September 25, 2011 by pmelcher.

The real story behind the evolution of photography is its pauperization.

In its early days, photography was for the wealthy and educated. The equipment needed was expensive and the skills involved needed formal education. Furthermore, the financial risks involved in being a photographer - variable income- meant you had to have some other resources.

Even if they weren’t rich themselves, they were rich kids. And for a long time, it remained unchanged. Until rather recently when colliding advancement in technology - all pretty much unrelated to photography- open the door to lesser financially fortunate people from around the world.

- The internet, at first, made all the connections possible. It took a while to grow, mostly due to the cost of computers and connections but now, almost anywhere in the world, it’s dirt cheap.

- The dropping cost of memory, making it much cheaper to shoot digital then film.

- The cheap accessibility to market. What photo sharing companies like Flickr did, unintentionally, is connect buyers with new sellers.

-The incredibly low learning curve. No need to know anything about photography to be able to take amazing images these days: Instagram will do it for you.

Finally, automated translation has practically eliminated language barriers all over the world.

The result ? First in developed countries and then very quickly in less developed countries, more and more individuals took to their cameras as a new or additional source of income. Most pushed by a desperate need to generate income rather than an urge to express any artistic impulse. Because of their already low level of income, any revenue is good revenue. Clearly visible in microstock ( the extreme majority of participants are from emerging countries with low per capita) it is now spreading to non commercial stock areas of photography like news. They will happily accept any payment regardless if it is a fair price or not. Some publishers and photo agencies have realized the saving potential and have blissfully tap into this cheaper market.

Obviously, photographers living in developed countries, like the Western Hemisphere, have to face much high cost of living and cannot compete. Thus, they have to retreat in areas not available to rest of the world. For example, a US sport photographer can still command higher fees since his coverage cannot be done from another country. However, he is slowly being pressured downward by his local peers who have been pushed out of their market by cheaper competition.

The barriers of entry have fallen at such level that almost anyone can now pretend to be a photographer. With rising unemployment worldwide, more are stepping in the hope to generate some income, pushing aside established professional. Since in a depressed economy like ours the key differentiator is money, it’s the cheapest that wins the day.

In order for the situation to change, a few things would need to happen. First, obviously, the worldwide economy has to pick up, eliminating those who are necessity photographers by integrating them into other full time jobs. A more advanced type of photography should emerge, necessitating advanced skills to perform. Finally, a disassociation of the means of communication, wether technological or cultural. None seem likely to happen soon.

Posted in license, web 2.0, technology, commercial stock, Good Enough, Social Media, prosumer, flickr, news, Royalty free, editorial, transaction, photojournalism, finance, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

September 7, 2011 by pmelcher.

“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

Posted in magazine, celebrity, license, multimedia, Plus, technology, Corpocrates, Good Enough, Waste of time, Social Media, Search, No sense, finance, transaction, editorial, news, wire service, photojournalism, keyword, web 2.0, prosumer, getty | Print | No Comments »

August 2, 2011 by pmelcher.

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

Posted in license, commercial stock, Social Media, Corpocrates, Search, prosumer, Royalty free, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

July 10, 2011 by pmelcher.

Let’s face it, you are waging a losing battle. In fact, it’s not even a battle because one side has won already. Every time you sign up for a social network, be it Facebook, Twitter or Google +, you are faced with TOS ( Terms of Service) that are pure rights grabbing, making it a very dangerous proposition for you to share your images. Yet, everyone tells you that the only path to success is to have your images on these sites.

So, here are three core facts that you need to know about Social Networks:

- There is still no such thing as a free lunch. If someone offers you something for free, it is only because they get some kind of benefit out of it. You can be sure they will find a way to monetize your images.

- If you use a service for free, you become the product : what do you think Facebook, Twitter or Google + sell ? You. Your interaction on their sites is what they in turn sell to advertisers. That includes your pictures.

- They need the legal right to share your images. In order to show the images you post on their site to your friends and family, they need the legal right to do so. Since there is no way for them to know who are your friends, family or others ( nor do they care) , they make you agree to a blanket agreement stating that they can share them with everyone.

So, if you think you can sign up for a social network site that will protect your intellectual property, you are sticking your big left toe in your eye. It is just not and never going to happen. The answer ? Deal with it.

Accept the fact that if you post your images on a social network site, there is a 110 % chance that you could loose complete control of that image. Play along . If you post pictures of your 3 years old nephew at your cousin’s barbeque party, you have not much to worry about. Besides a few polite likes from your relatives, not much will happen to that image and it will soon be forgotten along with the other 10 million images uploaded to Facebook in a month. However, if you post the only image of a plane crash landing on the Hudson river, well, get ready for it to be grabbed and spread around.

