Adobe (NASDAQ: ADBE) has a potential liability on their hands if it does not properly warn users of Adobe Photoshop (and others) that when they choose "Save for Web and devices..." that they are stripping all of the metadata (including ownership information) from the files, unless they take the action of choosing "Include XMP" within the save dialog box.
By removing this information, not only is Adobe (and not just Photoshop, but all their applications) risking being in violation of the DMCA (and subject to criminal and civil penalties) but this extends to international issues of moral rights (a.k.a. droit morale) which, under international law, the removal of this information from creative works is expressly prohibited.
(Continued after the Jump)
This has been an issue since 2004, when Adobe, in an effort to assist users with creating the smallest files possible for the web, created this feature, since prior to that, you had to choose to not include previews, thumbnails, and so forth, in the 'file saving" preferences. It wasn't until November of 2007 that a "bug" was noticed in Adobe CS3 and fixed, which moved the "Include XMP" to the "fly out menu", which was previously buried in another menu. The problem remains, however, that when choosing "Include XMP", it does not include that same data in the legacy IPTC fields, so if your client is looking for ownership information in the Preview program on a Mac, some PC applications, older version of Photoshop, and so on, the ownership information would not be seen. Since Jeff Sedlik, CEO of the PLUS Coalition, has been working closely with Adobe on metadata and rights issues related to the PLUS standards, we asked him if he was aware of these problems. "I first brought the metadata preservation issue to the attention of Adobe engineers in January of 2005. Specifically, I proposed that Photoshop and other Adobe products should preserve metadata by default, even during a “save for web” operation. Months later, I notified Adobe of a bug related to the Photoshop’s preservation of metadata. In both instances, Adobe was very receptive and promptly acted upon the proposals.” Sedlik noted that Richard Anderson/ASMP, Bill Rosenblatt/Giant Steps and others worked in parallel on the issue.
Yet, the integration has not been done to include the ownership in both XMP and IPTC when used in Photoshop, so if you had ownership information in just the IPTC, which would include the many thousands of images you may have saved pre-XMP, there is a potential risk that it would get stripped, unless it was migrated into the XMP as well.
According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) the operations of Adobe's Photoshop and other applications - specifically take place without informing the user that it is happening - and thus removes “copyright management information” from protected works that have been worked on in Photoshop and saved, including photos and graphical illustrations.
We are going to see more and more issues about ownership of creative content moving forward, and Adobe could well be culpable in DMCA violations. Sedlik reports that he earlier proposed that Adobe display a DMCA warning pop-up when user either turns off the default metadata preservation setting or attempts to edit or delete rights metadata. Sedlik has further proposed to Adobe that “file info” panels should include explanatory text and links to help users to understand the DMCA and the importance of metadata preservation.
Proposals to "lock" metadata are flawed as well. The notion that once any metadata is written is cannot be removed is just like putting a lock on a straw door, it's a false sense of security, as it's very easy to delete or edit any metadata. (John Nack at Adobe answers this on his blog here).
In addition, confirmation of the setting of metadata being included by default should be in plain view , and maintain the copyright and ownership data in both the IPTC (IIM and XMP) and PLUS fields. It's critical that these choices to preserve that metadata shouldn't be so hidden. Frankly, all of the above should be implemented, to ensure the best protection for Adobe and their unknowning customers.
Any argument that the addition of a few hundred bytes of data is going to adversely affect the file size of a JPEG is trumped by the importance of ownership data remaining an integral part of the file as it traverses the internet.
Any argument that Adobe should not be responsible for these issues and contributory infringement need only look to what happens in Adobe when you try to scan in US currency, from Photoshop CS and later. Clearly, Adobe is concerned about liability on currency, so too on the liability of who the owner of the intellectual property that it's applications were used on should be a concern to them. In January of 2004, when Adobe added this capability, in this AP piece Adobe "acknowledged Friday it quietly added technology to the world's best-known graphics software at the request of government regulators and international bankers to prevent consumers from making copies of the world's major currencies", and quoted Adobe as saying the currency protection technology "would have minimal impact on honest customers." So too would the warnings and default settings have a minimum impact on honest users when it comes to the intellectual property of photographers and illustrators.
This will become a huge problem once whatever form of Orphan Works gets passed, but Adobe needs to be out infront of this issue, and the change of a default setting, or the addition of a warning box could easily be a "dot-release" addition, since it's not a feature, it wouldn't be something that would be subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (example of the Sarbanes-Oxley issue here), and Carolyn Wright, over at Photo Attorney, notes a cautionary warning here back in 2007.
While I'd make the educated guess that less than 2% of Adobe's customers are photographers, and probably less than 15% of Photoshop users are photographers, these settings, across the board of Adobe's application line, potentially affect all of Adobe's customers both in the liability of creating an Orphaned Work, as well as the DMCA liability of stripping ownership metadata from the images. 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.
James Nachtwey's TED Prize gets announced this week, and we're helping spread the word. Watch the video, and check the "X" box on the right to find out what the story is on October 3rd.
(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.
What bar-room napkin was this silly dot-bomb idea written on? Someone should save it for posterity to remind future "brilliant-idea" purveyors of how miserable these types of failures can be. I mean, come on - a free photographer's website where the hosting company's profits come from advertisers on the photographers' sites? Really?
(Continued after the Jump)
There are solutions that are viable - BluDomain, Clickbooq, and liveBooks are among those that you have to pay for (tho I'm not sure how BluDomain's current pricing model for some of it's potential customers jibes with prudent plans for longevity). There are others too like Rob Haggart's APhotoFolio service that are also well worth looking into. Again, I direct you to Robert Benson's blog where he compares the main website providers - Photographer template websites compared, for his review of the many options available to you.
Yet I was perplexed last December when Uber was announced (and I pre-cogged that thud as the sound of it's future (and now realized) failure as it was launched) and PDN suggested that Uber was a competitor of liveBooks. That's like calling public transportation competition for the Bentley's of the world.
Friends, Romans, Countrymen - getting a website and starting a relationship is the single most important marketing effort you can undertake. It's not like buying a can of soup. You want a company that provides customer service and followup, and stays current.
