Silly Rabbit - PicApp's Got Problems

PicApp, seen by some as a a solution to online revenue streams, just doesn't get it. Started by the same people that created PicScout (we wrote about PicScout here - Delusions of Grandeur, 5/27/09) - the model they're using of "free content that is ad supported" is a tried-and-true method of breaking into a crowded market. However, the next step is that once you have market share, then offering a "for a fee" version that does not have ads, and PicApp just seems to fail on several levels even in the initial offerings (which they will no doubt defend, since they are stating PicApp is still in "beta").

PicApp makes money off the photos by inserting ads into the image area. PicApp hold their application out as a legal way to post free photos from sources like Getty Images, Corbis, and Splash News, on personal blogs (Currently, you can't include your own images into PicApp to monetize them). Other images in thumbnail format are also overlaid on top of the main image, sometimes with problematic results (like the illustration above). They see hope to be able to then intersperse, overlay, or insert various ads into the window onto your blog where you can view the photo, and in turn, they earn a profit from those ads, presumably for more than it costs them for the license to show the image(s), with (or without) a split with the copyright owners. On the PicApp faq, one of the questions is "Can I take out the advertisement? " and the answer is "No. Please keep in mind, the advertisements are inserted so that we can continue providing you with such high-end, up-to-the-minute content."

The PicApp Terms & Conditions (here - terms and conditions), as Andy Beard (here) points out "that it is impossible to use these images and still syndicate your content within those terms and conditions", and further, it's a Javascript application, which means that it doesn't make it into RSS feeds.

A year ago, Getty alledgedly granted a blanket use of all the images in their library for PicApp's use, however this was supposed to be restricted to images that Getty "wholly owned", and not those of Getty contributors, where Getty would have to pay the contributors. Yet, that wasn't the case, and Getty images' non-wholly-owned images were making it into the PicApp application.

(Continued after the Jump)

Inquiries with sources familiar with the PicApp dealings suggest that perhaps they don't have the deals they say they do. For example, The PicApp service is supposedly to be used only on "personal blogs" so they are not allowed to use the PicApp capabillities on big media company websites or blogs, like MSNBC or CNN, because - surprise surprise, that would encroach on Getty/Corbis/etc deals where they are making money, and where PicApp would be a sort of iStockphoto canibalization of those revenue streams if they allowed PicApp onto those platforms.

Is, for example, this use on the "Chicago Now" website (here) a personal blog? Not hardly, since there are ads on it - yet on the PicApp faq, it says "Will the PicApp image work on a site with Google AdSense?" the answer is "Absolutely! The two are unrelated." Yet, there is a difference between "will it work" and "am I allowed to do it". One of the other faq questions is "Can I make money with PicApp?" and the answer is am ambiguous "Coming soon, so stay tuned! " However, a blog with ads, whether from Google AdSense, or any other money-making features, would likely be precluded from using PicApp, because it's not a personal blog. Both the Chicago Now blog, The Fox Atlanta channel (here), and MVN NBA Fantasy Sites (as shown here) illustrate just how horrible the PicApp thumbnails overlays are, interferring with the image content.

On PicApps' own blog (here) one commenter writes "Can you guys have a smaller Google text link ad as opposed to the big honking ugly one?" Another blogger writes (here) "I was kinda shocked to see that it embedded an adsense ad right below the pic! I guess I wouldn’t have minded this – had I known in advance. But I hate things that are done “sneakily”, if you know what I mean. I can’t find any mention of the adsense ad anywhere on the PicApp site, and the plugin certainly does NOT say “ad supported”." Once these concerns were raised by the blogger, he suggested that the PicApp previews which were misleading, would be more clear in the future, and supposedly an "opt out" of the money-making side of things, but I've not seen that, to date. Further, with Google shutting down their Video AdSense program a few months ago (because of integration and disappointing results), so too is AdSense delivering lackluster results as webmasters are grumbling about revenues being down. More than one site has reported similar to this - Google cost per click declines (here) with a 13% decrease.

