September 12, 2011 by pmelcher.

Taking a cue from the succesful microstock model here is where photojournalism is heading.  It is happening under our eyes, right now and in four steps.

The decline of traditional photojournalism.
Nothing really new here. Rising cost of living (travel, lodging, food) has made it almost impossible for current print and web publishers to send top talents on stories anymore. The profit margins are not there anymore. Although there is a bucket full of very talented photojournalist available, there is just no funds to make them do what they do best. Furthermore, with the deaths of traditional photo agencies who used to pay for half of the costs, there is just not enough financial support to keep it going. It’s not photojournalism that is dying, it’s the funding that is going dry.  Furthermore, photo editors that championed the great stories have long gone, either retired or pushed out due to corporate restructuring or cost saving measures.

The rise in volume of the me-too photojournalism.

Here again, nothing we haven’t heard or seen before. Automated cameras that can nail an image in the even poorest conditions has helped introduced a new wave of photographers that can, and will snap at anything and everything and force distribute it via every channel possible. Force distribute because we really do not want to see it but thanks to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and other social media, we get to see them anyway. The poor state of our economy has not help, obviously, making this forced free lance job even more appealing to many. It also has become easier to get published, at least once, giving everyone the false impression that this is easy. Anybody can become a photojournalist these days : you just need to be where the media attention is focused upon.

The death of the photo agency.
Photo agencies used to be the gateway to the media. With trained professionals, they filtered out the bad from the good and edited the work of the talented to make it even more compelling. They would also seek out news stories and send the best photographers to cover them, not only creating the news, but partly covering  for the costs. It was a gamble, where talented journalists would scout newspapers worlwide for that snippet of information that could be turned into the major news of the week thanks to the talent of a brilliant photographer. Those editors are gone now. Gambling on stories is just not an acceptable business model in our corporate world. Photo agencies are not agencies anymore, they are image distributors.

Speed vs quality.
Thanks to digital, the key decision element for an image to be published is how fast they get to a desktop. Thus a bad photographer can very well become successful if he is the fastest.  More and more, this is what we, viewers, are being served with : the first images rather than the best. Thus the key to becoming a published photojournalist is where you are and not who you are.

Where does it lead us to:

Where everyone can be a shooter, with no money to be spend on travel, no editors acting as gatekeepers and speed as the key factor, the decision us easy;

Forget the photo agency as an agent of talented photojournalists. The key now is to have a lot of contributors worldwide and hope that one will be at the right place at the right time. With photographers everywhere chances you will get the right image at the right time will increase, like buying a lot of lottery tickets.
In the film age, the cost of film, processing, shipment was too prohibitive. Now, you can receive and store million of images for a buck or two.
This well know photo agency recently proudly claimed representing 40 photographers in Gaza only. For a territory 140 square mile ( 360 Km2), that is one photographer per 3.5 square mile.

Thus, taking a queue from the microstock model, photojournalism is now switching to the volume based model. While profitable for a photo agency, it is devastating for photojournalism and photographers themselves.

Posted in technology, magazine, Tweet, Social Media, Corpocrates, Good Enough, newspaper, TIME, editorial, getty, transaction, finance, photojournalism, wire service, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

July 10, 2011 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Do not upload images

- Watermark your images

- Upload only images you are ready to give away

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

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

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

January 6, 2011 by pmelcher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, you can go outside now and breath.

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

December 24, 2010 by pmelcher.

So you lost your job at a fancy newspaper and wedding photography is not you thing. Or you spend years behind a photo desk editing others’ pictures and you want in on the action. War is too far and too dangerous. Studio is expensive and tedious. Microstock is just that : micro. what’s left ? Well you heard over and over that the big dough is in celebrity so why not try that. Well, here is a little “how to become a paparazzi” DIY kit.

First, head on to California, where most of the celebrities live, at least the most notorious ones. Once you are settle, book a tour with ” Rolling With the Paparazzi”

as the website says :

Individuals have the opportunity to run with, rather than from the paparazzi, and see celebrities they otherwise wouldn’t have access to.  The new Rolling with the Paparazzi Tour takes you all around the city by car, so that as the tips come in, you can get there much faster than by running.

