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 »

January 27, 2010 by pmelcher.

Before we go any further ( we spoke about the Ipad here already anyways), we need to point out something extremely important. There are people in this industry, when they talk, you listen. Jonathan Klein is one because who knows what other damage he will create with his roller company  and he lies a lot ( according to Klein. “We were the first people in the world to sell an image online,”). Ellen Boughn is another.

For those who don’t know Ellen ( are they any?) , let me explain : Ellen is one of these extremely rare person that have done it all. From editorial, to commerial stock, royalty free and Microstock, she has been deeply involved in every facet of this industry. Unlike others, she has gotten herself dirty with all aspects of licensing images from production to sales, from little to giant corporation. She has seen everything and pays attention to everything. She has an insight that is only surpassed by her intelligence. There is nothing that scares her and she has the curiosity of a 10 year old. She has met everybody that is anybody in this business and yet respects everyone the same way. She has a passion for photography that would put to shame anyone. She is so good that his master himself, Henri Cartier Bresson, offered her a signed print, something that he extremely rarely did.

To top it all, she is an independent thinker. She will tell you things the way they are, regardless of the consequences. She knows no camp but excellence and truth. Her incisive mind can be brutally honest  because she is not scared of anything or anyone.  She is an encyclopedia of knowledge that you will never read anywhere ( unless she publishes more books). She is one of the reason why I love this industry so much : It attracts some of the smartest, intelligent, witty, knowledgeable people on the planet. People with a vast culture and yet  constantly curious about everything.

Why do I write this ? Because Ellen has started her on blog. And if you only read one thing, that should be it. Amateur, pro, super pro, whatever side of this industry you are, this should be the first thing you read. You will never be offered such a rewarding experience, for free. So, stop reading this and go bookmark her blog and hold on to you socks.

http://www.ellenboughn.com/blog

We are not worthy..

Posted in license, multimedia, magazine, technology, commercial stock, Magnum, web 2.0, photojournalism, getty, Royalty free, corbis, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | 5 Comments »

January 26, 2010 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

So you would think that with all the problems that online publications are causing to the print magazine industry, they would fight back in some manner. The print paper world would be all gang ho in trying to secure its predominance as the primary source of news and information so that the crowds would rush to purchase copies. But no.

It’s a complete lethargy. Well, at least in the USA. Take editorial photography. As much as they care if an image has been used in a competing publication, they completely ignore anything online.  They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that they come out sometimes with the same image that has been seen previously for more than a week on numerous websites. As if no one paid attention. However, with some URL’s drawing millions of visitors , and most, the same people they also try to attract, it should be hard to ignore.

Yet, they continue to ignore the reasons for their decline. Partly to save money ( as if it is going to help) , partly because a completely blindness to the forces that are shaping their market. If I have seen an image numerous times, for free, online, I am going to be a bit upset if I see it, again, days, weeks later, in a print publication I had to pay for. If it happens once, I could ignore it. If it happens issue after issues, I would want my money back.

No other industry has this approach to its consumer. Movies only show trailers, music have just snippets ( of  course, I am not mentioning stolen material) and you pay to hear/see the full version. If all was available online  a week before they could be purchased, it is doubtful that a lot of people would pay for them.

Magazines, in some sort of oblivious superiority,  continue to publish , week after weeks, month after months the same images already seen online more than once. Maybe they think that if they ignore it, the problem might disappear. Maybe they think that by the time they come out, readers will have forgotten what they had seen just hours ago on a website. Maybe they just think that their support is so superior than the digital, no one will notice.

The second issue with this, a bit more hidden, is that photogrpahers and photo agencies provide website with a free first right  at a lesser fee than  what a print publication would pay. In other words, website get to use the same image, much sooner than print for 10% of the price that a magazine pays to use it a week later. Does it make any sense ?

In France, for example, no magazine would ever publish an image that has been used on a website previously. None. Photo agencies or photographers do not have a problem with that since website pay so little, it is not even funny. Thus, readers can be sure that will discover new image in every issue. And with just cause, they paid for that, and other privilege. They paid to purchase a  product that do not consider them like fools. They pay for originality. They pay for what they value.

