August 28, 2008 by pmelcher.

As I was walking down the street in Manhattan earlier today, avoiding other busy pedestrians thinking about work, I noticed a bumper sticker I had never seen before. On a red background, it read : “Save the Mountains”.  Not sure if it was a serious one but regardless, it made me wonder. How come we haven’t seen a “save photography” or “save photographers” sticker yet. After all, the industry is  in more danger than mountains.

Here are a few reasons:

- Overcrowding : Like anything that we human beings like too much, we tend to use it and abuse it until there is nothing left. We are over fishing, over farming, over driving, and in the process, killing everything associated. Photography, thanks partially to Flickr, but also digital, is not only everywhere, but done by everyone. Boundaries between pros and amateurs are melting faster than the polar ice and everyone that use to have a job directly related to photography is in  more danger than Polar bears. It is not just photographers bearing the weight of the overcrowding of this field. Photo editors are also being laid off as magazines or newspapers are either shrinking or shutting down.   Photo agencies will soon also suffer from the saturated market and will start reducing staff as they will not be able to sustain their growth. After all, if photographers are seeing lesser commission, you can be sure that agencies are making less revenue.

- Technology : No one needs a photo editor at Flickr. Why? because Flickr edits itself. Newspapers website are shrinking down and more and more relying on wire service feeds. Just post the feed as it comes in, or automated it. Not very hard to do. No one really needs so many photographers either anymore.  Remote control cameras now cover what took a sleuch of photographers to do. And they don’t complain. Amateurs are shooting as well and can now very easily contribute. Although not yet successful, it would not be hard to see an agency entirely made up of amateurs. Heck !, you could get the Olympics, or the Conventions well covered by amateurs, if you organized yourself well. Thousands of eyes in every different position possible. Imagine the possibilities.

- Intellectualism : Some of our best publications have been taken over by over thinking. In a desperate effort to differentiate themselves from the commons, they  have been taken over either by “new” photojournalism or “new” fine art. Nouveau Photojournalism, we have spoken about. Holga happy reporters who seem happiest in images where you see the less. Nouveau Fine art has taken the opposite approach and is hyper realist. Close up images of uncooked eggs, deserted parking lots at night fall with heavy greenish tungsten light,  snapshot-looking photography with visible flash effects, anything that looks desperately real and slightly unappealing is in fashion. Both agree that if the image disturbs you in any manner, than it must be good. Especially if you think it is a bad photograph. Then, it is probably genius.

- Microsoft : It was a good world when Microsoft did not care about photography.  We were all left to build our own digital world with whatever tool we wanted. For a while, we had to deal with Adobe’s monopoly on photo editing, but that was disappearing. However, recently, The big Redmond giant has been working its way into the field. And we all know what that means. Nothing will ever be the same anymore. No need to explain more ( Corbis anyone?).

- Blogs and opinions : Everywhere and everyone has an opinion. Everyone is an expert. Everything and nothing is written about photography. It is exhausting. It is all over the place and nowhere. Someone should regulate it. For once thing, all the old farts that have been teaching photography in colleges for more than 20 years should be forced to retire and certainly not allowed to blog. They are frightening.  Anyone that has not sold or licensed images for a living should not be quoted on professional blogs because they try to take pictures in places where it is not allowed. It is pathetic. All these blogs are screaming for attention and readership and will write almost about anything as long as they do it everyday. Including publishing boring press releases on the size of a collection. Its obscene. stop it. It is okay not to write anything if there is nothing to say or not to publish a press release because it is stupid. Yes, I know, I do not have to read them.

All these are reasons to start a “save photography” movement. We could have fund raising parties with Karl Lagerfeld as our Keynote speaker and dance the night away. Have cool hats and T shirts with our logo. and finally, make bumper sticker that I could stick on my car…if I had a car.

who is with me ?

Posted in technology, commercial stock, magazine, multimedia, editorial, flickr, corbis | Print | 1 Comment »

August 22, 2008 by pmelcher.