Here is the irony. Photographers or photo agencies will post their images on social network sites in order for them to be seen, appreciated and dare we say it, shared ( ouch). Isn’t it the intended purpose of posting these images that they will end up in front of the eyes of a wealthy photo editor who will either purchase it or hire you ? And since you do not know him yet, the only path is via friends of friends re-posting it ? Should they all ask you for permission and pay you a license fee every time they do ? In other words, you give them something to share but you don’t want them to share.

Well then, quite a paradox . Ownership of an image doesn’t lie solely in managing its usage. It is also embedded in it. If you have a style, a talent, a point of view and an identity, your image will always speak your name, credit or no credit. Better yet, people who see your images will want to track you down in order to find out who is the talent behind those photograph. If they don’t, well, that’s because you failed as a photographer.

So what should you do with all these rights grabbing, soulless TOS that you keep on facing every day? Adapt.

They are not going to change because they are at the core of how these social networks make money. Not so much by licensing your images, obviously ( everyone knows there is no money there), but by using them to grow their network and thus selling more people to advertisers. And for that, they need the right to do what they damn well like with your images. Forever.

Keep that in mind next time you post images on any of these sites ( and others).  Your choices :

- Do not upload images

- Watermark your images

- Upload only images you are ready to give away

Either way, stop bitching and moaning about a new TOS like there was anything you could do about it. Although it might feel like it sometimes, it is not your platform, it’s theirs. They will do whatever they think is appropriate to generate revenue from it . They don’t owe you anything, you do.

So stop wasting your energy and time . Get back on your saddle and figure out  how you too can benefit from their services intelligently without loosing your pants and shoes ( and your sanity). Eventually the ecosystem will find a balance.

Posted in technology, Tweet, Social Media, Waste of time, digg, license, flickr, prosumer, web 2.0, transaction | Print | 1 Comment »

May 27, 2011 by pmelcher.

With $1.2 million dollars of fresh investment, a new company enters the world of photography monetization.  Called Fotomoto, it allows,  with a  simple javascript installation to transform any existing photographers websites into an e commerce site. Visitors will quickly be able to purchase your images for framing or other usages.

The great part of it is that it is free to use and install. A simple javascript and your done. Fotomoto gets a cut on your sales, if you sell an image. Simple enough.

However, the consequences are disturbing. First, their is an option to download. For a fee obviously and for personal use.

One, some buyers might not abide by the rules

two, some photographer might use this to price their images at micro stock prices for RF usage .

The result, even more confusion on the marketplace, where already pricing is all over the place ( towards the low end, mostly). Sure, allowing photographers to sell their work directly and easily is a great idea. However, opening the floodgates of free for all pricing, maybe not.

Since individual photographers will make a few sales from their respective sites, the big winner here will be Fotomoto who will accumulate all the sales done with this tool . Using a now well known economical practice called the long tail, they could generate millions in revenue while the photographers themselves will have to continue to do most of the work : shooting, editing, marketing.

It will be interesting to see how well this model is adopted and how it might effect companies like LicenseStream or even Photoshelter. Obviously, some investors seem to think it will succeed. This also confirms that the walls of traditional photo licensing are falling ( microstock being the first and strongest blow), leaving non-innovative  photo agencies in a dangerous position.

For now, you can learn more here :

and visit their website.

Posted in copyright, technology, commercial stock, license, prosumer, transaction, finance, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

February 19, 2011 by pmelcher.

As the business world seems to be moving more and more towards subscription/ sharing model, why doesn’t the photogrpahy world ? Already very much applied by photo agencies that offer monthly/ yearly packages that provide, for a flat fee a limited amount of images, independent photographers could jump on the bandwagon too.

Here is how it would work. A photographer would decide how much he would need to live for a year. He would then sale shares of his time to numerous clients that would need him throughout the year. Once hired by enough clients, the “share” would be closed. Then clients would book him when need, using an online calendar, a bit like Zipcar.

In order to make this work, he would have to not think in terms of jobs but in terms of yearly revenue. So he might loose money on some jobs but make some on other. Everything would level out to make a nice profit. The client would be happy, since they would be able to manage their photo budget on a yearly basis instead of per jobs.

Let’s take a wedding photographer, for example. Right now, they run a hit and run operation: They try to get the most money out of a client they will see once and move on.