I know that APhotoFolio is a top-shelf offering, and so too is liveBooks. Clickbooq seemed to me to be engaged and active during the discussion about SERP's on the Search Engines, so that's a good sign from them. I think something like Fluid Galleries isn't on par with these choices, nor other off-the-shelf software packages you might consider. Don't cheap-out on your website. Make the investment, and it will provide 10-fold returns, and be an Uber-success, not an uber-flop like Uber.com was. 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.
So, Alamy has reached a critical mass that they've decided they can begin to take advantage of their photographers.
Generally speaking, when a business decides to expand it's operations, they don't call all their suppliers and tell them "well, we're growing our business and opening a new office, so what we paid you before for your hard work we're now paying you less - 5% less to be exact." If you're a business you expand your operations from your cash reserves, not on the backs of your suppliers. It's laughable on it's face that any other business would do this, yet photographers will just shrug their shoulders, and accept the lower revenues.
(Continued after the Jump)
Recognize this - when Getty's Jonathan Klein moved from Seattle to New York, it was primarily to find a suitor. Now, Alamy's CEO is coming to the Big Apple to "oversee the opening of the US office..." which means that he's looking for a buyer. Good luck.
What's next? Well, look at Getty as a roadmap. It's getting harder for photographers to get their material accepted, with very inconsistent rejection reasons. Getty started a "pay for acceptance" per-image charge model. Don't be surprised to see that from Alamy in the near future.
Alamy will continue to do things that make it more attractive to a buyer, and that includes things like further reductions in photographer percentages, and so forth. Instead of shrugging your shoulders, try canceling your contract and pulling your images. It's only a matter of time before they are asking you to bend over. 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.
Do you trust something that is done under dark of night? How about when everyone else is focused elsewhere? How about when you sneek your bad idea onto someone elses' really great idea - like a swarm of gnats around hot dog stand on cool fall evening?
Re-enter Orphan Works, which did just that. At the end of a Friday night, when everyone was focused on the impending debate of the presidential candidates, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act, S 2913 was snuck through, like an illegal alien skirting Border Patrol with the guidance of coyotes to help it on it's way. One of those Coyotes - Orin Hatch, proclaimed "victory" (read here).
Sen Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) who co-sponsored the BIll with Senator Hatch, is quoted as saying, in remarks about whom the bill is named, Shawn Bentley - “So it is entirely proper and fitting for this bill to honor him and his continuing contributions to intellectual property law.”
Contributions? Try the gutting of IP law, Senator. This is just out of line.
What happens next? ------ UPDATE: Jim Goldstein's EXIF AND BEYOND podcast with me, Chase Jarvis, and Dan Heller debating the subject of Orphan Works is here. ------
(Continued after the Jump)
Next up, the House is pondering trashing their "christmas tree bill" with all the things in it that are supposedly good for photographers (See ASMP's position on the House bill here and why they think it's good for you) and adopting the Senate language to get the bill through the House.
Apparently this bill got the trifecta ram-thru because of a massive lobbying effort by libraries. So, they want to protect their books but torch our rights as photographers? I wrote about the American Library Association's efforts here - Apathy Gets You Nowhere, and it seems they have been successful in their efforts.
I remain doubtful this bill will pass, yet I encourage you highly to write and make your voices known. Use this link to make your voices heard. If the House bill dies, Orphan Works dies for this session, it takes two to tango. 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.
We are officially in Web 2.0. In fact, if you're on the bleeding edge, you are currently doing your research on the emergence of Web 3.0 - and it's coming. You know that because when magazine covers are touting Web 2.0, it's already arrived many many months earlier, if not years.
Ok, so, your most important marketing tool is your website. That's a given. Really. And you probably submitted it to the search engines (Google, Yahoo, and MSN), and you either are "found" for your search terms, or you're not. When you're found, and then all of a sudden, you disappear, you panic. For me, my website represents two to six assignments a month, on average, and that is a substantial amount of money, so I pay careful attention to where I rank on the search engines, but not all search engines are equal, and what happens on one doesn't happen on another. That applies to successful strategies to be "found", as well as what happens when you disappear.
When your ranking drops, 90% of the time it's because of a SE changing it's methodolgy for ranking sites. They are doing this because they believe it is in the best interests of their users. Some people refer to this as moving the goal posts, others refer to it as a "Google slap."
Interestingly enough, this has just recently happened. Over at Photo.net (here) , they are reporting people with BluDomain websites having lost SE postions just last month. So too, some liveBooks clients have experienced this. Yet, this problem is not related to either of these companies specifically, because I have spoken to over a dozen photographers in the last week that don't have BluDomain, LiveBooks, or Clickbooq sites, and they too have experienced a drop in their positions. This is a global issue, and not related to anyone service provider. For some who report having a problem last month they are now back where they were. For others, the wait and the concern continues.
Let's first pull together some resources about search engines.
First - has your site that was on Google been banned? Check on all of the three SE's. simply type in your web address - www.JohnHarrington.com, (and also try it without the "www") and see if it's there. If it is there, then you're ok. If not, let's discuss further.
Uptime - many inexpensive web hosting companies have significant downtimes. If your host was down during a Googlebot visit, thats probably part of the problem. Answer: Get a new provider. ' Mirror sites - if you have mirrored your site, it may be that they are seeing duplicate content on other domains, and favoring (or dis-favoring) that site instead. Duplicate sites also give them cause for concern about spamming.
Tricks - don't be an idiot and do white text on a white background. That trick is so 1999. All the SE's know that, and every other trick you can think of. Don't do black hat or even grey hat tricks.
Inbound links - trading links with someone is considered a grey hat trick. Google knows what you're up to. You need inbound links without a return link. When you think you can do it by doing circular links, they have caught on to that too. Avoid link farms - too many outbound links on one page is a link farm. Avoid these, the SE's don't like them either.
Or, perhaps you are concerned about your ranking dropping. That happens. Get used to it. When you ease up on your SEO efforts, it's like stopping doing your mailings to prospective clients. Don't rest on your Page 1 laurels. Keep at it. It should be what you do in the evenings during commercial breaks of your favorite TV shows, or when you're waiting for a client to call you back.