I am no friend of fair use.  “Fair Use is a USA law that provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.  In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

This law does not even require that someone get a permission from the author or, at least,  informed them of such usage. Guess common courtesy does not exist in US copyright laws. Obviously, “non- licensed” means free. Fortunately, most people do not abuse this law that is widely open to interpretation.
This law has been in existence for a long time and is to me, much more damaging then the potentially upcoming Orphan Work Bill. After all, in this case, one knows the copyright owner but is still allow to use his/her work for free and without having to be polite about it.
Created to help scholar use reference work without going bankrupt, it has become the principle doorway to common copyright infringement.
Why not offer a small $1 licensing fee for those poor scholars that cannot afford paying full price. Or a special “education” fee, like Apple does with its computers. ( mmm…you have to see how much the US University charge per year/per student . Wonder what they do with that money instead of paying artists).
The idea is that every work used should be compensated, regardless of the amount. There has been work done thus compensation should be applied.
However that is not the worst. A famous blog situated on one of these new community based portal ( no, not DigitalRailroad) has been using an insane amount of images. At first, it seemed that since it is a professional blog, created with the obvious intend to drive traffic to its Collection, it would be properly licensing these images.
Imagine my shock ( and awe) when I heard that it does not. It recently used an image from a very well known photo agency that it ripped from another online legitimate publication and used it, along others, on its blog. No permission and no money exchange.
When asked why they would use images without licensing them when they are in image licensing business?  they  responded, “I can’t answer that question.”
They did pull the image down, only to be replaced by another from another agency. Probably without permission. What compels a company that is itself in the image licensing business to not pay for images that they clearly use for promotional usage?  Especially after screaming loud and clear they would be spending over $1 million in marketing this year. Is there no % in that budget to pay for licensing other people images ?

It would be nice, and honest, for that company, to clearly define their policy on the usage of photograph and stop claiming their are the defenders of the photographers when they boldly rip images from other sites like cheap second hand robbers.

Posted in copyright, technology, license, No sense, editorial, transaction, law | Print | 3 Comments »

August 12, 2008 by pmelcher.

- Misconception No1: Photojournalism is not being killed by celebrity photographers. In fact, photographers that cover the celebrity scene, weather red carpet or street photographer have the same ratio of good to bad photographers than in news. It takes some of the same skills to cover news and celebrity. Regardless. Time or Newsweek have not increased their celebrity photography coverage. They just have just lessened their news coverage.

- Misconception No2 : Editorial photography is dying. What is dying are the daily and weekly print publications. Newspapers, magazines, and old brands. They cannot compete with the speed of  news anymore. What is dying is the image that is formatted for a print support with a rectangular format. What is dying is the photography taught in school and colleges today. There is a new medium for editorial photography that has never existed before, that knows no boundaries will it be in size, amount, artifact and pricing ( the Internet). What really is dying here is an old mentality.

- Misconception No3:  Video will replace stills. Take a look at the amount of video images coming out of the Olympics. Hours and hours of footage. Now, tell me who will sit down and edit film pumped out at 25 frames per seconds to find the right image ?While you think, look at this great gallery done by Stern magazine and see what can photographers can do.

- Misconception No4: Anybody can shoot great images these days. Why would anyone say that when pro photographers have always used the same equipment as amateurs. This is not like dentistry or chemistry where the tools are hard to find, let alone the knowledge. Photography has always been easy to learn and the equipment always available to anyone. The only part that has changed is how easier it is these days to share. But really good images created by amateurs have always been around. Not as accessible, that is all. Its not the equipment that matters in great photography, it is the person holding it

- Misconception No5 : If you produce a lot of images, you can make a living with your photography. A rule of thumb more in the stock photography world than in the editorial one. It was true for a while when it was expensive to distribute images to clients. Today, it is a dangerous thought. Quantity will slowly be replaced by quality as the market will no longer be able to support myriads of photographers hoping to make a living. Image buyers will no longer be capable of keeping up with offer and start closing doors.

- Misconception No6: A photo editor knows a lot about photography. A photo editor only knows a lot about the photography used in their publication. He or she works, breath and sleeps in a very confined universe. Their ability to make one publication look great almost never  translate in making any and all publications look great.  That is why very successful photo editors never leave the publication they work for. They grow into them.

- Misconception No7 : Blogs about photography are useful. Besides posting press release they never read or repeating something they read elsewhere, they actually do not help much. Only a very few escape the ego narcissistic trip of the popularity contest and give out extremely valuable insight. They are extremely rare. The rest are operated by hit counters.

- Misconception No8: Every Magnum / VII photographer is a great photo editor. Why do thousand of photographers flock to have their portfolio edited by another photographer? It would vaguely make sense if one would want to be that photographer or replace him/her. And even so, photographers are the worst editors of their own work. But what makes a successful photographer a better editor than a non photographer ? If anything, if they see a great portfolio, wouldn’t they  try to dissuade that person from stealing their job?

- Misconception No9 : There is still room for a news agency. With AP, AFP, Reuters, Getty, EPA, DPA and other wire services employing some of the best photographers in the world while controlling most of the sales channel, it does seem obvious. There is no more oxygen. The best one can hope to do is represent a small pool of extremely talented photographers and help them get assignments, but even that is not a given. If they are extremely talented, they really do need much help. So what makes all these agencies try to cover events like the Olympics with 1/10 of the resources the others have with medium to mediocre photographers( crumb photographers)? Hope ?

