March 9, 2010 by pmelcher.

Anyone can take a picture…that is the lesson Flickr and Microstock has recently taught us with a “pie in the face” method. It doesn’t take that much skills to create images that could use for licensing by someone else. Much less then painting, writing music, writing ( properly) or any other creative activity. Furthermore, technology has really improved the ease of access. Most images that we see today, even taken by pros, could have never existed 15 years ago because cameras, lenses and everything around it was just not that good. However, as much as photography is becoming more and more accessible, great images remain an act of creative magic. And its a talent, if not a gift.

The same goes for licensing images. Everyone claims they can sell pictures. However, it is not true. let’s take a few example, if you don’t mind. Microstock shooters. Sure they can take equivalent quality pictures as your average traditional RF/RM guy. But can they sell it ? Nope. They have to rely on the savvy tech marketing magicians of microstock sites like Istock or Dreamstime to make that happen. They could start their own microstock site with only their image, priced at even lower than any competition and yet see nothing. Ok..not convinced. Well, let’s jump into photojournalism.  We are all familiar with great images that never get published. Why? Because images do not sell themselves. It’s a tragic myth.

More and more, one can see popping up all over the internet, sites build by young geeky entrepreneur offering to let photographers sell direct and cut the “middleman” or agency. They make people beleive the age old myth “if you build it they will come”.  The more independent photographers create independent selling websites ( not the portfolio kind), the more they dilute and isolate their work.

Why do you think a lot of these database site scream high and loud how many images they contain ( 15 million, 43 million, 5 petratrillion..) ? Because they understand that the promise of a wealth of content is more important to most buyers than quality. They are looking for a solution, not a great image. Something that will fit well and appropriately in that space. They couldn’t care less if it was used before, like they couldn’t care less if their care is mass produced and others have the same model with the same color.

Think selling images in a big database is the solution ? wrong again. You can try, but there is no guarantee. Furthermore, the bigger the collection, the more chance your images have to be ignored . Great IPTC info ? Depends on what you call great: what you put in or what those guys in  Bangalore put in ? Or those so self proclaimed expert? Mmm.

So what is it ? Great marketing ? Sure…but do you know what that is ? and how to achieve it ? Probably not. If you did, you would not be reading this but instead, be enjoying a nice coktail on the porch of your summer house looking at the sunset dip into a deep blue sea.

Admit it. You don’t know. You have no idea how to sell images. It takes talent, like shooting great images. Whether learned or natural, it’s not something most photographer have. Great athletes have agents, great actor have agents, why do you think photographers don’t need any ?

Because building a searchable website with a shopping cart is easy, and cheap ? And that, with a kick-ass SEO strategy will make them millionaires? Well, let’s think of who have succeeded up to now…What? no names come to mind? However, photographers with crappy websites ( or none at all) that are doing very, very well…many.

So, next time someone comes to you with a turn key solution that promises to cut the middle man and make you truly independent, you can beleive them, because that is exactly what it will do for you. And nothing else.

Posted in Search, IPTC, license, magazine, commercial stock, technology, keyword, flickr, editorial, Royalty free, transaction, finance, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

February 1, 2010 by pmelcher.

Finally..all in one place. Micro and traditional RF have finally united in one, simple to use, website. The entity behind it ? Well, Getty Images, of course. Some were already playing with it, others were staying away from it, Getty jumped in it, two feet at a time.

No more of this ridiculous RF branding that presupposed that RF image buyers are actually faithful to brand like they would be to a car manufacturer ( oh, dear, I only buy Honda’s) . They need an image quick and easy, and that’s all. They don’t care if it was shot by Joe Boobleeboo or that guy that grossed millions of dollars last year ( ya, right).

Because the pricing is by subscription only, there is no price comparison. Thus images are downloaded based on their value to the customer, not by how much they save. Amateurs are now on the same level as super pros ( are they any left in the RF space ?) . Meta search engines like SpiderPic can stuff it as the cannot compare pricing.

Getty has finally broken a few old barriers here and fighting back against its odd competition. Shutterstock, as well as the Alamy’s and other volume based image banks must be shaking in their winter boots. There is volume her, there is extreme ease of pricing, there is very strong search capabilities and most important, there is superb ease of use. No more of this pricing on size, no more pricing based on collections (or brand), no more of different offering/different sites. All in one place.