In the Rolling With the Paparazzi Tour, up to three people are teamed up with Rick Mendoza, a real-life paparazzi, for the Hollywood experience of a lifetime.

 “Rolling with the Paparazzi is available as a stand-alone tour for $150 per person for up to two people and $400 for three.The Rolling with the Paparazzi Tour is offered daily, with three-hour segments beginning at 8:00AM all the way until 10:00PM.”

After those 3 hours of basic lessons, you should have  a good idea on what to do. If still unsure, you still go to You tube and hit one of the hundreds of videos of paparazzi chasing celebs.

next, you should get a map of the stars and figure out where most live and hang out. Those maps are sold in the street of hollywood and for those who are map reading impaired, tours are organized that will actually show you where everyone lives . Some websites can be useful too.

Now, you need to know who is where when. Nottaproblema : website like Just spotted.com can help you with that . Using a combination of users tips and website searches, it delivers the recent location of whom you would like to search. You can also, if you like, just follow your target star’s Twitter feed. They sometimes reveal their location real time.

Finally, once you are all set up, you need to figure out how to price your images. Here to help you is a real quote from a top Pap agency :

……………………………………………………………….
100 Non + Exclusive Pics: $500/ month ($5/pic)
100 Non Excl ONLY: $400/ month ($4/pic)
250 Non + Exclusive : $750/ month ($3/pic)
250 Non Excl Only: $500/ month ($2/pic)
Unlimited Non + Exclusive: $2000/ month
Unlimited Non Excl Only: $1500/ month

 …………………………………………………………….

Now, go ahead , make millions !!

Posted in magazine, Tweet, Waste of time, celebrity, license, editorial, No sense, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

October 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

It’s not there yet but it is certainly starting to look like one. The Morel Vs. AFP lawsuit has all the ingredients of a circus stage, without the tent.

Morel, if you remember, shot some images of the earthquake in Haiti, put them of Twitter/Twipics, only to see them taken by AFP to be sold world wide. Both parties are now suing each other, provoking many public debates, to which we would love to add our voice.

To be a photojournalist is to be a witness.  Those who become the best of the best and pursue a life time career in photojournalism are driven by one passion that is stronger than photography: The urge to report what they see. Photography is only a vehicle to that passion.

Thus, how can one be surprised that a photojournalist would use social media ? It is a witness tool. Jean Francois Leroy, Kriegmaster of Visa pour l’image, self-proclaim Pope of Photojournalism,  has been decrying the lack of space in magazines devoted to these images. Yet, in an interview in the BPJ, he criticizes those who use social media as a vehicle for their images, including Morel. In a nutshell, he is happy Morel got his pictures stolen by AFP. That will teach him, and others, a lesson. He probably believes that photojournalism belongs only in the pages of magazines and in his Festival. Nowhere else. How so quaintly XX th century of him. Can someone hand him a computer and show him how it works ?

While Morel pavlovian’s reaction was to, of course, share his image with the world (Not AFP) via Twitter, it was also AFP’s duty to take that image and distribute it. Let me explain: Similar to a photojournalist, a wire service intravenous gut reaction is distribute images that show a news event. As quickly as possible. Not only because of the competition, but because of the urgency of breaking news, especially in the first few hours when little or no visuals are available. AFP did not take that image out of greed ( they are partly owned by the French government and will probably never go bankrupt). They took it out of duty. They, also, had to inform the world.

Morel and AFP were build to work together. They think the same way. Except, in this instance, they had not reach any agreement and both acted on instinct.  Who was right, who is wrong?

Let’s do an experiment. Put a table full a brand new Ipads in the street with a sign next to it saying ” Free, Take one”. Sit next to the table and wait. What will happen ? People will come to the table, read the sign, see you next to the table and ask you ” Can I take one ?”.

On the Internet, because no one is visible, no one asks anymore. You take. Everybody takes. No questions asks. Regardless if you have an contact info clearly marked. It’s a free for all. Especially photography. It is one of the most used asset of the internet, yet no one thinks they should pay for it, let along ask permission.

And this is where AFP is terribly wrong : Regardless of the terms and conditions of Twitter/Twipics, they should have asked. Common Courtesy.

