|
|
 There wasn't a single source for you to share both the audio and mic inputs between two headsets, or the capability of capturing the audio of both the mic and the speaker from the iPhone. Now there is. Why, you ask, would I want to do this, and why is this on a photo forum? Because when I am on the phone with a client, and I need to capture a conversation about specifics and I can't take notes because I am driving, or shooting, or otherwise just can't write, simply hitting the 'record' button solves that problem, ensuring that I don't miss a point. (Continued after the Jump)
I was contemplating ways for me to splice into an Apple iPhone headset to record conversations I was having on my phone. Because of the specialized jack - and the fact that it's recessed - made considerations for how to do this difficult. Then I realized that Michael Bass Designs does custom cords. An e-mail or two to him later, and the cord has arrived in my mailbox - perfectly created.
Now, I can plug my standard iPhone headset in, use the headset's inline mic and listen to the conversation in both ears, and I can plug into the cord a standard mini-stereo cord with left and right channels, and output both what I am hearing on my headset and what I am saying on the other, to separate channels.
Not content with just that, I wondered - what if I wanted to play audio direct into the iPhone? No problem - the signal goes both ways, so now if I want to patch an audio signal straight into my phone, I can, from any device.
Further not content, what if I wanted to use two headsets on my iPhone? A seperate Y splitter was created, so now I can not only have two people with headsets on the phone (avoiding the problem of a too-quiet speakerphone or loud ambient noise) but I can record the entire conversation.
Devices for land-line phones are sold by Radio Shack, (like this one), but on most cell phones, you're SOL. If you want one yourself, it'll set you back about $100 or so, because he has to not only buy an Apple headset to splice into, but the Y connector and jacks, and do all the custom, one-off work just for you. Check his site here for more details.
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.
 Alleged no more, according to the Las Cruces Sun-News, ( NM commission rules photographer discriminated against gay couple, 4/11/08) Albuquerque photographer Elaine Huguenin violated New Mexico's discrimination law, according to a human rights panel. The panel ruled that Elane Photography, owned by both Huguein and her husband Jon violated the state Human Rights Act by discriminating against Willock on the basis of sexual orientation, and should pay (Continued after the Jump) $6,637, which covers Vanessa Willock's costs and attorney's fees.
But it's not quite over yet. The Alliance Defense Fund is planning to appeal, and has 90 days to do so. The ADF is a Christian-based religious organization that defends religious liberties where they feel there is an infringement upon religious freedoms by government.
Related :2/28/08 - Rights: Yours, Mine, and Theirs.
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.
 If I consent to being photographed while at an event, or for a portrait for a magazine, the photographer can do certain things with that photo, and cannot do other things. What they can do, is license that image, as stock, for editorial purposes only, provided that that editorial use is not libelous. What they cannot do, is license that image containing my likeness for commercial/corporate uses, without my expressed written consent to do so, usually codified in the form of a model release. Yet, so many photographer I know sell something they do not own, and they could well get sued to within an inch of their lives if they're not careful. (Continued after the Jump) If you convey to a client "all rights", inherent in that rights package, under the definition of "all" is, in fact, the right to use that image for advertising and marketing, for corporate and/or commercial clients.
Think I'm kidding? Think again. You do not own the right to exploit someone's likeness for commercial gain without their permission - period. In fact, the legality of even placing images of a subject online - released or not - for the purposes of stock licensing of that image - even for editorial purposes - may be deemed commercial exploitation, and subject to restriction. Carolyn Wright over at Photo Attorney writes about the estate of James Brown, who "...filed suit against Corbis in Illinois claiming that Corbis violated Brown's right of publicity for "commercial use of his image on the Internet" by selling/licensing photos of him." (Legislature May Resolve Issue in James Brown v. Corbis Action - 3/31/08).
When you transfer "all rights" to a client, the least you must do is say "...all rights are conveyed for which no model releases are required, and photographer hereby stipulates that he has not secured model releases from any subjects." While I certainly suggest that clients who are asking for "all rights" don't need "informational kiosk displays in Minsk", that's what you're giving them, and you should work hard to define a clients rights packages by geography "United States Only", by language "English Only", by duration "for a period of 10 years", and by liability, as noted above.