PicApp is poorly designed, with questionable licensing explanations vis-a-vis personal-versus-commercial blogs and sites, and is relying on AdSense to support this "free" application. Where is PicApp getting the money for such a large "blanket" agreement with Getty/Corbis/et al?

PicApp's sister company PicScout generates revenues from two sources - spidering the web looking for infringements and delivering to you those results, called Image Tracker. From their faq "How much does the Image Tracker service cost?", where they answer "Our pricing model is based on a number of different metrics. If you're goal is to monetize the images found (either by licensing or unauthorized use claims), we charge based on a percentage of the recovered revenues. If your objective is only for analytics, we charge based on each qualified match. We also charge a minimum fee in case the other revenue targets are not met. Most of the time, our prices are determined once we understand your business needs and the mutual opportunity. If you have more than 30,000 images and are interested in talking about what we can do for you, please contact us."

So, Getty/Corbis/et al fall into that 30k+ category as far as image count is concerned, but what about the percentage of recovered revenues? This is the second source of income for PicScout, with sources putting the percentage as high as 60% in some cases. So, if your image gets infringed, PicScout will pursue the claim and collect, say $10,000,and keep as much as $6,000. Clearly, Getty/et al don't need that aspect of the service, but they do have image assets that could be made available to populate PicApp. Could it be that PicScout gets to tout that they have Getty and Corbis as a client (thus enticing others by this endorsement by Getty/Corbis), Getty and Corbis get free tracking of uses and possible infringements, and PicApp gets access to all the images to populate and start up the service with AdSense revenues being split with the agencies? If this is the case, it's certainly appears very incestuous. Getty can ill afford the offspring of such a union gone bad.

---

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]

Enter The Efficiency Experts

More than one person has brought to our attention that Bain & Company has been hard at work at Getty Images. For the most of the world, Bain & Co is unknown, but in the financial and private equity world, calling in Bain & Co is like applying part nitros-oxide and part spoiler to your hoopty. In other words, for those along for the ride, it's part good, part bad.

Bain promotes on their website (here) that [they] "...help our clients...find new ways to lower costs..." and "Many media companies will need to make major organizational changes" (emphasis theirs) Their home page notes "We help management make the big decisions: on strategy, operations, mergers & acquisitions, technology and organization."

What does that mean for Getty?

(Continued after the Jump)

Well Bain consultants were looking over the shoulders and taking notes while Getty photographers and editors were busy covering the Teen Choice Awards last weekend. I can just imagine what the Bain consultants were writing. Maybe silly things like "...photographers in head on position must shoot fewer images..." or "...photographers in cutaway positions must focus more on audience reaction..." especially when there seems to be no images of Vanessa Hudgens reacting to Dane Cook's slight of her.

Bain's focus is on increasing the valuation of a company and there are a number of underperforming segments of the Getty operation. By doing so, Getty's owners, Heller & Friedman, will know which departments can be re-organized (meaning, staff reductions) and which should be closed altogether (ex: LA offices). Once the best performing divisions are identified (no surprise, iStockphoto will be among them) then H&F can begin shopping around those, and closing others.

---

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]

Worth The Read: Mendelsohn's "The Lessons of Lindsay"

Supremely regarded photojournalist Matt Mendelsohn makes the push to get a story he's passionate about out, and it's well worth a read. The back story on this, is that it was scheduled to run in a national newspaper magazine, but did not because the paper was afraid it would scare advertisers away. During a time when there is so much discussion about Self Magazine (more here) photoshopping Kelly Clarkson thirty-pounds lighter, justified as (so what if we made her thin on the cover?; we're just trying to help Kelly Clarkson "be her best") this is a great rebuttal. These old pillars of publishing, which are now evidencing why they are losing readership, have been trumped by the online community (once again) with a thoughtful and well written piece by Matt - The Lessons of Lindsay.

It's too late for major traditional news media outlets to "get it", but for those committed to telling the story, there is a huge potential readership to be had, and this piece should go viral for so many reasons.