- Misconception No10: Free photography will save the world. or a new pricing.or a association of good willing people. There is only one thing that will save photography, if it actually needs saving. It’s photography. great photography

Posted in magazine, celebrity, Magnum, Newsweek, commercial stock, newspaper, TIME, news, editorial, wire service, photojournalism, getty | Print | 4 Comments »

August 8, 2008 by pmelcher.

 There are more and more photo business news websites yet:

- London Features International, a photo agency that has been in business for more than 20 years, crashes and burns and hardly no one even mentions it or comments on it.

- ASMP gets $1,3 million dollars LAST YEAR and only reveals it now (and only because PDN was spilling the beans). They are “not sure” what they will do with it yet. Guess they need more time to think. Is it just me or someone is fooling someone ?

- If I had half of a brain and was somewhat concerned about the Orphan Work legislation, I would look into this Copyright Clearance Center who apparently does collect money for usage. There just might be an interesting answer there, no ?

- Jupiter Images finally reveals its revenues for the last quarter and it is worse than anyone could have ever imagined. They are in negative growth with a stock price close to being under the limit.  The corporations are hurting badly, what does it say about  the rest of the industry ?

-  Microsoft Pro Summit invited spoiled little kid Thomas Hawk ( not his real name) to its Pro Summit. Anyone care to react ? The guy is a neon light loving Flickr happy rich kid with nothing else to do than blog hours on about his iphone and media center and he is considered a pro by Microsoft ? Anyone feel insulted here ? ASMP guys ?

- Its August 8 and the Digital journalist website is still in July ? Does anyone worry or care  anymore ?  ( Ok, they are always late)

- Brian Storm and his team are also moving to Brooklyn . Who in the photography world can still afford Manhattan ? Besides Corbis, obviously. Does anyone know ?

These are all important questions and no one seems to take them seriously. Someone needs to be in charge here. any suggestions ?

Posted in Jupiter, celebrity, magazine, mediastorm, web 2.0, editorial, flickr, corbis | Print | 1 Comment »

August 6, 2008 by pmelcher.

The photo agency industry continues to complain and whine about its condition, endlessly consummated by demons it has created.

For one, it has created this endless pool of incredibly mediocre photographer that has for far too long managed to make a living taking pictures. Its not amateur photography that is getting better, it is just pro photographer that are getting worse and lazier. The over reliance on a defunct principle that they were the only one to own the channels of photography sales made photo agencies indifferent to the quality of their product. After all, it was them or nothing. Even Getty, who once believed it could corner the “distribution of image” market and set it own rules got a nasty wake up call when Istock through the first kick and Flickr the second punch.

Today, the photo agencies have a lot of excess weight. Photographers they keep because of old friendship or by pure habit, endlessly submitting the same images in the hopes that the Golden age will soon return. While they wait, in absolute stubbornness, the majority have decided that playing with pricing will offer them a new opportunity.

Amidst unverified rumors that their competition is doing the same, prices are being slashed to levels that have never been seen and that defies even the law of gravity. Since print publications are not doing so well either, everyone is more than happy to comply, bringing the whole market to a spiraling absurd end. To top it all, Angelina’s twins selling for an allegely $14 million just adds more photographers in the pool, hoping that they will too, one day , hit the jackpot.

Take Florida based photo agency prphotos.com ( created by some wireimage ex pats), for example. Someone there with a brain the size of  sand has decided to offer red carpet images for web usage on a subscription basis. That wouldn’t be so bad if the prices were not so ridiculously low. Some of its offering is as low as  “Under A Penny Per Image”. At that stage, what is the point ? With what seems 5 people on staff, how do they intend to pay their bills?

Do they still believe the internet is the dumping ground of photography ? But more important, what does it say about how they value their photography ?

We haven’t seen the worst of it yet. There will be more of these whacked-cracked photo agencies popping up everywhere, one “smarter” than the other, offering waccadoodle prices in a desperate hope to become the new Google of photography.

Getty, now privately private will soon release a lot of weight ( read photographers) that will in turn compete not on quality but on sub pricing flooding of an already over saturated market with less than attractive images. It will not just hit editorial, but commercial stock as well, until only a few agencies survive. Already photographers have a hard time. If they associate themselves with foot-shooting agencies and their magic potion pricing, they will have to take other jobs to make ends meet.

There is no salvation in stupid pricing. It is just stupid.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, google, flickr, getty, editorial, finance, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

August 4, 2008 by pmelcher.

let them eat cake, she had said. As the eyes of the world are turning toward China and the upcoming Olympics, this is a good time to reflect on how photography is evolving. Not as a medium, but as a media.