Google, for example, has a "sandbox", (also insights here Search Engine Guide - How To Play In Google's Sandbox ) and it's there that they put sites that are less than six months old. Google wants you to earn your way out of the box. During this time, Google is looking to see if other sites are linking to you.
Let's talk for a minute now about inbound links. Since Google is the big dog, we'll use them. Inbound links come and they go. They also are relevant one day, and less so the next. For example, let's say that a SE considered the John Smith website a white hat site, and he had a link to you. Then, for some reason, his site dropped in ranking, possibly because of grey hat tactics, or perhaps because he was seen as a link farm (pages become suspect after there are about 20 links or so on a single page). If his site rating drops, so too (potentially) does the value of that link to you. Guilt by association.
To check out who has inbound links to you, search "+www.yoursite.com", and also search "link:www.yoursite.com". Both give you insights into how Google sees you. Of most importance is the "+" search. That's called a "character search", and those are often links of significantly less value than the ones that return under the "link:" search.
Does your website have a sitemap? Sitemaps are very helpful for the SE spiders. Rob Haggart over at www.APhotoEditor.com, who has a companion site - APhotoFolio.com, where he talks about his commitment to SEO (SEO Of Our Websites) gives you a great deal of excellent information. So too does liveBooks (Search Marketing ).
Let's return to inbound links. (Are you getting the clue that they are the current key to SE success?) SE Watch has "Experts - Link Love" with recent/timely pieces on link popularity. Consider this too - when someone searches and finds you, regardless of the SE, their IP address is colllected by the SE, and when you - recognized by the IP address, comes BACK and does another search, or clicks on a different link, that is a mark against you - as defined by actual SE users. Search Engline Land wrote about this as it relates to changes in paid placements, and it talks about the change as a result of a "Previous Query". ( ""Previous Query" Refinement Coming To Hit Google Results" . This is the kind of intelligence that Yahoo, with their human-created search results from the late 90's and early 2000's, couldn't scale up, but none-the-less produced very valuable results. This is the basis for the benefits of inbound links. On top of that, back in July, SE Watch wrote about User Intent - "Google On User Intent in Search Queries" () when they said ""Search in the last decade has moved from give me what I said to give me what I want.""
Next up - just a week or so ago, SE Watch interviewed one of Google's Directors, in charge of engineering, about the nuances of search. This piece is incredibly valuable to read, because it comes from the mouth of the search gods themselves - Google Discusses Search Evaluation Process (9/16/08). Back in 2007, Webmaster World had a dialog about the constant changes by Google - termed "Everflux" , (Frequent Change in Google Search Results - almost hour by hour) and also addresses how you can be found in once search result done on the East Coast, and in a different position on the West Coast, as it relates to the changes in the content in their data centers. Everflux, and other people experiences that demonstrate that this is not a new phenomenon can be found here - (Disappearing and Reappearing rankings - Everflux or something else? ).
In fact, Google themselves wrote a piece on their official blog about two weeks ago (Search evaluation at Google, and is a piece written by the same engineering director above, Scott Huffman. Huffman has written a must-read piece on this subject. In part, he writes:
Evaluating search is difficult for several reasons. First, understanding what a user really wants when they type a query -- the query's "intent" -- can be very difficult. For highly navigational queries like [ebay] or [orbitz], we can guess that most users want to navigate to the respective sites. But how about [olympics]? Does the user want news, medal counts from the recent Beijing games, the IOC's homepage, historical information about the games, ... ? This same exact question, of course, is faced by our ranking and search UI teams. Evaluation is the other side of that coin.
Second, comparing the quality of search engines (whether Google versus our competitors, Google versus Google a month ago, or Google versus Google plus the "letter T" hack) is never black and white. It's essentially impossible to make a change that is 100% positive in all situations; with any algorithmic change you make to search, many searches will get better and some will get worse.
Third, there are several dimensions to "good" results. Traditional search evaluation has focused on the relevance of the results, and of course that is our highest priority as well. But today's search-engine users expect more than just relevance. Are the results fresh and timely? Are they from authoritative sources? Are they comprehensive? Are they free of spam? Are their titles and snippets descriptive enough? Do they include additional UI elements a user might find helpful for the query (maps, images, query suggestions, etc.)? Our evaluations attempt to cover each of these dimensions where appropriate.
Fourth, evaluating Google search quality requires covering an enormous breadth. We cover over a hundred locales (country/language pairs) with in-depth evaluation. Beyond locales, we support search quality teams working on many different kinds of queries and features. For example, we explicitly measure the quality of Google's spelling suggestions, universal search results, image and video searches, related query suggestions, stock oneboxes, and many, many more.
If you really want to understand SEO, and your SERP, then you need to read EVERY link in this piece, and follow the links on those pages. Understand that grasping SEO, and doing it right, will be one of the most profitable things you can do to grow your business. I have not steered you wrong here. These are exceptional and highly respected sources. Ignore SEO at your own peril. Resting on your SEO laurels is akin to knowing the benefits of SEO and then ignoring them - it's a dereliction of duty to yourself and your success. 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 (October 23rd through the 25th, in New York City) is right around the corner, and the early-bird discounts are available only until 10/3. Below are the seven programs that I highly recommend. It's a full three days of all that is the business of photography. Go get DVD's for how to light, and take Seth Resnick's D-65 Workflow Not Workslow seperate seminar to really get a handle on your workflow, or come to DC and take Peter Krogh's workshop on workflow and best practices for digital asset management (I presume he'll have dates in a city near you he can e-mail you about.) If you want to really learn Photoshop, you could also head to Photoshop World, or even ImagingUSA. I am not speaking on the PhotoPlus programming track, but we will be on hand doing video reports, as we did last year. (2007 Day 1 Highlights; and 2007 Day 2 Highlights).
Here is my recommended attendance list (after the jump). Register now for the seven seminars, and it should be $305 for the three 3-hour programs, and $70 each for the four 2-hour programs, or a total of $585 for three days worth of genius, that's if you register individually. Choosing the "Full Seminar Package", and you'll have a total of $495. This is an awesome deal.
A mainstay of PhotoPlus, Debra’s program is a crowd pleaser because she pulls no punches and tells it like it is.
