March 12, 2010 by pmelcher.

A thousand words ? Make that 10 million US dollars. Apparently, there is lots of money to be made in the photo industry. Chief CEO founder and master of all photos in the world Jonathan Klein has just bought, for himself and his wife, a  10 rooms, full floor residence at 760 Park Avenue, in the heart of New York city. That sounds like Seattle might not be the center of the Getty universe anymore.

New York magazine describes the living space as  : “A private elevator landing leads to an expansive center gallery. The open floor plan allows guests to flow between the library, oversized living room, and dining room while enjoying eastern light from forty feet of frontage on Park Avenue making it a perfect layout for entertaining. Three well proportioned bedrooms are accessed via a private hallway off the entrance gallery. Originally two bedrooms, the expanded master bedroom with wood burning fireplace and his and her dressing rooms and baths, sits on the corner of 72nd and Park Avenue. A recently renovated eat-in-kitchen with den and maid’s room complete this gracious layout.”

You can see pictures of the inside of the apartment here( probably not for long) as well as read about his neighbors here.

If you are a Getty photographer, you can now be proud to know that every time you get a sales statement with a few dollars on it, you have happily contributed to helping your boss finally find a cozy little “Pied a terre”. If you are not, then now you know where the money for day rates and licensing fees have gone to.

Posted in finance, transaction, editorial, getty | Print | 3 Comments »

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 »

March 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

You know there is a problem when a company selling you a service treats you with superiority and disdain. Somewhere in the sale cycle, someone hates the fact that they should be at the client service and not the opposite.

Take software solution companies, for example. They usually work in a vacuum creating  some software solution that they decide is very cool and once finished, look around to see if there is a market for it. There’s usually a market for everything. Once they find the market, they approach the “non software” people in a attempt to sell it. Because they usually fall on non technical people who have no clue on how difficult it has been to design and implement what they are trying to sell, they are quickly branded as “idiots”, “retards”, or “useless”. Nevertheless, the software company still needs to make money to cover the costs of creating and maintaining there operation. So they reluctantly continue  selling their product/services to the “incompetent idiots” that are not understanding the genius behind the applications they are buying.

The software companies stay very very close to their software peers in order to compensate and gather as much praises from them. After all, a praises from a peer is so much better than one from your clients. They couldn’t care less what their customers say about their products and what improvement they would like to see, as they see them as inferior that are only there to pay their bills. Like monkeys trying to explain to you how to operate your car. They come to really disdain this relationship whereby they have to take money from “idiots”. All they want is to be recognized as the new Google, get millions in funding and be admired by other programmers.

There is no love in a application creator/client relationship. We have seen it and we still see it in the photo industry. Since going digital, and especially after the billions spend by Yahoo for Flickr, a little flock of software companies, mostly start ups, have knocked on the doors of this market. And reluctantly did so. From database management to image recognition, they have found and develop some interesting tools for this market. However, they disdain the fact that they have to rely on poorly technology educated photo people to make a living.

What are the signs of such companies ? Well, first and foremost, very poor communications skills. Do not return emails or phone calls or take a very, very long time doing so. Would you answer quickly to someone you despise ? They certainly don’t.

Poor or in existent sales team. Usually handled by an entry level person that has absolutely no power. He/she is obviously at the bottom of the pole at this company, and while usually very nice and understanding, a complete waste of time to communicate with.

No training or well thought out documentation. You either get it, like they do, or you are a complete moron that wouldn’t even understand a step by step instruction, so why bother ?

They want you to come to them. Since their creation is so genius, you should be begging to use it, not the opposite.

Finally, and probably the most important, they turn their creation into a “Solution”. Although they have develop an application that they thought was challenging enough to do, they will come to you as if they have found a cure to your problems. They will take the high road and declare: “we are here to save photography”. They take a superior stand to any seasoned professional and explain with a condescending air of ultimate superiority that they know what is wrong with the Photography business and that their software/app/service is THE solution. All like little messiah, they have a greater purpose than selling their companies services. They are here to save you from yourselves.

Let’s be realist. They are all in it to make money. Lots and lots of money. Nothing more and nothing less. They hide there real intention behind a mask of fake benevolence. Most have this annoying unsaid little scheme that if they can corner the market, they can turn around, raise prices, and get a choking stronghold on this universe. In the mean time they rack millions in investors money with this promise.

While technology is certainly a tool for growth, it is also full of the worst snake oil sellers one can ever meet. Their efforts are not as pure as they say. All of them are trying to make a profit , and as large as possible. So next time they ring at your door, think about their business model. How do they intend to get rich on your back. Sure, everyone deserves to be paid. But, is it worth it for your business ?.How tied up will you find yourself if they succeed in cornering the market ? Who will benefit the most ? You, or them ?

Most importantly, if they then do not respond promptly to your emails ( remember, these guys are on their computers/ smartphones 24/7 ), then you know that they could care less about you. And it’s time to move on.

Posted in technology, idee, picturemaxx, gumgum, commercial stock, copyright, license, finance, photoshop, flickr, web 2.0, transaction | Print | No Comments »

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 17, 2010 by pmelcher.

Wired magazine, in the trail of others, has partnered with Adobe Air, to display what their publication will look on a E reader. There are a few interesting points here.

First, for the geeks out there, it is interesting to see that Adobe, whose Flash is not supported by Apple’s Ipad, is now pushing Air  as a delivery platform. There will be a battle out there on what application will be running all these E magazines and Adobe is shooting the first salvo.

The second part is that Wired present this as an addition to their print publication, not as a replacement. As much as they are investing in the new technology, they are not ready to drop their print, web, IPhone apps just for that.

The Third, is that besides a format, there is no mention of hardware. It is supposed that this is for an Ipad, but really, it is for any existing or to be invented color tablet  ( sorry Kindle).

What about photography usage? Well, they are some very compelling statements here.

Images are a key element of this evolution. From 360 to immersible, from stop action to galleries, there are many forms of photography shown. Nothing new indeed, but a new usage certainly. Where do you find stock for 360 photography ? nowhere currently. So where will they go ?  Assignment, surely. Are you ready ? There is stock for panoramas images, but will that be enough ? And is the micro stock community going to plunge into this also ?  Probably.

However, the more important element of photography usage here is the option to share it. Either via email or social networks, almost every image can be shared with a click of one button. Now, we all know that editorial pricing has always been about placement, time and geography. What has never been appropriately addressed with web usage is now going to become standard practice for all editorial. Al thought you have  licensed your  image for a week, a month and for a small side usage, next thing you know it’s all over the web, in different format, given away for free to people you have never heard of. And never will.

Sure, you can go the Getty way. Here, pay me $49 and do whatever you want with the image. I would like to see Getty’s executives faces when one of their $49 image goes viral. Ouch. Na..not a good idea. Images should be license based on usage and usage should be tracked per number of clicks. After all, if an article or an image published on Tablet gets shared a lot, it is all in the benefit of the publication, right ? It’s free marketing. Yet, your image has been instrumental to that sharing action, so shouldn’t you be compensated ?

What do you mean you do not know how much click it has seen ? Do you know how much circulation a magazine has ? Yes, ok, well, with a link, it is even easier to track. They want a sharing option on your images, charge them either an additional flat fee, or a fee per clicks. But please, charge something. You are not Getty. You will not get back in volume what you just gave away for free. Never.

So. first thing first: Add to all your invoices  and delivery statement “NO DIGITAL RIGHTS” . If they want web usage or E Readers, then lets negotiate a different fee. Ask if there will be a sharing option . If yes, then add an additional fee. How much? well, that is up to you to decide.

Be proactive. You will be proud you did.

Posted in celebrity, copyright, license, magazine, technology, E Reader, commercial stock, multimedia, newspaper, editorial, getty, Royalty free, transaction, finance, web 2.0, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

February 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

So, there was something very interesting about the photo news the week. On one side, you have the mighty Getty ( aka, the whale) who took a deep plunge in pricing with its subscription RF offering, combining microstock and pro , and on the other, legendary Magnum who manage a great coup by selling some used prints for an estimated $ 30 million dollars.

Like two extremities of the same stick, this is a great reflection of where the business of photography stands today . On one side an entity that has reduced its photography to a cheap commodity to be sold as individual snapshots and on the other, a photographers coop that is so highly respected that it can sell old back and white prints full of written notes as highly valuable historical artifacts.

Yet, both are selling the same thing : photographs . According to numerous interview given by Mark Lubell, director of Magnum New York, one key condition for the members of the coop to approve the sale was that the images would not be scattered and sold as individual entities. Magnum photographers have a long established tradition of selling pictures as a story, a group of images, that tells a story. It has been numerously debated, over the years, that Magnum could have maybe had made more profit if it had broken  these stories and sold them as individual images.

But none of the photographers-creator would have it any other way. Shot as a story, sold as a story. Part of the condition for the deal with the Michael Dell owned fund is that images cannot be separated from the story they belong to. On the other end of the spectrum, Getty does the exact opposite. It extracts images from their context, their stories , and sell them as individual files. There motivation is that the image, alone, has more chance of finding a buyer than a group of images, sold as a story. Also, individual files sales  can easily be automated while photo essay, and photo journalism in general, needs a pitch, an explanation, a real human sales person.

And there is where a key differentiation appears that is reflected everywhere in the marketplace. If your business is about licensing individual files, then its all about volume. You do not take a proactive approach to selling. Instead, you try to cover any possible potential need for an image that could humanly be conceived. You stick them in an archive. And then you wait . You wait for a buyer to come and be hooked. or not. The market creates the demand.

If you license a photographer’s work, a story, a career, an inspiration, the approach is completely different. You cannot wait for a client to come and find it. You have to go out and fetch it. You have to take the photographer’s work, find a potential client who could be interested and close the deal. The photographer, in this case, creates the demand.

