Monday, April 26, 2010

AFP and The Twitter Debacle

The blogosphere is all aTwitter over the fact that a photographer on Haiti, seemingly without options for getting his remarkable images out, opted to use Twitter to do so. (PDNPulse - here).

When Agence France Presse (AFP) published those images, and, yes, profited from their distribution as did all their subscribers, the photographer got mad, because he was not profiting from the images, as he should have. Or should he?
(Continued after the Jump)

The Terms and Conditions for the use of Twitter grants Twitter the right to redistrubute without payments to the originating party, whatever passes through their system, but apparently the photographer didn't read the terms for the service he used? Instead, the photographer should have built up the necessary infrastructure and had it at the ready (Sat phone, anyone?). For example, I have the necessary equipment to traverse a blizzard, get around during the aftermath of a hurricane, and reduntant communications systems both in the office and on location in the event of system outages.

Arguments by the photographer that he didn't read the terms of service should fall on just as deaf a set of ears as the arguments that are made by clients who say they shouldn't be held to the terms of our delivery memos, contracts, or embedded-metadata restrictions on our images. "Officer, I didn't see the speed limit posted..." is not a valid excuse.

It's unfortunate here, but just as most photographers don't read the heinous wire-service contracts that freelancers are signing because they're non-negotiable, so too, are they making mistakes when posting images on free services with onerous terms and conditions.

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.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

AP Hires out Staff Photographers

The good folks over at PDNPulse (here) wrote about the AP hiring out their staff photographers for freelance work.

From one point of view, it sounds like a good idea. From another, a bad one.
(Continued after the Jump)

On the good side - the AP invests a great deal of money, time, and infrastructure to have their cadre of staff photographers. However, in some instances, those photographers are idle, and/or not used to their fullest potential. Why not allow another news organization to book them for an assignment? It is a smart way to maximize their assets (yes, a photographer is an asset of an organization) to maximize revenue and yield.

On the bad side - once this program goes well (and it likely will), there is no reason that the AP cannot task a freelancer who earns $200 a day, and grants all rights to the AP, to an assignment that would be done for a corporate/commercial client for $2,000 or more. Heck, WireImage charges $5,000+ and hires a photographer for a few hundrdd dollars for the same deal and then post the images on their site, why not the AP? But, where's your piece of that higher dollar? Nowhere, if you signed their contract!

So, it's good, and it's bad, but in an era where every outlet is trying to stay profitable, I can't say it wasn't expected.
.

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.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

iDisplay - Wireless Client Viewing on Shoots

When I first saw the iPad, I thought it was pretty cool, but essentially an oversized iPhone. It wasn't until I was chatting with a friend who was a bit in the know, that I realized that it could be used as a second screen with my laptop, on shoots in either the studio, or on location, and that sold me.

The application to use is iDisplay, which is pretty slick. Below is an example of how it can be used for wireless viewing by the client, while the laptop and camera are tethered






(Continued after the Jump)


Often I take the laptop digital workstation on shoots and have a 30" monitor next to the workstation but that means that the client is peering over my shoulder, or the shoulder of my digital tech. Instead, the client (and their client in many cases) can be away from the shoot, and watching the images as they are coming in.

The downside is that there is a bit of lag-time, but not too much. If you're shooting fast and furious, it may not be the best, but if you are shooting at a more deliberate pace, it would be no problem at all. The only other downside is that while the monitor is set to vertical only, the current version of the software doesn't allow you to rotate the iPad, so horizontal images are only viewable vertically, meaning they show up smaller (but still full image area), within the iPad when viewed vertically. The company tells me that the next version should allow you to hold the iPad horizontally to view horizontal images using the full screen of the iPad too. for $4.99 on iTunes, it's a small price to pay for this functionality!

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.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Who Gets Paid What? Getty & Corbis Edition

Paul Melcher, over at Thoughts of a Bohemian, writes about the salaries of staffers of Getty and Corbis in this article, and I strongly encourage you to read what your "support staff" is getting paid, if you work for one of those companies. Moreover, if the "support staff" for a photo organization gets paid over $100k, for example, shouldn't the talented photographers who are actually creating the stuff that is being sold (and thus, needs support!) should be getting paid more?!?!

(Continued after the Jump)


As of right now, there are 330 jobs listed on Monster.com for "photographer" here, including staff photographer jobs for Diapers.com (here), and Amazon.com (here), but what I just don't see is Monster.com (or any other service for that matter) listing photographer jobs for the staff positions at Getty and Corbis, because they likely pull from their contractors, or get photographers via world-of-mouth. Would it ever be that a support staffer for a major sports league get paid more than the players on the field that are in the game? Why isn't this same mentality applied to the creative talents of staffers at Getty and Corbis?