There’s Always Room at the Top: How to Get There and Stay There.
MARKETING [TB5] 1p~3p
The first 10-20 seconds of a client interaction are crucial. Mary Virginia Swanson talks about the first 20. Buckle up – this one will open your eyes.
First Impressions: Selling Yourself in 20 Minutes
SEE THE SHOW FLOOR – 2 Hours
Make time to see the show floor. Breeze through it today, taking note of what you want to come back and focus on tomorrow.
*** FRIDAY ***
F
R
I
IT’S YOUR BUSINESS [FA6] 9a~12p
Blake Discher, with whom I travelled the Country for ASMP’s Strictly Business 2 program helps you understand how not having a great website is costing you money.
Is Your Website Doing All It Can to Make You Money?
IT’S YOUR BUSINESS [FB6] 1p~3p
I first met Sean Kearnan in Los Angeles, at the SB2 launch event, and was blown away. Reinventing yourself in the times of cookie-cutter photographers means longevity, but more importantly, self-satisfaction. Sean will send you in the right direction, for certain.
The Artist, Lost and Found
SEE THE SHOW FLOOR – 2 Hours
With the guidance of yesterday, go directly to the booths and vendors you wanted to see yesterday. Make your deals, and then go get some dinner.
*** SATURDAY ***
S
A
T
MARKETING [TA5] 9a-12p
Tony Luna, who wrote a book I recommend in the “recommended reading list” on the blog, talks about growing your career without compromise.
Take Your Career to the Next Level
IT’S YOUR BUSINESS [SB6] 1p~3p
This panel of “youngsters” will give you hope that you too can succeed, whether you are under 30, or over 30.
PDN’s 30: Strategies for the Young Working Photographer
IT’S YOUR BUSINESS [SC6] 3:45p~5:45p
Judy Hermann and Mike Stark will give you the tools to get into the business, but more importantly, to stay there. I also traveled the country with Judy on SB2, and she’s got no nonsense advice and counsel – double your enlightenment with Mike’s words of wisdom, which I heard at PPA’s ImagingUSA last January.
Breaking into the Biz: What Every Student and Emerging Photographer Should Know
Like I said - Register Here. We're all procrastinators, but you can save several hundred dollars by doing it now. 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.
Peter Land (Profile: LinkedIn) is up to his old tricks again, thinking that horse racing is on par with, oh, say, the NBA, where he toiled for 5 years. We first reported back in August (Breeders Cup - Coming Up Lame, 8/11/08) that the Breeders Cup was trying to restrict images that were shot there.
Now, their latest "Credential Use Conditions" paperwork comes over the transom for the races, which take place October 24th and 25th.
(Continued after the Jump)
Here's the language, for your consideration. The red parts are problematic:
NOTICE OF CREDENTIAL USE CONDITIONS
2008 BREEDERS’ CUP WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
This credential is issued for the sole purpose of providing facility access to an individual (“Bearer”) who is working on an assignment for a legitimate news organization or an authorized provider of event-related services (as employee, agent or designated representative) for events, activities, and interviews relating to the 2008 Breeders’ Cup World Championships (collectively hereinafter, the “Event”), and Bearer hereby represents that he or she is attending the Event solely for such purpose. This credential is non-transferable, and any unauthorized use of this credential or violation of its terms may subject Bearer and/or the assigning news organization to ejection from the facility, revocation of the credential, denial of access to future Breeders’ Cup Limited events, prosecution for civil or criminal trespass, and any other remedies available under law.
Neither Bearer nor his or her assigning news organization shall be permitted to record, transmit, use or distribute any film, video, audio, photograph, digital capture, drawing, reproduction, adaptation, display, performance, publication, account, description or other information concerning the Event (or any excerpts thereof) (collectively, “Representations”) except in connection with news and editorial coverage of or media stories about the Event produced by Bearer’s news organization and published within 30 days following the final day of the Event. Any other use of any Representations is prohibited unless the assigning news organization has received separate advance written authorization from Breeders ’Cup Limited. All real-time transmission of streaming video, digital images, or real-time audio is prohibited without separate advance written authorization from Breeders’ Cup Limited. In exchange for the access granted by this credential, Breeders’ Cup Limited shall have the right to purchase prints of any published photographs taken by Bearer in connection with this credential at the best financial terms offered to third parties, and Breeders’ Cup Limited shall be licensed at no additional charge to use such photographs for news coverage purposes only.
All ownership, copyright and property rights in the Event (including, without limitation, the statistics thereof) and in any telecast, broadcast, transmission or recording thereof and all trademarks used in connection with the Event shall remain the sole property of Breeders’ Cup Limited, and no such rights are conferred or intended to be conferred or created on behalf of any other person or entity by the issuance of this credential.
Bearer and his or her employer or assigning news organization: (i) assume all risk incident to the performance of services by Bearer and assume all risk incident to Bearer’s attendance at the Event, in each case, howsoever caused, whether by negligence or otherwise, (ii) agree to indemnify and hold harmless Breeders’ Cup Limited, and its affiliates, agents and employees from and against all liability, loss, damage or expense resulting from or arising out of (w) Bearer’s infringement of the intellectual property rights of others, (x) Bearer’s presence at the facility, (y) Bearer’s acts or omissions and (z) the presence at the facility of any cameras, wires, cabling or other equipment brought on the premises or used by Bearer; and (iii) grant permission to Breeders’ Cup Limited, its affiliates and their respective designees to utilize without compensation Bearer’s image, likeness and/or voice in any photograph or live or recorded video or audio display or other transmission or reproduction of the Event or in any excerpt thereof.
Breeders’ Cup Limited or its designee may at any time revoke this credential and/or any of the rights granted hereunder for any reason in its sole discretion. In case of any dispute regarding the terms and conditions of this agreement, Kentucky law will apply (without regard to its choice-of-law principles).
Acceptance of this credential constitutes agreement by Bearer and his or her employer or assigning news organization to abide by the foregoing conditions and the conditions on reporting regarding the Event .