Under our model, our wedding photographer would not only offer wedding pictures, but baby pictures, family pictures and so on. He would get hired for a certain fee for 5 years. During that time, he would be on call to shoot whatever the couple would need. In exchange, he would get a steady revenue . It would coat the couple much less money up front to cover the wedding while guaranteeing the photographer steady work and income for the next five years.

Multiply this by 50 clients and a photographer could live comfortably and stress free. Because of the revolving pool of clients, high and lows in revenue would be minimize.

The same could be done for a corporate shooter. Replace the couple client by companies and there you go.

Obviously, you would need some incentive for the clients to sign up for the share/subscription model. Free unlimited online storage of images or 100 free prints a year ? The options are wide open.

More and more individuals seem to be comfortable with the subscription/ share model . From Netflix to Pandora, from Zipcar to Cell phone plans, it is all about simplifying billing and avoiding one time high costs. It just fits better with how they are being paid.

It will be interesting to see if this model takes root in the photography community and develops into an industry standard.

Posted in web 2.0, license, Social Media, prosumer, photojournalism, transaction, finance, editorial | Print | 2 Comments »

January 13, 2011 by pmelcher.

Strangely enough, the future of photography is in curation. With the onslaught of images invading the web in an ever growing pace, the task of finding the right image is becoming more and more arduous.

Strangely, because it is mostly in the editing department that companies are making cuts (pun intended) . The recent trend has been to let go of talented photo editors and curators, in favor of poorly designed algorithms , crowd-controlled selections or freshly out-of-internship semi-volunteers.

One would think that for website boasting millions of images, the ability to get to the right one would be a priority. But, because of the sheer volume, it has become  almost impossible to  have it done by human. While sites like Flick ( billions of images) rely on a sophisticated secret sauce of “rules” that allow certain images to bubble up, others, like microstock companies, rely on penny paid armies of humans spread out across the world. Still, the results is overwhelming.

For now, the burden is on the searchers. They are now the curators forced to push their way past irrelevant images to find the right one. It can be paralyzing .

Thus, the next step is to deliver the right image to the right person without them having  to cut through pages and pages of sub par or irrelevant images.Because the volumes have become inhuman, the solutions offered are also inhuman : Each company are intensively trying to develop their own Google like algorithm  that will  magically extract the correct result. Is it working ? no. will it work, maybe.  None, however, has thought to hire professional photo editors that could create a highly edited collection of perfectly selected images : The best of breed.

However, that would solve a lot of problems. Sure, there would be less choice. However, there would be much, much better results. See, the “Long Tail’ theory has polluted the photo industry in making people think that the more you offer, the more chance you have to be successful. A bit as if your local supermarket decided to carry everything ever made. Sure it could be appealing but could you imagine the size? Even Walmart decides what to carry and what not to carry.

Algorithms can not only be beaten, ( Google is constantly changing theirs) but they tend to create averages. Actually, they look for conformity. Thus promoting more of the same .Crowd sourcing ? well, that is also a source of average conformity. Crowd photo editing site like Fotopedia or Acquine  are a good example of the results you get :  Middle of the road images that everybody likes or that no one hates. Not really the curation that is so badly needed.

In order to different itself from the masses of camera crazy photo enthusiast, the photo industry needs to stop trying to compete with Flickr and its offering and start heavily editing its content for perfect results. It needs to reach out to those incredibly knowledgeable photo editors that the publishing industry has dropped and tell them to work their magic.

The future of photography business lies in its ability to continue to be a medium of excellence . For that, it needs to shed its goodenough branches in favor of its prettiest blossoms .

Posted in magazine, license, technology, commercial stock, Good Enough, Social Media, Search, web 2.0, editorial, Royalty free, photojournalism, flickr, prosumer, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

January 6, 2011 by pmelcher.

Right on the heels of the decision made by Judge William H. Pauley of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York in the Morel VS AFP case ( read all about here ) , things are heating up. According to a press release published by photoarchivenews , news photo agency WENN has made a deal with photo sharing site, PIXLI.

Hold on tight here as things could get complicated. According the succinct press release : “Celebrity photo agency WENN has announced an exclusive worldwide arrangement with the social photo sharing service PLIXI, to represent images posted by celebrities through their platform to Twitter and other social networks.”

PLIXI ( ex Tweetphoto) is a TWITPIC wannabee.  That is, anyone that would like to post an image to TWITTER would have to upload it here before, as Twitter does not host images. There are many sites like these ( yfrog, twitgoo, mobypicture, or img.ly). As per their site, PLIXI is also a member of Celebuzz, a division of BUZZMEDIA ENTERTAINMENT, a deal recently sealed ( November 2010). BUZZMEDIA is in the business of Celebrity news blogs and properties ( more info here).

