Sunday, November 29, 2015
Not Out-Gunned, Devalued
Everytime I post something or read somewhere where something is written that is critical of amateur, pro-sumer, volunteer, or free photographers, whether these folks are in credentialed positions, getting a magazine cover or photo in an ad or newspaper, I hear some variation of "...you pros are just worried about getting out gunned...". Honestly, nothing could be further from the truth.
A pro knows the value of their work, and, as a result, the value of the effort they bring to the assignment. Product shot on white seamless? Seems simple, but it's not. What about transfer edges? Highlight shapes? Angle/perspective, and so on. This is one of a hundred examples I could provide. Case in point - I recently had a client drive a long distance to come to my studio for a product shot. At the conclusion of the shoot, he commented that he had no idea how much went into doing a shoot to get superior results. He expected it to take an hour for four products. It took seven hours (frankly, much of that time was product-build time). Afterwards he recognized what was involved, and definitely pleased with the results.
When someone sells a commodity for $10 that everyone else is selling for $100, it devalues that commodity. If the commodity was easily selling for $100, why would someone - anyone - sell it for $10?
Photography is, however, not a commodity. Just because some people choose to devalue it to that point, treat it as such, price it as such, doesn't make it so.
Some organizations have chosen to price images, for example, by the pixel dimensions alone. This does not take into account so many things, it's just rediculous. The image of the hindenberg engulfed in flames or JFK being shot cannot be priced by the pixel. Doing so devalues the work because it does not take into account the content of those images.
Consider, for a moment, that an inventor created a product, and it costs that inventor $10 in materials and overhead, per product, to manufacture it. Following common business practices, that product will wholesale for $20 each. Following again common business practices, that product will retail for $40, and likely sell on the street for around $30. Understand, this is an example and these are generalizations.
With those figures in place, the company decides to spend $250,000 for ad space (online and in print) to market the product. It is to be your photograph, of the product looking so cool and so amazing, that is the entire ad, with a tag line "Buy it and be cool". As a result, the client sells 250,000 products. That means that the client spent $2.5M in raw materials, and netted $2.5M in profit. The retailer too grossed $2.5M as the middleman for the product, providing retail shelf-space. How much are you, the creative mind behind the image that convinced the buying public to actually buy, due? 1% of the profits? 5%? How about just 10% of the ad buy? What if your single image were one of four on the page, would you be due 0.25% or 1.25% of the profits, or 2.5% of the ad buy?
A photographer brings to an assignment an understanding of the subject and their quirks. Whether it's a sporting event, where you know how a particular player will likely act, a portrait where your subject has a duration they will be willing to sit for before their unhappiness at being photographed shows in their expressions, or food photography, where the concoctions that photograph like, say, ice cream, are almost inedible despite looking great through the cameras lens, all assignments have challenges. Can any given photographer stumble into a great photo? Sure. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. The pro however, must get it right at a level of expectation for success that approaches that of a surgeon. The problem is, unknowning clients look at the bottom line and then ascribe equality to an amateur's work and that of a seasoned professional. In the end, the client is unaware of the risks, however, the damage of devaluing photography has been done. The client will just blame the photographer when the shoot fails, not themselves for hiring the photographer without a proven track record of success.
The collateral damage of the client choosing on price, is that photographers will feel pressure from clients to lower their prices, and some will. Then there will be more pressure, and more lowering of prices. Please understand, I am not writing this as someone who has lowered their prices (I have not), but as someone who is watching as photographers' sales reports that used to show average per-image licensing of upwards of $600 now showing those same images for similar uses averaging under $100. Further, photographers who used to earn $2,500 off an original assignment and several thousand dollars in re-sales licensing over the years are now being expected to sign away all rights (and thus all future resales) for $1,000.
In the end, not only are you devaluing your work, and those of your colleagues, you are doing damage to a profession that is a passion for most in it, and you are leaving a lot of money on the table.
I know of no photographer who feels the young upstart photographer, the amateur photographer, or even the pro-sumer will "out gun" them, but almost all of the photographers I talk to about this know that these same folks are devaluing their work. Interestingly enough, that means that the pro sees quality, capability, and talent in the images produced, and knows they are worth much more than they are being given away for.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Read more »
A pro knows the value of their work, and, as a result, the value of the effort they bring to the assignment. Product shot on white seamless? Seems simple, but it's not. What about transfer edges? Highlight shapes? Angle/perspective, and so on. This is one of a hundred examples I could provide. Case in point - I recently had a client drive a long distance to come to my studio for a product shot. At the conclusion of the shoot, he commented that he had no idea how much went into doing a shoot to get superior results. He expected it to take an hour for four products. It took seven hours (frankly, much of that time was product-build time). Afterwards he recognized what was involved, and definitely pleased with the results.
When someone sells a commodity for $10 that everyone else is selling for $100, it devalues that commodity. If the commodity was easily selling for $100, why would someone - anyone - sell it for $10?
(Continued after the Jump)
Photography is, however, not a commodity. Just because some people choose to devalue it to that point, treat it as such, price it as such, doesn't make it so.
Some organizations have chosen to price images, for example, by the pixel dimensions alone. This does not take into account so many things, it's just rediculous. The image of the hindenberg engulfed in flames or JFK being shot cannot be priced by the pixel. Doing so devalues the work because it does not take into account the content of those images.
Consider, for a moment, that an inventor created a product, and it costs that inventor $10 in materials and overhead, per product, to manufacture it. Following common business practices, that product will wholesale for $20 each. Following again common business practices, that product will retail for $40, and likely sell on the street for around $30. Understand, this is an example and these are generalizations.
With those figures in place, the company decides to spend $250,000 for ad space (online and in print) to market the product. It is to be your photograph, of the product looking so cool and so amazing, that is the entire ad, with a tag line "Buy it and be cool". As a result, the client sells 250,000 products. That means that the client spent $2.5M in raw materials, and netted $2.5M in profit. The retailer too grossed $2.5M as the middleman for the product, providing retail shelf-space. How much are you, the creative mind behind the image that convinced the buying public to actually buy, due? 1% of the profits? 5%? How about just 10% of the ad buy? What if your single image were one of four on the page, would you be due 0.25% or 1.25% of the profits, or 2.5% of the ad buy?
A photographer brings to an assignment an understanding of the subject and their quirks. Whether it's a sporting event, where you know how a particular player will likely act, a portrait where your subject has a duration they will be willing to sit for before their unhappiness at being photographed shows in their expressions, or food photography, where the concoctions that photograph like, say, ice cream, are almost inedible despite looking great through the cameras lens, all assignments have challenges. Can any given photographer stumble into a great photo? Sure. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. The pro however, must get it right at a level of expectation for success that approaches that of a surgeon. The problem is, unknowning clients look at the bottom line and then ascribe equality to an amateur's work and that of a seasoned professional. In the end, the client is unaware of the risks, however, the damage of devaluing photography has been done. The client will just blame the photographer when the shoot fails, not themselves for hiring the photographer without a proven track record of success.
The collateral damage of the client choosing on price, is that photographers will feel pressure from clients to lower their prices, and some will. Then there will be more pressure, and more lowering of prices. Please understand, I am not writing this as someone who has lowered their prices (I have not), but as someone who is watching as photographers' sales reports that used to show average per-image licensing of upwards of $600 now showing those same images for similar uses averaging under $100. Further, photographers who used to earn $2,500 off an original assignment and several thousand dollars in re-sales licensing over the years are now being expected to sign away all rights (and thus all future resales) for $1,000.
In the end, not only are you devaluing your work, and those of your colleagues, you are doing damage to a profession that is a passion for most in it, and you are leaving a lot of money on the table.
I know of no photographer who feels the young upstart photographer, the amateur photographer, or even the pro-sumer will "out gun" them, but almost all of the photographers I talk to about this know that these same folks are devaluing their work. Interestingly enough, that means that the pro sees quality, capability, and talent in the images produced, and knows they are worth much more than they are being given away for.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Colbert's MeReporters Underscores Absurdity of Working for Free
Steven Colbert brings his satirical comedy to bear on the notion of "free reporters" who get paid nothing, like CNN's iReport, in the wake of the layoffs of 50 CNN photojournalists and other staff.