If you want the market to create the demand, the prices are low, very, very low. If you create the demand, the prices are high, very high.

Unfortunately, most photo agencies these days have gone the route of competing with each other on the individual file sales path. Mostly because it much easier, cheaper, and demands almost no special skills. The more the agencies, the more the offer, the more prices go down. Getting amateurs to fill these image banks has recently greatly lowered the costs, with the pervert effect of also lowering the prices.

Magnum, and others, like Contact, Redux, PictureGroup, Aurora have deliberately chosen to represent photographers’ work and not distribute individual files. Their production is the reflection of its chosen creators, their image bank set up to license stories , and their sales staff experienced in the complex art of pitching. Sure, it’s more expensive and much more complicated. It demands talent and sometimes obstination against frustration. However, the prices are dictated by the value perceived by the creator, not the by the market. The result : deals like Magnum just made.

In photography, it’s not the market who dictates the pricing. It’s how you present it.

Posted in magazine, celebrity, technology, Cosmos, Aurora, commercial stock, license, prosumer, getty, Royalty free, news, editorial, photojournalism, transaction, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

February 3, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s not photography that is sick and dying, it’s the people that handle it. Sure, there has been dramatic bankruptcies, like Grazia Neri , l’ Oeil Public and now Eyedea Press ( that one was a long time coming). On the other hand, there more than a billion of images on Flickr, more on Photobucket, and Facebook. There has never been so many cameras in the streets and so many people interested in photography. With the Internet, there has never been such a demand, and need for images. Smartphones, Ipad, tablets, netbooks, are only increasing the demand for stills.

Yet, pro photographer can’t seem to make a living anymore, while photo editors have either no budget or are being laid off by buckets. So what is wrong ? Well, for one, it’s those who manage photography that are sick. None of the old and current guard have any idea how to take advantage of this Tsunami of demand. It’s leaking from all over the place. The only made with Flickr was when the original founders sold it to Yahoo. Since, it’s been bleeding cash. Instead of creating tools to allow members to license it, they passed it on to Getty Images to try and squeeze some money juice out of it. It could take decades, if not century for Yahoo to see a return on investment using this route.

While magazines are dying a slow and painful circulation death, there online counterpart have yet to be succesful in generate the same revenue as they used too . Why, because they keep on trying to replicate online what has been a success in print. The fact that its not working doesn’t seem to bother them. They keep on trying.

Photographers still shoot the same thing, the same way, for a clientele that is shrinking, both in size and resources. They desperately cling to old formulas that they hope will resurface some day. Not going to happen. And finally, photo agencies try to hang on the slippery slop of declining revenue by agreeing to cut fees in the hopes there is a trampoline at the bottom of the hill. Not there.

Everyone is playing the waiting game, hoping that some savior will find the magic solution. In the mean time, they are all guilty of killing photography by undervaluing it. It’s has become a commodity, some say. Other offer ridiculous subscription model, feeling comfort in the fact that mass production Getty does it. All whine all day, all night, all the time.

Stop whining. Do . Try. fail. Try again. fail again. Who cares? You will make progress. And if you are lucky ( or smart), it will work. Better than you had ever expected. It’s not obvious. But the market is there. The current model doesn’t work, we can all agree on that. So, try new ones. Take advice from no one. Just do. It will hurt, it will be frustrating, it will be exhausting, it will feel incredibly useless, it will not work. But it’s so much better than whining all the time. Stop waiting for something to happen. Take control.

Posted in license, multimedia, prosumer, copyright, magazine, commercial stock, technology, focus, flickr, photojournalism, news, getty, Royalty free, editorial, transaction, slideshow, finance, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

February 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

Well, not exactly. The Investment firm MSD managed by Michael Dell, the founder of the famous computers, has acquires 185,000 prints from the Magnum collection. The sum? undisclosed. But it is rumored to be the largest photo transaction in history. The terms, also unclear. Magnum retains the copyright and the  licensing rights.

So what did the MSD acquire ? Well, probably just that : 185,00 prints ranging from the the 1930’s to 1998. The prints will reside for now in Austin, Texas, Harry Ransom Center for 5 years. After that, nothing is known.It is certainly a well thought out coup for Magnum which has been struggling with financial issues for decades and avoided multiple acquisition schemes launched by the Corbis and Getty’s .

This will give them a financial security to continue to operate independently for a long while without losing their cherished independence.It is also great news for photography lovers. Not only Magnum escapes the claw of the greedy corporates and their notorious incompetence but there is a good chance this collection will travel across the world for viewing by even more people.

Finally, since Magnum is a co op, there is a very good chance the photographers themselves retain the majority of this financial downfall and they really, really deserve it.

PS : estimates put the deal at $100 Million. That is about $500.00 per print. Is that a good deal ?

More here  at Bloomberg news 

Posted in photojournalism, copyright, Magnum, finance, transaction, corbis, editorial, getty | Print | No Comments »