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.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

ASMP et al v. Google - Battle Royale for Image Rights

"The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP), joined by the Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America, photographers Leif Skoogfors, Al Satterwhite, Morton Beebe, Ed Kashi and illustrators John Schmelzer and Simms Taback, has filed a class action copyright infringement suit against Google, Inc. in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York", reads the first paragraph of the press release.

These organizations "decided to file the class action after the Court denied their request to join the currently pending $125 million class action that had previously been filed primarily on behalf of text authors in connection with the Google Library Project. The new class action goes beyond Google’s Library Project, and includes Google’s other systematic and pervasive infringements of the rights of photographers, illustrators and other visual artists."

I will say that I was concerned that photographers had been excluded from the class action suit in connection with the Google Library Project, but at the same time, I am glad that the photo trade organizations have the wherewithal and mettle to pursue this, since nothing less than the future of image valuation is at stake. Further, this suit can learn from the mistakes (if any) from the first class action suit, and also possibly ride on the coattails of that decision.

I commend these trade organizations for taking a stand on this important issue. Yahoo News reports on it here, and we reported on the book scanning technology that is being used here, which included a number of links to Google's patents and other related stories on this subject.
(The full release, after the Jump)

The full release:
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP), joined by the Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America, photographers Leif Skoogfors, Al Satterwhite, Morton Beebe, Ed Kashi and illustrators John Schmelzer and Simms Taback, has filed a class action copyright infringement suit against Google, Inc. in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York. The suit, which was filed by Mishcon de Reya New York LLP, relates to Google’s illegal scanning of millions of books and other publications containing copyrighted images and displaying them to the public without regard to the rights of the visual creators. ASMP and the other trade associations, representing thousands of members, decided to file the class action after the Court denied their request to join the currently pending $125 million class action that had previously been filed primarily on behalf of text authors in connection with the Google Library Project. The new class action goes beyond Google’s Library Project, and includes Google’s other systematic and pervasive infringements of the rights of photographers, illustrators and other visual artists.

This action by ASMP and its sister organizations was taken in order to protect the interests of owners of copyrights in visual works from the massive and organized copying and public display of their images without regard to their contributions and rights to fair compensation. According to ASMP Executive Director Eugene Mopsik, “Through this suit, we are fulfilling the missions of our organizations and standing up for the rights of photographers and other visual artists who have been excluded from the process up to now. We strongly believe that our members and those of other organizations, whose livelihoods are significantly and negatively impacted, deserve to have representation in this landmark issue.” ASMP General Counsel Victor Perlman said, “We are seeking justice and fair compensation for visual artists whose work appears in the twelve million books and other publications Google has illegally scanned to date. In doing so, we are giving voice to thousands of disenfranchised creators of visual artworks whose rights we hope to enforce through this class action.”

Founded in 1944, ASMP is the premier trade association for the world’s most respected photographers. ASMP is the leader in promoting photographers’ rights, providing education in better business practices, producing business publications for photographers, and helping to connect purchasers with professional photographers. ASMP has 39 chapters across the country and its 7,000 members include many of the world’s foremost photographers. More information is available at http://asmp.org.

The Graphic Artists Guild is a national artists union that embraces creators at all levels of skill and expertise, who create art intended for presentation as originals or reproductions. The mission of the Guild is to promote and protect the economic interests of its members, to improve conditions for all creators, and to raise standards for the entire industry. Its core purpose is to be a strong community that empowers and enriches its members through collective action. More information at http://www.graphicartistsguild.org.

Founded in 1951, PACA, the Picture Archive Council of America, represents the vital interests of image archives of every size, from individual photographers to large corporations, who license images for commercial reproduction. PACA leads advocacy, education, and communication efforts on copyright and standard business practices that affect the image licensing industry. More information at http://www.pacaoffice.org.

NANPA, the North American Nature Photography Association, is the first and premiere association in North America committed solely to serving the field of nature photography. More information at http://www.nanpa.org.

PPA, the Professional Photographers of America is the world’s largest not-for-profit association for professional photographers, with more than 20,000 members in 54 countries. The association seeks to increase its members’ business savvy as well as broaden their creative scope and is a leader in the dissemination of knowledge in the areas of professional business practices and creative image-making. More information at http://www.ppa.com.



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.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

PBN Readers - We Were Hacked!