Still with me here? you can take a break if you would like. I’ll wait.

Ok, what is important to retain here is that they are all in the celebrity news business with a heavy  penchant for photography. Except PLIXI, who happens to host a few celebrity Twitter photo accounts.

So, if you are a celebrity and you or someone uploads an image on your account, WENN becomes de facto the exclusive worldwide licensor of those images.  As the PLIXI Terms of Service specify :

With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Plixi, the license (with the right to sublicense) to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content, whether on the Service, or through other media. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Plixi removes such Content from the Service; provided, however, that if Plixi distributes or authorizes distribution of any Content prior to your removal thereof from the Service, Plixi’s (and it’s sublicenses’) rights with respect to such Content shall be in perpetuity.

Yes, in perpetuity, even if you don’t like it.

There is no mention of compensation to the photographer or celebrity. However, you can be sure that Plixi will certainly retain a part of the WENN obtain license fee.

It’s a smart move for both companies. WENN secures itself intimate photo feeds of celebrities while PLIXI generates revenue and publicity. The question is whether the celebrities will continue to use the service knowing  this. It will also be interesting to see if AFP or Getty makes the same deal with TWITPIC after the Morel fiasco, enabling them to legally license images from anyone.

The irony is that Twitter, the company that makes all this possible, does not see a penny.

Ok, you can go outside now and breath.

Posted in magazine, celebrity, technology, Tweet, Social Media, copyright, license, transaction, editorial, finance, prosumer, web 2.0, getty | Print | 2 Comments »

December 31, 2010 by pmelcher.

Feel small ?

From Gerald Holubowicz  Ebook : Sortir du Cadre (Think Wider) – Future of photojournalism.

(* for 2010)

Posted in magazine, license, technology, commercial stock, Social Media, web 2.0, prosumer, getty, corbis, editorial, flickr, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

October 14, 2010 by pmelcher.

“You want to save it, you should niche it”. From old timers stock gurus to young green microstock expert, they all tell the same tale of potential success : dig yourself into a deep hole where no one else can reach you and stay there. Shoot stuff no one else shoots and bark if they approach. If you can, trademark your subject so no one else can do it.

It’s not about being successful as a photographer anymore, it’s about protecting your turf, like a suburban owner protects his patch of lawn from his neighbors. It’s the typical bourgeois mentality. In face of adversity, retreat and protect. Would you like a pair of well trained Doberman with that ?

Problem is, you do not own your subject. You do not own your clients . You do not own anything ( well, besides your equipment). So there is nothing to protect.

In Microstock, more than anywhere else, clients belong exclusively to the platforms. Contributors have no clue who they are selling to, or why.  In more traditional markets, sales report still carry some information on the licensor. However that is diminishing too. So, tell me, if you do not know who your clients are, what your market is, how can you niche yourself ?

By trial and error ? Sure. Another problem, is that, mostly in microstock, it is very easy to see what works. Makes that niche even more so attractive to others. Quickly.

The commercial stock market has decided to walk on its head. It used to be that photographers would shoot what they loved and sell that. Some, very, very well. That worked well, especially since no one had really any clue what the other was shooting, except by seeing what was being published. Now, everybody can see everybody else’s body of work, especially the vast quantity of what never gets sold. So, instead of shooting what they love, they shoot what has not been shot. They search for a niche, like miner search for a vein.

Let’s say you find a niche. Then what ? How do you find your clients? Since you are the only one with these images, they will find you ? Is that the thinking ? The “field of dreams” marketing strategy ?

Images don’t market themselves ( at least, not yet) . Those images you see going viral are the exception, not the rule. They are billion of images just on Flickr and you think your images will stand out ? because they are rare ? Did you ever think, for one second, that they are rare because no one cares ?

Once you start leaving the crowded marketplace you certainly find less competition but also less clients. And that is what this whole “find a niche” counsel is all about : If you can’t sell what you have it’s because of the competition thus if you eliminate the competition by going where they are  not, you will be successful . It’s not by moving away miles away from Wal-Mart that you will beat them.

Here’s a niche you should try : talent. Shoot everything that everyone else shoots : with talent. No one can copy talent. You will be own out there, because clients will request your images, and no one else’s, regardless of what you shoot.

Leave the niches to those who like living in caves. Your specialty should be how you approach your subject, not your subjects.

Posted in license, commercial stock, Waste of time, Search, prosumer, Royalty free, flickr, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »