nOnRequest - This is Not Your Father's "Agency"

The dialog and criticism of OnRequest Images continues, and I have yet to find a suitable reason why they should continue to exist. There are so so many reasons against their long term viability, and it is the dot-com-piece-of-the-pie mentality that has caused the unknowning venture capitalists to continue to invest in this business model.

ASMP, who spends a great deal of time looking out for photographer's best interests did an analysis of OnRequest, and other articles in PDN having to do with The Art Director's Club, Daryl Lang also did a nice job in PDN back in early May with this article titled Revolutions That Never Happened,Once in a while, a smashing new idea forever transforms photography. These ideas didn't. Here are six would-be breakthroughs that missed a turn on their way to setting the photo industry on fire, noted that one of the "breakthroughs" was OnRequest, saying:

Sometimes bad ideas take care of themselves. OnRequest Images never backed down from custom stock, but the idea was hard to explain and held little appeal to art buyers. OnRequest adjusted its heading and began to focus on a more lucrative business, creating branded stock libraries for big companies. Another custom stock service, iStockPhoto.com's BuyRequest, also failed to capture much interest and was quietly discontinued last year.

Yet, as early as last year, some silly group of VC's had dumped $8 million into this idea, as StockPhotoTalk reports, along with many others about the folly. Photographers they approach, or whom hear about them, continue to inquire about what their deal is, so here are a few items for your consideration:

What isn’t typical of the industry is how quickly you get paid. When you work with OnRequest Images, a check will be in the mail to you no later than forty-five days after completion of a shoot.

(See the Page)

FORTY-FIVE DAYS? Doesn't your credit card company require you pay them in 30? Your phone bill?

Feel free to read the articles in their Media Room where you'll see that it's all about cost cutting...on who's back? Oh, that's right, yours - the creative that is supposed to deliver. Some other silly VC's back in April of this year continue to pump their lifebood into this dead horse, according to American Venture Magazine, "the world's leading provider of OnBrand custom imagery" is what the red lipstick they are smearing on this sow. That's like saying "John Harrington is the world's leading provider of SixSevenDCPress custom imagery, where I've trademarked the phrase SixSevenDCPress, because I happen to be 6'7", live in DC, and am a member of the press corps! (I have not trademarked that, by the way!). That's pure folly to say your the world's leading provider of a trademarked name, when you own the trademark, and thus, no one else can actually be a provider of that, else risk violating their trademark!

One of their earlier suckers is quoted in the article as saying

"We continue to be a strong supporter of OnRequest Images' groundbreaking business model,” said Debra Somberg, managing partner at Maveron, an early investor in OnRequest Images.

Debra -- say something that isn't so self serving. As an early investor, you are fiduciarily compelled to say whatever you (legally) can to ensure a 10x return on your early investment. Hint - Getty got BuyRequest, a comparable version during the aquisition if iStockPhoto, so they're probably not going to buy your bacon maker. That investment is getting a little long in the tooth now, isn't it?

Do yourself a favor, and stay away from contributing to this bad business model. I am aware of few who care about photographers interests who would or have said anything nice about them, most (if not all) have, instead, advised you to steer clear!

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Food...Glorious Food?

I love food. I also enjoy the Food Network's programs, especially Unwrapped, which is high up on my Tivo Season Pass Manager, so it rarely gets preempted, except for, say, 24, The Closer, 60 Minutes, and a few others. What boggles my mind, is a post that keen-eyed PBN reader Paul McEvoy spotted over at the bottom-feeders resource that is Craigs List. Since the post may get flagged for removal or otherwise removed, I shall post it here for this commentary on it, but, while it remains online, you can read it here. It reads:

---

Food Network looking for Production Photographer 6/25

---

Food Network is filming a show about PIE in Rockland Maine on Monday June 25th and I am looking for a photographer to document our production. The pictures will not be used in broadcast but they will become property of the Food Network archives. You will not need to edit the photographs at the end of the shoot as I will make the final selection of 46 that will go to the network. I am looking for someone with their own camera who is friendly and non-intrusive. Photographer's assistants are welcome to apply as this would look great in your resume. Please reply with a short paragraph about yourself and experience and enclose your resume in the body of your email.

The rate is a non-negotiable $150 and you must submit all the jpegs via CD to me within a week.


Thanks for your interest.
Only serious applicants please.

---

Wow, the photos become their property, and won't be used in the broadcast. But, they'll be used in marketing/promotional/advertising materials that will. While it'll supposedly "look great in (sic) your resume." The fact is, you won't have the right to use the photos on your website or promote yourself with the images, since they will no longer be your property, and thus, you will have no rights to do so.

Fact #10 - Just because you took a photograph under a work made for hire agreement or you transfered copyright of your work to your client, and you use it on your website anyway, and they don't stop you or sue you, doesn't make what you're doing any less illegal, it just means that the owner of the work you produced has chosen - at their discretion - to not pursue your infringement of their copyrighted materials. It's still illegal and an infringement. Make absolutely sure that the owner grants back to you the right to use your work for self promotion in your contract.

Scale for a unit photographer is roughly $750 a day, and the average number of images produced on a union production is 500-700 images day. While I recognize that Food Network isn't a union shop, paying someone - anyone - $150 for a day's work as a professional photographer where quality results are expected is just an insult.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

A Collection of Inconvenient Facts

Ignoring facts cannot change them. Far too many photographers, and aspiring photographers, simply ignore the facts before them, believing that the laws of physics and economics just don't apply to them.

I see these photographers arrive on the scene, and then depart in short order. Many not only leave DC, they leave the profession altogether. The sad fact too, is they also leave the state of the profession they tried to succeed in just a little worse off as a result of poor business practices.

Here are a few facts for your consideration:

Fact #1: If every time you produce images, the copyright to them is not yours, you will not earn money - any money - from them in the future. You're a day laborer, like a ditch digger with some creativity.

Fact #2: According to the IRS, if you are 1) required to comply with the employer's instructions; 2) the services are to be performed in a particular method or manner; 3) the success or continuation of a business depends on the performance of certain services; 4) the worker personally perform the services; 5) the worker have a continuing relationship with the employer; 6) the worker has to follow a work sequence set by the employer; 7) Can the worker work for more than one employer at a time? If you're a freelancer, and these sound familiar to you, then, perhaps you're entitled to be an employee of the employer, including benefits, and their paying the standard part of your taxes that an employer pays.

Fact #3: Taking standard manufacturers' statistics for the lifespan of equipment (camera and computer), coupled with the amortization tables for deductability, will give you how much you can reasonably expect to pay over each year. Combine this with other expenses (data lines, software, rent, and so forth) and this is what it costs each year to make pictures. When divided by 52, if you don't earn that much each week, you will most decidedly not be making pictures professionally very long unless your sustaining income comes from other sources.

Fact #4: If your time is not your own, and thus you are doing something at the behest of a client (travel, post production, planning, etc), and you are not charging your client for those efforts, you are short-changing yourself and taking a loss on that time.

Fact #5: If you charge for your time at an hourly rate, the better you get at completing an assignment, the less you are being paid for your talents. While an hourly rate may work when you are covering a luncheon, or all day conference, it doesn't work on most other assignments. Banish "day rate" from your vocabulary before it costs you.

Fact #6: Just because a client says they won't pay for something, doesn't mean you must accept, and work under, those terms. You have the power to say "no".

Fact #7: When you are working for just one or two clients, the loss of their work would have catastrophic effects on your revenue steam. You are overly beholden to them, and whatever whim they exert. Diversify your client base for long term stability.

Fact #8: If a client signs your contract, and then demands, after the fact, that you sign theirs to be paid, you do not have to do agree to sign, or actually sign their contract. Simply point out that you already have a contractual relationship for the assignment. They must pay, pursuant to your contract, or be in breach of contract (or copyright, depending upon the language in your contract.)

Fact #9: Operating your business without insurance is akin to gambling, every day, with the likelihood of being able to continue to do the job you love the most. A stolen camera bag, or an accident on assignment could easily put you out of business.


The truth of these facts may be inconvenient, but that doesn't make them any less real.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

When Your Agent is Not Your Friend

For some time, I've been critical of photo agencies who are not looking out for the best interests of those they are agents for. Photographers seem to forget that without them, agencies are nothing more than an office with empty file cabinets and blank hard drives. There are very few agencies any more that actually look out for photographer's best interests. Three that I know do are - Marcel Saba's Redux, Scott McKiernan's Zuma Press,and the one that represents me - Black Star. They truly do care about their photographers, and have a long history of doing so, or of being photographers themselves.