Furthermore, once downloaded once, an image can be used over and over without any additional license fee. Thus big companies ( book publishers, corporations, small image intensive design companies) can easily create a in house database and store images until they need them again: for free.  Why need to go anywhere else? This is going to suck the air out of a lot of RF based businesses ( that was predictable) by attracting a lot of customers.

Pay once, download once, use infinite time is something that we are probably going to see expand like a wildfire through the industry for a multiple of reasons : Poor or nonexistent DRM, inefficient tracking systems, expensive legal process, especially for RF.

This new launch by Getty will certainly have a huge impact across all aspects of the RF photo sector. It will be very interesting to see who will try to compete via others means, and those that will just decide to shut down. One thing is sure, there is no turning back now.

By the way, this is the same model that they plan to roll out for editorial usage very soon. (more on that another day)

Posted in license, technology, commercial stock, Midstock, Search, Royalty free, getty, prosumer, Microstock | Print | 8 Comments »

January 18, 2010 by pmelcher.

When smart people are combined with top end technology, something magical happens. Spiderpic is such a example. Brainchild of Ginipic, who had already launch a multiple database desktop application, Spiderpic is not only an image search portal but also serves as a price comparison site.

To top it all, it is very simple to use : enter a search parameter and hit enter. You will be offered a variety of images  from different sources. Up to now, nothing really revolutionary. However, once you decide which image is right for you, you can click on it and there it will show you its price on different site. Same image, same size, all the  different prices. Thus, you can make the right choice and purchase it at the lowest licensing cost.

Of course, SpiderPic only works with microstock companies for now. but it works extremely well. The implication of such a deal are multiple. First, if widely used ( it is in Beta for now), it will drive the microstock companies into a price war that might leave many on the floor. It might also convince more users to go exclusive with one provider, as too avoid a drop in their revenue. Finally, it will put a full stop at the slowly growing cost of microstock.

Since about 90% of the microstock content is available on different competing sites, price shopping, especially with such a great application, will certainly be the new microstock sport very quickly.  The company, Spiderpic, will make its income via the referral programs of the  providers. The more usage, the richer they will get. Furthermore, since the hole process is automated, they can run it with as low as two people.

Some microstock companies might be tempted to block access to their database to hide their prices. Not a good idea if and when Spiderpic becomes popular. They might just be ignored by image buyers altogether. Others might decide to make their pricing less obvious, by having a very low call price, enhance at download time by “hidden” fees. Finally, others might require more obstinate memberships ( Shutterstock, subscriptions, etc) in order to keep their current customer base.

Regardless, this tool will put the microstock industry in a tale spin, forcing  marketing department to find other means to attract buyers than just low pricing . It will also make very difficult for  any company wishing to increase their prices to do so without loosing a lot of customers. Finally, its ironic, that the microstock industry finds itself pin down to their original appeal at time when they all thought they could slowly and discreetly increase their rate.

Regardless, this is a great tool. Now, if it could also do traditional RF and maybe one day, RM, that would be great. In the mean time, I very highly recommend you try it..and use it.

Posted in Midstock, license, technology, commercial stock, Search, keyword, Royalty free, transaction, prosumer, Microstock | Print | 4 Comments »

December 8, 2009 by pmelcher.

The other day we wrote a post about the Plus Coalition. Besides being bombarded by emails from someone who would like to remain anonymous and seeing a post on another blog defending it , there was no reaction to it. It wasn’t a big surprise. If you add those who have never heard about it to those who do not understand what it does and how it works, there is not much people left. Sure, there are the few board members, that include some crooks, who could be more vocal about it, but hey, what’s the point ? It is not going to become the standard for licensing anytime soon.

However, one can see the underlying scheme surfacing a little more. After making an exclusive deal with Picscout for image recognition without even asking for bidding from other image matching technologies, it is now encompassing, slowly, the Creative Common. After all, even free is a license, isn’t it ? And Plus will still make money, as it will still charge a fee to access images in its Registry. The question is why would someone bother to attach a license that they are offering for free, but that is another issue.

