July 6, 2010 by pmelcher.

So, the French minister of Culture ( at least they have one) descends to the Arles photo festival like a conqueror and announces, probably very proud of himself, that he and his photo committee he created a while back,  will create a photo portal. A French one, in three languages ( French , English and ???).

70,000 images are supposed to be made available to the public and amateur thanks to this portal. Nothing is said about what photography, from where, edited by whom, for what purpose ? Just 70,000 images; Et Voila. Packs his stuff into his limo and goes back to take a early afternoon nap in his hot office in Paris.

And we are left to wonder: From the country that has laws banning street photography, from the country that has created  social laws responsible for the death and suffering of many photo agencies and their photographers, from the country that has banned citizen photojournalism, that is all they could come out with ?

If they really wanted to help photography, the French government would do a few things : Repel the law that forces everyone to blur faces of people in public spaces, repel the law that makes illegal to photograph a news item if you are not a professional, repel the law that makes photo agencies responsible for more than 75% of free lancer contribution to social security. This is what is killing photography in France, not the lack of a “tri langual pro/amateur photo” portal.

If they really wanted to save photography, wouldn’t they help photography live and breath instead of creating a useless on line museum that will cost millions and sit unused. France already has one huge portal of photography for professional called PixPalace. Why create a state sponsored competition ?

Why don’t they rather make an institution that gives out grants and supports young ( and not so young photographers) in their projects? Why don’t they reward websites or print magazine for their usage of photography? Why don’t they create incentives instead of museums ?

There might be a long time before this online photo portal ever sees the day of light since everything take a long time in France ( years, decades). It is just so very frustrating  to see a minister who made a movie about the Rapho agency, who contains such great  photographers as Robert Doisneau, Édouard Boubat, Denis Brihat, Jean Dieuzaide, Bill Brandt, Izis, André Kertész, Yousuf Karsh, Jacques Henri Lartigue, Janine Niépce, Willy Ronis, Emile Savitry, and Sabine Weiss, continue to support a law that would have made these photographer unable to practice their trade.

Furthermore, in a society that is about to ban the wearing of Burqa’s because it hides women’s face, it is quite ironic that they force publications to hide the face of people in photographs.

I have an idea : Let’s go on strike.

more , in French

Posted in Search, celebrity, magazine, technology, No sense, photojournalism, france, editorial, filter, law | Print | 1 Comment »

July 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

There is more than oil spreading in the Gulf of Mexico. There is also a veil of secrecy slowly being pulled upon the effects of the spill. In the pure tradition of “If you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist”, more and more rules and regulations are being implemented in order to block photographers .

“According to a news release from the Unified Command, violation of the “safety zone” rules can result in a civil penalty of up to $40,000, and could be classified as a Class D felony. Because booms are often placed more than 40 feet on the outside of islands or marsh grasses, the 65-foot rule could make it difficult to photograph and document the impacts of oil on land and wildlife, media representatives said. ”

This rule, made by the Coast Guard, not BP, comes on top of an already existing rule that  no media flights could go below 3,000 feet, due to restrictions from the Federal Aviation Administration.

Those restrictions are all to the honor of photography and it’s power. They are instituted out of fear of the impact that photography has on the collective mass. The same way as the Bush administration had banned any images of US soldiers coffin, or the Sri Lanka government had succesfully blocked any images of the war on the Tamils, this administration has no problem putting limits on what and how events can be photographed.

If you thought that the long awaited emergence of citizen photojournalism would come to the rescue, think again. Out of hundreds of images posted on Flickr, all are from GreenPeace or Nasa. None from the common man. As if the problem did not exist.

Photojournalists, more and more, are forced to break the law in order to get the right images. Not only their standard of living has plummeted, making it harder to be motivated, but they are now faced with either jail time or extremely steep fines. There is a war being waged against photojournalism at a time it is already at its weakest. If the forces of photo censorship succeed, our world will become we can forget about democracy. We might not understand it fully, but these are our eyes that they are trying to cover. It is a our ability to make a sound judgment that is threatened forever.

If photojournalists around the world are being blocked from taking pictures it’s because they are annoying.  They are revealing aspects of our lives that others do not want you to see. They  pull the curtains and denounce. If they are more and more being denied access, it’s because their images can do a lot of damages to an otherwise well kept lie.

There should be thousands and millions of images of the BP oil spill in the Gulf. Every American should go and take pictures of the situation. Post them all on Flickr or other places for everyone to see. A giant visual against BP, against blocking photographers and finally against a way of life that is killing us all.

No one should be allowed, ever, to restrict the work of photojournalists. There should be a fine for people preventing photojournalists to do their work and their safety and well being should be guaranteed by law.  They should have the same rights, and protection, as any other civil servant of any well balanced democracy. Instead of being restricted, they should be given extended special privileged access to news events.

They say the tree that falls in the forest where no one hears it makes no noise. Could we say the same about events happening away from cameras? soon?

