January 25, 2012 by pmelcher.

Just like the music industry, with which it shares many similarities, the photo licensing world is ripe to be iTuned.

The industry landscape is dispersed and confused. None of the photo licensing companies know what to do. From the Getty images to the small mom and pops that have been around for 5,000 years ( it seems) , everyone is playing the wait and see game. Some try various solutions in the hopes it will lead to a new golden age but none innovate.

Furthermore, even with the Getty/ Corbis consolidations, it is still a very disparate world with deep resentments and personal conflicts. From one company to the other, there is suspicion, continuous poaching, and overall despise.

• Illegal copying is rampant. Copyright images are being stolen at a rate never experienced before. As much as 85% of images used on the internet are done so without permission. While bigger companies have seen this as an opportunity for new revenue by throwing crowds of lawyers on the issue, most are just bleeding files like the worst days of Napster. It is not going away. Even as the marketplace gets more educated, there is little or no incentives, or risks, not to continue. While some technology have tried to alleviate the issue, it is getting worse, not better.

• People are lazy. They like simple because it is easy, not because it is simple. They want to be able to find images quickly and use them immediately. While Royalty Free and more recently microstock have greatly facilitated the image purchasing process, their content is too generic to satisfy the increasing demanding need for personalization.

• RM is too complicated. And obsolete. With its complicated rules, it is a deterrent. For users to find the price of an image based on at least 6 different variables ( territory, circulation, placement, length, language and type of publication) is a nightmarish headache. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense to an uneducated market. It makes those who can afford more, pay more. For the same image, a successful publication will pay more than the poor, just because they have been successful in bringing in traffic. Not specially fair. Furthermore, a fee based on final usage doesn’t make sense: It is a bit as if at the check out of a supermarket, they would ask you what you plan to do with those raw potatoes before charging you accordingly. Finally, It is also out of tune with the current market conditions that demand the possibility of using the same image for the same purpose on different support.

• Exclusivity is dead. Well, almost. Withe the huge amount of images available, the risk of using the same image as your competitor is nullified. Still, if absolute exclusivity is a requirement, assignment photography is now cheap enough, especially with all the unemployed photographers on the market. Furthermore, unless if you are a huge brand, in which case you will not use stock photography, having the same exact image does not seem to matter much.

• The market is expending. While some companies have done a great job at controlling the traditional sales channel, they cannot control the incessant increase of new customers, especially online. New blogs, brands, businesses appear everyday with photography needs and with no idea where to purchase images.

• Trained Photo editors are disappearing. While purchasing photography was the responsibility of a few very well educated professionals, it is no longer the case. As the old timers are being laid off, they are being replaced by younger, uneducated people who purchase images among many other duties. They don’t know, nor do they care and are asked to purchase based on price.

• Photography is begging to be free. Just like news on the internet is begging to be free. Taking photograph has become such an easy process that no one believes they should pay to use one. With billions of easily available images online, it has all the aspect of an endless commodity. Barriers between professionals and amateurs have been blown away and even high end commercial sites like CNN.com are more and more relying on free crowd sourced images. If CNN doesn’t pay for images, why should anyone else ?

In other words, professionally licensed photography is breaking from all direction. A bit like the music industry was before a tech company ( Apple) took over the distribution.

Since photography and the internet is a marriage made in heaven, there no shortage of very smart, tech savvy entrepreneur ready to spend the funds of a smart VC . The challenge ?

Replace the antiquated, print based licensing model by an effective, flexible process. A platform a la iTune.

Not that replicating iTune for photography would work. Countless of RF or Microstock aggregators have come and gone leaving no trace of success behind them.

The iTune for photography will come from somewhere else, from a tech company that will approach the photo licensing industry from a consumer end. Not from what licensors want but from what consumers need. They will make it simple, easy and cost effective to purchase images and use them, wether it comes from Getty Images or your cousin Fred. The solution, using technology wisely, will be so obvious that it will sweep the photo industry of it’s already febrile grounds and make impossible to live outside of it.

Posted in license, Search, Cnn, technology, commercial stock, web 2.0, finance, getty, Royalty free, corbis, news, editorial, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 7, 2011 by pmelcher.