Getty images licenses a series of exclusive images to People and Hello! for a reported $14 million. No one questions this. furthermore, no one seems to believe that the number is just plainly insane. On one side of the spectrum, images sell at a buck a piece and on the other, at double digit millions of dollars.  Doesn’t make much sense. And I will tell you why : Image pricing was a combination factor of quality/difficulty/usability. The more an image was going to be used, or seen, the more it would cost. The better, or rather, the more relevant the images were, the more its price would go up. Finally, the more an image was hard to get, the more the price would go up. If you look at the RF microstock model, none of the above is true anymore. Does the Jolie twins bring so much value that they will reep sales above $7 million ( assuming People paid half the bill ?) . lets see : Angelina first baby picture sold for $4million. People sold 2.2 million copies at a cover price of 3.95. That is roughly  $ 8.8 million if you complitely ignore the subscribers. If they raised their advertising space rate, they should have broken even. At $7 million, it becomes more of a problem. After all , it is not because she had twins that there will be double the readership, is it ?

Actually, these images have become a story by themselves. They were priced way before Angelina even had the babies. And by whom ? The media. Rumors, speculation, interviews, opinions were running  like a mountain stream in Spring, finally settling around anywhere from $11 million to $14 million.

Interesting thus, that Getty sold these images for the same price as people assume someone would sell these images. Did the  megastar couple take the hint from the crowdsourcing pricing or is it just hype ? After all, the crowd will be more eager to see images that are worth $14 million dollars than a few bucks. Thus both Getty, People and Hello ! profit from screaming that those images were sold for $14 million. It benefits everyone, even the couple who gets to give even more money to charity.

Furthermore, does anyone who has been in this industry for a while really think that competing magazine USweekly or IN TOUCH  stop bidding at 13,999,999 .00 and said we give up ? Or that if the National enquirer had bid $15 million, it would have been in their latest issue ? Publicists and stars want to be in People magazine, not in tabloids.

Who cares if it is not true, really. What matters here is that these images  got a celebrity status, even before they were even taken.

The second incident is the revelation by Newsweek DP that the Olympics will be mostly a .com event. Ex-photography director, Mary Ann Golon had told me that TIME will be doing the same a few months back . Seems that this Olympic season will be online with additional reporting in print. The slow decay of the paper support is becoming more apparent as it cannot compete with the feeding frenzy. Photography becomes free at last of the written word and regains a position of strength. It can live, breath and exist by itself  on an online slideshow that doesn’t need much explanation. This will only continue to erode the news weeklies here and worldwide. It will also put much more pressure on the photographers to fully report with images and not just be an accompaniment to the text. Its good news.

Posted in license, TIME, celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, photojournalism, slideshow, Royalty free, getty, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | 4 Comments »

July 29, 2008 by pmelcher.

Genius juxtaposition of images, endearing story, human, lively, photographically compelling, wonderful storytelling, the Mediastorm team does it again .

See it now before someone tells you about it:

The only negative is the music that always seem to be the same on all multimedia these days: a  lonely piano with an echo followed by a lonely string acoustic guitar. But who cares ?  When you look at it, it seems that all the pieces were made to fit prior to assembly. It looks so easy to do. And it is not. Makes you wonder how further photography can go beyond the traditional magazine layout. This is also what photo editor should learn to do if they want to keep their job relevant.

Posted in mediastorm, magazine, technology, multimedia, newspaper, editorial, photojournalism, news | Print | No Comments »

July 27, 2008 by pmelcher.

Who said that editorial photography doesn’t pay ? Dave Hogan, or “Hogie” for those who know him well, is hosting the British prime minister in his 1.2 million pounds house for the summer.

I have had the pleasure of working with Hogie for many years while at ImageDirect and can reassure everyone that he deserves every penny that he has ever made. His talent is only matched by his friendliness and  his ease to work with.

read the full article here

Posted in celebrity, magazine, photojournalism, finance, transaction, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

July 23, 2008 by pmelcher.

Woke up this morning to this news: “Dubai, United Arab Emirates, July 21, 2008. Celeb Arabia, subsidiary of Dubai Photographers Agency, the source for authentic celebrity images, today announces the launch of its Middle East Celebrity Photo Collection at CelebArabia.com.”

Cool, I thought… let’s discover Arabian celebrities :  The local Britney Spears or the Sheik heiress that is behaving like Paris Hilton.Who’s hot and who’s not. Well, it was quite a disappointment. The Paris Hilton of Dubai and region is…Paris Hilton.