Name(Print) _______________________ Signature- _______________________ Representing (Print) _______________________ Date _______________________
One problem - there's no definition of what "real-time streaming" is. Real time refers to "as it happens, you see it", but even with the networks, there's often a 6-second delay, so that's not technically real-time, it's near-real-time. Further, the transmission of a digital image would also not qualify as "real-time" since the latency between shutter closure and the appearance in an edit suite for consideration to be posted to the internet, and the subsequent posting to the internet, would see a delay of 15 - 30 seconds, even under the best of circumstances, so "real time" can't apply from a practical standpoint.
Another problem - if you are a subscription service like Getty or US Presswire, the availability of your images under the "best financial terms" means that when you indicate that the value of an image that appeared on a client website of a contributing photographer is $7 or so, with the photographer getting a few dollars, that is going to be the price you will be required to license to Breeders' Cup, your images for. Speaking of those "I'll shoot for free and make my money from resales" geniuses at US Presswire - this credential will kill your revenue stream. But hey, you didn't really care about the money, did you? More than one USPW photographer I've heard from just wanted good seats and to hang with the cool photographers, so maybe they'll be there anyway?
Word on the street is that Sports Illustrated is seriously considering taking a pass on this one. That means they'll likely get their own credential language. You can guess that the Associated Press, and other wire services will be looking at how they can walk away from the event too.
Hey, isn't October 25th Pablo Picasso's Birthday? Or, maybe everyone could focus on working on their Windows computers, since in 2001, October 25th was the first day that Windows XP was available? Paging Gemma Parenti - we need a re-write and a redesign on this credential language - stat! 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.
You know, sometimes you just gotta stop and laugh. This is the kinda laugh that you throw your head back and laugh out loud. I recall the uproar - pre-MacIntel - when an advertisement for Intel chips, it was revealed, was made with an Apple.
Now, let's have a little chuckle in the latest round of commercials.
(Continued after the Jump)
Apple has been wildly successful with their "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" ads. So much so, that after a flawed trial with Jerry Seinfeld, the latest ads poke back at the iconic Apple ads. Yet, the laugh track dials up to 11 when the metadata reveals that the images were made on...wait for it now....a Mac.
"The irony is enough to make your head explode...My God. This is how Microsoft and its ad agency hope to turn Apple’s disparagement to their advantage? I would have assumed that an advertising campaign touting Windows PCs over Macs would, you know, not be created on Macs. But then I don’t work for Microsoft..."
, and Microsoft has issued a statement:
"As is common in almost all campaign workflow, agencies and production houses use a wide variety of software and hardware to create, edit and distribute content, including both Macs and PCs."
Right. Yet, it's been reported that Microsoft has cleaned up the metadata, and, presumably, someone is re-doing the entire campaign on a PC? No? Maybe?
Folks, be careful in your own metadata. Here's an example of one I caught recently. It was an assignment from earlier this year, but a post-production person who wasn't paying attention applied an old template to the data, so the added copyright notice was two years old. Not good. Attention to detail, people. Other things, like mis-spelling a subject's name could mean your images don't turn up in a search. Having the wrong city, and so forth. The list goes on. Be darn sure you're handling your metadata right, or the value of your images will be diminished, and you might just embarrass yourself, or your clients. 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.
A lot goes into that first call. Not the call you make, but the call you earn. Before your phone rang, lots of things had to happen - the client had to decide they needed a photographer, and where there's an ad agency, PR firm, or design firm involved, they had to convince their client they needed photography. Then, they had to decide on candidates for the assignment.
And that's where you come in.
(Continued after the Jump)
There are five stages that your clients go through during the entire process:
Anticipation: A prospective client is anticipating that you can deliver, based upon your marketing materials - portfolio, website, business card, presentation in person, phone skills, and the appearance of your contract. Based upon this, they book you.
Trepidation: Depending upon how you did in the Anticipation phase, the degree of trepidation can vary. Were you a yellow pages or search-engine find, a referral from a trusted source, or had they used you in the past? Even so, there is a period where the client is worried about the quality of the end result, even when you are a repeat vendor for them.
Inspection: During the shot, and afterwards, they look through your results, contemplating the circumstances that went into the shoot, and thus, the results. Was it a rainy day when the shoot called for blue skies, but you had to shoot anyway? Was the model late? Were the VIP's that were the cornerstone of the event absent, and so the client-handshaking with a VIP is missing from the event images? Or, did everything go smoothly, and the client has the highest of expectations after the fact relative to their expectations beforehand?
Fulfillment: Did you deliver as promised? Are they satisfied with the results? Is their client satisfied with the results? Did what you do meet - or better yet - exceed expectations? You should always strive for a "that photographer sure exceeded my expecations" response. You need to win over even the most critical of clients, so they may become your staunchest advocates.
Evaluation: Would they hire you again? Would they casually recommend you to a colleague? Would they enthusiastically recommend you to a colleague? Or, in the best of scenarios, without provocation, would they go onto their listserv and shout your name from the treetops "...boy, I just finished this shoot with John Harrington, and if you ever need a photographer, he should be on the top of your list of people to call..." ? Wouldn't it be great to have an evangelist like that? They do exist. Have you experienced it yet?
Take a piece of paper, and print out those five words, and place them in a prominent place near your desk. By understanding the phases of a client experience, you can ensure that you are firing on all cylinders and meeting and exceeding expectations in each phase. 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 read, every day, Leslie Burns-Dell Acqua's blog - Burns Auto Parts. Leslie, a consultant that helps photographers market themselves and grow their businesses, has a lot of good advice, and she and I traveled the country as a part of the ASMP Strictly Business 2 seminar series, and I think she gave good advice.
When Leslie wrote:
"Ms. Greenberg is entirely clean in this"
"Ms. Greenberg more than fulfilled her obligations to her client. I don’t have a problem with her making her own art on the side. As for how she has handled the press herself, I really don’t think that matters too much. She will be, at most, a blip in this election"
"the act itself, I don’t think it’s half as bad as some think"
"Read what I have written again–I have said that I don’t think what she did was wrong"
I thought that Leslie had gone off her rocker.
(Continued after the Jump)
Please read Leslie's posts - IN FULL - Greenberg; and when people began critisizing her position, penned "What I Represent"; and then again today "Creative Freedom". While she makes some relevant points in there, she maintains her positions on Greenberg - it seems.
Daryl Lang over at PDN, in his piece "Fallout From Jill Greenberg's McCain Images" asked "Who wants to come to Greenberg's defense?", and I doubt you'll get any takers, save for Leslie - and she's narrowed her defense and isn't wholly defending everything Greenberg has done. The extent to which I would defend Greenberg would be to say she had a right to make two setups, and license that image separately from her Atlantic work, provided it's within the parameters of the contract she signed. yet, that's where my defense ends. As I said in my first piece - "one for thee, one for me", is often the way a photographer tries out new styles, but that wasn't what Greenberg was doing. She appears to have had malice and forethought in her actions - and didn't leave it at that - she appears to have had malice and forethought in her statements to the press not only of McCain, but of her client.
I can't square all that with the position that Leslie has taken, and is maintaining - "I don’t think what she did was wrong."
What do you think?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.
Today, I am on assignment in New Orleans, and after the scout and with some down time, we found ourselves wandering the Canal Street Mall. Not much to see. In fact, it looks like every other mall in America - a Saks, movie theater, Kenneth Cole, and, yes, a Brooks Brothers.
So, looking to kill some time, I walked in, and asked if they had something close to a duster.
(Continued after the Jump)
The sales clerk - was a well dressed young man, early to mid-30's. He walked us to and fro, showing me things that clearly were nowhere near a duster. I was, you see, looking for something that wasn't a trench coat, and also not a sports coat, but something in-between both length-wise and weight wise. The clerk in this fine mens' clothing store, kept showing me the wrong things. So I, and my first assistant left.
It was a few moments later, that my second assistant, who was outside on a call, came looking for us (we had left to wander aimlessly), and overheard the clerk who had been assisting us, asking his colleague "what's a duster?" And, the colleague gave him the answer, as was reported to me when she caught up to us elsewhere in the mall.
I was shocked. Honestly. It wasn't like I had walked into a TJ Maxx, or a Marshalls, and asked for a duster. I walked into a store that specialized in fine mens' clothing (and outdoor clothing as well). Who sells all sorts of books about the nuances and details of mens' clothing. And this clerk didn't know what I was talking about. Nor did he ask me what one was - he just acted like he did as he walked me back and forth the length of the store several times.
There is a lesson in here.
You too must know your product and service - photography. Backwards and forwards. Do you know what circles of confusion are? Why an 85mm f1.2 looks better at f4 than an 85mm f2.8 at the same aperture? Do you know what flash duration is? What about Scheimpflug? Ok, let's try something easier - what is the color temperature of Tungsten? What about guide numbers? How are they calculated?
Ok - a little too bookworm-ish?
When a client says they want a "high key" image - do you get it?
When a client says we pay "2/10 net 30 are you ok with that?" What will be the impact to you on a $500 invoice? a $9,800 invoice? (and show your work.)
When a client asks if you have a COI, what do you answer?
There is a lot to learn, and the truly wise man knows he knows nothing. Yet, I am not asking you to cite Newton's Law, Einstein's Theory, or even Murphy's law. I am asking you questions about the nuances and details of your profession. Knowing these things can define you as a true professional, a craftsman. Not these answers alone, of course, but they do contribute to the overall benefit and knowledge-base you bring to a shoot, and how your value is established. 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.
Previously, I wrote about the value of the Jack & Suzy Welch Column in BusinessWeek - Diversification and A Variety of Clients, (2/11/07), and this week's mail brought in another gem by them - The Importance of Being Sticky. In the column, they talk about many of the points that Malcolm Gladwell goes into in the book that's on my book list at the right - The Tipping Point.
So, how does a job that generates $1,000 in revenue produce $30,000+ in revenue?
(Continued after the Jump)
Simple - stickiness. That is - you being sticky in the clients' mind, and being the first person they think of when they think they need a photographer. Over time, that client, with their repeat business, will earn you so much more than just that one job. And, conversely, losing that client will also cost you that much over your career.
It takes time and energy to earn a client. Building a track record with them, ensuring that they are well attended to, and so forth. I touched on this a bit on "The X Factor" (9/9/08), but Jack and Suzy do a nice job of hitting the point home:
"Perhaps, not surprisingly is good old-fashioned service. What is surprising, however, is how exceptional and inventive customer service needs to be to stand out these days."
"Almost all companies can create stickiness by sharing knowhow."
"Organizations must come to see the world through customers' eyes."
I was having this conversation with a colleague the other day. It used to be that if you could use a manual focus lens to follow-focus a pro football player running towards you in the field, you could be the biggest jerk in the world, and still get work. If you could do that and adjust exposure as he transitioned from shadow to sunlight, you could be a total jackass, and still get work. And, if you could do it using slide film, you could even skip showers and smell like a homeless man for a week and still, your phone would ring.
Those times, thankfully, are gone. Those photographers, either on disability, retired, or they have literally cleaned up their act. As making images becomes technically easier, it will have to be things like creativity and customer service that keeps them coming back, and things like a daily shower will (thankfully) be a given.
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 Orphan Works is set to die this session of Congress, it is time for creatives to re-group, and consider our strategies, alternatives, and with whom we may align ourselves when it rears its ugly head next session of Congress, that begins in January. More importantly, we need to know who we can trust for advice and counsel.
ASMP has, for a very long time, done many good deeds for photographers, and I in large part, support what they're doing and continue to do so. Yet, as we all love Apple Computer and the wonderful things they do, we still are upset with them over their $14m they had to pay in settlement of their back-dating of their stock options. So too, I (and many others) are fans of ASMP, but are concerned about the issues I'll outline below. Thus, it is of value to open these concerns up for discussion and debate. I am of the opinion that there needs to be much more transparency in what ASMP is doing - towards and with its' members, and their communications with the community as a whole.
One of the things that I have problems with, is impropriety. Another, is even the appearance of impropriety. And, when ASMP came out and were vocal in their SUPPORT of the House version of the proposed Orphan Works legislation, the news of that caught me off guard. In fact, it threw me for a loop. Why, would they do that? Why not take a position of neutrality? What was their motivation?