Finally a smart exact match image finder with accurate results. Current image match operators use a lazy approach to find similar images. They scan the images and look for exact replica patterns in other images, regardless of content. The result is that they sometimes , or very often, get fooled by exact patterns that have nothing to do with the original image . Sometimes we are left to wonder.
This project from Carnegie Mellon University  uses a more human approach. It first compares the image with a pool of images that have nothing to do with the original. The reason ? To find out what is different thus notable. It then takes that information and proceeds with the match search. So, not only it searches for exact patterns, it also keeps on track by making sure that the notable element(s) of the image are included, discarding others.
The result is a much more efficient result, matching more precisely what a human would be looking for.
See video here:

The issue with image search on the internet is, however, not solved. With millions of images being uploaded everyday, with billions of websites changing their content daily, it is currently impossible to index and search all images. Sites like Tineye, although claiming 2 billion images indexed is still only indexing a nugget of the image universe. Not even  mighty Google can keep up.
Thus, this technology is certainly a step in the right direction and could work wonders in a closed image database but it still will not find all the images out there.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, idee, Search, google, editorial | 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 8, 2011 by pmelcher.

It is because we compare that we are able to judge. A photograph is nothing more than a tool for comparison. When someone looks at a photograph, he compares the content with his real world information. If there is a match, many things happen : for example, the person will automatically add the colors if the image is in black and white. He will also add sounds and smells if the scene and objects are familiar. Finally, the viewer will add a context to make sense of the content. However, there is so much that we can add to make a photograph more familiar. That discrepancy between what is seen and what is already known is exactly what the talented photographer is looking for. The subtle balance between what you know and what is new. He creates a bridges between your personal living experience and that of an unknown person by forcing you to fill in some elements and discovering the others. If an image is too familiar, it quickly becomes boring; If it is too foreign, it has no interest : great photography exists right in between.

Posted in Social Media, focus, Search, editorial | Print | No Comments »

June 15, 2011 by pmelcher.

It was bound to happen. Like clockwork, Google has released its Tineye killer :

Google’s version is much better as it also offers exact match with size option, similars, and of course any context relevant to the imageSince Google has a million time more resources than Idee, the company behind Tineye, it is obvious who will will. The question becomes what will Idee do with the billions of images it has already indexed ?

More on this info and Tineye reaction ( or lack of) : The Financial Post

Posted in technology, idee, Search, google | Print | No Comments »

May 3, 2011 by pmelcher.

Up to now, images would only give you remote information in a passive way. More than often, they illustrate an accompanying article, with no more duty than to confirm what you are reading. As much as the photographer or publisher tried, it was a view and forget operation. No so anymore.

Thanks to new technology, the image has grown to becoming more intelligent, by permitting its viewers to dig deeper into it’s content. It is also now able to call home and inform on how it is being interpreted.

Thanks to a company called Stipple, photographs acquire a new dimension, an interactive layer, that finally allows viewers to communicate with them. Thanks to a mouse over generated interactive layer, small dots appear on specific parts of the images. Those dots, once selected, present the user with numerous options. They can save, share or shop for some of the items. They can also be presented with live feeds of tweets or links to additional information .

Viewers can then interact with this new set of information in ways never seen before. They can purchase the items that they like, search for local deals or even better, be presented with discounts. Last but not least, both publishers and the photography rights owners can see, in real time, how people interact with their images.

Stipple works with all images : sports, travel, celebrity, news, commercial stock. There are no limitations.

Not only Stipple adds intelligent interaction to photographs in a smart non intrusive manner, but it also engages viewers to explore photographs in innovative ways. Beyond the frustrating limitations of the IPTC caption field that can only give an overview of the content of an image, Stipple dots can easily display extremely precise information on specific areas within a photograph.

One might think that this would be hard to implement : not at all. Photo agencies need nothing else to do then send a parallel feed of their images the same way they already do to their clients, while publishers only need to add a simple javascript code. That’s it. No added workload. And it’s free.

To top it all, both publishers and photo agencies receive a commission on all transaction generated by their images. In a depressed market, this is very welcomed news.

Finally, Stipple offers a great tool against orphan work. If the metadata of an image is stripped, Stipple will automatically reunite it with rightful owner and display the original information. Even if the image has been altered.

Using some powerful technology built in house, Stipple is the first company to fully offer an intelligent image solution to both publishers and photo agencies along with a new inventive way to generate more revenue.

You can get more information on Stipple on their website at www.stippleit.com

Posted in celebrity, license, magazine, technology, Social Media, Search, SIPA, editorial, transaction, finance, web 2.0, news | Print | No Comments »

April 25, 2011 by pmelcher.

Photography has always been about Time. and Space.  When one presses on that button, both are frozen, captured and can thus be delivered elsewhere in Time and Space. That was then.

