Theft, Orphans, Metadata, et al - Devil's Advocate

[lenswork1]

Hi all,

Been following all the various threads on these subjects and a few
random thoughts have entered my mind and piqued my curiosity :

disclaimer : I am staunch advocate of intellectual property rights
and
register my © and embed metadata, and put my ©, image # and website
url
on all photos sent to the web or anywhere else.

1. Why no discussion of image use/tracking systems like digimarc and
others ? Has this technology failed, have the companies folded ? Is
there no new technology on the horizon that, like facial recognition
software, will 'recognize' images based on pixel orientation ? Are
digital images capable of being 'fingerprinted' or embedded
with 'pixel
DNA" ?

2. Just what is the frequency of image theft in the digital age
versus
unauthorized use in the pre-digital area ? Does such data exist ? Is
this reaally a valid threat to the livelihood of most artists or just
as rare as getting hit by lightning ?

3. Do we all honestly feel that the extensive measures discussed here
to prevent orphans, theft, etc. are valid, necessary, cost effective
and prudent based on our own 'theft' experiences, or are we entering
the realm of 'overkill' and disproportionate attention to a minimal
threat on our property ?

Just my random thoughts on the subject - one has to keep things in
perspective......

regards,

Len
http://lenholsborg.com

[David Sanger-2]

Strongest new technology is from Idee in Canada. http://www.ideeinc.com/

They have visual pattern matching which correctly identifies images even if
they are cropped, flopped, stretched and color changed.

The are building a search engine to crawl the web for images­ only 487
million images so far but will be a billion very shortly.

www.tineye.com

Once it gets more comprehensive coverage it promises to be a good way to see
where your images are being used.

More helpful wil be the ability be to find where you can license an image
you have in hand or have seen elsewhere on the web or in print.


http://blog.ideeinc.com/category/tineye/


david



On 6/23/08 7:52 PM, "Len Holsborg" <lenswork1@...> wrote:

>  
>  
>
> Hi all,
>
> Been following all the various threads on these subjects and a few
> random thoughts have entered my mind and piqued my curiosity :
>
> disclaimer : I am staunch advocate of intellectual property rights
> and
> register my © and embed metadata, and put my ©, image # and website
> url
> on all photos sent to the web or anywhere else.
>
> 1. Why no discussion of image use/tracking systems like digimarc and
> others ? Has this technology failed, have the companies folded ? Is
> there no new technology on the horizon that, like facial recognition
> software, will 'recognize' images based on pixel orientation ? Are
> digital images capable of being 'fingerprinted' or embedded
> with 'pixel
> DNA" ?
>
> 2. Just what is the frequency of image theft in the digital age
> versus
> unauthorized use in the pre-digital area ? Does such data exist ? Is
> this reaally a valid threat to the livelihood of most artists or just
> as rare as getting hit by lightning ?
>
> 3. Do we all honestly feel that the extensive measures discussed here
> to prevent orphans, theft, etc. are valid, necessary, cost effective
> and prudent based on our own 'theft' experiences, or are we entering
> the realm of 'overkill' and disproportionate attention to a minimal
> threat on our property ?
>
> Just my random thoughts on the subject - one has to keep things in
> perspective......
>
> regards,
>
> Len
> http://lenholsborg.com
>
>  
>    

----------------------------------
David Sanger Photography LLC
Travel assignments and stock worldwide

510-526-0800 voice
510-526-2800 fax
510-685-2512 mobile
david@...
http://www.davidsanger.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mary Ann Melton]

My son pointed me in the direction of a great photo in the Economist.  
I noted that it came from Shutterstock.  Do prestigious magazines like  
the Economist pay any more than the standard rate at Shutterstock to  
the photographer when they use an image?

I don't sell micro stock - so I'm just curious.


Mary Ann Melton

Mary Ann's View Nature Photography Website
http://www.io.com/~hmelton/maryann/

Mary Ann's Blog
http://maryannmelton.blogspot.com/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Fred-43]

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Mary Ann Melton <mammelton50@...>
wrote:
>
>
> My son pointed me in the direction of a great photo in the
Economist.  
> I noted that it came from Shutterstock.  Do prestigious magazines
like  
> the Economist pay any more than the standard rate at Shutterstock to  
> the photographer when they use an image?
>
> I don't sell micro stock - so I'm just curious.
>
>
> Mary Ann Melton


The "Selling Stock" newsletter has had a few very interesting articles
recently about how micro is much more than simply what many believe it
is and how they do, in fact, license images on a rather RM-like basis.
So yes, if The Economist used the photo in a manner beyond the basic
license offered by Shutterstock they would have had to purchase a
special or "extended" license to use the image.