They should have resisted their instinct and remain human : just ask for permission.

Instead, they turn to their sharks lawyer and desperately try to make a legal case of what should be a human courtesy case. The worst is that other photographers seem to take their defense and claim proudly ” The law is above human courtesy”. That is sad.

No “terms and conditions”, whatever they are, should prevent one company, one individual to politely ask another the permission to use a photograph. Ever. No one should hide behind these “Terms and Condition” and forget the most  basic laws of human interaction.  Especially if they have a common goal : Inform the world.

Considering the financial discrepancies between the two parties, it is quite obvious that AFP will prevail in this issue. That is the way law works in the  USA ( well, the world actually). The one who throws the most money on a trial wins. Laws are made for the rich and powerful. Quite frankly, it is not that important.

What is important is the role of social media and photojournalism. Twitter has been many times labeled as  the new journalism destination for breaking news ( see the Hudson plane landing, Iran,  Michael Jackson death, etc). It has become faster than news outlet, including the wires.  The confusion comes from misinterpretation of what social media is : A end product and not a distribution platform.

Morel, and many like him, use social media as a means to inform the world.  Morel posted pictures on Twitter/Twitpic for the world to see. AFP does not beleive that Twitter/Twitpic can do that properly. They still think  that, in order for the world to see these images, they had to go on the AFP wire.

What is important here is that AFP are, like JF Leroy and others, misunderstanding the role, the reach and impact of social media. Morel lives in the present, they live in the past.

Everything else is a comedy.

Posted in magazine, copyright, technology, Tweet, Corpocrates, Social Media, license, Search, editorial, law, transaction, wire service, photojournalism, news | Print | 1 Comment »

September 21, 2010 by pmelcher.

The rule is simple : be where your customers are. Applying it is much harder.

Sure, you can have a twitter account, and Facebook, and Linkedin and all that . But is that where your customers are ? Not really. They don’t really follow you on Twitter because they don’t want to, nor do they wish to exchange personal stories with you on Facebook ( if they even know you), they log into Linkedin once every few months  to find a number and quite frankly would really appreciate if you would stop spamming them with your blast emails.

Sure, you have a website. But so does billions of other people/companies/schools/institutions/churches/ airline companies and so on. A drop in the ocean doesn’t even begin to describe where your website/blog is right now. You can make that two drops in the ocean if you have a really good SEO.

So what to do asks the wise man ? Well, there is a nifty smart why to put your images in the face of image buyers in a very subtle smart way. It’s called Image Exchange and it is brought to you by Israeli company Picscout, previously in the copyright infringement detection industry.

How does it work ? Very simple. You, the image creator, send small version of your images into their central servers where they are fingerprinted for detection. Image Buyers, on their side, download a small plug in for Firefox or Explorer ( Soon Chrome, hopefully). Every time your image is seen on any website at whatever format, a small “i” icon appears on top of it. All they have to to is click on it and they can be redirected to your website .

The huge misconception about Image Exchange is that  it only works with a Google Image search, which would be already not be too bad. But no, it works everywhere. Let’s say your friend post a link to an article that they like on Facebook. Automatically, a thumbnail of the picture on the page is rendered. Well, Image Exchange can recognize that image and tell you who the licensing right owner is.  Your images become viral and your best publicity without you doing a thing: Imagine that ! Wasn’t that one of the promises of the Internet ?

Image Exchange is somewhat free. They get paid for each recommendation that they bring to you after a certain amount of click-trough. You can purchase more, in advance, or stop whenever you want . That simple.

so, if you want your images to finally end up where your potential clients are, head on to Picscout and sign up.  You might actually see some more income without having to dump all your images into Istockphoto

Posted in license, copyright, commercial stock, Tweet, Search, photojournalism, editorial, transaction, finance, getty | Print | 5 Comments »

July 29, 2010 by pmelcher.

This is what happens when you tweet :

Your little message in bottle that you thought was so important disappears in a sea of messages. We are not saying you shouldn’t tweet, just saying you should take pictures instead.

Posted in Social Media, Waste of time, Corpocrates, Tweet, commercial stock, No sense, multimedia, technology, web 2.0 | Print | No Comments »