Posted in web 2.0, magazine, lens, flickr, photojournalism, law, editorial, news | Print | No Comments »

June 13, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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 »

March 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

The Gamma/ Eyedea sinking ship saga continues : 4 companies/ projects have  filed to be considered for the reprisal of the almost defunct Company. French Number one photo agency, ABACA Press, Verdoso Media, Frank Ullman and a pair of ex bosses of Gamma. No Getty ( for once) , No Corbis.

The buying price ? A symbolic 100,000 to 150,00 Euros. Hachette Filipacchi Photo, ex owner of this group of photo agencies, had sold it to its current owners for 600,000 Euros. Not much of a profit here, if you also consider the money invested since, and lost. The main role of the court now is to figure out which of this project is the most viable. Their main focus is to see how many jobs can be saved. Out of the 60 + currently on staff, not more than 30 are expected to stay.

The good news ? There seem to be some interest by French companies to save the group of images and bring it, finally, into the 21st century. Most might be thinking that this move will get them the good favors of the French Government who will them jump in and  pour some welcome cash, or incentives. However, like everything in France, it is going to take a while for the decision to be made.

On a similar note, Retna UK, not to be confused with Retna USA, has sold, again. Now, it is to Photoshot, a agency eating company that seems to buy anything and everything hanging low from the tree. Wonder why they didn’t not bid for Eyedea/Gamma.

It’s Friday, don’t forget to look at images today…

Posted in celebrity, magazine, photojournalism, transaction, law, france, news | Print | No Comments »

December 13, 2009 by pmelcher.

Apparently, Getty Images has decided to go after market shares in full force. In a seemingly coordinate worldwide effort, it has launched an all front offensive against any and all its competitors, no questions asked.  They now offer new low prices in exchange for being the sole provider . If a publisher agrees to only use Getty Images, and no one other, they get new preferred low pricing.

The competition is then offered to lower their pricing also, should they want to remain considered. What they are not been told is that even if they do decide to match those pricing, they will only be used when Getty Images cannot supply an image. Which is rare these days.

It seems that Getty Image is going all out for market shares and probably hopes to compensate for the lost income by increased volume. It is quite sure that they must have spend long hours calculating the probability and have studied many many charts. Thus, that their new policy is, at least according to their numbers, a profitable one.

A lot of Getty’s competition will suffer heavily from this. Mostly smaller size agencies that already have been living on the edge of their profit margins and do not have much or any exclusive content. The others, well, have a clear choice. Either stop believing that their salvation is in cheap volume of sales  and increase their rates, or die a slow painful asphyxiating death. Trying to hold down to the diving whale by matching pricing is a suicide swim.

The publishers, going through one, if not the worst period of their existence, cannot be more happy with such an offer. Why shouldn’t they not accept it ? Cheaper cost is always a welcome opportunity and Getty certainly has enough choice for the photo editors to pick from.  Where they are mislead is in multiple ways. The disappearance of some photo agencies will make some content disappear. Forever. It has already happen and will accelerate. Once competition is decimated, Getty will have free range to raise their pricing to monopolistic heights and publisher will have no other alternatives. Finally, the remaining agencies will be forced to charge premium prices for their exclusive content in order to compensate for the lost of usage.

There are no Anti Dumping laws in the USA. That is laws that forbids a company to sell products or services lower than what it cost them to produce. The reason is hidden somewhere in the strong belief in a free economy that balances itself and only crashes because of regulations. Also, it is believed that a company applying such practices could not sustain it for very long and thus either go bankrupt or be forces to raise its prices. There are however anti monopoly laws which Getty is heavily flirting with. Controlling all aspect of an industry, from production to distribution, is still illegal ( remember Rockefeller).

Getty seems (again, nothing is sure here) to have exported this model to Latin America and maybe other continents .It is also, if not entirely, affecting editorial content. As they probably have people sign a”non disclosure”, it might be hard to find out. The best way to know however, is to see if suddenly a magazine has only or mostly just one credit.

Not to cry but it is a sad time when photography is not viewed for what it is anymore but just another box of supplies in the production process. Because of the economy, photo editors have no voice anymore, as they cannot afford to loose their jobs.

It is also sad to see some of these publications, that rely so much on photography, treat it  so poorly.

The future landscape of image provider will be very interesting to gaze upon once all is said and done . Devastated, sure. Worse ? not so sure. There has been a lot ( too many ?) of comfort riders in this business for too long and that should kick them off the back of the jumping horse.  Can Getty get away with this ? depends. Some countries my find this predatory competition and block them from doing so. It is such a disorganized industry that by the time all the fragmented competition get together, Getty will have finished signing all contracts. Plus, there will always those who think they are super smart and will try to copy Getty’s new pricing scheme, not realizing its not for them.

” Remember that your aim is to achieve the highest dollar gross contribution margin, not make the highest volume sales. You would get 100% of the market if you gave the stuff away.” - Phillipe_M from WebmasterWorld

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, finance, transaction, law, editorial, getty | Print | 3 Comments »