Selling Stock is at
http://www.selling-stock.com/

Fred Voetsch
Acclaim Images
http://www.acclaimimages.com/

[Leif Skoogfors-2]

Wow! I doubt it very, very much. There was a time, about 8 years ago that picture editors at
one of the big newsweeklies (remember them?) were given bonuses if they could get
pictures for free from the folks they ran stories on. TIME recently had a iStock on the cover.

Leif

> Mary Ann Melton <mammelton50@...> wrote:
>
>
> My son pointed me in the direction of a great photo in the Economist.  
> I noted that it came from Shutterstock.  Do prestigious magazines like  
> the Economist pay any more than the standard rate at Shutterstock to  
> the photographer when they use an image?
>
> I don't sell micro stock - so I'm just curious.
>
>
> Mary Ann Melton

[Peter Bennett-8]

Mary,

Just a guess, but I would bet that if they use a substantial number of
images, they have probably negotiated a bulk rate with Shutterstock that
allows them to pay less, not more than the standard rate.

On a similar note, I was just talking to an AP photographer and the bulk
rates AP has worked out with clients has brought down the per image rate to
new lows. He also told me that photographers will now not own their
outtakes, that all images will be owned by AP. This prevents the
photographers from selling the outtakes as their own stock. Very sad. Maybe
someone knows more specifics about this.

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com





From: Mary Ann Melton <mammelton50@...>
Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:29:18 -0500
To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Selling photos via stock agencies like Shutterstock

 
 


My son pointed me in the direction of a great photo in the Economist.
I noted that it came from Shutterstock.  Do prestigious magazines like
the Economist pay any more than the standard rate at Shutterstock to
the photographer when they use an image?

I don't sell micro stock - so I'm just curious.

Mary Ann Melton

Mary Ann's View Nature Photography Website
http://www.io.com/~hmelton/maryann/

Mary Ann's Blog
http://maryannmelton.blogspot.com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 
   



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Tina Manley-3]

At 02:57 PM 6/26/2008, you wrote:
>He also told me that photographers will now not own their
>outtakes, that all images will be owned by AP. This prevents the
>photographers from selling the outtakes as their own stock. Very sad. Maybe
>someone knows more specifics about this.
>
>Peter Bennett

What's sad is that photographers put up with this and don't stand
together to refuse such terms.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

[Stockphoto Seller]

First, Shutterstock and the other microstock portals are nothing like a stock *agency*. The terms "agency" and "agent" have more specific meanings and obligations than simply an outlet for images.
   
  Second, the many companies now using junk stock--micropayment, subscription, Flickr ripoffs, and whatever--are usually not getting "perfect pictures"; they are getting pictures that they consider to be "good enough." Though they have some individual images and a very few photographers that are good, their overall collections are mediocre or worse in quality.
   
  Third, and like older RF, RF microstock is now being used in almost all kinds of commercial and many editorial applications. It is a plague on professional stock photography because, overall, it cannot bring in enough to pay the overhead and make a living for a professional photographer. But this is how races to the bottom go in any industry. Eventually most participants who con themselves into believing there is a future in it drown in their own toxins. With a tiny few exceptions that are advertised heavily to keep the myth alive and bringing in more suckers,  the bottom feeders, detritus eaters, who make their survival money elsewhere are the ones who survive.
   
  Peter Bennett, perhaps you saw (in the information that was published when Getty stockholders recently approved the sale) that Getty considers AP to be its second biggest competitor--after Corbis and now ahead of Jupiter. Considering the baloney Getty sometimes puts out in its PR for the financial and securities audience, I have no idea if there are numbers to back up the claim.
   
  Carl May/BPS

Mary Ann Melton <mammelton50@...> wrote:
         
My son pointed me in the direction of a great photo in the Economist.
I noted that it came from Shutterstock. Do prestigious magazines like
the Economist pay any more than the standard rate at Shutterstock to
the photographer when they use an image?

I don't sell micro stock - so I'm just curious.