Colbert notes CNN also launched an "Assignment Desk" where you an actually go out and report on things that CNN wants, and then goes further, saying "iReporters do not get paid, they get something even better, badges, which, I assume, are redeemable for food and rent."
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Read more »
Colbert notes CNN also launched an "Assignment Desk" where you an actually go out and report on things that CNN wants, and then goes further, saying "iReporters do not get paid, they get something even better, badges, which, I assume, are redeemable for food and rent."
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Mind Your Models
One of the things that those of us professed as geeks know is that we're not model material. Often, while we can spot an attractive member of the opposite sex, we don't necessarily judge others as less than attractive - to avoid the "pot calling the kettle black" claim.
So, when two unarguably geek sites (which I ready at least twice a day) write an article critical of the model wearing a product, it's worth a discussion.
Here, the article on Gizmodo - NES Varsity Jacket Is a Limited Edition for a Reason - below writes: "Jackets don't come much uglier than this, but hey, at least it matches this guy's male pattern baldness."
So, what does this have to do with Photo Business?
Here's another, on Engadget - NES Controller Varsity Jacket would be more awesome with awesome models - which criticizes the model - "At first glance, we actually gagged upon seeing the jacket pictured above. Immediately after regaining our composure, we wondered how on Earth such a magnificent piece of retro kit could have such a negative impact on our lives -- then, it hit us. It's the dude. Seriously. Strap this $200, limited run jacket on anyone even remotely beautiful and we'd bet you too would see things differently. Or maybe it is just obscenely tacky, but it'd be much less so on anyone other than this fellow."
This is an example, likely, of a client saying "we don't need to hire a model, just get my cousin Vinny to wear it", or "we owe our programmer some goodwill, let's use him", or some variation thereof.
Further, the jacket doesn't even fit him. He looks like a size large, and the jacket looks like a size XXL.
When you have a product to sell, paying attention to the details, like a well lit product, a model that is appropriate (or atleast doesn't detract from) the product, and one that fits appropriately, are just a few of the many things that hiring professional - from photographer to talent - is critical to the success of a shoot.
Further, as the professional photographer, it is your responsibility to convey to the client the importance of your judgement when it comes to talent. Often times, when a client insists on "street-casting", or casting from within an office, we ask for snapshots of the subjects, or we take snapshots ourselves, and then take them away to make determinations as to which person is best. Even when the client chooses someone who we know won't work, we make the snapshot, so as to not offend the non-workable subject. Usually, clients that are ad agencies or PR firms understand the nuances of the right subject being chosen, and how that can impact the product. This product is a limited edition of 1,000, and likely could have entirely been sold by the two postings on Gizmodo and Engadget alone by people wanting street cred amongst we geeks for having it. However, now no geek I know would be caught dead wearing this jacket, because our daily read has panned it.
Thus, a $200 jacket, with a limited edition of 1,000, and a possible gross revenue of $200,000 will, instead, likely show up at the discount store, or become a giveaway gift at Nintendo video conferences, all because someone didn't pay attention to who the model was. That's a $200,000 mistake there.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Read more »
So, when two unarguably geek sites (which I ready at least twice a day) write an article critical of the model wearing a product, it's worth a discussion.
Here, the article on Gizmodo - NES Varsity Jacket Is a Limited Edition for a Reason - below writes: "Jackets don't come much uglier than this, but hey, at least it matches this guy's male pattern baldness."
So, what does this have to do with Photo Business?
(Continued after the Jump)
Here's another, on Engadget - NES Controller Varsity Jacket would be more awesome with awesome models - which criticizes the model - "At first glance, we actually gagged upon seeing the jacket pictured above. Immediately after regaining our composure, we wondered how on Earth such a magnificent piece of retro kit could have such a negative impact on our lives -- then, it hit us. It's the dude. Seriously. Strap this $200, limited run jacket on anyone even remotely beautiful and we'd bet you too would see things differently. Or maybe it is just obscenely tacky, but it'd be much less so on anyone other than this fellow."
This is an example, likely, of a client saying "we don't need to hire a model, just get my cousin Vinny to wear it", or "we owe our programmer some goodwill, let's use him", or some variation thereof.
Further, the jacket doesn't even fit him. He looks like a size large, and the jacket looks like a size XXL.
When you have a product to sell, paying attention to the details, like a well lit product, a model that is appropriate (or atleast doesn't detract from) the product, and one that fits appropriately, are just a few of the many things that hiring professional - from photographer to talent - is critical to the success of a shoot.
Further, as the professional photographer, it is your responsibility to convey to the client the importance of your judgement when it comes to talent. Often times, when a client insists on "street-casting", or casting from within an office, we ask for snapshots of the subjects, or we take snapshots ourselves, and then take them away to make determinations as to which person is best. Even when the client chooses someone who we know won't work, we make the snapshot, so as to not offend the non-workable subject. Usually, clients that are ad agencies or PR firms understand the nuances of the right subject being chosen, and how that can impact the product. This product is a limited edition of 1,000, and likely could have entirely been sold by the two postings on Gizmodo and Engadget alone by people wanting street cred amongst we geeks for having it. However, now no geek I know would be caught dead wearing this jacket, because our daily read has panned it.
Thus, a $200 jacket, with a limited edition of 1,000, and a possible gross revenue of $200,000 will, instead, likely show up at the discount store, or become a giveaway gift at Nintendo video conferences, all because someone didn't pay attention to who the model was. That's a $200,000 mistake there.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
TIPS60 - Product Commentary - Apple Time Machine and Network Attached Storage backup solutions
Here is another of our videos offering tips and inisights into the business of photography. a transcript of the video is included after the jump.
(Continued after the Jump)
TRANSCRIPT:Here a few thoughts on network attached storage. I'm John Harrington Whether your using Apple's Time Machine for your computers as we are, or using network attached storage which is a third party brand that will still work with Apple computer's or if you're using a PC in using network attached storage having these systems in place as a part of your systems workflow is really important. One of the things that happens a lot as you sit there and watch the progress bar go by is you're processing images or otherwise doing things on the computer. The worst progress bar to watch is when your computer is backing up multiple gigs, hundreds of gigs of storage and you're sitting there trying to wait for your computer get backed up. If you have a system of workflow and schedule set up so that you can actually back up your systems at night, you can actually let your computer do all that backup overnight. So get your self a Time Machine and get set up. It's a no brainer if you're not a Mac user, get some network attached storage do the same thing.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
TIPS60 - Accounting - Managerial vs. Tax methodologies
Here is another of our videos offering tips and inisights into the business of photography. a transcript of the video is included after the jump.
(Continued after the Jump)
TRANSCRIPT:Here are a few thoughts on managerial accounting versus tax accounting. I'm John Harrington. Managerial accounting is a system that tells you why you spend your money on what you spend it on as opposed to tax accounting which is a system that tells you what you spend your money on. Tax accounting is something that your accountant is going to use, but managerial accounting is something that you want to use in your business to understand why and where the costs are associated with different products and services that you offer. You want to work with your accountant on transitioning your accounting system from managerial to tax accounting when you're trying to deal with your tax return and that's why having a great accountant is important. But, I would strongly encourage you to check out this URL here down below. It's a great PPofA resource, Professional Photographers of America, on the differences between managerial and tax accounting. Why you should use managerial accounting and the benefits of doing so versus the importance of tax accounting. So check it out.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
TIPS60 - What's an NDA?
Here is another of our videos offering tips and inisights into the business of photography. a transcript of the video is included after the jump.
(Continued after the Jump)
TRANSCRIPT:What's an NDA? I'm John Harrington. An NDA is a non-disclosure agreement. It's an agreement between you and a client or you and an assistant to not have things disclosed outside of the scope of the work that you are performing. Non-disclosure agreements are very common when you're working with high profile clients and frankly assistants should be signing non-disclosure agreements with you to not talk about the details of a photo shoot they worked with you on. You should be getting non-disclosure agreements from your assistants and also many times your clients can ask you to not disclose what you learned, any company trade secrets or anything about a new product coming out that you might have just photographed. NDAs are very common. Read it. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not giving legal advice, but I strongly encourage you to understand the importance of an NDA and to respect an NDA. If somebody asks you about a shoot you were on and you can't talk about it because of an NDA, just say, "I can't talk about it because I'm under and NDA."
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
PILFERED Magazine - Copyright Scumbags10
Pilfer: to steal stealthily in small amounts and often again and again
There are scumbags, and then there are SCUMBAGS. In my book, when you are a "publication" whose sole existence is based upon stealing and exploiting work from all over the internet by creatives, then you are the embodiment of the word "scumbag", and as such, PILFERED magazine is one such uber-scumbag.
When your website's About page defines you, in part, as such:
The lawyers for PILFERED, however, can't have it both ways. Despite a publication title and raison d'etre that seems to promote the theft of intellectual property, their privacy policy page notes under "Prohibited Uses" that you may not:You may not use the PILFERED MAGAZINE site and or its services to transmit any content which...causes distress...upon any other person...includes any unlawful...material...may infringe the intellectual property rights or other rights of third parties, including trademark, copyright, trade secret, patent, publicity right, or privacy right.
Then they state under their "No Warranty and Limitation of Liability" :
Founders and Chief-Thiefs Patrick Hoelck, Rudj, Nate "Res" Harvey, and Mia Van Valkenburg, promote themselves as "hav[ing] in the past spent hours surfing the web to put together presentations for various commercial ad and editorial jobs…and noticed the hours it took to gather images and felt it was time to have a massive image collective shared by the people, for the people." What about the people who's creative works you're stealing?
Their About page goes on:
Guest editors? What mini-scumbags have agreed to participate in such a scheme? Well, while their March 2009 issue was a "test issue", the rest:
When people run around espousing the notion that "copyright is changing", I get it, and I know that. However, there is a huge difference between "changing" and becoming worthless or irrelevant. PILFERED seems to suggest that your copyright is worth something because it's worth stealing, but worth nothing in terms of the creator being paid for the use of their work. Hoelck, in an interview here, suggests " You either get it or you don’t and are pissed by it." No, we get it - you are promoting stealing of creative works. Anyone who's been a guest editor should hope that this "magazine" vanishes into the ether, because if these guest editors ever have their work stolen and they sue, the defendant in that lawsuit will hold up PILFERED and say something to the effect of "...why isn't what's good for the goose, not good for the gander?"
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Read more »
Source: Merriam-Webster
There are scumbags, and then there are SCUMBAGS. In my book, when you are a "publication" whose sole existence is based upon stealing and exploiting work from all over the internet by creatives, then you are the embodiment of the word "scumbag", and as such, PILFERED magazine is one such uber-scumbag.
When your website's About page defines you, in part, as such:
"PILFERED is a place where artists, photographers, designers, and the inspired can submit their favorite visuals pilfered from the web to share with one another. Founded on the spirit of web democracy, and built to aid in communicating ideas and concepts, PILFERED Magazine aims to assist in speaking the thousand words – visually."You seem to be headed down a dangerous path.
(Continued after the Jump)
The lawyers for PILFERED, however, can't have it both ways. Despite a publication title and raison d'etre that seems to promote the theft of intellectual property, their privacy policy page notes under "Prohibited Uses" that you may not:You may not use the PILFERED MAGAZINE site and or its services to transmit any content which...causes distress...upon any other person...includes any unlawful...material...may infringe the intellectual property rights or other rights of third parties, including trademark, copyright, trade secret, patent, publicity right, or privacy right.
Then they state under their "No Warranty and Limitation of Liability" :
"You understand and agree that you use the Site and Services at your own discretion and risk and that you will be solely responsible for any damages that arise from such use....UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL PILFERED MAGAZINE BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF ANY KIND...INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES RELATED TO USE, MISUSE, RELIANCE ON, INABILITY TO USE AND INTERRUPTION,...DAMAGES RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, SALES, DATA, GOODWILL OR PROFITS, WHETHER OR NOT PILFERED MAGAZINE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF SUCH POSSIBILITY. YOUR ONLY RIGHT WITH RESPECT TO ANY DISSATISFACTION WITH THIS SITE OR SERVICES OR WITH PILFERED MAGAZINE SHALL BE TO TERMINATE USE OF THIS SITE AND SERVICES. "And you think that these disclaimers will get you out of legal hot water when you are infringing peoples' copyrights? Really? REALLY??!!??
Founders and Chief-Thiefs Patrick Hoelck, Rudj, Nate "Res" Harvey, and Mia Van Valkenburg, promote themselves as "hav[ing] in the past spent hours surfing the web to put together presentations for various commercial ad and editorial jobs…and noticed the hours it took to gather images and felt it was time to have a massive image collective shared by the people, for the people." What about the people who's creative works you're stealing?
Their About page goes on:
"Content on PILFERED is submitted from around the world and carefully edited by an in-house team, as well as a new monthly guest editor, to keep issues cutting edge, fresh and informative."
Guest editors? What mini-scumbags have agreed to participate in such a scheme? Well, while their March 2009 issue was a "test issue", the rest:
- King Britt was the guest editor for the April 2009 issue, who describes himself as a "media revolutionary" and believes that he is one who "set the example of an individual who...show[s] what freedom truly is."
- Cory Kennedy was the guest editor for the May 2009 issue.
- For the guest editor for the July issue they had twins Gisela Getty and Jutta Winkelmann, described as being "actively involved with the German underground Communist Organization...they meet the young millionaire heir Paul Getty III and become life's play companion with him..."
- George Pitts guest edits the July 2009 issue, describing himself as a photo editor and photographer whose own photographic work "is an extensive meditation on Women...", and was a former editor for Vibe Magazine
- Guest editing the August issue is Tyler Gibney, and his site's about page lists his business "HVW8 Art + Design gallery was established in Los Angeles as a studio + gallery space for HVW8 and friends. The current mandate is to support avant-garde graphic design..." and then, for some inexplicable reason, contrary to PILFRED, has a contact person where you can contact their representative for licensing - one can only assume, for some form of compensation?
- Brett Ratner guest edits the September issue. I wonder how he'd feel if someone PILFERED one of his films?
- Christina Ricci guest edits the October 2009 issue - I wonder how she'd feel if someone PILFERED her likeness to sell products and services?
- Susan Kirschbaum guest edits the November 2009 issue
- Yosi Sergant guest edits the December 2009 issue - Sergant is descibed as a "community organizer...he organized and supported artists working to elect then candidate Barack Obama, including...artist Shepard Fairey" - enough said.
- Anthony Mandler guest edited the January 2010 issue- I wonder how he'd feel if someone PILFERED and profited from his movies, or how his friends like Rihanna would feel about having her work PILFERED? Readers, what do you think? Is Mandler a Jackass?
When people run around espousing the notion that "copyright is changing", I get it, and I know that. However, there is a huge difference between "changing" and becoming worthless or irrelevant. PILFERED seems to suggest that your copyright is worth something because it's worth stealing, but worth nothing in terms of the creator being paid for the use of their work. Hoelck, in an interview here, suggests " You either get it or you don’t and are pissed by it." No, we get it - you are promoting stealing of creative works. Anyone who's been a guest editor should hope that this "magazine" vanishes into the ether, because if these guest editors ever have their work stolen and they sue, the defendant in that lawsuit will hold up PILFERED and say something to the effect of "...why isn't what's good for the goose, not good for the gander?"
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
PicScout - Rights, Wrongs, and Facts
What a difference a day makes makes in this 24-hour world. One day after we published, in a criticism of PicScout:PicScout is supposed to be looking out for photographers, and previously, it seemed that they were putting their great technology to use for good. This blog post, full of misinformation about Orphan Works gives every indication that PicScout has re-charted their course into dangerous waters, and they are now intent upon lulling photographers into believing that the previous versions of Orphan Works bills would have been good for them. This is an unfortunate change of strategy at PicScout, and will harm, rather than help, individual photographers and the photography industry at large.In response to negative reaction to their blog post on the orphan works act, PicScout has made two public statements on the issue. First, the same author who wrote the original piece we were critical of, PicScout's Vice President of Marketing, (Dan Heller Update..., 5/28/09), wrote "The OWA is not relevant to PicScout. PicScout has no financial or other interest in seeing OWA pass or fail. Am I back-peddling? Absolutely not.", and then, in a personnel matter in the same post, he writes, "On an entirely unrelated matter, here’s another bit of news. When I first started working with PicScout, it was on contract. Things evolved to a point where it seemed to make sense that I join the company. But as the weeks wore on, but the reality of day-to-day logistics such as split between the time zones, made it clear that there was too much to do under the unusual conditions of a small and innovative company. So we’ve decided to return our relationship back to the consulting role we originally had."