In a departure from my normal musings, I am presenting, with permission, highly regarded attorney and friend of many a photographer, Ed Greenberg's thoughts on this subject, and I commend it to you for serious consideration. Ed uses, for example, Corbis, and I would submit that Getty is also not really suited to the category "agent/agency".

---

We have written and posted several times on the topic of “Why Words Matter,” and that the acceptance of the vocabulary of your enemies is dangerous to your economic health. Some of you may recall our post in March of 2007 regarding the importance of the word “agent” and the efforts by agents, agencies and reps to retire the use of the word. We referenced a large agency making a concerted effort to distance itself from reality in a distinctly Orwellian manner.

We wrote in part that: “A mere independent sales representative or distributor rarely is burdened by such responsibilities and legal obligations (as an agent). He/she can sell one product over another as is his/her whim. An independent distributor selling various brands of coffee, wine or widgets to retailers rarely has any obligation or allegiance to one brand over another. He/she may even give away product or services favoring one brand over another. A mere salesperson can act, sell (or not) anything he/she believes to be in his/her own self interest. It logically follows therefore that no one cares, not even the courts, what products a regular salesperson sells.

So recently a well known agency, whose name is known to you all, has denied by its lawyers, in writing (twice), that even though: its own contract heading identifies itself as the "agent", it promotes and advertises itself to its clients and prospective "content contributors" as an "agency and agent for content", it uses the word "agent" on its website --- it is NOT an "agent" for any of its contributors, content providers or partners.

Yes, it sounds illogical. Yes, it is counter intuitive. Yes, it is utterly bereft of a semblance of merit.

Mega agency Corbis maintains that despite the legal, industry and lay definitions of the words, “agent/agency” it is not. Corbis maintains that it, “does not act as an agent but rather photographers license copyrights in selected images to Corbis and Corbis in turn re-licenses(d) those same copyrights to various third parties”. I bet that as Johnny Carson used to say, “You did not know that!"

Such a position could enable one or more of these companies to avoid one or more of the numerous legal or tax obligations which are imposed on “agents/agencies” by any number of governmental agencies. Significantly, if deemed not to be an agent, its obligations to its contributors are reduced dramatically. Corbis is not of course, a public company.

Even though Corbis has been referred to by several court decisions and courts as an “Agent/Agency”, has used such words on its own web site, seeks to represent the works of photographers and illustrators and represents to clients and potential clients that it has the authority to negotiate and make deals with third parties on behalf of creators, etc., etc., it chooses to run away from the English language and countless obligations to its creators which agents by law, have.

Don't take my word for it. Look up the words “agent” and “agency” in any dictionary – legal or otherwise. Google “Corbis” and see if you come up with the words agent/agency linked to its name.

So maybe you are still asking why this matters to you. Well, if you license work outside of the US of A and the agent is not an “agent”, it may take the position that it need not pass on foreign tax credits on to you for your, heaven forbid, benefit. My guess is that you never knew that Corbis “re-licensed” to third parties “the very same copyrights that (you) licensed to Corbis”. Such are the positions that Corbis has taken.

Transactions made in foreign countries concerning the licensing of your work there and any monies generated thereby may be subject to foreign taxes. Agents, agencies, syndicators and others authorized to make these transactions on your behalf may pay the foreign taxes due in that country on such deals. You are entitled and ought to know the nature and extent of any taxes paid so that you can advise your accountant and he/she can then obtain the proper credits on your behalf when preparing your tax returns. You may be entitled to substantial savings resulting from fees paid in foreign countries.

If your agent, agency, so-called “re-licensor” etc. is too lazy to report such payments to you, it is time to speak up. Some agents refuse to disclose to their contributors the gross licensing fees earned by the image(s), especially on foreign “sales”. Such practices are engaged in frequently to your detriment and often for the convenience and benefit of your agent. The exact amount(s) of money that you are overpaying in taxes and/or the exact amount(s) of money that you are under- receiving in royalties resulting from your agent’s laziness, negligence, malice or stupidity will remain unknown to you unless and until you demand appropriate accounting procedures.