Mary Ann Melton



   
    Recent Activity
   
      8
  New Members

Visit Your Group
      Only on Yahoo!
  Star Wars galaxy
  Create a profile
  and meet fans.

    Move More
  on Yahoo! Groups
  This is your life
  not a phys-ed class.

    Best of Y! Groups
  Discover groups
  that are the best
  of their class.



  .

 
                           


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[David Barr-2]

>At 02:57 PM 6/26/2008, you wrote:
>>He also told me that photographers will now not own their
>>outtakes, that all images will be owned by AP. This prevents the
>  >photographers from selling the outtakes as their own stock. Very sad. Maybe
>  >someone knows more specifics about this.
>>
>  >Peter Bennett
>
>What's sad is that photographers put up with this and don't stand
>together to refuse such terms.
>
>Tina
>

But we do Tina.

You place higher value on your work as do many other photographers
including myself.

There is of course an inexhaustible supply of photographers that are
not making a living from photography and are happy to supply pictures
at any price and under conditions most unfavourable to the industry.

While low prices have done and are doing irreversable damage to the
industry there's still a need for quality unique pictures and clients
that will still pay for them.

David B
--
__________________________________________

David Barr  519 846 8827

Simplify your search at http://www.photobar.com

http://www.cama.org/  CAMA  Member
http://www.nama.org/ NAMA Member

[Peter Bennett-8]

Tina,

The photographer I spoke to was a stringer for AP, a tough position to be in
to stand up for your rights.

I found out more specifics about the AP situation, I was sent the following
by someone I trust to know:


"AP has owned the rights to out takes for a least ten years. Every since
the AP contract came out photographers working for AP as stringers have
never owned their images.
However AP never really gave a rat's ass about anything but the few
photos that they required for the wire. It doesn't mean that you could
re-sell it though.
The new AP contract that started in June states that now they want
everything you shoot. Whether or not they will enforce that is another
story but it gives them the option if God forbid they ever sent anyone
to anything that has tremendous resale value.

The new AP contract does give resale to photographers though.  A piddly
25 percent I believe to sales that go to NON-MEMBERS.

What is happening is AP is gearing up for a big stock marketing push
and they are getting their ducks in a row."


Revenue streams are being broadened by those that can, which means in most
cases that revenue streams are tightening for those affected.

Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com





From: Tina Manley <images@...>

 

At 02:57 PM 6/26/2008, you wrote:
>He also told me that photographers will now not own their
>outtakes, that all images will be owned by AP. This prevents the
>photographers from selling the outtakes as their own stock. Very sad. Maybe
>someone knows more specifics about this.
>
>Peter Bennett

What's sad is that photographers put up with this and don't stand
together to refuse such terms.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

 
   

[Peter Bennett-8]

From: Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...>

 
> Second, the many companies now using junk stock--micropayment, subscription,
> Flickr ripoffs, and whatever--are usually not getting "perfect pictures"; they
> are getting pictures that they consider to be "good enough." Though they have
> some individual images and a very few photographers that are good, their
> overall collections are mediocre or worse in quality.
 
My experience is different unfortunately. One of our best clients publishes
quarterly guide books and used a substantial amount of our and other RM
images for many years. In the last year and a half however, they have
steadily increased their use of micro slog images, all from one company:
iStockphoto. While initially the images were OK, they have since broadened
not only in the subject matter, but in quality as well. I hate to say it but
they are indistinguishable from the RM images. It's the same dynamic and
evolution we saw with RF, only it seems to be happening faster.
 
> Peter Bennett, perhaps you saw (in the information that was published when
> Getty stockholders recently approved the sale) that Getty considers AP to be
> its second biggest competitor--after Corbis and now ahead of Jupiter.
> Considering the baloney Getty sometimes puts out in its PR for the financial
> and securities audience, I have no idea if there are numbers to back up the
> claim.
 
I didn't read that, but it make sense. The AP stringer was hoping to sell
his outtakes as stock, but that option is not available anymore, AP is
clamping down realizing the potential value of it's collection, all of it.
They have an enormous collection and they seem to be going with the low end
fees and bulk pricing so as to undercut Getty's editorial collection. The
race to you know where continues.


Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
.
   