In the upcoming or ongoing debate about online pay walls, how many of the newspapers, magazines and others will take the step to guarantee original photography ? Because if it is to see another slideshow made of pictures from the trilogy (Getty, AP, Reuters ) that you can see anywhere else, I doubt people will be happy. And if they are not happy, well, they won’t pay. A pay wall will only work if people want to get in. And people will want to get in if the content inside is not something seen elsewhere for free.

The war between original content ( expensive) and  cost cutting  (cheap) is raging with  cost-cutting seemingly winning most battles these days. However, creating something for cheap that no one wants to pay for is not at all a guarantee of success. Once the CFO’s and their bosses finish destroying the very nature of what made their companies successful in a rarely seen slaughterhouse of talent, there will be only a few standing. And those will not be the ones that are the cheapest to operate but those who have found the zen like balance between originality, quality, cost and timeliness.

Photography will always be here to offer  all of this and much, much more. We know it, we are just waiting for them to understand it.

Posted in license, newspaper, celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, TIME, photojournalism, editorial, transaction, finance, wire service, france | Print | No 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 »

January 7, 2010 by pmelcher.

(see Italian version of this entry on Poterefotografico )One of the leading explanation for the disappearance of the Neanderthals was that they could not adapt their tools to  the new conditions surrounding them. They were stubbornly trying to use those they had and adapt them. Obviously it did not work and they vanished.It is said that they might not have had the mental capacity to understand their conditions and were genetically doomed anyway. Since the invasions of the corpocrate in the photo industry in the late 90’s and early 00’s, brought forth by companies like Corbis, Getty and the now defunct Jupiter/A21, it seems that we are seeing prehistory repeat itself.Armed with poorly adaptable tools inherited by their MBA schools, a steady stream of self assure corpocrates have slowly invaded the photo business trade.  They have tried to adapt the industry to their tools rather than the opposite. An incessant flow of un-passionate executives coming from all kind of non photo related backgrounds have the taken the helm of these companies, utterly convince of their superior business understanding, only to be spit out a few years later. Regardless, they persist. The amount of ex Corbis, Ex Getty or ex Jupiter executive who had no previous experience in the photo industry before they entered those companies and have now opened some kind of photo related business is frightening. As if a failed stint in these corporation have made them suddenly experts. Some open RF photo agencies ( the majority), others become Success Coaches or marketing experts ( with newsletters or blogs) , while others create “one trick poney” companies that have no chance of surviving. They all have in common this pathetic idea that somehow, somewhere, they received the magic touch from the Photography gods and they have seen the Light.While all these ex open their useless shops, their old companies replace them with new batches of fresh executives, as clueless as they were, in the hope that someone, anyone, will figure out how to make these tools fit the market, or the opposite.All this would be amusing if it wasn’t for the fact that in the process their are destroying their own market. Because this industry is not, or poorly regulated, anything goes. And like a bunch of irresponsible farmers, they are creating there own dustbowl. Obsessive and poorly equipped for change, they try over and over,  to survive, or grow, by applying their inadequate solutions.It is not photogrpahy that is dying.  Actually, it is doing just fine. It is the Business of photo licensing. From publishing CFO’s convinced that by cutting their photo department they will revert the incessant decline of their publications to photo agency executive who beleive that by cutting their prices, bankruptcy will ignore them, to photographers smiling when they receive commission check with sales of 11 cents, there seems that there is no shortage of Neanderthals these days.Most of this is driven by fear. Fear of change, fear of losing , fear of even trying.  Those who’s responsibility is to create and  license professional grade images are paralyzed by fear. Mostly because they  shortsightedly beleive that on the other side of change there is chaos, death and emptiness. Just like their ancestors did.Sure, they don’t eat as well as before, and sure, they do not travel as much and sure hard times demand sacrifices. But something is better than nothing, right ? And the solution is right around the corner, isn’t it? someone will find out what to do and then I can follow their example. Right ? Why would I change what I have been doing for so long. I didn’t do anything wrong. Things will come back to what they used to be. Right ? right ? Can somebody please answer me ?5 years from now, this landscape will have been completely transformed. It’s going to be a painful carnage ( it has already started). The first to go will be those who fear.