Then, later that same day, the CEO of PicScout put out a press release:
(Continued after the Jump)
"Earlier this month PicScout announced the appointment of Dan Heller as Vice President of Marketing. After several seeks together, Dan and I have concluded that the fit just isn’t right. So we’re starting fresh. Dan will return to consulting after a brief transition period."As was noted on the PDN blog (Dan Heller Goes Through Revolving Door at Picscout, 5/28/09), we too believe he meant to write "weeks" and not "seeks" in his press release.
"We wish Dan all the best, and we will continue to be in touch with him in his capacity as an industry analyst.
Offir Gutelzon,
CEO
PicScout
Its hard to reconcile PicScout’s statements yesterday with the recent PicScout blog posts.
Yesterday, PicScout states that "The OWA is not relevant to PicScout. PicScout has no financial or other interest in seeing OWA pass or fail. Am I back-peddling? Absolutely not.”
But on the PicScout blog PicScout states that the outcome of the orphan works act will be “very very beneficial for copyright holders,” and that ” the opportunities for the creation of the OWA database far exceed the downsides,” and that “if people genuinely care about those billions of images, then supporting the OWA will get the database built.” PicScout has publically stated that the photography industry should support the orphan works act. Huh?
Then we see why. PicScout goes on to state that if the OWA passes, web crawlers (such as picscout) will mine” every record of the copyright office database, and that if an infringement case goes to court, the” judge then hears from the copyright holder who says, “Your honor, I simply used the PicScout search-once-takes-a-second engine I the image is right there.”
For a company focused on copyright protection and enforcement, PicScout is sadly misinformed about the orphan works act, copyright law and copyright office regulations. PicScout’s statements are so outlandish, so incorrect and so dangerous to rights holders that I don’t know what else to do, other than to let their statements and my brief replies speak for themselves:
PicScout:Wrong. The copyright office has no intention of creating a database for use in finding works (as evidenced by our previous Q&A with them, which appeared in PicScout - Delusions of Grandeur?, 5/27/09), and the Orphan Works Act has no provision requiring that they do so. The copyright office would prefer not to be involved in the process of certification of third party databases, but would do so if required by law.
“Once the Orphan Works bill passes, the Copyright Office will create a database so your works can be found”
PicScout:Wrong: The OWA has no provision requiring the CO to select contractors to create a database for the CO. The OWA provides that the CO will be a certifying authority for third party databases which will be operated independently of the copyright office, without further CO involvement, management or supervision. The CO will not operate, populate or administer a database under the OWA.
“ The CO will, as specified by the OWA, create a “certification process”, which means that it will create the specifications for one to be created. Third parties will apply for certification based on those specs. Contractors that are selected will be paid to create the database itself, at which point, the Copyright Office will put it into operation (including populating it with content and administering it).”
PicScout:Wrong. Under the proposed language of the OWA, whether you register or not, an infringer may use your work for any purpose without your prior knowledge, and if you ever happen to learn about the infringement, you have no right to stop the infringement, even if it conflicts with exclusive licenses that you have issued, and even if it is objectionable to you, and even if it harms or destroys the market for your image.
“If you register your works “there is no downside to the Orphan Work Act….If you never register your photos with the copyright office, then all this hoopla about the OWA is entirely irrelevant… The OWA only affects statutory damages, so only registered works are affected.”
PicScout:Wrong. There is no provision in copyright law limiting access to records within the copyright office, and there is no court order required to access copyright office records. Section 705 of the Copyright Act states that all copyright office records including deposits, registrations, recordations and other actions, including copies of copyright deposits “shall be open for public inspection.” Section 201.2(b)1 of the Copyright Office Regulations further provides that the copyright office shall provide the public with access to registrations and deposits. There is no requirement for court orders or other qualifications.
"copyright law currently states that no one whatsoever can access records within the copyright office without a specific court order"
PicScout:There is unfortunately little similarity between the OWA and the Fair Use provisions of copyright law. Fair Use allows usage for very limited purposes (criticism of the work, comment on the work, news reporting on the work, teaching about the work, scholarship related to the work, or research on the work), and only where the use has no negative effect on the rights holders ability to profit from his work. In contrast, the OWA allows usage of the work for any purpose, even purposes that harm or entirely wipe out the owner’s ability to market for the photograph.
“Fair use is hard to codify into exact language that everyone can agree on, but that hasn’t prevented it from being applied for decades."
PicScout:Wrong. Under the OWA, the rights holder bears most or all of the risk when filing a claim of copyright infringement. With the determination of diligence left to the court, a photographer takes a huge risk in filing an infringement claim. In the event that the court finds that the search was diligent, the photographer’s damages will be limited to the fee that both the photographer and the infringer would have agreed upon before the infringement occurred. The fee could be quite low, if for example the infringer can demonstrate that he typically licenses microstock for $1 for unlimited worldwide usage. This would leave the photographer with $1 in damages and tens of thousands of dollars in court costs. An unacceptable risk for most photographers. Pursuing claims of copyright infringement will be nearly impossible under the OWA.
“ if there is a dispute about someone’s use of a work, and they happen to gamble on the bet that they can convince a judge that they did a “diligent search”, then like any other judge looking at facts and circumstances, he or she will assess whether it’s apropos…the onus of proof is on the defense, not the copyright holder. All a photographer has to do is come forward with a claim, and the defense has a big decision to make: will a judge really determine that his search was diligent? I would be hard-pressed to believe that any publisher is ever going to take that risk.”
PicScout:Wrong. Under existing copyright law, a photographer need only show evidence of the gross revenues of the infringer. The infringer must then prove to the court all revenues that are not attributable to their infringing use of the image. Any profits that the infringer can’t prove unattributable will be awarded to the photographer. The burden of proof is on the infringer, no the photographer, and profits can be directly or indirectly attributable to the use of the image.
“If so, the OWA could affect some claims made by copyright holders. However, only a tiny fraction of image uses are ever directly linked to profits anyway.”
PicScout:Wrong, wrong and wrong. Both registered and unregistered works would be significantly impacted by the OWA. There are no plans to allow third parties to mine the CO database.
“Since the only images that are affected by provisions of the OWA are registered works, then one or both of these will be true: (1) all databases will have a complete set of CO records, and/or (2) web crawlers (such as picscout) will mine every single one of them, fingerprint the images, and still provide the same search-once-takes-a-second methodology.
PicScout:Wrong: the OWA is structured to provide comprehensive legal shelter from copyright infringement remedies for anyone who wishes to use a photograph but can’t find the owner. Not just non-profits, but also publishers, ad agencies, design firms, special interest groups --- anyone. Provided that they complete a diligent search and fail to find the owner, the infringer may use the photograph for any purpose without permission of the owner, and is only liable for a fee that the infringer agrees is reasonable. Further, the owner has no right to stop an infringement once it begins, even if the owner surfaces and objects to the usage because it competes directly with the owner, or because it is otherwise objectionable to the owner.
“The only people who would truly be protected are certain kinds of non-profit educational institutions and uses that are considered education or for the public interest.”
PicScout:I must point out that we can enjoy the benefit of databases without the horror of the orphan works amendments as they were proposed in the last session of Congress, and which will be a likely starting point whenever they return to the legislative scene.
“No matter how you look at this, the mere existence of a database is a good thing.
I have so much respect for the fireman who comes to the rescue and saves people from a burning building. I have contempt for the fireman who hopes for a fire so he can come to my rescue. Prior to PicScout telling everyone to "Relax" and misinforming everyone with "If you never register your photos...You already have very little protection (or recourse) against infringers, and OWA doesn’t make it worse..." I saw PicScout as that former fireman who was coming to the rescue of a lot of photographers and doing good. When PicScout took the relax, don't worry position, when every photo trade organization has said OWA is bad for photographers in one way or another, that was a cause for alarm and concern that they might have been the latter fireman.