Pretty damn disappointing.. I know that corporate America is a champion at exporting its brands and I very well know that what happens in Hollywood has more repercussion then  that annoying butterfly in the Amazon forest responsible for so many hurricanes. But still. Europe has a lot of local celebrities, so why not Dubai ? . Can’t they make more money with their celebrity rather than having to import American ones ? Sad…very sad.

However, that is not what really shocked me. The pricing is the biggest smack in my face :

Celebrity photos, and rather good ones, taken by pros, at $44,90 an image ? Ouch ! Cheaper if you buy 100 !!. Paparazzi by the pound. Not sure how it works in Dubai, but usually paparazzi images, being hard to get, sell for a premium. Maybe because they look sometimes out of focus, the “Dubainese” market considers them as midstock material ? The license seems to be “rights ready” as it is mentioned a few time on the site. If it is anything like the Getty one, that means 10 years, $44,90. an image.Well, that is a market that is dead even before being commercially interesting.

Seriously, there should be a license that people should pass before having the right to sell images. Like Real Estate agents. This is getting totally ridiculous with absolutely no sense on how the images are priced.

The pricing of images is like walking into a frat house the day after blow out party : its all over the place and it smells bad. It is embarrassing for those of us trying to make it a ligitimate business because image buyers think we follow some kind of rule.

The rule is simple these days : “My images are cheaper than the guy next door. Even if he moved out. “

Posted in magazine, technology, Pacific coast news, celebrity, license, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

July 19, 2008 by pmelcher.

It is not the usage but the image. A flew of photo agencies, including recently Alamy, have come out with special pricing plans for blogs ( non commercial ones).  It appears to be specially arranged  to compete against  microstock, as the prices are very, very low.

Which begs the question and realization that more and more, these days, images are sold based on usage and never on content.  Since the value of an image can vary immensely from one person to another, corporations, like Corbis or Getty have just decided to ignore it in their budgets. It is a known fact that corporations hate variables. So they take a whole sloosh of images and apply the same pricing. All of these over there are RF, these are Rights Ready, and those are too old. Furthermore, they believe that an image only has a value when it is used and that value is only quantified by the way it used.

As much as simplicity is appealing, as much as it doesn’t reflect the real value of an image. As we all know, some are really easy to get ( the Eiffel tower, for example) and some are really hard ( Angelina Jolie posing with her newborn twins) . One would never apply the same pricing rules to those 2 images, if one was a little versed in photography sales. But it doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. In between these two images, exist a whole range of pictures that are either more or less easy to take and also, have added value created by the photographers themselves ( the Eiffel tower taken by a National geographic photographer).

Example:

let say I take a nice image of the Eiffel Tower.  Nothing special. I license this image to a blog. I get 5 cents. Same image, I license it to Microsoft worlwide 10 years unlimited rights desktop usage. $60,000.  Hmmm… what is the value of my image? 5 cents or $60,000?

But more important, is it really the usage of my image that defines its value ? Shouldn’t be the image itself ? More like a painting ? You will buy a Picasso for millions of dollars regardless you put in a closet or decide to attach it on the walls of the British Museum.

Aaaaah, but photography is not art, you will say. You cannot compare. Well, my friend, why would an Angelina  Jolie and Twins go for a cool $11 million ?

Well, it is not the photographer that matters here, it is the subject, you will argue.

Absolutly !!! my point exactly. Photography is even more wicked that its value is not even obvious by who took the image, but what is on it. Sure you have the Masters who commend a certain price. But the bulk load of images are taken by complete unknowns that will remain so. But some of their image will command huge prices.

Because of how they are used? Or because of their content?

At this point you have to agree with me.

While editorial agencies are very aware of the statue and value of their image, stock couldn’t care less. Here, you can have all these images for a penny an image, because after all, no one comes and visits your site. Well, that is terribly wrong and reinforce the idea to clients that photography is a commodity. If someone doesn’t have the budget to pay for a great image, too bad, blog or no blog.

There is value in some images and client should pay for that value.

On another completely unrelated note:  Rumors are spreading that Getty and other wire service are asking their news  photographers to shoot  events with commercial stock resale in mind. Meaning that those  photojournalists no longer shoot what they see but try to , for example, to purposelessly blur peoples faces in order not to need a model release later. To maximize the lifetime potential for an image. As much as it make sense for the agency, as much as it is digging a little bit more in the wound of photojournalism, making it less and less credible every day.

We will probably see more and more denature photographs of world events as photographers will try to cover them on a more “stocky” way .

Posted in photojournalism, license, celebrity, commercial stock, transaction, editorial, Royalty free, getty, corbis, news, Microstock | Print | No Comments »