Now, the CEO of Creative Common is joining Pic scout as a consultant. The strangling triangle is now fully closed. PLUS/Picscout/CreativeCommon. Everywhere you look, you will be forced to deal with one of the three who will certainly refer one to the other. What will professional photography licensors will gain from this ? Not much besides being forced to pay to play by parasite companies.

On the same topic, I had the great surprise to see that in the video/space, Copyright infringement and rights was moving into the right direction. Probably unknown by many people, YouTube, who has been in the forefront of copyright issues, has come up with a very interesting solution. Call Audio ID or Video ID, this service allows for copyright owners to upload their content so that the automated matching system can compare any other upload to that library. The result ? If someone attempts to upload a video, or a audio linked to a video with our proper clearance, Youtube automatically blocks it. The fee ? Free. The result ? Youtube can now safely add advertising to videos without worrying about copyright issues and Copyright owners do not need to monitor Youtube all day long.

If Plus had been a little bit smarter and less greedy, they would have done the same. Instead of forcing users to do a search on a private registry to check for licenses, their database could continually scan the internet. If someone uploads an image to a site without the appropriate license, a red flag would come up. Since the Plus system does not currently handle location of usage, this is currently impossible to do. Furthermore, it would entail that Plus would not make any money, which is also an absolute no no for them. It is too bad, because with a similar system, a user who would try to upload an image for a site without the proper license would immediately and automatically prompted to contact the copyright owner. It would finally make stealing almost impossible and licensing much much easier.

The beauty of such a system is that it would NOT require a central database. Ones image database could easily work as a registry. The image would call back “home” and check for license information.

However, Plus like other registries, coming or already in place,   is just another business and another reason to suck up pennies from copyright holders. Sure, there are cost but then, why not create a subscription model instead ?

Needless to say, there is still a long way to make images more intelligent and simplify seller and buyers’ life. In the mean time we will have to cautiously navigate the treacherous waters of scammers and potion sellers.

More on Youtbe content ID here

Posted in license, copyright, Plus, technology, Search, IPTC, transaction, finance, web 2.0, law | Print | No Comments »

November 25, 2009 by pmelcher.

It’s right around the corner. Actually, you can already hear it’s footsteps. E-magazines are coming and coming fast. From Hearst Magazines preparing its own player to the formation of biggest coalition of magazine publishers, from the upcoming Apple tablet ( maybe) to the current Kindle, publication are pro actively preparing their full digital migrations. It’s not a fad but a survival issue.

Already the New York Times and the WSJ are available on the Kindle for a subscription. They will all use images. If the web traffic is any reference, photogrpahy is one main reason for traffic. So how are you going to price them ?

Will you be happy to license your image by file size ? Good luck. The digital version of these magazine will need much smaller size than print magazine, thus allowing them to feed themselves on your lower priced content.

Will you apply the pathetic rates currently applied for online usage. From $5 to $40, that will certainly not help your bottom line, unless if you want to reach it very fast.

Will you do a subscription deal a la Getty? Unlimited use for a flat fee. Good luck here too. As digital takes much less space and has a more rapid turnaround, they will have used most of your library for a miserable flat fee in less than a year.

Finally, will you continue to let them tear away all the IPTC information that you so painstakingly added to every single one of your files

So, what is the solution ? Well, for once, unlike with the web publication, you should have a strategy, and a very clear one. You should not react to people coming to you saying” It’s new, we don’t know if its going to work, we have no budget ” and let them have your pictures for a -low fee. Why ? because as it might not currently look like it now but for editorial, those E- magazine will become your main source of income in the next coming five years. And if you let them, they will put you out of business.

So, before you accept crappy prices because you think that “any sale is better than no sales” mentality or that you get lured into this “oh, but it is great publicity” trap, think about how what you agree to now  will affect you in five years

One solution is to  continue to price your images related to circulation. It is much easier to track circulation online or on a E device than on print. If they start with a low subscription, the license fee can be low. And as their circulations rises, your licensing prices should too. That is simple enough, no ? You share their effort and grow with them. Since your images are partly responsible for their growth success, its only fair.

Don’t wait for your useless trade association to help you with this as they apparently couldn’t care less. None of them have come out with any recommendation nor analysis. They just want you to pay your fees and collect sponsorship money.