Their stated motivation was that if we didn’t accept the current version, next session’s version was going to be worse. They argued, that it was the best we could hope for. Then, during my discourse with ASMP’s General Counsel Vic Perlman on stage during the Microsoft Pro Photo Summit, I outlined a few of the big problems I had with the version that ASMP said couldn’t get better. Then, Vic spoke, and said that a number of my concerns would be resolved during the next markup.
Come again?
The version you said couldn’t get better, and thus must be supported, now is better, somehow?
Yet, ASMP continued to support a bill that every other creative trade organization either was against, or neutral on. How could this be? Why? -------- Editorial Note: We provided ASMP with an advance copy of this article just under a week ago, for the purpose of their providing an adjacent response to these concerns. Their response follows at the end of this article.
(Continued, with ASMP's response, after the Jump)
ASMP’s reputation, in my mind, was tarnished a bit this Summer when it came out that they had not only received a $1.3 million windfall of revenue paid on the backs of artists’ copyright licensing income but that the only reason they revealed it was because of a pending news article by Photo District News. This was, to me, at least an appearance of impropriety. This windfall of revenue came about right during the time that ASMP was making the case for a higher dues to it’s members. The argument they made was that the windfall couldn’t be used for organizational purposes, but for efforts that benefited all photographers, ASMP member or not. This would include, for example, educational programming that was open to all comers, and which ASMP has been trying to make an increased effort to produce. However,, as ASMP’s annual budget includes funding for educational programs and other activities that will now be funded instead by the windfall, it would seem that the basis for the dues increase no longer exists. For this reason it is troubling that asmp quietly received, deposited and held these funds for many months, while at the same time pleading poverty to its membership. Seeking a dues increase from financially stressed professional photographers while sitting on a giant pile of money just doesn’t seem right.
A month or so back, I wrote about UPDIG – an ad hoc group of photographic organizations. (UPDIG - Why It Is Important, 7/19/08) Yet, it seems that ASMP’s position has changed on UPDIG. At first, they were a member of the ad-hoc consortium, then they took the position that UPDIG isn’t a working group, it’s just a paper, a report.
And the answers are not yet forthcoming, about why ASMP would take a position so contrary to photographers’ best interests in supporting Orphan Works.
Then it came to me.
ASMP submitted a request for funding to the Library of Congress:
“Request for Funding Under the Preserving Creative America: Digital Content in the Private Sector program, The Library of Congress”
In it, they essentially wipe out of existence every other organization that participated in the UPDIG group, when they wrote in the request:
“The American Society of Media Photographers' (ASMP) Digital Standards Committee has developed and released a set of best practice guidelines for digital photography, the Universal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines (UPDIG).”
Really? ASMP did that wholly on their own? According to the ASMP website
“This project is building upon the Universal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines (UPDIG) developed and maintained by the UPDIG Coalition, a group of representatives of the signatories to UPDIG. UPDIG is a worldwide consortium of digital-imaging professionals, trade groups, and manufacturers dedicated to the development of standards for commercial digital photography”
, and the UPDIG.org website – “The Member Associations of UPDIG Welcome You” followed by a list of them all.
Again, the appearance of impropriety turns up. In this instance, that the ASMP has taken a position that the work product of the collective group of UPDIG is wholly their own, may place them in legal peril of having to share the award with the other organizations who also contributed to the guidelines, and who will surely contribute to future evolutions of the guidelines. No where do they refer to any other partner organizations:
Then, I hit a full-stop when I read the following part of the original request:
“Proposal: The purpose of this project will be to expand the UPDIG standards with the goal of determining and developing refined production workflows, archiving methods, and best practice guidelines for digital photography based on image usage and capture methods.
Included will be an examination of the following:
Current methods of archiving digital photographs.
The compatibility of various RAW and digital photographic software and their ability to read, write, and preserve digital photographs and their associated metadata.
The advantages and disadvantages of various consumer and professional digital asset management applications.
The advantages and disadvantages of different professional digital camera systems including capture formats, raw file processors and storage methods for digital photographic assets.
The capacity of these workflows to work within studio and location photography environments.
These revised and expanded UPDIG guidelines will be published as a website open to the public. The adoption of the guidelines will be promoted to the public through programming at industry trade shows and a nationwide series of training events at ASMP chapters, trade shows, and educational institutions.
Additionally, this project will work towards the development of an online national copyright registry of digital images which will be integrated as part of UPDIG workflows. The copyright registry will be established via a series of meetings with the U.S. Copyright Office and industry representatives, and will be promoted through UPDIG training sessions and print ads in industry publications.”
Come again? ASMP, in it’s proposal for funding, states they will establish a registry? A registry that is a part of the bill in Congress they are promoting heavily? In fact, ASMP, and PPA asked all other trade associations to allow ASMP to speak on their behalf in extended closed door negotiations with legislators and with the proponents of orphan works legislation. All other organizations were shut out of the process and were thus kept unaware of the proposals and compromises made by ASMP, in negotiating the resulting legislation.
The proposal concludes with the timeline – “Development of an online copyright registry will take place throughout the project timeline, with one year devoted to negotiation and meetings with the US Copyright Office and selected industry representatives and 2 years of aggressive promotion of the registration program in various industry journals and periodicals.”
(note: coloring of text red added for emphasis)
Yet, how is it that this language (the language regarding a registry) is missing from the proposal that ASMP is circulating to other UPDIG members when they ask for a copy? (http://www.asmp.org/pdfs/NDIIPProposal.pdf) It is also missing from what they provided to their own board. We have learned that the Library of Congress’ feedback to the ASMP was that they would not, or more likely, could not, participate in funding the registry that ASMP proposed. Thus, the proposal was granted, without funding for the registry.
Here’s the language that ASMP is got funding for (it's a part of the full document, linked above):
Proposal: The purpose of this project will be to expand the UPDIG standards with the goal of determining and developing refined production workflows, archiving methods, and best practice guidelines for digital photography based on image usage and capture methods.
Included will be an examination of the following
Current methods of archiving digital photographs
The compatibility of various RAW and digital photographic software and their ability to read, write, and preserve digital photographs and their associated metadata.
The advantages and disadvantages of various consumer and professional digital asset management applications.