Posted in photojournalism, license, Jupiter, commercial stock, finance, transaction, getty, corbis, editorial, Royalty free | Print | No Comments »

December 13, 2009 by pmelcher.

Apparently, Getty Images has decided to go after market shares in full force. In a seemingly coordinate worldwide effort, it has launched an all front offensive against any and all its competitors, no questions asked.  They now offer new low prices in exchange for being the sole provider . If a publisher agrees to only use Getty Images, and no one other, they get new preferred low pricing.

The competition is then offered to lower their pricing also, should they want to remain considered. What they are not been told is that even if they do decide to match those pricing, they will only be used when Getty Images cannot supply an image. Which is rare these days.

It seems that Getty Image is going all out for market shares and probably hopes to compensate for the lost income by increased volume. It is quite sure that they must have spend long hours calculating the probability and have studied many many charts. Thus, that their new policy is, at least according to their numbers, a profitable one.

A lot of Getty’s competition will suffer heavily from this. Mostly smaller size agencies that already have been living on the edge of their profit margins and do not have much or any exclusive content. The others, well, have a clear choice. Either stop believing that their salvation is in cheap volume of sales  and increase their rates, or die a slow painful asphyxiating death. Trying to hold down to the diving whale by matching pricing is a suicide swim.

The publishers, going through one, if not the worst period of their existence, cannot be more happy with such an offer. Why shouldn’t they not accept it ? Cheaper cost is always a welcome opportunity and Getty certainly has enough choice for the photo editors to pick from.  Where they are mislead is in multiple ways. The disappearance of some photo agencies will make some content disappear. Forever. It has already happen and will accelerate. Once competition is decimated, Getty will have free range to raise their pricing to monopolistic heights and publisher will have no other alternatives. Finally, the remaining agencies will be forced to charge premium prices for their exclusive content in order to compensate for the lost of usage.

There are no Anti Dumping laws in the USA. That is laws that forbids a company to sell products or services lower than what it cost them to produce. The reason is hidden somewhere in the strong belief in a free economy that balances itself and only crashes because of regulations. Also, it is believed that a company applying such practices could not sustain it for very long and thus either go bankrupt or be forces to raise its prices. There are however anti monopoly laws which Getty is heavily flirting with. Controlling all aspect of an industry, from production to distribution, is still illegal ( remember Rockefeller).

Getty seems (again, nothing is sure here) to have exported this model to Latin America and maybe other continents .It is also, if not entirely, affecting editorial content. As they probably have people sign a”non disclosure”, it might be hard to find out. The best way to know however, is to see if suddenly a magazine has only or mostly just one credit.

Not to cry but it is a sad time when photography is not viewed for what it is anymore but just another box of supplies in the production process. Because of the economy, photo editors have no voice anymore, as they cannot afford to loose their jobs.

It is also sad to see some of these publications, that rely so much on photography, treat it  so poorly.

The future landscape of image provider will be very interesting to gaze upon once all is said and done . Devastated, sure. Worse ? not so sure. There has been a lot ( too many ?) of comfort riders in this business for too long and that should kick them off the back of the jumping horse.  Can Getty get away with this ? depends. Some countries my find this predatory competition and block them from doing so. It is such a disorganized industry that by the time all the fragmented competition get together, Getty will have finished signing all contracts. Plus, there will always those who think they are super smart and will try to copy Getty’s new pricing scheme, not realizing its not for them.

” Remember that your aim is to achieve the highest dollar gross contribution margin, not make the highest volume sales. You would get 100% of the market if you gave the stuff away.” - Phillipe_M from WebmasterWorld

Posted in license, celebrity, magazine, finance, transaction, law, editorial, getty | Print | 3 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 »