READ your statements. Review them with your accountant and/or attorney. The statement should provide all information as to how the net royalty paid to you is calculated. This includes the gross amount of the royalty paid to the agent by the ultimate licensee of the image, and all deductions and adjustments from that royalty, including, fees paid to the agent and
subagent(s), and other expenses and foreign taxes, if any.

Request and insist upon receiving the name of a contact person who is knowledgeable about the net royalty calculation. You should compare these calculations with what you are entitled to under the provisions of your contract or otherwise what your understanding is.

Have all questions with regard to procedure, practices and transactions answered by your agency in writing in such manner as you are able to understand them. Do not do business with any purported agency whose practices your accountant and/or attorney are not satisfied with, period. If BOTH your accountant and attorney are unhappy with the business operations of your agency, run away from it like the wind. Such agents and agencies despite what nomenclature they want to impose on you dear "content providers", are out for themselves - only.


Edward C. Greenberg, PC
570 Lexington Ave.
17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
(212)697-8777

---

I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps a second look at the likes of PhotoShelter or Digital Railroad would be in your better interests.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Don't be a Dumb Duck

Today's What the Duck demonstrates the mentality of everyone out there hungry for work "I'll do it for half!" The pathetic fact is that there are people out there with that mentality. Note that the semi-smart duck leaves the strip after the "long hours" information, the second duck leaves after "grueling hours", yet, after being told you're shooting for credit, as a "volunteer", then does our stupidity kick into overdrive, where it's announced that, at whatever the rate the client is asking, one numbskull will "do it for half", even when he's the only one still there.

Far too many people don't survey the landscape so they know what they're up against before making their offers. They don't know all the details of the work, nor who their competition is - or if they're the only one willing (or able) to do the work.

Competing on price, "for the glory", is an absolute recipe for disaster. The sad fact is, I don't actually have to convince you of that, facts and reality will do that for me.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Speedlinks 06/12/07

Today's Speedlinks.

• USING MUSIC ON YOUR SITE, LEGALLY - Are you someone who has music on your website, or who uses it in multimedia packages? If so, starting here to avoid the long arm of the RIAA law is a good idea.


• Photographers’ Websites – The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - The photographer's consultant, Leslie Burns-Dell'Acqua expands on music being used on websites in this PDF on her site, where she says, in part:

  Music is also not a great idea unless there is an obvious “off” button. The ABs in the survey agree, with 22% saying music is “always annoying” and 39% saying it’s “annoying but okay as long as there is an ‘off’ button.” Remember, many of these people work in open cubicle environments so sound can be a problem in the workplace. Also, you may love Snoop Dogg but your potential client may hate rap music—why run the risk of offending? I’ve seen more than one person click off a site in disgust because of the music.



• Camera Shutter Life Expectancy Database: feel free to chime in - Remember, that camera won't last forever, and will die soon, maybe on the next job. Be sure to consider this expense in your CODB, and check out the article.


• Photojournalists at 'The Sun' Launch Protest 'Strike' - From Editor & Publisher - "Eighteen Baltimore Sun photojournalists launched a byline strike today protesting Tribune Co.'s move to force reporters to become photographers and videographers as a way to cut costs." Smooth move. The pencil pushers seem to think they can take great photos, but, what if we make the argument that we could also write the articles, so just let go some of those pesky reporters? Would that idea fly? Didn't think so. Fight the power!

Now go! Check 'em out, and come back soon!

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Proper Credit

In Sunday's Washington Post, and I'm sure many other papers across the country, A photograph of the President making his weekly radio address ran. It was credited to the Associated Press. Others, no doubt, were credited Reuters, AFP, Getty, and numerous others. Yet, none of these media outlets were there to cover the President making his remarks, they were not invited, and requests to cover this weekly Presidential event are denied. Why?

(Continue Reading at Black Star Rising)

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Showing the Love

3 days of peace, love, and photography ended Saturday evening, and when I asked those around how it compared to Visa Pour l'image, they said it was the same, except that the Visa event is much much larger, and is much more networking-centric. I'm not sure though, because even though there were not formal networking opportunities, the opportunities in an informal nature abounded. I had opportunities to reconnect with friends, and make new ones.

In a previous post, one commenter posited that "...only people that will be giving any photographers any love will be the clients who think that you'll accept WMFH or spec. jobs." That really wasn't the case. One example was an editor at Audubon Magazine who's attitude couldn't be further from that the commenter made.