(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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

MacWorld Cover - From Start to Finish

What goes into a "simple" cover of two iPhones for MacWorld? Watch it here from start to finish:

(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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

** TIME SENSITIVE ** - Today, 4p East/1p West - Free Webinar on Trends of Successful Photographer Websites

Well well, the folks at PhotoShelter are at it again, with a free webinar, TODAY, 4pm EAST/1pm WEST. The link is here, and here are the details:

Emerging trends in successful photographer websites.

Build a website that photo buyers will love. PhotoShelter surveyed 550+ commercial and editorial photo buyers to get the scoop on what can make or break your photography website. Use the results to help you sell more photography. PhotoShelter co-founder Grover Sanschagrin will review the survey findings and discuss the designs and features that photobuyers care about most. Don't buy or design a website without this info!

So, if you want insights/guidance on how to do it, or get it done right, don't miss their presentation! Register here for free now.

(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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Conveying Your Value to a Client

with client budgets tight these days what can you do to convince them that you are worth it? Lowering your prices is an Ill-advised plan because those clients will expect the lower rates when things get better.

Instead promote the VALUE you will bring to the assignment . By emphasizing value with phrases like " our approach to this assignment will bring real value to your customers' perception of your widget..." or "the value we will bring to this assignment will result in images that will make your prospective client more aware of the benefits of your service..."

(Continued after the Jump)

You can also emphasize the long term benefits of your work. Conveying to a client in your own words concepts like "long after the sweet fragarence of the floral arrangements had faded, photographs that stink will be a reminder of where costs should not be cut" or "four color press releases won't make up to photographs that miss the moment..."

Let me stress- these are phrases that illustrate concepts and using that language might come across with the unspoken perception of you being " how dare he tell me how to spend my money..."

In the end, you need to convey to your prospective client that you are the best choice for the assignment and right now in a cost-conscious economy, emphasizing your services as valuable will help them make the right choice-you.

---

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]

Obama Image Copyright Infringement Issues

To be blunt - NORML's use of the Lisa Jack image of Barack Obama is, in this author's opinion, plain and simple, copyright infringement. Photo District News did two great pieces on this - From Hope to Dope: Another Obama Poster Dispute and Getty: We'll Fight NORML's Copyright Infringement, so I won't re-hash what they wrote here.

What I will say about the image at right, is that the poster is an illustration SURROUNDING a photographic image. Unlike Shepard Fairey's claim of fair-use and derivative use, where (Fairey claims) the resulting image was so significantly different that other than angle of view expression/subject, the resulting work was not substantial enough that the original photographer has a claim (this is the inaccurate position of Shepard Fairey), this use has a hole in the center they filled with a photograph. Other than applying a green duotone tint to the original black and white, it's a photograph. They added in a swirl of smoke, but it's a photo, plain and simple.

(Continued after the Jump)

Since Getty is quoted in the PDN piece as saying "will aggressively pursue this matter as the copyright representative of the artist" the question at hand will be the soundness of Getty's copyright registration. If they simply included the Jack images in their own registration process, as a part of a "database addition" registration (which some agencies have done in the past), where they register multiple photographers' work in a single registration, that will be a big problem. If, however, Jack had registered the work herself, Getty will have substantial ground to stand on. The strength of this case will test Getty's (and other agencies) copyright registration procedures, if it goes to court, which is looks like it might. If Getty does go to court, and loses over a questionable registration, it could well signal open season on infringements on Getty and other agencies. Look to Getty to try very hard to settle this case quietly.

---

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]

Pushing Pixels: $5 Idiocy

Photography should not be sold by the pixel. Images are not the same as selling sugar by the pound. Yet, as if the stupidity of Getty's $49 imagery wasn't enough (more on that here), Getty Images is now selling images by pixel dimensions. To give you some perspective - below is the full frame dimensions of a file from a Canon EOS 1DS Mark III. Then, in black, is a 170 pixel by 170 pixel box, representing what Getty Images will license for $5 if it's a royalty-free image, and $15 if it's a rights-managed image.