[Mary C. Legg]

License Stream
http://www.licensestream.com/licensestreamportal/learningLibrary.html

this looks interesting and not terribly expensive at 100 USD year
you can license, create custom license, track royalties and they will bill unlicensed images they find on the net via image recognition technology and issue take-down notice on your behalf

you can register as individual or organization
the services offered look  interesting

I think it is owned by Bertelsmann
 comes with Adobe CS3 plug-ins so that you can prepare all your images offline  including the licensing terms  and then just  do upload

uses PLUS licensing
intended for global usage

the help info is in pdf, so you can download and read through it to have some idea.

there are two rates per annum depending on services, but the professional covers wide range of licensing including  custom.


and has additional storage additions available if you run ot of space.

found it on stockphototalk






--- On Tue, 6/24/08, Len Holsborg <lenswork1@...> wrote:
From: Len Holsborg <lenswork1@...>
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Theft, Orphans, Metadata, et al - Devil's Advocate
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 4:52 AM










   
            Hi all,



Been following all the various threads on these subjects and a few

random thoughts have entered my mind and piqued my curiosity :



disclaimer : I am staunch advocate of intellectual property rights

and

register my © and embed metadata, and put my ©, image # and website

url

on all photos sent to the web or anywhere else.



1. Why no discussion of image use/tracking systems like digimarc and

others ? Has this technology failed, have the companies folded ? Is

there no new technology on the horizon that, like facial recognition

software, will 'recognize' images based on pixel orientation ? Are

digital images capable of being 'fingerprinted' or embedded

with 'pixel

DNA" ?



2. Just what is the frequency of image theft in the digital age

versus

unauthorized use in the pre-digital area ? Does such data exist ? Is

this reaally a valid threat to the livelihood of most artists or just

as rare as getting hit by lightning ?



3. Do we all honestly feel that the extensive measures discussed here

to prevent orphans, theft, etc. are valid, necessary, cost effective

and prudent based on our own 'theft' experiences, or are we entering

the realm of 'overkill' and disproportionate attention to a minimal

threat on our property ?



Just my random thoughts on the subject - one has to keep things in

perspective. .....



regards,



Len

http://lenholsborg. com




     

   
   
       
         
       
       








       


       
       


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[David Riecks]

At 04:08 AM 7/10/2008, Mary C. Legg wrote:
>I think it is owned by Bertelsmann
>  comes with Adobe CS3 plug-ins so that you can prepare all your
> images offline  including the licensing terms  and then just  do upload

Mary:

Licensestream is a product from ImageSpan.  Iain Scholnick, ceo of
Imagespan also helped develop a portion of PLUS (Picture Licensing
Universal System) http://www.useplus.org/

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
david@...  http://www.riecks.com/
Midwest/Chicago ASMP


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Leif Skoogfors-2]

Hi Len,

Sorry I've taken so long to respond. You raise interesting questions.

I believe it was SAA that worked with PicScout and came up with an almost incredible
figure on the number of pirated works on the Internet. Almost 90% of images used on the
web are used without proper licensing.

Also, I have recently had an opportunity to go through a large number of licenses that
were granted by one of my distributors. Almost 10% of these licenses had been exceeded,
creating copyright and contract violations that were never noticed. And some by very large
and respectable media who when had the issue brought up, resolved the issues quickly.

As far as metadata and watermarks, many are just stripped when pirated. Others are used,
believe it or not, with the watermark or a credit line. One site which makes massive use of
copyrighted text and images had instructions on it on how watermarks on could be
removed by folks wanting to post photographs.

Certainly, "in the old days" people did steal images. Today it is common that many people
believe that anything on the Internet is free.

I personally believe we have to, at a minimum, issue DMCA notices to take down images
we find. And, when necessary, go further. I was disturbed when I contacted a fellow
photographer whose work I found along with mine on a site and she told me that she had
no problems with people stealing her work. I guess in a world where there are Orphans,
we have parents  who abandon children.