Well, it seems, PicScout has heard the alarm, and reacted to the smoke in their own firehouse. Let's hope they don't make another mistake, because, frankly, when OWA passes, PicScout, Idee's TinEye, Digimarc, and others yet unannounced, will likely be, in one form or another, parts of the solution. I just don't want them cheering for photographers to need them like that, it's bad karma, if nothing else.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
PhotoPlus Expo 2010 - Day 1
It's the first of three days at the Jacob Javits Center in New York City, and the 2010 PhotoPlus Expo is in full swing. Below are several interviews we did on the show floor with vendors we think you should check out!
ThinkTank Photo - (RSS readers click here)
PNY Technologies (RSS readers click here)
APhotoFolio (RSS readers click here)
Wiebetech Hard Drive Solutions (RSS readers click here)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Read more »
ThinkTank Photo - (RSS readers click here)
PNY Technologies (RSS readers click here)
APhotoFolio (RSS readers click here)
Wiebetech Hard Drive Solutions (RSS readers click here)
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
I Do Solemnly Swear: Photographs of the 2009 Inauguration
Wednesday, April 29th, is a pretty cool day. It's the day that the Smithsonian opens their exhibit - I Do Solemnly Swear: Photographs of the 2009 Inauguration - featuring the photography produced for the official inaugural book. The Smithsonian touts the exhibit thusly:
This exhibition features approximately 50 framed color and black-and-white photographs printed by Kodak, highlighting the week-long events surrounding the historic Presidential Inauguration of Barack Obama. Included in the exhibition are photographs by both professional and amateur photographers who recorded events surrounding the peaceful American transfer of power. The photographs on view include selections from the National Museum of American History's new acquisition of 2009 inaugural photographs by leading photojournalists, including David Hume Kennerly, Bob McNeely and Karen Ballard.The full list of photographers who participated in the book is:
(Continued after the Jump)
| David Hume Kennerly - Producer and Photographer | Bob McNeely - Producer and Photographer | Matthew Naythons - Producer and Photographer |
| Thomas K. Walker - Creative Director and Photographer | Karen Ballard - Photographer | Andre Chung - Photographer |
| Daniel Cima - Photographer | Anne Day - Photographer | Hector Emanuel - Photographer |
John Francis Ficara - Photographer | Gil Garcetti - Photographer | John Harrington - Photographer |
| Sam Kittner - Photographer | Pete Marovich - Photographer | Greg Mathieson - Photographer |
| Paul Morse - Photographer | Daniel Rosenbaum - Photographer | Mark Sennet - Photographer |
| Pete Souza - Photographer | Bruce Talamon - Photographer | Clarence Williams - Photographer |
The exhibit opens today, Wednesday, and runs through July 12th, 2009. One name you might note up there is yours truly, and it was an honor to be a part of the team.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
As Storage Costs Decline, Alamy Takes Mo' Money
Yes, as the costs of storage continue to decline, as well as the costs for server technology as well, it would stand to reason that your partner in stock image licensing would share in these cost savings by giving you, say, a greater piece of each sale? Then again, why bother. They've gotten to be so big that they can just do as they please, and take more of your money. What are you going to do about it? Go to Getty?(Continued after the Jump)
Perhaps I am harkening back to days gone by where these organizations were "representing you", as your "agent", and looking out for your best interests. That notion was decimated by how Getty handled (and continues to handle) its' stable of photographers. We wrote about this back in September (Alamy, Oh My!, 9/28/08), about this same 5%, and they wrote on their blog here about the 5% from September, and here just recently, to remind you. The e-mail they just sent out, in part, reads:
The key changes are listed here: http://www.alamy.com/notice-board-1108.asp
We advise you to review the new contract here: http://www.alamy.com/terms.asp
The changes take effect on January 10th 2009, 45 days from November 26th 2008.
We recommend that you read through the changes thoroughly and print off a copy of the new contract for your records, there is no need for any further action on your part.
The key reason for issuing a new contract is the 5% increase in Alamy's commission on all commission schedules as announced on our blog.
The following commission splits will apply from January 10th:
- Alamy Blue: Alamy commission 40%, Contributor commission 60%
- Alamy Red: Alamy commission 20%, Contributor commission 80%
storage fees and submissionfees still apply
- Alamy Green: Alamy commission 30%, Contributor commission 70%
storage fees still apply
What is a mis-representation is that Alamy is not increasing their commission by "5%", they are increasing it by 5 percentage points, and there's a big difference.
Consider this. A sale of $100 where the commission was 40% to Alamy, that would mean they would get $40. a 5% increase in what they are getting would increase $40 by $2. A 5 percentage point increase would increase the $40 to $45. So, they are taking an additional 12.5%, not an additional 5%. They are playing games with statistics, making it appear like it's less of an increase than it is. What this means is that you won't see a 5% decrease in your actual dollars received, you'll see a 12.5% decrease in actual dollars received. So, for every $100 you used to get, you'll only be getting $87.50. Curb your holiday spending accordingly.
What's next? A Windows Home Server , which I wrote about (Microsoft Pro Photo Summit2008 - recap, 7/11/08) is something we've put in place here in the office. The box has four 1TB drives, and three Iomega 1.5TB drives, for about 7.5TB of storage space, all accessible to me from anywhere in the world. This is seperate and distinct from my ability to use "screen sharing" on my Mac and connect into the computers in my office.
What I think will be next will be that Alamy/et al will give you X% if they host it, and X% plus an additional percentage point or two if you host it - a sort of distributed computing/peer-to-peer network. All Alamy would need to do is set up a P2P solution and all of a sudden you are being required to host the images, and they become the distribution hub, and collect fees as the requests pass through their servers.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
What's Next in the Field of Photography?
During FotoWeek DC's annual PhotoFest a few months ago, a group of concerned photography professionals brought together a series of presenters to talk briefly about what's next in the industry. I was among the presenters, and the presentations are now online on YouTube.
Here's the Highlights video (RSS readers see the video here):
After the jump is the entire presentation, in 5 clips...
Clip 1 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Clip 2 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Clip 3 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Clip 4 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Clip 5 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Read more »
Here's the Highlights video (RSS readers see the video here):
After the jump is the entire presentation, in 5 clips...
(Continued after the Jump)
Clip 1 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Clip 2 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Clip 3 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Clip 4 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Clip 5 of 5 (RSS readers view the clip at this link):
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
On Hiring A Wedding Photographer
For once, someone in the business of providing services to weddings that is NOT a photographer writes about what is needed when hiring a photographer to photograph your wedding. All to often, a writer who has no knowledge of what it means to be in the room for hours on end, behind the scenes, and so on, believes they have captured the essence of being a wedding photographer and what that means - and most importantly, what a prospective couple should look for.Evan Reitmeyer writes on his blog MyDeejay.com, in an article titled Hiring a Wedding Photographer (928/09), about just what the bride and groom should be looking for, by not only asking photographers in the DC and Baltimore areas about what you should watch out for, but he also filters those answers through his BS-meter so that you are not getting marketing gobbly-gook, but rather, a real and thus very helpful answer.
(Continued after the Jump)
He gets good answers to these questions:
Why is wedding photography so expensive?And poses these questions as well:
If a couple is on a specific budget, what are some ways they can get the most for their money?
Each photographer handles the rights to their photos differently. Can you explain the differences?
What are the differences between the major styles of wedding photography?In addition, they include a good list of questions to ask a wedding photographer. Evan wrote a great piece - thanks Evan!
What exactly does “wedding photojournalism” mean?
How important is it to meet the photographer before you hire them?
How important is it to find a photographer that’s a good match in terms of personality, or is liking their photos enough?
Are there any advantages of digital photography over film? Are there any disadvantages?
How important is it for a photographer to be familiar with the ceremony or reception site?
What are the advantages of having a “second shooter” to assist the photographer?
Every couple has a “shot list” for family photos, but what are some unique things they can do besides that?
What’s the most efficient way to get formal photos completed before the reception?
What if the bride and groom really don’t want to see each other before the ceremony?
What kind of advice do you give to couples to prepare for an engagement session?
What are your thoughts on the current trends in wedding photography, and where do you see things going?