Talk to each other : use Facebook, Twitter,  or the phone. Do not agree on pricing, because that is completely illegal. But agree on licensing models that make sense. Organise meetings, discuss, challenge each other. Ask your agency what they plan to do and how they plan to face this new pricing challenge. Make them think.

It would be nice, for once, to see this industry to be creative and pro active. Don’t you think ?

Posted in license, multimedia, Search, celebrity, magazine, commercial stock, technology, focus, newspaper, web 2.0, transaction, editorial, law, finance, PACA, photojournalism, CEPIC, getty | Print | No Comments »

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 23, 2009 by pmelcher.

There is more to the story than just numbers. Much, much more. And the official media ignores it. But what the photo industry is currently experiencing is much, much more than just a few layoff.

What we are seeing is the disappearance of  knowledge. Most of the photo editors being let go from magazines, newspapers, websites are those who have spent many years building the foundations of our industry withtalent. They are the ones who knew a great image from a bad one, who could spot a talented photographer from the masses of mediums ones. They are the ones who created “names” by publishing their work. They are the ones who did look at photo books,  went out to exhibits and photo festivals, no only to see and discover new talents but to personally connect with those they already knew.

Those “numbers” that  appear almost daily on the sheets of bored journalist where passionate about their jobs and about photography. They still are, they just can’t find jobs anymore. And the more the talented, the more experience, the more chances they have to be fired. Why ? Because they cost the most. When companies look to cut cost, they always go for the highest salary, which usually means for those who have the most experience. And when companies hire, they look for the cheapest, even if they have no or little knowledge.

The positions of the talented photo editors are now being handle by  Art Directors, who perceive photography as a “block” that needs to fit in a layout, or to young, inexperience professionals that are given the task of finding the cheapest art, regardless of quality.

In the case of art directors, they probably always felt that the position of photo editor should have never existed and rather be a subset of their duties. Because their title contains the word “art”, they just feel it demeaning to have to talk money with suppliers.

Other replacement of the experience photo editors are the young, entry level professionals. Raised on Flickr, microstock and Google Image, they are immediately given the task to find the cheapest photography as possible. They hardly know anyone, or anything, about photogrpahy, nor do they care. They probably spend more time on Facebook and Twitter than any photography website and feel that they could, should be doing something more important in their lives.They are being paid low salaries as to reinforce the idea that finding and picking images for a website, or a magazine is as degrading as service hamburgers at the local McDonald’s.

No wonder then that prices are dropping like dead flies.  The current and new crop of image buyers see absolutely no value in photography besides being a huge boring time waster. It is incredibly difficult to explain  photography to someone who doesn’t care. Especially when they see it as a job (in the worst way) rather than a passion.

There is not much the photo industry can do to revert this trend. We cannot convince publishers to spend more money and hire experience photo editors . They do not see the value. They do not beleive that great photography will bring more readership, thus more advertising. They are in survival mode right now, just trying to weather the storm. We cannot explain photogrpahy to young bored professionals because their passion is elsewhere and they couldn’t care less.

All that remains to do is quietly put our heads in our hands and cry.

Posted in license, magazine, technology, Search, google, editorial, photojournalism, flickr, Microstock | Print | 2 Comments »

November 18, 2009 by pmelcher.

We often hire photographers at PictureGroup for shoots all over the United States. In order to find the appropriate ones, we use a combination of tools. Our number one remains recommendations. To us, there is nothing more valuable then when an editor, or another photographer that we like and trust recommends another photographer. There is not only a certain guarantee of quality but also very important, a guarantee of professionalism and business knowledge. Because, regardless of quality, if a photographer doesn’t deliver the proper files at the right place at the right time, than it is useless. It might sound ridiculous in the XXI century but there are still many photographers who hardly know how to properly FTP images.

Regardless, our second tool for hiring photographer is the almighty web. Contrary to what many would like you to think, we try to avoid Google. Why ? Because the results are very of poor quality. The photographers that surface to the top in a Google search are not the best, the most talented or the most relevant to what you are looking for but those who have spend many hours on building a SEO. And the most talented in this are the Commercial/ Wedding photographers. They are also helped by the fact that Google will advantage them because they are the most searched for. Google has recently added most click results after a search in their ranking. Nothing against these, but they are certainly not the type we are looking for. So, based on our experience, here are the do and don’t does of a photographer if they want to be found and hired on the web.