Photojournalists frequently are less versed in negotiations, and may find themselves accepting bad deals because they don't have the business sense that is required to remain in business. THAT, is what the book, and this forum is for, to be of assistance and provide insights for those folks!

Photography is not dead (as that commenter further suggested) - far from it. The Festival evidenced that, despite suggestions to the contrary, a mix of commercial photography that, in turn, sustains documentary projects, means that meaningful work is being done by these photographers. In addition, many folks who presented also give master classes and teach courses to others, which, in turn, sustains their own personal and book projects.

One of the takeaways was that, if you don't really love, and I mean really love, photography, and are commited to it, you will fail. There are far too many people who are willing to give it their all, and then some, to make it work.

I am already looking forward to next year. I think it will be even better than this year, and this year sets the bar very very high!

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Off to Recharge My Batteries

The French, they have Visa pour l'image, known to most just as Perpignan (for the city where it's held each year), which is a gathering of top photographers and photo editors from around the world. Closer to home, we have what is the first of it's kind in North America - what I think will be the US version of Perpignan - Festival of The Photograph, in Charlottesville Virginia June 7th through the 9th.

With Charlottesville only about 3 hours away, I'd be foolish not to be there, in what is being billed as three days of peace, love, and photography, how can you go wrong? Who doesn't need some extra peace and love?

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Who Do You Wanna Jott?

How many times have you been without a way to note your thoughts, a caption, client information, and so on? For me, too many. Consider these:

• You're driving down the road, reach a stoplight, and have some brilliant idea, but no pen.


• You're with someone, and need to write down some information they are telling you, but neither of you have a pen.


• You're outside, and need to remember a product name, or specific part number, but, again, no pen.

Sound familiar? Similar situations? Enter www.Jott.com.

So, I call up Jott's toll-free #, which I have set to speed dial on my phone, and am asked by the computer: "Who do wanna jott?". I speak "self", and it responds "Jott to self" and then the recording tone.

To solve the first issue above, I say: "I should get a medium format digital camera for this assignment."

Within less than a minute, I get an e-mail, TRANSCRIBED FROM MY VOICE INTO TEXT, that looks like this:

From: Jott Networks
Subject: [Jott to Self] I should get a medium format digital cam...
Date: June 3, 2007 5:00:00 PM EDT
To: john@johnharrington.com
Reply-To: notify@jott.com
-----------
I should get a medium format digital camera for this assignment.
Set reminders, assign, and manage this jott on Jott.com

Brought to you by Jott Networks, Inc.

Curious about how I sounded? Click the speaker graphic above, and you can also hear the audio.

Next, I am standing next to my friend Joe, who I am supposed to remember to call, but he has a new phone #. So I call Jott, say "self", and I say: "Remember to call Joe at 202-555-1212" and here's what I get:

From: Jott Networks
Subject: [Jott to Self] Remember to call Joe at 202-555-1212.
Date: June 3, 2007 5:01:08 PM EDT
To: john@johnharrington.com
Reply-To: notify@jott.com
-----------
Remember to call Joe at 202-555-1212.
Set reminders, assign, and manage this jott on Jott.com

Brought to you by Jott Networks, Inc.

Again, click the audio icon, to see what the message sounds like.

In my third situation, I am in my garage, checking on the part # I need to replace on my lawn mower. I call Jott, and say: "This spark plug is NGKBR8ES", and here's what I get:

From: Jott Networks
Subject: [Jott to Self] This spark plug is NGKBR8ES.
Date: June 3, 2007 5:15:55 PM EDT
To: john@johnharrington.com
Reply-To: notify@jott.com
-----------
This spark plug is NGKBR8ES.
Set reminders, assign, and manage this jott on Jott.com

Brought to you by Jott Networks, Inc.

The beauty of the audio backup, is when you say something like "Remember to call Amazon and order The PBS special on Annie Liebovitz", and the translation is , or "Remember to call Amazon and order the PBS special on Amy (?)", or "Call Verizon and cancel my landline. I am just going to use my cell phone" and the translation is "Call horizon and cancel by blind line, I am just going to use my cell phone." When the software just can't understand you because you slur your speech, or there is significant background noise, you get "[unclear speech, please listen]".

The service is amazing, and, it's free. Currently, it's in beta, but I think it's got everything in line to leave beta.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]