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Washington Post Fakes Own Front Page For Profit
The Washington Post, (NYSE: WPO) which normally sells reprints of past editions from major news stories for keepsake purposes, has stooped to a new low, faking a cover to cash in on Jackson's death. To make matters even more absurd, Matt Schudel, in his article "Michael Jackson Obit, the Backstory" writes of the Jackson obit "...we had no advance obituary prepared." Really? The King of Pop, whom you deem worthy of a $249 framed "commemorative" issue of, had no advance obit of Jackson? Since Jackson, at the age of 50, was not expected to die anytime soon, despite many reports of health irregularities over the years, it's little surprise that an over-worked and under-staffed newspaper would not focus on preparing an obit, given the numerous rounds of staff reductions in recent times.The fake cover - that is - it's not an actual cover from the newspaper the day Jackson died - can be had in a framed version for as much as $249.95.
(Continued after the Jump)
Here's the actual cover (with thanks to the Newseum, viewable here too), with a small piece at the top, which refers to Jackson as an "Object of Acclaim, Curiosity", which I can only guess doesn't make for much of a resale piece. (Click at right to see it larger and read it for yourself.)Below is a screen grab of the Post store (viewable live here):
The Post should think twice about faking it's front page - re-writing history from its' actual front page to one that they can sell "commemorative" copies of.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Simpsons Did It
Well, the Simpsons are always chock-full of humor, and here's a few seconds of humor at the expense of the paparazzi (but atleast they're compensated!):
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Read more »
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Google SEO Antics - Revenge of The Algorithms
Well, Google's at it again! Back in September of 2008 (here), I wrote all about how the good people in the bowels of the Googleplex, in an effort to improve peoples' search results, had tweaked the algorithm just enough that a number of photographers websites fell off the radar. This was happening to a number of photographers across providers, platforms, and hosting companies. This is akin to a "rolling blackout" where whole areas of a geographic region get hit with a loss of power, in a coordinated manner to reduce the load on the power grid. However, in this case, entire sections of the web are getting lost in Google purgatory while the algorithm experts decide if you should return to your "little spot of heaven" or be banished to the hell that is beyond page 3 in the search results.If you're in that purgatory right now, you're feeling the heat in the form of a fear that you will lose clients, and perhaps never return to your previous search-engine-return-position (SERP). Know this - you are not alone, it's just your time to feel the pain of the "rolling blackout" of Google's dominance.
(Continued after the Jump)
Make no mistake, friends, about you marketing efforts - SEO is definitively not a "set it and forget it" effort. Get out there and build quality links from relevant places to your website. Switch out your images with new ones - all of these things (and others) are what makes Google happy - fresh content that has inbound links from trusted sources.
If you did a half-hearted SEO effort with your provider, regardless of who they are, and have just let it go - you have little to blame but yourself. If you did a decent SEO effort, realized the results, and rested on your laurels - you have little to blame but yourself. SEO is an ongoing effort that you must stay on top of if you are to experience good results over the long term. Blaming Google or your provider isn't a solution. Am I aware of users of certain providers (NeonSky, liveBooks, etc) experiencing this? Yup. Are they to blame? Nope. Just like some crappy self-built-by-your-college-age-nephew website can rank #1 and then fall off the map, so too, can a $3,000 premium-brand website that was ranked #1 vanish. Your success is up to you.
Since both Rob Haggart's sites, along with those of liveBooks (disclaimer - liveBooks advertises here on PBN) have "shadow" sites showing an HTML edition to be more easily spiderable than a Flash site, let's discuss the concern about what some are worried about called Google's "duplicative content" penalty. On the face of this, it's a flawed argument, because if Google could spider the Flash edition of the site, then there would be no need for the HTML version, right? Thus, Google is blind to the Flash version of a tricked-out site and only sees the HTML version, so how can Google see, for example, celebrity portrait photographer Brian Smith's flash site (here) when it can only read his html version of his site (here)? The answer is, they only see the HTML version.
If you're looking for someone to handle your SEO for you, I encourage you to contact two people I trust on SEO matters, William Foster (a Sacramento-based photographer who does SEO consulting), or Blake Discher (a Detroit-based photographer that also does SEO consulting).
Lastly, unless your name is Richard Avedon, Annie Liebovitz, or some other celebrity photographer, no one is searching for you by name - they are searching for you by geographic region/area, or by your specialty - maryland portrait photographer, or maryland wedding photographer, for example. So, don't go gauging your visibility by a vanity search, unless you're vain.
Related:
Search Engines And Your Website (9/26/08)
It's Google's World, You're Just A Small Part Of It (11/28/07)
SEO - Wild Wild West or Reason and Logic? (3/4/08)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
LicenseStream - Evaporating Into Thin Air?
For several days recently, the LicenseStream website has been down. ImageSpan (Which changed it's name to LicenseStream in January of 2011), was the company behind LicenseStream, and billed the site as "the market-leading licensing and royalty payment automation platform for all media types and businesses." Yet, we have never really seen a functioning business model that we thought would work.
More than one LicenseStream employee was on-site at PhotoPlus Expo back in October in New York City looking for a new place of employment, stating that the company only had enough money to last through the end of December, as they spoke to prospective employers. Oddly, as Digital Railroad ( the formal online portal for image archiving, marketing, and sales, as well as a client delivery platform) went down in flames several years ago, they shopped their company around and then, with no buyers, shuttered operations with little warning to clients. LicenseStream has, according to sources, not been doing so - at least not amongst prospective buyers that would make sense to take over operations that we checked with. Whispers of friendly staff telling image owners they had relationships with to backup their images & data have not been substantiated, however, with enough chatter on the subject, and the risks if the data isn't redundant, we strongly encourage you to have all your LicenseStream content archived, either way.
LicenseStream secured Series A funding back in February 2007 (here) and another $11,000,000 in June of 2008 as a part of a second round of funding (here). In April of 2010, a new CEO was brought in, and another round of financing, billed as "growth financing", with an unreported amount of additional funds (here).
In preparing for this posting, we checked one last time and found that the website, at least as of this publishing, was back up. Perhaps it was just a multi-day site crash over the holidays, or perhaps it was a harbinger of things to come.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Read more »
More than one LicenseStream employee was on-site at PhotoPlus Expo back in October in New York City looking for a new place of employment, stating that the company only had enough money to last through the end of December, as they spoke to prospective employers. Oddly, as Digital Railroad ( the formal online portal for image archiving, marketing, and sales, as well as a client delivery platform) went down in flames several years ago, they shopped their company around and then, with no buyers, shuttered operations with little warning to clients. LicenseStream has, according to sources, not been doing so - at least not amongst prospective buyers that would make sense to take over operations that we checked with. Whispers of friendly staff telling image owners they had relationships with to backup their images & data have not been substantiated, however, with enough chatter on the subject, and the risks if the data isn't redundant, we strongly encourage you to have all your LicenseStream content archived, either way.
LicenseStream secured Series A funding back in February 2007 (here) and another $11,000,000 in June of 2008 as a part of a second round of funding (here). In April of 2010, a new CEO was brought in, and another round of financing, billed as "growth financing", with an unreported amount of additional funds (here).
In preparing for this posting, we checked one last time and found that the website, at least as of this publishing, was back up. Perhaps it was just a multi-day site crash over the holidays, or perhaps it was a harbinger of things to come.
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
PR Photography Pricing and Subject Follow Up
In my other job as a full time photographer, I often get asked by clients "hey, who owns these photographs", and I always respond "I do." This is almost always followed up with "so, how can we see them if we were interested in getting a copy?" I always tell them I will send them an email with that information, which includes the following URL:
www.JohnHarrington.com/Portrait-Copy-Request
That PDF tells them all about the process, and also, that there will be a fee associated with it. Over the years, we have generated significant annual additional revenue from the subjects we photographed, which is just one of the many reasons why keeping your rights is of critical value to solid business practices. Over at A Photo Editor, Rob Haggart has a great article titled Real World Estimates – Publicity Pricing and the Value of Subject Follow-Up, which addresses a number of other points that often come up with clients and subjects.