Don't sell what you don't own, and don't kid yourself that you are not going to get sued, that's like playing with fire - you will get burned. IF you still don't believe me, call your insurance agent, and say: "if I license to my client 'all rights' and then my client uses the photos I gave them for advertising, even though I didn't get a model release, since I licensed to my client 'all rights', do I have any liability?" When they say 'yes', then you'll know. If they say 'no', then ask them to put that in writing, and ask them if they will, in the event you are sued, be willing to defend you, pro bono, if that advice is found to be faulty. They will then do some more research, and likely come back with the 'yes, you're probably either completely, mostly, or somewhat liable...", and then you'll have your honest answer.
Fair warning folks.
--------
disclaimer: I am not an attorney. Talk to one about all your legal advice!
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'm sitting onboard a United Airlines flight from Savannah back to DC after an assignment down South. I was catching up on my BusinessWeek reading, and ran across a series of advertisements from Accenture. These are great ads featuring Tiger Woods. Interestingly, each ad runs double-truck, full bleed, with a single message point - one message point per entire issue. Since I read several during the flight, I've got five to share/discuss/dissect for your consideration. The message points apply equally to photographers in business as well as those that the ad is targeting. The message points are: (Continued after the Jump)
Their first message point:50% seeing things simply, 50% seeing things fully I.e. Combine razor sharp focus with a through command of the details. How does this apply to you? It is akin to being driven to be (or remain) a photographer, but realizing, for example, that you need to be skilled in things like image management systems, resources for the various toners and inks and why UDMA is the next step in throughput.
Their second message point:70% plan, 30% backup plan. Distinguish yourself not only through the astuteness of your strategy but also by your readiness to nimbly change course should circumstances dictate. Today, on our assignment, we had a plan, and a backup plan, and then a backup to the backup. One other way to put it - from a military perspective, is "no plan survives first contact with the enemy." Knowing, for example, what you will do if your equipment misses the flight, or minimizing flights that are connecting and chosing non-stop flights will decrease the chance that the gear will miss the connection when there is a flight delay. And lastly, where can you rent your lighting once in your destination location if the gear still is missing come shoot day.
Further, I almost NEVER book the last flight anywhere. I always have the ability to catch the next flight if something goes wrong with my current flight. This happened last week on a flight from Oakland to Los Angeles for an assignment, and I needed to engage my backup plan. Thankfully, my assistants, whom I had left in Las Vegas, has the same separate experience, and knew enough to do the same thing enroute LA.
Their third message point:25% risk, reward 75%. Continually recalibrate the balance of opportunity and threat for your enterprise. Do you take the more frequent lower paying jobs, or do you "hold out a little" for the bigger fish? What risk level are you comfortable with?
Their fourth message point:80% improving yourself, 20% proving yourself. High performers aren't defined by what they do to reach the top but what they do to stay there. This is akin to the notion of reinventing yourself, don't rest on your laurels, don't get complacent, and so forth. This suggests continuing your education and learn - be coached, seek those smarter than you.
Their fifth message point:0% distractions. Peripheral issues may divert the attention of some competitors, high performers maintain unrelenting focus on their highest priority goals no matter how tumultuous the business landscape. Check their research- http://www.accenture.com/research. I can say that I have seen more than my fair share of distractions, and it's a challenge to avert my eyes and focus on what's most important.
These are well tested messaging points, and Accenture certainly should be commended for their efforts. What you should take away from these is a rededicated effort to focus on business - all aspects of 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.
 One recurring conversation that I hear taking place is about photographers and second jobs - you know, the ones that make it possible to pay the bills. The problem is, this is bass-ackwards from how it should occur. Take, for example, the waiter. A waiter has figured a way out to pay their bills (even if just barely) from month to month. A waiter in this position has a great opportunity to start a business in the field of photography out right. How so? (Continued after the Jump)
Someone in this position can do an honest assessment of what it costs to be in business, and also what it costs to earn a living doing photography.
Say, for example, as a waiter you earn $150/day with wages and tips. An honest assesment of your cost of doing business (CODB) as a photographer might reveal that it would cost you $350 a day for every day you're shooting. So, even though a call comes in for $200 a day - more than your waiter income, but less than your CODB were you a photographer, you can - and should - decline the assignment.
Why?
