And like their predecessors, they are seeing revenue declining. No one can claim and secure photographic success. It is probably harder to maintain than to attain. However, by succeeding in ignoring the false sirens of success, one can easily navigate closer to the surface. If one continues to deliver a personal experience to its viewer, than 99% of the battle is won. The rest is marketing


Spill Splash Corbis

The news cracked like thunder in the middle of a hot afternoon : Corbis has just acquired Splash news. The quiet giant has just eaten up the lean mean paparazzi machine. It is a surprise.

There had been rumors in the photo agency world of Getty looking to purchase Splash, to fill their last hole in their overall offering but nothing about Corbis. It is even more of a surprised as Corbis had seem to have abandoned the editorial market after it had shut down their own editorial production department. They were just re licensing agencies like EPA, Zuma and Retna. With this acquisition, Corbis is now back again on the front line of the hottest photo market : celebrity .

According to official news, most everyone will remain at Splash. It will still be run by co founders Kevin Smith and Gary Morgan. It will also be operate as a separate brand, much like Corbis Outline.

One of the main question is how will Corbis manage the high end celebrity approval Outline in parallel to the down to the ground gossip charged  Splash without facing the anger of publicists and celebrities.

Finally, the official press release blames high operational cost as a reason for Kevin and Gary’s decision to sell. If the current situation of other photo agency in this space is any indication, falling rates must have also been a strong factor.

More official info here 

Contemporaneous thereo

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.

E-Doom ?

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)

What’s that in my frame ?

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…..

French salsa

Seems like all the news is coming from France these days. You would think they were all out in the streets protesting against having to work two more years, O but no, they are actually busy. Well Getty Images is busy.

Via a grandiloquent press release, they have just announced the distribution of the Gamma - Keystone collection for the whole world, besides France. For those of you who were not paying attention, Gamma Rapho Keystone used to be called Eyedea no longer than a year ago before sinking into bankruptcy. After weeks, months of negotiation, the discovery of a trust fund, alliance and dis-alliances, the liquidators managed to find a buyer in the  person of  Mr Lochon. Ex-photographer from Gamma in the 80’s, Lochon used his personal money to buy the company with the promise he would resuscitate it from the dead.  His plan ? Well, give it to Getty Image. As if Getty needed more content to distribute.

It’s a great deal for Getty. They didn’t have to buy anything thus no risks of being investigated for monopoly . They don’t have to scan, edit, or deal whatsoever with cranky mostly french photographers. Just sell the images and keep a cut . If they don’t sell anything, well, they don’t care, they haven’t spend a dime. For Lochon and Gamma - Keystone ? Well, not so good. Getty already has the Hutlon-Deutch archives ( some 80 million  images) as well as  what is left of Archive Images; Both trump Keystone historical content in size and content. Gamma’s content ? Well, it all depends on what gets scanned and how well.

The reason this deal went through ? Probably because Getty was to only one to ask. It is doubtful that AP or Reuters even approached Gamma Rapho . Corbis, freshly out the of dubious bankruptcy of Sygma, will probably never deal with anything French for centuries to come. What happens next? Little to nothing. Getty is now apparently in an aggressive strategy to represent as much content as possible, if only to take it out of its competition hands.

On a related note, the director of the French office of Getty Images continues in the tradition of making false statements when he proudly announces that Getty was the first agency to license an image online in 1995 . He’s got a good excuse, he wasn’t at Getty at the time so he’s just repeating what his corporate communicator told him to say. Finally, the real amusing part is that his portrait used to illustrate the article is credited “DR“. At least there is one constant : Corpocrates will remain corpocrates.

Bring in the clowns

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.

Artist du Jour

So while most people are getting ready to take a long 3 day weekend to bid a last farewell to summer ( at least in North America) and others are frolicking among the cafe table of Perpignan, mighty Getty images doesn’t miss a beat.

What now ?  Called the “Artist Digital Toolkit” , it is basically a plain and dirty affiliate program with a Starbucks inspired name.  You know, like when you put a link to Amazon on your website and if someone clicks on it and ends up bying something you get a cut? Well, this is the same. Except, it uses contributors to do so.

How so crowdsourcing of them.

Here is the deal : You put one of their specially branded web banners, or e mail signature, or Facebook app, or whatever they give you and if someone clicks on it and purchases an image, you get a % of the sale: 16% if it is new customer, only 7 % if it’s a returning customer, whether it’s your image or not.

Help Getty sale images and get paid to do it.

Not only you give them content to sale, but you actually help them sale it too. What else, clean the offices after hours ?

You could even increase your 30% commission on certain sales to a whopping 37%. How cool is that? I smell riches here..

You will also contribute to Getty SEO campaign by creating new links for them. But you get no penny for that. Don’t push it, ok ?

So, if you are a Getty Contributor, get your free “Artist Digital Toolkit” and watch your bank account grow…