So it seems, somehow, Photo Business News in the last 24 hours or so, got hacked. I am seeing it fine here on my end, and others are as well - so perhaps the cached version of the hacker site is de-populating from servers around the world - I apologize for the hack and the good folks at Google have graciously agreed to look into what happened.

Stay tuned!

(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.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Reuters Photographer - In the Crosshairs

As someone who has been overseas (albeit not in a bonafide war zone) and had my life at risk by thugs at gunpoint (once), seeing video of the actual death of a photographer turns my stomach and should make you realize just how dangerous being a photojournalist is these days.

(Continued after the Jump)

Photojournalists risk their lives everyday, around the world, to bring back the news. When they are employees of a company, they have the full support of the organization they work for, including medical, (sometimes mental health coverage), disability, and life insurance, not to mention coverage for all their equipment.

When a news organization hires a freelancer, and pays them a few hundred dollars for the day (usually not enough to cover the rental charges on the gear they would bring to an assignment, let alone their talent) the freelancer is responsible for their health, disability, and life insurance protections. According to WikiLeaks who broke this story (and PDN here), the photographer and driver were Reuters employees.

As a freelance photographer, whomever you work for, make damn sure that you have full medical/disability/life insurances, because while you are likely to not be shot from a helicopter, you could crash on the interstate, and you need to be able to get on with your life - and value it.




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.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Digital PhotoPro - Misinformation indeed!

There are plenty of purveyors of misinformation on the web, and to be sure, in print too. Yet, I was shocked to find one whose core readership are DIGITAL PHOTOgrapher PROs (hence Digital PhotoPro) telling photographers that it is a myth that "stolen images are a bad thing." What kind of idiotic advice is that, anyway?

The article, Misinformation - Copyright Tech, on the last page of the magazine (pg 118) itself espouses the notion that you can gain notoriety if your images propagate over the internet, and are appreciated by "...a lot of fans out there who want stuff for free." (I'll address that one later).

The article then says "The fine line between good publicity and outright thievery is a matter open to debate." No - that's idiotic line #2.

The article then suggests that Creative Commons is a good solution for photographers who want to share their work. Let's get this straight - Creative Commons is a mechanism for conveying a license (i.e. permission) for end users that is set by the photographer. Most people who use CC licenses are granting broad rights, often seeking only photo credit, or allowing for all uses except commercial. This - CC is a manner of granting PERMISSION to do something.

(Continued after the Jump)


There is all manner of PWC (person with camera) in the world who doesn't give a damn if they ever make a dime of their photography. Their "payment" is photo credit, an atta-boy, or bragging rights amongst their PWC peers. However, images that are "stolen" are done so without anyone's permission. If you leave a broken toy on your front lawn and it gets stolen in the night, you may not care enough to call the police, and in fact, might thank the unknown thief for taking something you were going to throw away. Yet, in the end, not only is it still theft, but you are also telling the thieves that in your neighborhood it's ok to steal, and the next thing to go will be items of value. Teaching a community that theft is ok is just plain wrong. Telling a readership of photographers that they should get over it, and evolve from "...the old-school way..." The article then suggests that CC "...provides you flexibility in protecting your works for meeting the ever-changing world of supply and demand." So, DPP editors - which is it? It's a "Myth [that] stolen images are bad thing", or, you should use CC to protect your work? You CANNOT have it both ways.

The article suggests your work will be appreciated by "...a lot of fans out there who want stuff for free." Guess what? Fans who want stuff for free is a growing audience that...wait for it...won't want to pay you. So, you can grow an audience of people who want to free-load off your creative works, which will not pay your bills.

I looked to see who wrote the article, or generally writes that column - but I couldn't find a name. Perhaps no one was willing to put their name behind the piece? Perhaps it was written collectively by the editorial staff. Among the "professional advisers" on the masthead are Jeff Schewe, Doug Sperling, and Ryan Stevens, alongside contributing editors John Paul Caponigro, Robert Hawk, Michael Guncheon, and William Sawalich. I am pretty sure that most if not all of them would NEVER want their images "stolen", let alone endorse the notion that stolen images is an idea that should be spread around. Some might want a broad CC license granted to their work, but that's a license/permission, not a promotion of the attitude that theft is ok.

In addition, a CC license extends to every single person on the planet, is perpetual and irrevocable. Further, CC does not clearly distinguish between commercial and non-commercial use either. Lastly, when applying a CC license you FOREVER forfeit the right to issue an exclusive license to anyone who approaches you to use that image. CC is a great means of destroying your exclusive rights and sapping nearly all of the value out of an image.


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.