FIRST TEXT HERE
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Read more »
That PDF tells them all about the process, and also, that there will be a fee associated with it. Over the years, we have generated significant annual additional revenue from the subjects we photographed, which is just one of the many reasons why keeping your rights is of critical value to solid business practices. Over at A Photo Editor, Rob Haggart has a great article titled Real World Estimates – Publicity Pricing and the Value of Subject Follow-Up, which addresses a number of other points that often come up with clients and subjects.
FIRST TEXT HERE(Continued after the Jump)
POST JUMP TEXT.Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
R.I.P. PicApp - We Told You So
Back in August of 2009, with great fanfare, PicScout announced PicApp, and we took a critical (and dim) view of it, as we wrote about here - Silly Rabbit - PicApp's Got Problems (8/19/2009). The concept was - free photos for your non-commercial blog/etc, and we'll intersperse some ads among or overtop of the images, and make money that way.
We said it was a bad design then, and, more importantly, we said it made no business sense then, and on their blog here (12/23/2010)
"...the demand was not sufficient to commercially justify this as our core business model, which is why we have decided to terminate the Picapp images search....".Right. Because it was poorly designed, made no business sense, and was also likely competing with the sources of the images (Getty/et al), and they didn't like it either. Paul Melcher does a fine job of taking a critical look at PicApp here - so I won't rehash what he wrote, other than to say "we told you so."
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Copyright: Know it or Blow it
American Photographic Artists has an excellent program that is ongoing - Copyright, Know It or Blow It - which is travelling the country, and Topics to be discussed include:
-- What To Do When Your Image Has Been Infringed
-- How And When To Choose An Attorney
-- Putting Copyright To Work For You
I have spoken (and am speaking) at several of them as time and my schedule permits. To learn more about the FREE program, visit the APA site here.
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Talenthouse: Predatory Parasite on the Creative Community?
Talenthouse would like you to believe that they are the “home for all creatives and art lovers.” But it seems that based on their business model and their predatory terms and conditions, Talenthouse exists for one reason: to suck the lifeblood out of the creative community.
Talenthouse solicits major corporations to pay fees to Talenthouse to provide those corporations with content sourced from the creative community. To source that content for its clients (Coca Cola (NYSE:KO), Adidas (ETR:AG), Universal (NYSE:GE), Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Proctor & Gamble (NYSE:PG), etc), Talenthouse operates “contests” designed to entice creators to create and submit creative works. Talenthouse members vote to select the “winners” of the contests. But in reality it seems, Talenthouse's clients select the winners. It doesn't matter, because the contests are a sham, just a carrot on a string, or more accurately – a façade for one of the most horrific rights grabs in history.
Talenthouse’s marketing materials promise their corporate clients “ready made content.” After collecting fees from their clients, Talenthouse posts “creative invites” specifying the type and subject matter of the content that their clients require for use in advertising and branding campaigns. Talenthouse’s business model is designed to help their clients to avoid any responsibility to pay for the expenses involved in creating content for use in their advertising and branding campaigns. Under the Talenthouse model, all responsibility for paying for those expenses falls on the creators.
Thousands of creators dedicate their time and money to creating and submitting new works meeting the specifications of Talenthouse’s clients. None of these creators receive reimbursement of those expenses. I would estimate that over well over 90% of the entrants to Talenthouse contests never receive a dime for creating their works. Only a handful – the winners – receive any form of compensation. That compensation -- the “prizes” received by the winners, amounts to a small fraction of the fees typically paid by Talenthouse clients for creative content. By sourcing content through Talenthouse, advertisers obtain creative work for pennies on the dollar.
After thousands of creators around the world submit their works to the contests, Talenthouse’s clients dive in and feast on a bounty of cutting edge, original, creative works, harvesting the contest entries to commercially exploit in their major corporate advertising and branding campaigns.
But that’s not the worst of it. Talenthouse makes every attempt to trick entrants into believing that creators will retain copyright ownership in their works.
In once place in their language, they write:
“When you submit a work to Talenthouse as an entry, you grant Talenthouse a limited license to use your work. You always own the copyright in your work.”
One more time: Talent says “you ALWAYS own copyright in your work.”
Those few entrants who are not lulled into complacency by that statement, and who proceed to read the fine print, will find the rights grabs:
“If you are selected as a winner, then in exchange for a prize, you may be required to license or assign your work to the host providing the prize.”From what I’ve seen to date, in most or all circumstances, the statement “you MAY be required to license or assign your work to the host..” actually means: “you WILL be required to ASSIGN YOUR COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP to Talenthouse’s clients.”
But even THAT is not the worst of it.
Buried even deeper in the terms and conditions is this gem:
“Upon the Promoter’s and/or Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign ANY AND ALL LEGAL FORMS” deemed necessary to license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the Work, including without limitation, ALL COPYRIGHTS associated therewith, in exchange for the Prizes set forth above.”Hmm. Legal forms? What legal forms? Where are they? What additional, hidden terms will be forced on creators who submit their works to Talenthouse contests? Nobody knows. In the current Talenthouse contest “hosted” by Microsoft and Reuters, Talenthouse failed to post the “legal forms” and when asked, Talenthouse refused to reveal those hidden terms.
So we must ask, publicly - Talenthouse – if you won’t disclose your corporate clients’ (in this instance, Microsoft and Reuters) hidden terms, exactly how are we supposed to know if we’re comfortable with those terms before we enter? Yet again, that’s not the worst of it.
In another one of Talenthouse’s recent contests, “hosted” by Talenthouse client AirBnB, Talenthouse posted one of their client’s legal forms applicable to the contest. The handful of entrants to click through to open that document and read the terms will see that the legal form posted by Talenthouse states:
“…any images submitted will be solely the property of Airbnb.”Under these terms, AirBnB claims copyright ownership of every image entered in the contest, whether the entry wins or not.
So we must ask, publicly - Talenthouse, if “any images submitted will the solely the property of your client AirBnB, why are you telling all entrants “you ALWAYS own copyright in your work?”
Apparently, when Talenthouse says “Our mission is to liberate all artists” what they actually mean is “Our mission is to liberate all artists from their copyrights.”
When Talenthouse says of creators -- “We are dedicated to helping them harness the power of their art to inspire, transform and illuminate,” what Talenthouse actually means is “we are dedicated to helping our corporate clients to exploit your creations in their advertising, in order to sell more products and services.”
Make no mistake about it - Talenthouse is in the business of selling your copyright to their clients.
But all is not lost. The concept behind Talenthouse is good. Its just the Talenthouse terms that are egregiously evil. Talenthouse and their clients need not steal the copyrights of creators. If Talenthouse is, as they claim, comprised of good people trying to do a good thing, they simply need to change the terms of their contests, and to require that their clients do the same.
- Usage of contest entries should be limited to the promotion of the contests. Period.
- Contest winners should NEVER, EVER be required to assign copyright ownership to Talenthouse’s clients.
- The “prizes” provided to winners should not allow Talenthouse clients to make use of winning entries, except for the purpose of promoting the content.
- If Talenthouse clients desire to make use of winning entries, those clients should pay a fair fee to the winners, on par with market rates for the desired usage.
- The winners should receive reimbursement of expenses associated with creating the works.
- Lastly, any terms and conditions applicable to contest entrants and winners must be disclosed to entrants prior to the time of entry, rather than hidden until the contest is over.
It is that simple. Really.
Or, should we continue? Lets.
(Continued after the Jump)
Talenthouse has announced a parternship with Microsoft and Thomson Reuters Foundation that, if their past contests are any the same, are demanding a copyright transfer to anything you enter that they want - not just winning entries.
With much fanfare, it is suggested that Talenthouse has a contest "…to empower photographers with a series of career opportunities as part of this year’s Trust Women Photo Award." Somehow, empowering women by demanding they give up their rights at an event that is, according to the Talenthouse website (HERE - "... dedicated to the advancement of women’s rights..." doesn't seem right. Now, before anyone suggests that the matter of "womens rights" as it is referenced here is not the same as the broader sentence "...dedicated to the advancement of women’s rights and to the fight against human trafficking...." you would be incorrectly dismissing the value of the rights to photos. Economic challenges are among the many reasons women throughout the world find themselves being taken advantage of and otherwise mistreated. What better than to leave the rights to ones' photographs with the creator, allowing them to earn a living? Talenthouse, Microsoft, and Thomson Reuters Foundation are either intentionally - or, as one might hope,unintentionally - seeking to disenfranchise women from their rights.
