June 10, 2010 by pmelcher.

It is not just soccer frenzy that has been hitting Europe these days, it is also price slashing. In perfect timing with the Cepic Congress in Dublin, DKimages, announces a full month of £30.00 ( $43.00 or € 36.00) per image regardless of size and position.

“To celebrate the tournament in South Africa all images ordered online and used on an inside page at any size will be charged at £30.00.
This offer is open to all magazine titles, trade press, newspapers, national, regional and supplements and starts now. “.. says the press release. How the reduced pricing is related to the World Cup took me hours to figure out…And I didn’t.

Since it is not related to the number of teams/countries involved ( 32), nor is it related to the number of World Cup since it’s begging ( Less than 20) , nor does it have a link to the circumference of a soccer ball ( 27-28 inches), or the number of players on a team ( 11) , or the length of a game ( 90 minutes), it can only be one thing:

Someone at DKimage got hit really hard by a soccer ball in the face and came up with this correlation : ” I know..”, he/she said, with his index finger raised to the sky…”let’s make all our images available for a crappy cheap price . And since a soccer ball is round, like the earth, let’s make that price £30 .00!!!”.

Highbrows were raised, eyes interlocked , suspicion arose, forehead were scratched, a few throats were delicately cleared, a solitary fly buzzed around. Since the ball must of hit some high executive, no one argued.

If DKimages had lots and lots of pictures of Soccer to license, this would still somewhat make sense. But they don’t. The only thing that makes sense is that they do not want to be bothered while they watch the Cup so they priced everything low and at one price so they can set their machines to automated billing and quietly resume watching the telly. “Here you go” their press release says” take all these images, use them as you want and just pay us 3o quid . We’re busy watching the games. We will be back in July”.

Regardless, why anyone keeps on thinking that the only solution to selling more images is to slash price is still a complete mystery?  It is insulting to those who just bough the same image previously for a higher price and only confirms people’s opinion that your images are worthless . Furthermore, it also shows that you decide their value with the help of your foot.

After Photoshot, DKimages seems in a desperate position and willing to do anything to grab some attention with an ill-fated promotion . They might has well give their whole collection to a microstock company and close shop. They might actually see more sales.

Flier here :

Posted in license, magazine, commercial stock, No sense, CEPIC, editorial, transaction, finance, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

May 6, 2010 by pmelcher.

There used to be a time when stock photographers used to submit images to a stock agency. Long wait. Images sold, commissions were paid and the cycle would start all over again.

Then came the arrogant Getty. With the creation of Photographer’s Choice, anyone with a little bit of talent and some extra cash could submit images. At $50.00 a pop. Pay to play. This program is still operating apparently, although it is unknown if it anyone still submits.

Today, things have change, again. Corbis-owned Veer Marketplace, the microstock arm of the Seattle based Stock Agency is paying people to submit to them. Not much. Up to $1.40 per image. In this economy, it might more than you will ever make. Since you have to submit more than 400 images to get in this higher bracket of payment, that’s a whooping $401.40 or more.

So, you are a pro RM photog, you have to pay to play. You’re a bored housewives , you get paid to submit. Make sense, right ?

There is an explanation:

Veer is trailing behind its competition, badly. While they all navigate between 500,000 to  2 Million visitors a months, Veer has a hard time breaking the 100,000 barrier. Not good for a microstock offering. Unlike RM, microstock is a popularity contest and the more traffic , the more sales.

It is not unusual for a microstock to pay contributors to submit. However, up to now, it has been limited to start ups desperately trying to jump start their  offering. Up to now, all that have done so have failed and closed not long after. In an industry segment where the margins are so tight, it is not wise to squander them in content acquisition. Actually, it is because the content is free that microstock companies are able to make a profit.

Seems the super brilliant black turtleneck  Starbukcs Latte induced management of Corbis is going all out in a desperate effort to increase volume offering in a confused assumption that a cry of quantity will attract image hungry buyers. The results : at best, doubtful.