Leif

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "Len Holsborg" <lenswork1@...> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Been following all the various threads on these subjects and a few
> random thoughts have entered my mind and piqued my curiosity :
>
> disclaimer : I am staunch advocate of intellectual property rights
> and
> register my © and embed metadata, and put my ©, image # and website
> url
> on all photos sent to the web or anywhere else.
>
> 1. Why no discussion of image use/tracking systems like digimarc and
> others ? Has this technology failed, have the companies folded ? Is
> there no new technology on the horizon that, like facial recognition
> software, will 'recognize' images based on pixel orientation ? Are
> digital images capable of being 'fingerprinted' or embedded
> with 'pixel
> DNA" ?
>
> 2. Just what is the frequency of image theft in the digital age
> versus
> unauthorized use in the pre-digital area ? Does such data exist ? Is
> this reaally a valid threat to the livelihood of most artists or just
> as rare as getting hit by lightning ?
>
> 3. Do we all honestly feel that the extensive measures discussed here
> to prevent orphans, theft, etc. are valid, necessary, cost effective
> and prudent based on our own 'theft' experiences, or are we entering
> the realm of 'overkill' and disproportionate attention to a minimal
> threat on our property ?
>
> Just my random thoughts on the subject - one has to keep things in
> perspective......
>
> regards,
>
> Len
> http://lenholsborg.com
>

[Singh, Shangara-5]

On 10 Jul 2008, at 18:52, Leif Skoogfors wrote:

> Also, I have recently had an opportunity to go through a large  
> number of licenses that
> were granted by one of my distributors.

Sounds like an enlightened distributor we should all sign up to. I  
have tried to get the licencing info out of Alamy and failed. I just  
met with lame excuses, such as if we tell you who we are licensing to,  
you will pester them for tearsheets. What a load of cods-wallop. Who  
do they think we are? Not all of us are dumb, nitwits with a peanut  
for a brain.

IMO, it's *impossible* for a large distributor to read every magazine,  
newspaper or website. If a photographer knew WHO was publishing his  
photos and the publication title, he could easily head straight for  
that newspaper, magazine, book or website.

IAC, we can still learn the identity of the publisher by reading  
newspapers, leafing through the magazines in W H Smiths or someone  
telling you they have seen your name in print and then pester them for  
tearsheets! Duh! While we may not be able to police all the foreign  
publications, we can police foreign websites.

Let's say a distributor has 15,000 photographers and out of those  
10,000 actively check their licences, can you imagine a distributor  
employing 10,000 staff to check licences? Imagine what kind of signal  
that would send to purchasers if they knew they were being policed.  
There is NO doubt in my mind they would stick to the licence terms  
more closely.

> Almost 10% of these licenses had been exceeded,
> creating copyright and contract violations that were never noticed.  
> And some by very large
> and respectable media who when had the issue brought up, resolved  
> the issues quickly.

I am not at all surprised. That's revenue lost not just by the  
photographer, who can ill afford it, but by the distributor, who can  
afford it because they play the numbers game but still if loss runs  
into millions over a year, it's not something to be sneezed at.

If enough photographers pestered their agencies to release the name of  
the publication, URL and the licensor, the agencies may just come to  
their senses and change their practices.

Regards,

Shangara Singh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:: Keyword Catalog Software www.keyword-catalog.com
:: Blog www.shangarasingh.com/blog

[Michael Vitti]

Dear David,

Have gotten on the Tineye Beta list, it provides access to one at a  
time image comparison with it's compiled image list.  None of my  
images came up, even images I have on Alamy.  I guess, based on my  
assumption that Tineye is working correctly cataloging images across  
the web, there are significantly more than 500 million images on the  
web.

If Tineye works  and catalogs more than 98% of web images, then we  
small independent stock photogs have level playing field with the  
agencies.


mik


On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:48 AM, david sanger wrote:

> Strongest new technology is from Idee in Canada. http://www.ideeinc.com/
>
> They have visual pattern matching which correctly identifies images  
> even if
> they are cropped, flopped, stretched and color changed.
>
> The are building a search engine to crawl the web for images– only 487
> million images so far but will be a billion very shortly.
>
> www.tineye.com
>
> Once it gets more comprehensive coverage it promises to be a good  
> way to see
> where your images are being used.
>
> More helpful wil be the ability be to find where you can license an  
> image
> you have in hand or have seen elsewhere on the web or in print.

Michael Vitti
   VittiPhoto Productions, NYC
     stills + motion + motion graphics = visual storytelling

    646-327-3662
     http://www.vittiphotoproductions.com
     michael -at- vittiphoto -dot- com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
    Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
  Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules 
    STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
     STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:STOCKPHOTO-digest@...
    mailto:STOCKPHOTO-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    STOCKPHOTO-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/