All this, and more, can be discerned from the Getty Images site, here.

(Continued after the Jump)

It's been just over a year since Getty announced the completion of their being acquired by Hellman & Friedman (here), and there has been little good in their press releases about Getty Images proper, and a lot about deep-and-cheap deals with Flickr, JupiterMedia, and now this. Oh, and don 't forget all the layoffs and office closings. Look in the coming year for H&F to start shuttering underperforming divisions and quietly looking for buyers of the more profitable divisions. Heck, with Google trying to grow their news offerings, maybe Getty Images' news photographers will begin seeing "/Google News" after their names in the not too distant future?

Whatever Gettys' future holds, pricing by the pixel is just sheer idiocy.

---

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]

MLK, Michelangelo, Street-Sweepers, & You

One of the sentiments that has always stayed with me has been this quote, from Martin Luther King Jr:

If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well.

Today, on assignment in Disney's California Adventure, I witnessed this first-hand. The gentleman I photographed here fit that charge to a T. I watched as he mopped the concrete walks. A stubborn stain he spritzed with his spray bottle, and his holster held other tools necessary to do the job as if he were Michelangelo. He even cared about his appearance as he was doing it, and he also worked during lulls in the crowd so his moping didn't interfere with the parks' guests. I watched for awhile, impressed by his overall approach as well as the details he cared about.

Next is Rutger Hauer, who played Roy Batty in one of my all time favorite movies Blade Runner. "The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long", a reference to Roys' longevity and impending death.

Last up for the day is the tortise and the hare, and that tale of slow and steady over fast and corner cutting is a well known tale. These and so many other parables are guideposts to a future of success in this field.

(Continued after the Jump)

In photography, there are no real short-cuts to success. Yes, there are lucky breaks, yet often, those that experience those do not have the foundations laid for continued success, and often falter.

I'll recount for you a scenario from several years back, to illustrate this point. I had an intern working with me, and this intern had only been in Washington a month or so, and we were photographing the first lady. I was in a holding room doing meet-and-greet images, while the intern was tasked with holding a spot in the room where the press conference was taking place. During that time, my college graduated intern was talking with a young photographer, trying to make idle conversation to pass the time. My intern learned that another young photographer there had dropped out of college to shoot. When this photographer was asked why he would do that, his response was "I'm doing pretty well here, don't ya think? I am covering the first lady!" All in all, the conversational tone was him looking down on my intern and trying to promote his station in life. Fortunately for him, I learned a year or so later, he had returned to school to finish his degree. (Smart move there, if you're reading this and recognize yourself!)

Yes, in a short period of time you can be covering important people doing important things, but if doing so means giving up your rights to your images as a freelancer, or accepting a pay structure that is unfair and non-sustaining, then, as with Roy Batty, you may "burn twice as bright but half as long" and you'll flame out.

Returning to the street sweeper - if you're working for a small paper, a weekly, or doing what some might consider a menial photography-related job, take the sweepers' approach. Do your job well. Earn your respect. Shine brightly as a photographer if you are doing kindergarten snapshots or pet portraits, and you'd rather be photographing CEO's or globe-trotting on an important news story. More than once I've heard of photographers just starting dismiss immediately the notion of working for a small town newspaper, thinking it beneath them and instead believing they were owed a spot at a bigger named publication. Further, far too many photographers believe they are owed something, and that not only should they get a second chance when they screw up, but that they deserve a second chance. They also believe that it is their God-given right to be the next New York Times staff photographer. When you catch your lucky break, if you want to maintain the momentum that the break created, remember this - luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.

---

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]

"Licensing News Photos Is Expensive"

Stephen Colbert suggests that a cost-saving effort on his show would be to reduce image licensing, saying "licensing news photos is expensive", and suggests that childs' play would better illustrate some of his stories.



Seems like maybe a few microstockers in Pelosi's San Francisco district should be shooting some stock this week and cutting a deal with Colbert, no?

(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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]