1. No Music. I have music in my office, thank you, and I really do not need you to supply yours. It is very annoying, especially if you are trying to browse in a public place and suddenly your computer starts playing some crappy RF song. I am here to find a good photographer, not a radio station.

2. Keep the flash and slideshow at a minimum. I have nothing against flash but when a whole site is just flash based, I move on. Although I have a very fast connection, I really don’t have the time to wait for some flash animation to load. You are not the first or the last website I will visit so please help me in my job. If you slow me down, I will hate you forever. Also, thanks for the slideshows but I prefer navigating at my own pace. Some images, I would like to study more, others, I couldn’t care less. I am an adult and know how to click.

3. Make it simple. I love cool sites for what they are : Cool sites. But when I am looking to hire a photographer, I have neither the time nor the will to try and figure out riddle navigation. It is distracting and not useful. I just want to see images, not great navigation tools.

4. Portfolio : Have many for your different interests. I don’t mind if a photographer has a people, architecture and animal portfolio for example. I will look at the one that interests me and not the others. Just don’t mix everything into one.

5. List your  clients. Very, very important. That will tell me that you have done work for similar clients and it will boost my confidence in your ability to deliver by 100%.  Please don’t lie.

6. Contact info. It should not be an afterthought. Put it in a very obvious place where I can easily copy and paste it. I understand you are afraid of spammers, but I am not one. If you make it impossible for me to add your contact info into my system, I will get frustrated and that is not what you want. I don’t mind if there is a few phone numbers and one email, as long as any of those allows me to reach you immediately. All our jobs are rush and I need to know if your available or not. If I can’t reach you, I will move on.

7. Be everywhere. Don’t stop at just your website. We use Photoshelter, Sportshooter, Photoserve, Lightstalker, Blackbook, WorldAssignment and other database to find our photographers. You should too. Google is neither the beginning nor the end of a search. Be where your clients are. Most of these sites are inexpensive or free so why not post some of your best images there and linked them back to your site ? Help yourself be found.

8. Location. For us as well as many other people looking to hire you, location is one of the first search terms. With these crunch time, we , like many others, need to find a photographer in a particular city because we have no travel budget. So the city where you work must be very clearly visible . It is your second most important asset after your photography skills.

9. Bio. I like to know who I am dealing with. No, not your personal life and religious affiliations, but a short, well written bio that speaks of your photographic direction. Make it so I can feel that we have briefly met and you seem like a nice person to talk too.

10. Update it. Please, please. Don’t build a website and leave it orphan. If the latest picture on there is a bad scan from something you shot in the 80’s, however great it is, that is a complete turn off. You are only as good as your last three jobs. It can be six months old, that is fine, but not 6 years. Same goes if you have a blog. So many times I see blogs with three sparse entries a few years old. If you can’t update it than please don’t have a blog. It is not are requirement. No blog is much better than an unmaintained blog.

Hope these tips help a little. Of course not everyone looking for a photographer online will have the same requirements but these are certainly very, very common. Remember, you website should be like a seductive introduction to yourself, a bit like a speed dating exercise where you are not aloud to talk.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, technology, commercial stock, Search, google, editorial, slideshow, photojournalism, web 2.0, news | Print | 3 Comments »

October 13, 2009 by pmelcher.

While everyone is searching for what commercial stock might become in the future, the Chinese might have one solution and it is quite revolutionary. Researchers from TNList, Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University along with a Singapore based researcher, have put together Photosketcher, previously called Sketch2Photo.

The principle is quite simple : you sketch what and how your final image image  should look like and it fetches all the elements on the internet and stitches them together for a final composite image.  Better yet, here is a visual explanation :

This would be a major breakthrough for art directors all around the world. Instead of going to hundreds of stock banks trying to locate an image that remotely looks like  the one they had in mind, they could actually build it from different bits and pieces of a variety of images. Obviously, they wouldn’t even have to hire photographers for photo shoots anymore, at least for those that have common elements in them.