Talenthouse writes:
Photographers and photojournalists are invited to submit images capturing the lives and stories of remarkable women around the world, who are achieving incredible things in their communities.So, any photographer (male or female) that submits the images is subject to an all-rights grand and demand, and whenever Talenthouse and/or their partners want copyright, must transfer copyright, even if they don't win?
What's interesting is that the conditions for entry into the Talenthouse Airbnb contest state (HERE):
DISCLAIMER: When you submit a work to Talenthouse as an entry, you grant Talenthouse a limited license to use your work. You always own the copyright in your work. Talenthouse never owns the copyright in your work. If you are selected as a winner, then in exchange for a prize, you may be required to license or assign your work to the host providing the prize. If you do not want to license of assign your work in exchange for a prize, an alternate winner will be selected and you will retain copyright to your work.So, Talenthouse says "you always own the copyright in your work. Talenthouse never owns the copyright in your work." No, "always" is not true. And, while "talenthouse suggests they never own the copyright in your work" the fact remains that you agree to transfer/assign your copyright, and if you don't, someone else will be the winner and only then "...you will retain copyright to your work."
Not so fast. Read further down:
7. Grant of Rights. By entering the Contest, entrants irrevocably grant the Promoter and Sponsor, its subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, designees, clients, sponsors, licensees, and advertising and promotional agencies, an unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, non- exclusive, royalty-free, unconditional license and absolute right to edit, post, publish, store, copy, transmit, publicly display, and exhibit, the Work (in whole or in part) in connection with the Contest and/or the promotion of the Contest. Upon the Promoter’s and/or Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal forms deemed necessary to license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the Work, including without limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for the Prizes set forth above.Let's focus on that last sentence:
Upon the Promoter’s and/or Sponsor's request, winners agree to sign any and all legal forms deemed necessary to license or assign all right, title and interest in and to the Work, including without limitation, all copyrights associated therewith, in exchange for the Prizes set forth above.Ignoring the entire paragraph except this, (the entire paragraph still applies, and is horrendous) any any all images entered, upon request of the sponsor, are required to be transferred to the sponsor.
So, the AirBnB contest, which, by the way, involves the storied Chiat Day advertising agency, could easily hire a photographer to shoot work for AirBnB. Unfortunately, they are using Talenthouse to produce spec work around the world, for free. Remember spec work? That's where you cover all the expenses and shoot for free and maybe make money.
Contests pit corporations making money against the hopes and dreams of photographers who want to get exposure and succeed. The only winners here are Talenthouse and their sponsors. It's a facade for a rights grab. It's horrible. Talenthouse is a creative parasite leeching the talent from entrants and leaving them with no ownership of their work. In the end, it may be that Talenthouse is contributing to the "starving artist" station in life and they will have to be providing an actual "house" to their talent who will be homeless if they look to Talenthouse for creative support.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Nikon D3x - It Has Arrived!
Whispers of a Nikon D3x have been floating around for some time. It was first rumored to be coming out in time for the Olympics, and was anticipated between March and June of this past year (Nikon D3x - impending announcement, 4/16/08). Sources suggest that there was a decision to delay that announcement. Some have suggested it was to give the D700 some legs and some suggest they wanted the excitement to be about the D90. Still others surmised that there were details they wanted to work out to ensure a timely delivery date after its announcement.Regardless of the reason, official word has come out - the D3x has arrived in the form of NikonPro magazine with all the details and specs. Hit the jump for the specs, and more thoughts on what this means moving forward.
(Continued after the Jump)
The first thing that struck me was the statement that leads off the third paragraph - "The D3x was designed with medium format photographic applications in mind." This statement is two-fold in its' intentions. 1) Medium format photographers should welcome a 24.5MP chip as a suitable replacement for their medium format cameras. But, the real reason, in my estimation, is this: 2) to set expectations in that arena, and not expect a 24.5MP edition of the D3.
Everyone was blown away by the insanely high ISO of the D3, and the D3x had to make some accommodations for the larger chip, in the form of a reduced ISO range. A stated range of 100-1600, with low/boost settings allowing for 50-6400 illustrate some of the likely technical limitations of a chip this size at the higher ISO ratings.
Here's the basic spec rundown:
- 24.5-megapixel shooting at up to 5fps; cropped 10-megapixel shooting at up to 7fps
- Custom-built Expeed 16-bit processing to handle detail on the 75MB image files
- ISO range of 100-1600 with a Lo1 (equivalent to ISO 50) with boosts up to ISO 6400
- Writes files to dual CF slots at 35MB/s
- Same lithium-ion battery as D3
- 51-point MultiCAM3500FX autofocus system
- Scene Recognition System
- 3-inch, 922,000-dot LCD
- 35.9mm x 24mm FX format sensor (If you can't think in metric, that's 1.4" x 0.94")
- Weather-resistant magnesium body
- Designed for medium-format shooting
- 12ms start-up time; 41ms shutter-release lag time
- USB 2.0, HDMI and AV-out jacks, with 10-pin terminal for GPS and other accessories
- World’s highest-res SLR with Live View at 922,000 dots in the LCD
Also worth noting is the compatibility with the D3 batteries. It seems Nikon is finally happy with their battery configuration, and isn't changing it again. Also unchanged (and would you expect any less?) is the lens mount. Yes, you can go back to any F-mount lens you'd like. On top of that- Nikon's EXPEED engine is designed to minimize the effects of color fringing for those lenses specifically. How's that for taking care of legacy customers? That's a definitive pro-consumer decision - enhancing the ability of lenses they've already sold which might otherwise cause someone to decide now is the time to upgrade a lens. Nice move Nikon.
What does this portend for Canon?
Well, this chip-size is larger, by about 3.5MP. Ok, so what. The pixel game is essentially over. What continues to be the battleground will be clarity of files (can you say Foveon technology anyone?), high-iso noise (and Nikon, with the D3, set the equivilent of Kodachrome 25 as the benchmark for future noise measurements) concerns. What the Wikipedia article notes (and a citation is indicated it's needed) is that a Kodachrome 25 slide on 35mm will hold detail equivilent of 25MP or more of image data. This is in line with information I gleened from meetings over a decade ago with people in the production department at National Geographic, who gave as a guidepost the maximum size of an RGB 8-bit file from a 35mm slide as being 60MB, or 20MP. Thus, at more than 20MP, in my estimation, size is no longer the issue. What's next? Video.
So, why no video on the D3x? We can guess a lot of reasons. My guess is that it's a fun pro-sumer capability that is getting tested in the D90, and when the D800 comes out, it will have video capabilities comparable to the 5D Mark II. As throughput on CF/SD cards gets better, and the price of cards plummets to a negligible amount, it might be a feature that a pro would want, but I am guessing that the jury is still out on that for the flagship editions of Canon and Nikon cameras. I for one am not bothered one iota at video missing from the D3x DSLR.
The one remaining question is one of price. The D3 was introduced at $4,999, and you can get one for around $4,100. Competitors the Sony A900 with a 24.6MP chip is the low-price point here, at $2,999. While Sony has made significant inroads in Europe (see our video interviews here and here from PhotoPlus on the A900), I surmise that they are coming in very low to get into the US market, because traditionally Sony is the premium brand premium priced product. Canon, on the other hand, has dropped down to under $7k, with demo and other used excellent-rated used systems at the $5,600 range. I think we'll know much more come Monday, when Nikon has scheduled announcements. We can only guess that that announcement will be the same as what the mailbag brought to doorsteps today in the form of the Nikon Pro magazine. We just await pricing and delivery dates. Nikon Rumors is reporting one UK retailer suggesting £5,500 as the price, which equates to $8,466 USD.
Look for a head-to-head like we did just a year ago(Nikon - a first look, 12/8/07) when we concluded that the D3 beat out the EOS 1Ds Mark III. So, it's time for a re-match in the ring.
UPDATE:
The D3x has an estimated street price of $7,999 USD, and you can learn everything you need to know (atleast officially) here - Nikon D3x Official webpage.They also have a micro-site here. The delivery date is stated to be December of 2008, and it has been suggested that it will be before Christmas.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)