The advantages and disadvantages of different professional digital camera systems including capture formats, raw file processors and storage methods for digital photographic assets.
The capacity of these workflows to work within studio and location photography environments.
These revised and expanded UPDIG guidelines will be published as a website open to the public. The adoption of the guidelines will be promoted to the public through programming at industry trade shows and a nationwide series of training events at ASMP chapters, trade shows, and educational institutions.
This is the language that has been delivered to members of the ASMP Board, and, I am told, begrudgingly to ASMP’s fellow UPDIG members. It seems to me that the UPDIG group should be getting this grant revenue? But how much?
Apparently, reports to the ASMP board of these discrepancies, as well as the monies involved, has redacted the amounts. Yet, we have received those amounts, which involve mostly ASMP’s “in kind” contribution of time for hours worked.
Their response in their request:
Project budget estimate and relative share of project costs among project participants to include the Library of Congress, if applicable.
Lists the following:
Funding:
from NDIIPP
ASMP & In Kind
UPDIG Research: Software
$20,000
UPDIG Research: Hardware (Up-to-date computer systems, monitors, hard drives,
peripherals, etc.)
$20,000
UPDIG Research: Labor
12,000 hours @ $60/hour ($40/hour in kind)
$240,000
$480,000 in kind
Administrative Offices & Time
$20,000 in kind
Travel
$30,000
Final UPDIG Website Design & Hosting
$10,000
Copyright Registration Effort (3 face-to-face meetings with the Copyright Office and industry
reps. Approximately $1,100 per person, per meeting)
$12,000
Promotion: Copyright Registration Effort and Registry development
(Print ad development, artwork, and space)
$50,000
$50,000
Promotion: UPDIG booth at PhotoPlus 2007 & 2008 (Booth, artwork for booth, promotional items, travel expenses for 2 people for 4 days)
$20,000
Education & Training:
10 day & 10 evening events
($3,500/evening, $4,500/day)
$80,000
TOTAL BUDGET
$482,000
$550,000
Total request for funding from NDIIPP
$482,000
Take special note of the lines about the Orphan Works/Registry:
Copyright Registration Effort (3 face-to-face meetings with the Copyright Office and industry reps. Approximately $1,100 per person, per meeting)
$12,000
Promotion: Copyright Registration Effort and Registry development
(Print ad development, artwork, and space)
$50,000
$50,000
What remains to be learned, is why then, since ASMP couldn’t use their $1.3million windfall for the organization directly, why they didn’t use it to benefit all photographers, by, say, properly fighting Orphan Works? It can only be hoped that they will do so next session, unless they remain committed to using it for a registry for all photographers, since the Library of Congress award can’t fund that.
As we lick our wounds during the sunset of this second round of the ongoing Orphan Works battle, we must look carefully at our allies and those who may have ulterior motives. I am having a really hard time figuring out which side of that equation ASMP falls on, given it’s track record on this issue in recent months. Moving forward, transparency of their actions and plans will go a long way towards clearing the air with those leery of ASMP's plans and efforts on the three points I've highlighted.
ASMP Responds:
ASMP appreciates the opportunity to respond. The basic points are listed below. More detailed information can be found at www.asmp.org/thefacts This link will be active by 10am Monday, September 15th.
Regarding an image registry - ASMP has no intention of building an image registry. The idea to develop an UPDIG Workflow that would feed into a searchable image registry was part of the original proposal made in late 2006 as an effort to promote copyright registration and facilitate Orphan Works identification. The Library of Congress chose not to fund this effort and it was removed from the accepted proposal in March of 2007. Orphan Works legislation was introduced on May 10, 2008. ASMP has consistently referred proposals of a registry to the PLUS Coalition (www.useplus.org)
Regarding Orphan Works – ASMP is an opponent of the Senate Orphan Works Bill and considers the current House version supportable because of its additional protections afforded photographers. Any changes in the current version will dictate a reappraisal of our position. Go to www.asmp.org/orphanworks for more information.
Regarding the Authors Coalition – The use of this escrowed distribution is legally restricted to advocacy and education for the benefit of the wider industry. The ASMP board of directors is currently examining potential uses. Your input and suggestions are welcomed at suggestions@asmp.org. To read the press release go to www.asmp.org/news/press.
Regarding UPDIG – The final award submission and press release are on the ASMP Web site at www.asmp.org/pdi. There is no reference to an image registry in the ASMP/PDI proposal accepted by the Library of Congress. Your turn. What do you think about the transparency issue? Did ASMP address or resolve the concerns outlined in the initial piece? Please comment below, and review the links that ASMP has provided in their response before formulating an opinion or making a comment.
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.
2 ... 2 ...
Adobe (NASDAQ: ADBE) has a potential liability on their hands if it does not properly warn users of Adobe Photoshop (and others) that when they choose 
"Save for Web and devices..." that they are stripping all of the metadata (including ownership information) from the files, unless they take the action of choosing "Include XMP" within the save dialog box.
This has been an issue since 2004, when Adobe, in an effort to assist users with creating the smallest files possible for the web, created this feature, since prior to that, you had to choose to not include previews, thumbnails, and so forth, in the 'file saving" preferences. It wasn't until November of 2007 that a "bug" was noticed in Adobe CS3 and fixed, which moved the 
"Include XMP" to the "fly out menu", which was previously buried in another menu. The problem remains, however, that when choosing "Include XMP", it does not include that same data in the legacy IPTC fields, so if your client is looking for ownership information in the Preview program on a Mac, some PC applications, older version of Photoshop, and so on, the ownership information would not be seen. Since Jeff Sedlik, CEO of the PLUS Coalition, has been working closely with Adobe on metadata and rights issues related to the PLUS standards, we asked him if he was aware of these problems. "I first brought the metadata preservation issue to the attention of Adobe engineers in January of 2005. Specifically, I proposed that Photoshop and other Adobe products should preserve metadata by default, even during a “save for web” operation. Months later, I notified Adobe of a bug related to the Photoshop’s preservation of metadata. In both instances, Adobe was very receptive and promptly acted upon the proposals.” Sedlik noted that Richard Anderson/ASMP, Bill Rosenblatt/Giant Steps and others worked in parallel on the issue.