The makers of the GigaPan, a machine that takes multiple images of a scene with various focal lengths in order to reconstitute it into a massive file have now launched the Time Machine GigaPan.

The GigaPan is well known for allowing viewers to zoom in and out of a photograph without losing any definition, as well as scrolling left and right, giving users more control on how they view a photograph. Now, with the addition of time lapse, one can also travel through time.

The advantage ? A scene is no longer static and one can zoom in ( or out) at specific moments . More user control.

Is this the future of photography ? While the concept is very appealing, giving still images more depth than they could ever dream of ( yes, Stills can dream too) , the file size is already a huge drawback. Furthermore, not all subjects can be time lapsed ( and unlike the current trend, nor should they), nor that all subjects are good candidates for zoom in scrolling.

However, some can be and actually gain depth from this new technology. This is where GigaPan would love for you to help. Join in there project and discover, with them, what would work with this. Come on, when was the last time someone asked you to participate in the future ?

Posted in magazine, technology, multimedia, Search, slideshow, news | Print | No Comments »

April 12, 2011 by pmelcher.

It’s the content stupid ! well, no more.

Some time ago, if you were lucky enough to have created an image that all wanted, you could easily sit on it and wait for your phone to ring. Not really anymore. The center of the business gravity has shifted. To those who create value around the content.

The downfall of journalism is a good example. The great site of journalism are not doing as well as those who couldn’t care less about quality. The Huffingon Post beats the New York Times. Sure, traffic will tell you a different story. But, finance will not. While the NY Times is struggling to find ways to create dollar value, the Huffington Post sells for more than $300 million. Why ? Because they are in two different businesses.

One is obsessed at creating content, the other in monitizing content. And, right now, the money is in those who know how to monitize content.  In photogrpahy, the same shift has happened. You could be the greatest photographer alive, it wouldn’t matter if you didn’t know how to create value around your content. Those who have experience in doing so are the publishers.

They can take cheap text from one place , a cheap photograph from the other and voila, done. Why ? Because in the internet age of fast and free consumption, people do not expect value for their money as they do not pay. They are fine in receiving what they have paid for : not much.

Thus, why should publishers pay a premium for any photograph ? They will not retain viewers longer, nor will it guarantee  fidelity . Rather, what they focus on is the volume and the management of expectancy. As long as they deliver the little that is expected from them when it is expected from them, than they will create traction. And Dollars.

Why bother paying for an exclusive image when that image can be copied and pasted in thousands of websites within minutes ?  Why pay more for a photograph which will grab someone attention for less than a second before they move on ? It would be a waste of resources.

Rather, it makes much more financial sense to have a repeated pattern of offering over and over, with accurate consistency, the exact expected result. That is where the revenue resides. Within a context, not within the content.  Furthermore, a context can be managed, not content. That is the economy we see all around us and that is why photography, by itself, has little or no value. It is just a very small brick of a much wider context.

Photographers, photo agencies and related have no experience in building value around their images. They sell a raw material that has devaluated because the refineries, those who transform it in consumables, the publishers, only use them as small elements of their final product. They are not the product.

Can it be changed ? Maybe. No one has really tried to create a publication with exclusive or high end photography only. Mostly because those who have tried with text, like the New York Times, have spend a lot of money and failed. Up to now.

Will it change ? It will certainly if paywalls start to be successful . Because as soon as people pay for content, they expect the content to match or surpass the value they paid for it.

Thus, the future of photography, or at least the future of photography  online, depends on the success of paywalls.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, technology, license, Search, finance, photojournalism, web 2.0, editorial | Print | No Comments »

March 9, 2011 by pmelcher.

A dream come true : your image being used everywhere. A nightmare come true : you don’t get a penny while others are. A frightening true life example of what happens to your photographs in the XXI.

The Stolen Scream: A Story About Noam Galai from FStoppers on Vimeo.

The question is : was the image labeled CC on Flickr ? If so, it could have led to this worldwide free loading feeding frenzy. How can this be prevented ? how do we instruct people to, at least, ask permission before using an image?

What is interesting is the photographers’ reaction. While he is clearly unhappy about the situation, instead of suing everyone, he has resolve to using the situation to publicize himself ( see his website here : http://www.thestolenscream.com/)  and reverse claiming  ownership of his image.

Smart, very smart. He might just end up on top.

Posted in license, Social Media, Search, web 2.0, editorial, flickr, getty | Print | 2 Comments »