Well, being a waiter, your CODB is just a pen, paper and a decent outfit. In fact, you may even have a uniform, but nothing more. Your CODB as a photographer would include costs for computers, internet, cameras/gear, business insurance, and so forth. The declination of the $200 assignment leaves you free to do business in paradigm which keeps you profitable, and moreover, leaves you free to seek out the proper paying clients that you not only can do your first assignment for, but also grow a solid relationship with - enough so that you can afford to leave your waiter job.
IF you have taken a second job to sustain your CODB as a photographer, then you're likely going to fail. It's really not a matter of if, it's most likely a matter of when.
In other words, your second job should be that of photographer!
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, you can add (as descibed here on the Time Life Archive page) to the "... iconic moments of the 20th century, where you will find Alfred Eisenstaedt's sailor kissing nurse in Times Square, Margaret Bourke-White's Chrysler Building gargoyle and Gjon Mili's picture of Pablo Picasso "painting" with light, to name a few...." all of Sports Illustrated's imagery. It too is now in the hands of Getty Images (NYSE: GYI), with an announcement imminent by SI Pictures, but the deal was signed last month. I'm guessing they didn't want to announce it too close to April Fool's Day, because they'd have egg on their face as people laughed and said "oh come on, it's not 4/1 yet!" (Continued after the Jump)
It seems that SI's archive has been languishing a bit, so the geniuses that thought they could monetize the collection are now looking to Getty and their rapidly diminishing interest in editorial/creative (as reported here - Fool's Gold - Getty Images' Future, 4/1/08) to somehow save them. Let's see, Captain Smith, where would you like those deck chairs again? Just substitute deck chairs for server blades full of sports imagery, and you begin to get the point.
Truth be told, the deal, inked in early March, was held off because they wanted to spring the H&F purchase announcement first, without causing a ripple in the sale of GYI. Interestingly enough, this is more about protecting the imagery (supposedly) from others, BUT, Getty has some major sales goals they have to meet. Don't think though, that Getty won't intersperse the search results with their own wholey owned content, and maybe, just possibly, goose the results to "just meet" their sales objectives/requirements. I wouldn't put it past them, that's for sure.
Interestingly enough, Getty has in their deal with the sports leagues rights that allows them - with certain restrictions - to sell their sports imagery for commercial/advertising purposes. Why? Because the leagues get a cut. And, this was one of the things that Getty was holding over the SI folks' heads - that SI could only sell editorially, but through Getty, those images - at-least of major league sporting events (which GYI has contracts with) - could be sold in a commercial fashion, for big big dollars.
It's amazing that SI Pictures would take a premium brand and allow it to be dilluted by Getty's flacid pricing structure. Anyone who needs sports imagery of the caliber of SI's already knew where to get it.
Good Luck SI, you'll need it. Remember, when push comes to shove, and there's a shortage of lifeboats, it's women and children first.
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.
It's a crazy world we live in these days that some people believe whatever is in a "press release". Today, the prankster's favorite day, a prank was attempted on the stock photography industry. Norway and the US are among the countries that celebrate April Fools Day, and one Norwegian company has taken to spoofing those in the US with the "news" that Crestock has aquired Corbis for $625 million. In fact, they even list it in their "news room" section, here. Yet, a review of the Corbis news room, here, shows no news reported. Me suspects tom foolery all around! Biggest give-away? At the bottom of the Crestock release is reads "Additional information concerning these and other risk factors is contained in Crestock's and Corbis's most recently filed Forms 10-K and 10-Q." Yet, neither company files these forms. Other things like typos "The revenue for 2006 was $251 million." Who cites two-year old revenue? In fact, Corbis doesn't even cite it's own revenue! Further, "...not the least because of the growth..."; "...but a new head quarter will be established..."; and the biggest laugh of all- "it's simply 'non stocky stock photography'..." even I know that that's a stupid thing to say. (By the way, for all you who constantly critisize my typos, I recognize the irony in my pointing out the typos of others!) UPDATE: While not to be believed, supposedly, Corbis was contacted by Crestock to say their site was hacked (yeah, right) and someone posted this "news" blurb, and they haven't been able to get rid of the blurb all day. Mmmm Hmmm. What idiot writes site code and then loses sysop access? I've been writing code since 1984, and that was a basic principle of every program I ever wrote - don't get locked out of your own code. Methinks Corbis is enjoying this little trickery. Maybe I should have titled this post - "I call Shenkanigans!" (Comments-if you have nothing else to do-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.
|
|
2 ... 2 ...