But, before we get there, this is a pretty nifty tool for art directors who would like to create comps to show their clients or  the photogrpahers they are about to hire  what they have in mind.

In the paper, it is unclear where in the internet the search is performed. It seems to be  everywhere, creating a huge copyright headache. Of course, some would argue that since the end result is a composite and thus a new creation, there is no copyright due. Let’s leave the arguing to Lawheads and revue the implication of this new tool.

If the search was only applied  to Creative Common content ( Flickr)  one could probably be free of any copyright issue. Furthermore, one would have the legitimate right to register the new finished product as their own and license it. Think about it. A completely computer generated image created with bits and pieces of images from various photographers would come and take its rightful place next to work from long-time pros. Wow. And some though microstock was bad. Wait until everyone can create photographs.

Currently, the end result is very average as the selection of images does not pay any attention to light orientation and shadows. However, that could easily be an additional search parameter which would allow for extremely realistic end photographs.

What would this imply for editorial photography, especially news ? Major, major trouble. On could easily put together, in any environment, two people that have never met and look very realistic. Our news imagery could suddenly be flooded with hand-made images of events that have never taken place. Would we ever trust photography ever again ?  Doubtful. Photography will have to go through rigorous credibility checking before being branded as real news.

Finally, could this Photosketcher be a hoax ? Doubtful. Finding image via sketching is already widely operational, while automated  extracting already exist ( Adobe has a great one in Photoshop Element). Stitching, as we all know, is also very common. Thus combining all these know application together is not impossible. It is actually not too hard. The whole operation must take a pretty hefty amount of processing power but then we have no information on what type of computer these students have.

This new tool, however amazing it seems to be, has many implication for the world of photogrpahy and will have far reaching repercussions. It’s acceptance and usage will be something to monitor closely for anyone involved in photogrpahy.

See a full explanation in this video:

Sketch2Photo: Internet Image Montage from Tao Chen on Vimeo.

Posted in license, Search, copyright, technology, commercial stock, prosumer, flickr, law, news, editorial, filter, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

October 9, 2009 by pmelcher.

So, as it reaches $200 million dollars a year in revenue, Istockphoto is pushing the production of stock photography to its rim. The traditionally strong categories for stock imagery, like Lifestyle, Health, Parenthood, Teens, Green, Business are all being more than very well covered by the astute production of 100,000’s very smart microstock producers. For traditional photo agencies, especially Royalty Free, continuing to produce images in these categories is pure suicide.

But there is not much space at the edges of the stock photography demand. If you are specialized in photographing snails, that is great, but lets face it, the market, even worldwide, cannot be  very big. Sure, you will still be able to command your prices but probably with clients that have little or no budget. So what is the point ?

Even almighty Getty is suffering losses within its traditional stock offering and is probably thinking to shift the whole thing to its new subscription based Jupiter Unlimited model. At least, for a business representing thousands of photographers, that would make sense. What you loose on per image sales, you win on the volume. For individual photogrpahers, it’s a complete loss.

Interestingly enough, the internet has not leveled the playing field. It is as difficult as it was 10 years ago for an image buyer to find the proper images outside of the 3 or 4 top stock photo agencies.  Volume and SEO are  two principal tools for worldwide marketing, both completely unrelated to image quality. Google Image, still being seen as the primary destination to find images is  completely counter productive for professionals as it doesn’t index IPTC ( Some still think it is  a standard) while it it privileges popularity over quality. Some tools, like the new Picscout IRC, are even helping Google Image to enhance its sad dominance over stock image licensing.

If the stock photo industry had any intelligence, it would create it own replacement for Google Image based on its  clients needs. A global image search that would read IPTC and classify images according to relevancy. That would privilege quality over popularity and volume. Sure, it would be a huge project and demand a lot of cooperation from competing businesses. Sure, it would demand cooperation rather than isolation, but the results would benefit everyone. It is probably the only solution the commercial stock industry has left until it disappears under the huge weight of  mass production.

Posted in Search, IPTC, license, Jupiter, commercial stock, technology, keyword, prosumer, getty, Royalty free, transaction, finance, CEPIC, PACA, Microstock | Print | No Comments »