On another note on microstock, it seems that content offering is getting so diluted due to its popularity that income per  contributor is now falling. Some are reporting as much as 10% decrease year over year, careful, this doesn’t mean that microstock is doing badly, not at all. They are probably doing very well, at least for the top 4.  However, them cheering so loudly on how contributing to microstock can make you rich quick, it has reached a point where content increases faster by number of contributors than number of images submitted per contributor.

This is diluting the average income per contributor to a point that many have hit a ceiling  that seems to go down month after month . If this trend confirms, it will have the effect of making some contributors quit altogether. Will it affect the volume of content. probably not. Althought there is no public numbers, it is however very clear that new contributors joining highly exceeds those who interrupt their submissions.

Since microstock companies live on the Long Tail principle, it will not affect them. They do not care who submits, as long as many, many people submit. So, for those who can’t sustain their last year revenue, there is only one option : submit to Corbis Veer and get paid for doing so, even if they never sell your image.

The Veer Dash for Cash program here

The Getty Photographer’s Choice here.

Posted in No sense, license, technology, commercial stock, web 2.0, prosumer, getty, corbis, transaction, finance, Microstock | 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 »

February 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

So, the big Kahouna himself, founder and CEO of the photo destroying company Getty, Mr Klein is on a visit to check on his troops in Vancouver, while they snap away at Olympic hopefuls. During his visit in Vancouver, he is snapped away by CNBC investigative team for what they call a “Power Lunch”.

While they sit down and eat nothing, the conversation immediately jumps into some of the toughest question the poor man has had to answer, like how difficult it must be to run a company that has turned private. The Klein manages to escape the potential trap by explaining that it is, O so hard to go from screaming shareholders to a lonely, but rich, sole owner. But then, in a stroke of never seen journalistic boldness, one of the journalist questions the CEO about Getty’s role in the now famous Tiger Wood image released two days before his press conference. Pap’ agencies allegedly “lost” a potential 1 million revenue because of that practically free image. Here’s what Johnathan answered:

“Over a long period of time, Getty Images has established itself as the gold standard in terms of not only the image quality, but the way we behave. As a result of that, we don’t do paparazzi images and as a result of that, we often get a called in either for a non-profit basis like we do all the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie photos entirely non-profit…We were approached and Tiger happened to know the photographer (Sam Greenwood) and has known him for a long time.”

Yes, you read it right : “we don’t do paparazzi images”. Well, let’s take a look at your website and check :

From yesterday:

Right, Getty doesn’t call that Paparazzi, they call it : Candids. Like they are just doing something quite harmless and innocent.  “me officer ? No, I am not a paparazzi, I am a candid photographer”. Do they also eat candies while taking candid pictures ?

During the same response, the Klein also notes on Getty’s such wonderful friendship with the likes of Angelina Jolie and hubby Brad Pitt. Again, let’s check on his site :

O ya. That is PR approved portrait studio in all it’s splendor, isn’t it ? I am sure Jolie is happy with that shot and the many other “candid” images of Jolie on the Getty site.

Getty, no paparazzi ? Right !! Like Corbis is making a profit. We beleive you, Mr Klein.

More of the Pulitzer prize quality interview by two top notch heavy duty CNBC reporters a this link.

While you that, I am going to take my 300 mm and find a nice bush from behind which i can hide and take beautiful Candid photography for my portfolio …

Posted in No sense, celebrity, magazine, lens, wire service, finance, corbis, news, editorial, transaction, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

February 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

      In the footsteps of the United States senate, the UK House of Lords is about to pass a law regarding Orphan Works. The UK  law is very similar to the US one, besides a few key elements. Like the US, it is unclear what defines a reasonable search and how that will be proven. Unlike the US, it does call for the creation of a registry. However, it calls for the creation of a Middle man body that will collect funds ( unspecified also) for those images first though Orphan and finally reunited with its Parent. The UK government will also take a cut, leaving to the copyright owner… well …crumbles… Not sure why all these people have to get involved and get their cut, but they will. The trade association BAPLA who has more than 400 photo agencies as members ( take that PACA ) is actively trying to change and readjust this law. Unless if you do not license images in the UK ( why not ?), this law will affect you like a pie in the face.

In the same proposition there is also an anti paparazzi part. A rule “that in effect will prohibit photography in public places where anyone who’s in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed.”. This law, of course, applies only to pro photographers, otherwise tourists would be prevented to take pictures, and that, my friends would not be good.

Not that most ever knew they were being photographed, but most of Cartier-Bresson subjects could have made his life a living hell with such a law, along with ours ( imagine a life with no CB images). Sure, everyone is tired of these hordes of photographers ( not sure if that is the right term, here) snapping a 35 mm lens in a celebrity’s face as soon as they walk out the door ( any door). Gets worse at night when it’s combine with powerful flashes. However, that provision is extreme and allows for incredible censorship. How will pros be able to take pictures of, let say, a terrorism attack? Most people will not be happy to be photographed in such an event.

In a time where rates are dropping, where photographers are begging for a Messiah, the UK Gov finds comfort in adding a couple of very strong nails in the coffin. The interesting part is that , once passed, these laws will affect you, in whatever country you are. Wether because your images could be used for free ( or pennies) or because your government will takes these legislation as a good example to implement in their territory. America, you have a sleeping ( not for long) Orphan Works legislation in the corridors of power. You might also get a similar anti pap law that will affect everyone. Should you look for help in tour favorite trade organization ? Be my guest. You should.

To learn more, please read this very good article.

Posted in license, celebrity, commercial stock, No sense, photojournalism, editorial, transaction, PACA, news | Print | No Comments »

February 7, 2010 by pmelcher.

What happens when photographers cannot sell images anymore ? What do they do if magazines do not pay for their coverage? Well, they turn around and start selling to other photographers. Not images, but workshops.

There seem to be a craze of photogrpahy workshops going around. Established or completely  unknown photographers are launching into  what seems to be a lucrative market : Teaching others how to take pictures. The irony is that, by helping others mastering their cameras, they add to the already very saturated market. There has been nature workshops, documentary workshops, studio, lighting, macro, micro, flowers, shoes, you name it workshops. Now, in what seems a desperate move, here comes the real reality workshops.

First is the Covering Conflict workshop . Handled by some of the top war photographers around, this photogrpahy workshop will put you in a real war situation with people shooting at each other ( no, not real bullets) so you can feel comfortable next time you are parachuted in a war zone. Eric Bouvet, Philip Horvat, Jason Howe, Wade Goodard will meet you in Bosnia to help you cover the city of  Dubrovnik and what is left of the battle field. Then, “You will be asked to photograph a simulated conflict of two opposing armed groups. Approximately 20 men, many former soldiers and defenders of the region, dressed in uniform, armed with Air Soft weapons (these weapons look like really firearms - M16s and AK 47s but fire small plastic pallets). Though they cannot cause you any harm, they do hurt a little if hit at close range. This will give you the sense danger that exists in a real theatre of war.”

For 990 Euros, including food and lodging, you get as close to a conflict than anyone might ever come. Will it be useful, doubtful. However, you get to spend a few days with some of the best conflict photographers in the world, and that alone, is worth it. More info here : Covering Conflict

On another side, is photographer Zoriah workshop : “I have decided to offer a special small group workshop in Haiti focused on photographing the aftermath of the earthquake.  Subjects covered will be working in disaster zones and other difficult and dangerous situations, survival and logistics in difficult environments, photograph people, working with NGO’s (Non Governmental Organizations) and aid organizations, editing and digital darkroom technique and marketing and making your stories available for the world to see. 

For $4000.00 you get to cover the aftermath of Haiti . Like a Safari. Learn how to shoot real people fighting for food and survival. Photograph NGO’s as they try to save the most lives as possible with minimum help . Finally, learn how to distance yourself from the whole thing and pretend this is just a classroom exercise.You will certainly come out with a clean portfolio that will amaze your friends and neighbors.

To Zoriah’s credit : ” 50% of the money raised from this workshop will go to my friends at Hospice Saint Joseph, which was completely destroyed in the quake”

But still, is this appropriate ? Use the devastation and suffering of the Haitian people as a backdrop for a photogrpahy workshop? Isn’t this a tad cynical and tasteless ? It is understandable that a photo journalist has to distance himself from his subjects, but isn’t this too far ? Finally, why teach a job that you have just left because there was no money in it ?

You can sign up and get more information for this Haiti Workshop here :

Photojournalism Workshops - Haiti Earthquake Intimate Group

Posted in license, magazine, No sense, photojournalism, editorial, finance, news | Print | 2 Comments »

January 28, 2010 by pmelcher.

Must be something in the air… First, there is the mighty Getty, the company  that has invented photography according to it’s CEO, who launched a new interface. Users can now select what country they are from so they can get a more customized offering.  Here is how it looks:

That looks great, right? Except, they forgot the USA. Which is their biggest market . Man, those meetings must be fun.

Than, there is the always funny Corbis. In an interview for the BJP, a highly place executive try to explain the recent Veer  realignment from high end RM to microstock. Never mind this fits perfectly in Corbis’ history of destroying the brands they acquire, he says : ” To make that happen, he explains, Veer will ‘remove rights-managed images from the site when we launch the new offering.’ However, Nerland tells BJP that the images will continue to be sold on the Corbis website, which is targeted at ‘more traditional and sophisticated customers.”

“sophisticated customers” ? Does that mean Microstock customers are trash ? a bunch of trailer park hoodlums with greasy fingers ? Do they smell bad too ?

The same person proceeds to intelligently explain: “Nerland assures BJP that overall prices for royalty-free images will not go down as a result. However, he adds, ‘some images might migrate down in terms of price point, especially for content that we own.’”

Aaah, that makes sense: price images according to who owns it instead of their quality. Sure. So if they acquire Cartier-Bresson collection tomorrow, that would be cheaper than images of that schmuck over there who loves to shoot businessmen shaking hands. Brilliant !

Told you. Must be something in the air. The Corpocrates are loosing it.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, No sense, finance, getty, corbis, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

January 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

We are going to see a lot of desperate moves this year, in the photo industry. In an attempt to stay afloat in a depressed market, photographers, as well as photo agencies , will resolves to off the chart, crying for help, strategies. There has been many examples already, like the name your own price to pennies a pictures, none succeeding in making anyone rich or succesful. RF is already plagued with so many discounts and “special offering” that last all year that it is now almost impossible to purchase them at full price anymore, even if you wanted too.

In the footsteps of Getty Images, other smaller agencies beleive that the subscription model is the way to go. Enter Photoshot ( at least in Germany) . Owners of such collection as : NHPA, Bruce Coleman, UPPA, Woodfall Wild, Oceans Image, World Pictures, Photos Horticultural, StarStock, Talking Sport, World Illustrated, Photoshot Archive and Photoshot Creative, it is now offering…are you sitting down ?  Unlimited use of Photoshot’s rights managed images for 3 months for a flat monthly fee of only Euro 400 per month.

Right : for $400 Euros, you can use as many images as you want, for editorial use ( and some advertising) for three months. The license for these images , actually last for a year, if you read the fine print. So, for what used to be the price for a full page in a magazine, for a week, you can now publish 3 months of the same magazine.

The thought is probably that you will like the images soooo much that once the subscription is over, you will continue to purchase images from Photoshot at full price and make them unbelievably wealthy. Here is the reality. Why would anyone in there right mind go back to purchasing the same images for a regular price, when you got them for practically free. The exact same images.  Also, how is a three months subscription helpful to anyone besides a company that does not intend to use images after three months. Finally, if some of theses collections are commission-based, it will be a nightmare to track and pay those photographers.

The real issue here is that, even for non subscribers, you have devalued your collection so much that no one can take you seriously when you then ask for regular prices. How do you explain why an image that use to cost pennies before, suddenly goes back to hundreds, if not thousand of dollars ? if it is cheap trash, then it should remain so.

Of course, this company is not the only one, nor the first one, to turn to irrational pricing in order to save its bank account and keep creditors at bay. But, like the others, they just damage the market for the rest of us that have not lost our minds. As we once said, the photo industry is like driving a car, if you don’t know what you are doing, you are a danger to the rest of us.

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, No sense, finance, getty, editorial, transaction, Royalty free | Print | 1 Comment »

November 24, 2009 by pmelcher.

For those who still think that Google Images is a great tool to find images and that it is somewhat the savior photography, I suggest they perform a simple search for “Michelle Obama“, the first lady of the United States, and apply a “face” filter.

This is what you get on the first page:

regardless of your political opinions, this is a revolting and pathetic search result for images. When confronted about this, Google hides behind its sanctified algorithms and claim innocence.  I am the first to praise the ability for technology to make our lives easier. However, technology without morality is violently dangerous and destructive for any society.

Freedom of speech, sure, as long as it doesn’t become freedom of insult. Robots, bots, algorithm to find the right images, sure, as long as the results are pertinent to the search. This is a good example of a world without photo editors. This is your images on Google.

UPDATE : Google refuses to acknowledge failure of it search algorithm. In an article published in the Los Angeles Times today, Google Inc. spokesman Scott Rubin said  :”It’s offensive to many people, but that alone is not a reason to remove it from our search index. We have, in general, a bias toward free speech.”.

While it is commendable for Google to support free speech, this is not the reason people are upset. The issue here is how an obviously inappropriate image of the first lady of America ends up on as the top result on a search for her name.  This is a complete failure of their search algorithm. Obviously, someone typing “Michelle Obama” and using the “Face only” filter is looking for a head shot of her, not a cruelly photo shopped image. If this type of result was offered on professional image licensing platform, like Getty, Vorbis or Alamy, clients would never come back.

Google, of course, cannot admit publicly that his search algorithm is a failure. That would send it’s stock price in the abyss as it is the core of their business. May this be a warning for those who still see Google and its image search as the perfect tool for photography.

Update 2:  Here is Google version of free speech ( apparently, its all relative) :

Posted in Search, celebrity, technology, No sense, keyword, photoshop, filter, google, news | Print | No Comments »

November 14, 2009 by pmelcher.

Is creativity limitless? Can we go on and on creating new pictures that have never been seen or are we going to reach a point where we will start going into circles and re-shooting the same things over and over again? Is there a point where nothing will be new ?

Creativity is the lifeblood of commercial stock, whether micro, RF or RM. Without it, rates would plunge and photography would finally become a commodity, if not completely free. We have always taken for granted  that creativity was unlimited and that we would always be able to create new and original content. But what if its not. What if it is like oil, a limited resource and exactly like oil, we are starting to see the beginning of its end.

It is not by accident that many times, on this blog, photography has been compared to oil. Like it, Photography is a raw material that is only introduce to the mass market as a finished product ready to be consumed: A framed print, in a magazine, on a website, on a billboard. Never as is. Like oil, it is extracted. Not from the grown, but from the reality surrounding us. And like oil, the volume of its production can affect its pricing negatively. Even Mark Getty famously said, referring to photography :  ” Intellectual property is the oil of the XXI st century” . Thus it came with little surprise when stumbled on this chart :

Created and published by Overthink IT, it  matches the Rolling Stone Magazine 500 best songs list and when they where released with the world production of crude oil . Interesting, isn’t it? For multiple reasons.

Lets pass on whether Rolling Stones Best song list is actually the best songs. We all have our opinions on that. Rather, lets focus on when they were released and how they seem to perfectly match the extraction of crude oil. We could debate ad nauseum why the two graphs match so perfectly, from the increase production of Vinyl records to pollution affecting our R&R perception.

What is interesting here, is the appearance of a decline of creativity production indicating a possible drying out, exactly like oil. Like Oil, it is immediately consumed and has a rather short lifespan. Like Oil, creativity needs to reach farther, deeper, and in more expensive grounds to sustain. Like oil, this could be a tragedy.

What is causing this decline ? In stock photography, the  sheer volume of cheaper cameras associated with the extreme facility for copying is certainly a huge factor. Furthermore, the limited amount of topic covered by commercial stock is also a factor: Business, medicine, lifestyle, etc..it’s always the same concept that need imagery and hardly if none new ones appear. Finally, it just could be associated with it’s inherent inability to creating a self sustaining value

Is commercial stock photogrpahy headed the same way is non renewable energies ? quite very possibly.

Posted in license, commercial stock, No sense, getty, Royalty free, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »