NYT's Leslye Davis And Her Alternative Facts about Photojournalism's Future

One of the problems with the internet is that a Ph.D. in science can post a researched report online, only to be critisized in the comments section of that same online posting by anyone with a different opinion or an agenda, or a lack of experience. This is why so many online outlets have either ended comments, or moderated them. I too believe like John Oliver does (here regarding climate change) that it is inheritantly misleading to afford an expert on the subject of the future of photojournalism the same platform as an arguably newly minted photojournalist who, by her own statements, is a product of the company she is employed by,  and not fully experienced or having had witnessed the full breadth of the industry she's supposedly equally capable of commenting on.  John Oliver posits "you don't need peoples opinions on a fact. You might as well as a poll that asks 'which number is bigger, 15 or 5?'" Oliver then goes on to point out that people are still depating an issue because, on TV, they pit one person in favor of an issue position, and one person against it, as if there is equal value to each position, or equal stature for both people delivering the opinions. This, as Oliver points out on Climate Change, is inheritantly misleading. 

Donald Winslow was interviewed by the New York Times for an article titled "The Uncertain Future of Photojournalism" on February 15th. The article should be read here, but I will boil it down to several bullet points:

1. a lot has changed
2. the internet affords editors the ability to source local talent, saving money by settling on whomever was atop Google search results
3. there's less money because of the state of media
4. photography has been devalued
5. global communications expanded the knowledge of resource pools
6. the photography industry was gutted by the greed of bottom-line watchers
7. fewer staff photographer jobs, and all photographers required to do more (video, audio, etc)
8. fewer assignments due to stock agencies
9. "only the rich kids get to play at photojournalism." 
10. the opportunities are greater but there are no patrons to support photojournalists as in the Renaissance
11. only a few can afford to do photojournalism and earn a living at it until the business model changes
12. Stock sales are 1/100th what they used to be
13. Things must change for photojournalism to survive, and few people who are in the profession earn a living from it

In a follow up article, equal weight was given to someone with a small fraction of experience and perspective on the industry. The author of the piece called the Winslow article "pessimistic", and I had to revisit the definition for that word, which is defined as "tending to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen."  The points above are accurate and depressing facts, but they're not debatable, they're facts, with, perhaps, the editorialization of #9. 

The article was in question, on the same NYT LENS blog platform "Photojournalism’s Uncertain Future? She Begs to Differ", which you should read here  is filled with ill-conceived opinion by Ms. Leslye Davis, an employee on staff who shoots video and still photography.

(Continued after the Jump)

Following the publication of the Winslow interview, the questioner describes someone who "came into the Lens office" - and that's where it starts. Described as "a young video journalist and photographer for The New York Times", means Ms. Davis first has a paycheck from one of the highest paying newspapers in the country. For reference, according to the New York Newspaper Guild's 2003 contract (here ), which was effective through 2011, a photographer with 2 or more years of experience would earn a minimum of $1,777.83 every two weeks up to $1,955.54 for a Bureau Photographer. That's a salary, before benefits, of $46,223, to start - she's likely paid much more. That's an awfully enriched position from which, as the title of the article suggests "Photojournalism’s Uncertain Future? She Begs to Differ" - "beg" to differ. She stated she started as an intern at the age of 21, and then was hired on full time.  And here, she's going to opine on the state of an industry she has experienced only a sliver of, from the position of staff photographer who doesn't rely on the dwindling rates paid to non-staff photographers? So, let's walk through everything that's been written, with the understanding that, as the author, James Estrin notes "Her conversation with James Estrin has been edited for clarity and brevity." What it clearly was not edited for, was accuracy, Leslye Davis is operating from, as our current administration has coined the phrase, a set of alternative facts.

Below is the Q&A exchange, interspersed with commentary and criticisms, and on a rare occasion, an agreement or two.

ESTRIN:  What brought you into the Lens office a few minutes ago?
DAVIS: I got an email from a Western Kentucky University photojournalism student.

COMMENTARY: Davis, who grew up mostly in Kentucky, the daughter of a school teacher, is a WKU alumni, one of the most difficult and prestigious schools for photojournalists. 

DAVIS: She wrote: “I just read this article from The NY Times. It’s about the unstable career of photojournalism. After reading it my fears resurfaced of not feeling confident in the career I’m investing a lot of time and money into, especially if it means being able to barely provide my daily needs with the pay.

COMMENTARY: This students fears should have never left, they should have always been front of mind. The student is right that they are "investing a lot of ...money" and she's right to fear being "able to barely provide my daily needs with the pay." Winslow did not dance around this point, he made it clearly. 

DAVIS: What is your opinion on the future of photojournalism? Did you have the same fear when you were a student?”

COMMENTARY: I hardly think that Davis is of the position that she has more insights into the future of photojournalism than Winslow. Winslow has been photographer, editor, served on a national board of the NPPA, and otherwise been in the trenches for decades. Why would Davis have a more informed or insightful opinion or even more facts than Winslow? 

ESTRIN: So what are you going to tell her? 
DAVIS: I’m going to tell her she has a bright future ahead of her ...

COMMENTARY: So, from an email inquiry, she's just going to offer the blanket statement that her future is bright? Why is she making this promise? Allaying very real fears with a platitude?

DAVIS: … that there are more opportunities than ever before, especially for women, especially for minorities. She is both. 

COMMENTARY: There are NOT more opportunities that meet the test this student was asking for to " provide my daily needs". The opportunities largely exist to work for free, or for "photo credit", not that will provide for her daily needs for revenue. Further, to the question about the financial viability of the profession, the question about opportunities for women and minorities, while true, is irrelevant to the question, but again, it's a platitudinal sentiment at best.

DAVIS: Some of the points in the article were right, but the overall message about the uncertain future of photojournalism was wrong and it spoke more to what photojournalism used to be than of what it’s becoming. 

COMMENTARY:  Incorrect. There wasn't a single fact in the article that was wrong. In fact the premise - that it's "uncertain" is accurate. Further, the message and points too was painfully accurate. It offered a history lesson and facts about the state of the industry today.  Facts cannot be wrong. 15 is still bigger than 5. 

What's troubling, (and Davis ignored Estrin's question about fear) is that, in an interview here Davis expresses her own fears on this same topic of money, writing "I’ve always had an intense irrational fear of student loan debt" yet she's allaying these same fears in a fellow WKU student. That's just plain irresponsible. Especially so when she's making upwards of $50k in salary, and is provided with all the equipment she needs to do her job. Estrin notes in his interview with Winslow "The difficulty of making a living has skewed the profession away from people who are working-class or poor" to which Winslow affirms that and responds "That hurts diversity and hinders coverage..." and notes that a "bag of gear today would probably cost you $25,000". 

ESTRIN:  What is so exciting about her future? 

COMMENTARY:  I'd like to think that Estrin, a self-avowed optimist, here is asking a question, if he's being honest with himself, he knows should be answered more along the lines of Winslow's answers, "the bottom line is, can you pay your bills at the end of the month?...Are you going to pin your mortgage payment on getting an Alicia Patterson grant? Or a Robert F. Kennedy Award?" 

DAVIS: Newspapers and journalism in general are excited about visuals. 

COMMENTARY:  Yes, they are excited about visuals. This is a superfluous and pandering comment. Even before cameras existed, newspapers used visuals and were excited about them. Here's a visual in the New York Herald from 1836, the year before the camera was invented.  

DAVIS: If you look at The New York Times 2020 report, the first point is that the report needs to be more visual. 

COMMENTARY:  Yes, and within that same point, it affirms the importance - primarily so in some cases, "We also need to become more comfortable with our photographers, videographers and graphics editors playing the primary role covering some stories, rather than a secondary role." Yet, step outside of the staff offices of the NYT, and the reporters in many cases think they can take the photos, and the reporters in most cases, are paid more. From a database of rates, here a reporter in 2014 is paid $700 flat, for "1,000 words. It required plenty of quotes from different sources. The photographs were taken by a professional. They purchased first global rights but the contract included a 1-month exclusivity period in which I could not re-sell the article. I didn't think one month was that big a deal when I submitted the contract, but lord was I wrong. Through the NYT syndicate, the article was re-sold practically everywhere in that time." That professional photographer was paid about half of what that writer was paid, according to standard NYT freelance rates, and while that $700 rate surely varies, not so much for the "day rate" the NYT pays freelancers.

DAVIS: The gear necessary to shoot well and the platforms on which to distribute the content you’re creating are more accessible by the day. At bare minimum, we’re all carrying hi-res recording and viewing devices around in our pockets. 

COMMENTARY:  The "gear necessary to shoot well" is not "more accessible by the day", because it's getting more expensive as pay for the same workload increases. Winslow noted "Now they’re being asked to produce video, audio and slide shows, too, while being paid the same amount." Colleagues who previously could capture "wild sound" are being asked to capture audio like NPR. And as to platforms, Ms. Davis has given a great deal of interviews on varying platforms and news outlets about her experiences, but she's distributing on one - the NYT platform. And platforms like YouTube are beginning to charge (for example, YouTube Red) and other platforms are moving away from free offerings towards ones that, ahem, charge to use.  Again, accessible is not just the existence of a platform, but also the ability for the photojournalist to be able to use it and that gets incrementally harder as they charge more when pay is stagnant, or, factoring in inflation, buying power is declining.

DAVIS:   Now we can be the authors and tell our stories. 

COMMENTARY:  In a 2014 interview here, some 3 years ago, Ms. Davis opined when asked about her typical day at the NYT, she says she gets pitched from a journalist, "do a lot of research...Then I’ll do more research, I’ll map out the logistics, get a budget ready, and say, “Here’s what it’s going to cost, here’s how long I’m going to be there,” and ask if that sounds okay. I’ll hop on a plane or I’ll rent a car, and go."

She's therefore telling the stories of other journalists, on the budget of the NYT, without worrying about how her rent is going to be paid for however long she's "going to be there" on assignment.

ESTRIN:  That was my issue as a newspaper photographer until at least 2004: I didn’t get to be the storyteller. Even if it was my idea, I was illustrating someone else’s words.  As we got audio, and video, and it became accepted that a photographer could write, then I could be the author. 

DAVIS: Exactly. We have voices.  We can dig up the story, weave the narrative and make it beautiful. 

COMMENTARY:  No, not "exactly". The voice is that of the NYT, and to the extent that the voice of the reporter serves the financial interests (page views, video plays, etc) and the goals of the NYT, the voice of the reporter can be amplified by the NYT.   

So Davis, as the author now, it seems, comes up with an idea, researches it as she did when she was getting pitched from other journalists, and then now pitches it herself and so it seems that this workflow still applies -  "I’ll map out the logistics, get a budget ready, and say, “Here’s what it’s going to cost, here’s how long I’m going to be there,” and ask if that sounds okay. I’ll hop on a plane or I’ll rent a car, and go."

Again, when she returns from having "hop[ped] on a plane" her heat will still be on, no eviction notices under her door alongside paltry checks from editorial clients who pay in 60, 90, or 120 days that won't cover the rent and are late, alongside of credit card bills which accrued interest after 30 days because the client hasn't paid yet.

ESTRIN: I remember you telling me that when you went to Western Kentucky as a student you thought you were the worst photographer in the class. 

COMMENTARY:  It seems this question is designed to illustrate to other people who think they are poor photographers, that they too, with enough hard work, is sure to also land a job at the NYT. 

DAVIS: I was terrible. Some other students were inherently talented when it came to composing a well-framed photo or understanding light. It was only through sheer force of will that I got any better. I really had to put in the hours to understand and learn. 

COMMENTARY: There were 2,078 graduates in Spring of 2012, the year Ms. Davis graduated, 410 within the same "Bachelor of Arts" degree category as hers.  In looking at their 2014 ciricculum (here) there's not a single course required on how to manage a freelance photography business.  Remarkably, according to US News, the 4-year graduation rate (here) at WKU is just 27%, and according to a 2015 report (here) they graduated just 35 students in the WJU photojournalism program. 

DAVIS: But the reason I was drawn to the field wasn’t because I wanted to be the best photographer in the world — I do want to be good because light and composition and moments are what move people in an image — but I don’t think those elements are more important than the story itself. And I was always drawn to the stories. 

COMMENTARY: These are all wonderful sentiments where Ms. Davis opines about Davis, her motivations and what she's drawn to, but they are irrelevant to the state of photojournalism. They are biased anecdotal insights at best.

DAVIS: There are so many great examples of people who have crossed that threshold and been successful. They are making beautiful images, but they’ll also make video, make podcasts, write, whatever it takes to get the message across. 

COMMENTARY: How do you define "so many"? It relative? Is 1% of a population "so many?" As a noun it's defined (here) as "the majority of", whereas as a determiner, pronoun, or adjetive, it's "a large number of".  The US population is 309 million people. Of that population 124,900 are photographers, according to the US Department of Labor (here) who, by the way, make a median income of $31,710 a year, and which the US Department of Labor notes about job prospects "Salaried jobs may be more difficult to find as more companies contract with freelancers rather than hire their own photographers." Within her industry, there are only 3,150 jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There are 138,000,000 jobs seasonally adjusted in the US, which is 2.3-thousandths of a percent of jobs that are for photographers in her industry. So, it's not clear what data Ms. Davis was relying on to advise her fellow WKU photojournalism colleague that her future was "bright."  

How do you define "successful?"  it could be (according to Google) "accomplishing an aim or purpose", or, more likely in this story, since we are not talking about whether or not photojournalism can accomplish something, but rather, the state of the industry as viable, "having achieved popularity, profit, or distinction". Again, the article she was responding to was discussing whether or not the field is one where the participants can pay their bills, so let's focus on the second word, "profit." 

ESTRIN: Like who?
DAVIS:  To name a few: Maisie Crow, an incredibly talented still photographer who has been working on a documentary about the only remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi for years now. 

COMMENTARY: How is this relevant to whether or not the profession is viable? She's an anecdotal reference to the point, and lives in NYC. 

DAVIS: Marcus Yam, who apparently just won Newspaper Photographer of the Year in POYi — he was also awarded a World Press Multimedia Award and an Emmy in 2011 for a short doc that was a combination of stills, audio and video. And for that he was working on a team. That’s important. That very independent approach that we’re taught in photojournalism school can be the best (and only) way in some situations. But I mostly find that working alone is to the detriment of the project. 

COMMENTARY: Again, Yam is a fine photographer who interned at the Washington Post and the year prior to Ms. Davis at the NYT, and, currently, is on staff for the Los Angeles Times, but his list of accolades isn't going to pay his bills.

DAVIS: Also look at Liz Baylen, Malin Fezehai, Tim Hussin, Erin Brethauer, Zana Briski, Chad Stevens, Bayeté Ross Smith … I could make you a list that’s pages long. 

COMMENTARY: A "list that's pages long" of photographers "who have crossed that threshold and been successful"? No, that list, at that length, does not and cannot exist.

ESTRIN: What have photographers lost and what have we gained during this period of change in the media?
DAVIS: The fact of the matter is 20 years ago our field was largely inaccessible to minorities, women and foreigners.

COMMENTARY:  Irrelevant to whether or not the industry is failing or not.  

However, let's look at some statistics, In 2016 47.7% of photographers were women The 2007 Women in the Labor Force report (here - https://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2008.pdf ) shows the percentage of women in the field of photography at 47.5.  So we're not looking at a a field "inaccessible" at all, it's consistent over the last 20 years.

With the 2007 report, the earlest data readily available on demographics, showed 5.7% black, 1.9% asian, and 10.3% hispanic or latino in the field of photography.  whereas in 2017 there were 5.7 black, 8.4 asian, 8.4 hispanic or latino in the workforce. Relative to the population as a whole, 13.2% are black, 17% latino. At best, the asian population showed the greatest increase. Asians currently make up 5.6% of the population, while in 2007 there were 1.9% that were photographers, and now there are 8.4% asian.

In 1997, 20 years ago, the Department of Labor reported 139,000 jobs, so to start, there are about 15,000 fewer jobs available, overall. That same 1997 Jobs Outlook report notes "is a highly competative field because there are more people who want to be photographers than there is employment to support them." This was true then, and remains a fact today. Going back 10 years, the 2007 report suggests that, with employment in 2006 of 122,000 they projected 135,000 for 2016, yet this was not accurate, it only increased by 2,000. 

As to the inclusion of "foreigners" in this list? That's another addition that is irrelevant. It's like piling on whatever seemingly disadvantaged group  to try to make a point. Foreigners have their own photojournalism segments of the industry in their own countries, it's unclear why they're included here.

DAVIS:  Shooting high-quality video was an expensive, niche market.

COMMENTARY:  This is probably one of the few accurate statements Ms. Davis makes.

DAVIS: Finding inspiration in our field required a trip to the library, a newspaper subscription....

COMMENTARY:  "Required?" Walk down the street, take a second or third look at things that look obvious. So many people mis-percieve that in order to be inspired you have to leave your geographic region. 

DAVIS: .... and frankly, special admission to the (mostly) boys club. 

COMMENTARY:  Statistics suggest that this isn't the case in the last 20 years, as was earlier suggested. Generally speaking, the profession has undergone a change from the 1940's, 50's, 60's, and 70's, from a male dominated field, to, within the 80's and 90's, atleast according to government reports and analysis, and equal presence in the field. However, this correlates to a largely to the growth of women in the workforce overall. Few argue against diversity in the workforce, whether it be women in photojournalism, or men as nurses. Yet to suggest this is a triumph that overcame "special admission" is just pandering.

DAVIS: Now when you open your phone, you have access to recording tools, online connections, and a constant stream of inspiration and information that would have been unimaginable a few generations ago. 

COMMENTARY: None of which goes to the original point - the ability her WKU connection was worried about being able to do - pay her bills within the profession of photojournalism.

DAVIS: Do people have to make compromises? Absolutely. 

COMMENTARY:  Another of the few accurate statements Ms. Davis makes, again, a platitude.

DAVIS: Does it mean you’re selling out if you have to learn to use a tripod or how to record audio without peeking? No way. It’s just a skill, like your camera is just a tool. Our mission should be to connect people and tell their stories and you’re in a better position to do that now than ever before.

COMMENTARY: Again, irrelevant anecdotal experiences and not relevant to the state of the profession.

DAVIS: If there’s something I worry about losing, it’s a commitment from some news outlets to ensure that the images they publish are coming from reliable sources.

COMMENTARY:  Ms. Davis is joining the chorus worried about 'fake news". Photographs that come from unreliable sources include those that are trying to spoof the news, or whom offer photographs with an agenda behind them. Whereas a car company or a theater troupe might offer a "handout photograph" as a visual press release, their agenda is simply free publicity for product, service, or event, whereas the rise of freelancers has caused storied news services like Reuters and others, to publish photoshopped images, for which, when they were caught, they had to retract and apologize for.  

This isn't new -  the NYT itself was the victim of a number of spoofs - including this one (here https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/pranksters-spoof-the-times/?apage=1 ) where reportedly 80,000 print copies of the paper were distributed nationwide along with a companion website. But this isn't really a new concern either, and the NYT just a bout a month prior ran this article (here - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/learning/lesson-plans/evaluating-sources-in-a-post-truth-world-ideas-for-teaching-and-learning-about-fake-news.html ) "Evaluating Sources in a ‘Post-Truth’ World: Ideas for Teaching and Learning About Fake News".

DAVIS:  Also, it’s true that the inundation of visuals that we all come across daily makes us prone to desensitization. But I don’t foresee that changing, so why waste time lamenting it? The caliber of work required to capture and maintain someone’s attention is at a higher standard, but that just means the stakes have been raised. 

COMMENTARY:  Ms. Davis is suggesting that lamenting a desensitization by a daily inundation of visuals is a waste of time? Perhaps the National Institutes of Health should tell all the PHd's and doctors who investigated (here - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522002/ ) this "Desensitization to Media Violence: Links With Habitual Media Violence Exposure, Aggressive Cognitions, and Aggressive Behavior" should just delete the article and work on something more important? The findings are somewhat alarming, but, well, Ms. Davis suggests we should not "waste time lamenting it."

DAVIS: What we’ve gained is personal insight into communities from insiders. In the past people might not have been connected enough to tell their own stories. Now they can.

COMMENTARY:  Ms. Davis believes that personal insight from insiders is a gain? Perhaps, but not always - often the neutral perspective of an outsider coming in garners a more objective perspective on the story. Ms. Davis certainly isn't an insider in the field of freelance photojournalism nor the state of the field of photojournalism as a whole. She was able to be "connected enough to tell their own stor[y]" to Mr. Estrin by walking into his office in the same building she works in. Now she has, and it's done a serious disservice to her WKU colleague, and the industry as a whole.

DAVIS: The Internet makes sharing and receiving stories all the easier.

COMMENTARY: True, but not every story is worth sharing. We need look no further than people sharing photos of what they ate for dinner, or, ahem, even photographs of their bowel movements, on blog posts and social media. People post their personal diaries of life, work, and even sexual exploits. Just because sharing is easier, doesn't make it better.

DAVIS: Some people see it as a detriment that we’re not sending journalists all over the world, but to me, that’s a positive sign about the opportunities that have been made available to journalists within their own communities. Locals are connected to their community, they know what they’re doing there, and they speak the language.

COMMENTARY:  There are some times when there's no need to send a journalist somewhere, but many times when there's value. Sending a photographer from LA to NYC to do a photo shoot seems unnecessary, until you realize you're trying to have a similar style and look to the images for a story with subjects in disparate locations. So too, you send a seasoned conflict photographer into a country because they not only have the skills to stay safe, but also, to tell the story in the context of other conflicts. A biased visual often comes from photographers within the area of a conflict, and moreover, there are many stories about unexperienced photographers getting killed because they didn't know what they were doing. Why did the NYT send Ms. Davis to photograph photographer Sally Mann in Virginia? They wanted her to approach it a certain way. There are dozens of photographers within an hour of Ms. Mann who could have done the assignment. So too, when Ms. Davis went to Rio there were hundreds of photographers already there, and in Paris for her team nomination to the Pulitzer, many many photographers there. For someone who's been sent a few places fully funded with a NYT expense account, she's really not in a place to criticize this point.

ESTRIN: So you are going to get more and different voices?
DAVIS:  More different voices and it’s just financially smarter.  It would be ridiculous for newspapers to regularly send a photographer across the world, hire a fixer to help translate for them, pay all their expenses. And this goes for video too. It’s a much smarter strategy to employ people who are closer to the places they work. 

COMMENTARY: See above. And Ms. Davis would do well to not delve into what is, and what is not, financially smarter.

DAVIS: Also, when it comes to understanding deep-rooted issues like conflict, poverty, inequality, we often have people who’ve never personally experienced any of that strife documenting this stuff from a hundred feet away. This field tends to weed out the poor students because of their need for stability and that’s so unfortunate. It’s valuable to promote the people who understand the struggles they’re documenting. 

COMMENTARY: Well, this goes to Mr. Winslow's editorialized point about "rich kids" in the field of freelance photojournalism, and she seems to agree with him. Yet, while she sees that " It’s valuable to promote the people who understand the struggles they’re documenting" it's not worthwhile enough to pay them a living wage? Is she suggesting that the only way to understand being poor is if you too are currently poor too?  One can only cover a terror attack in Paris if you've been the victim yourself of a terror attack? Where does the poor analogies by Ms. Davis end?

ESTRIN: There are old ways in photography that have died. And it’s very hard to make a living. 

COMMENTARY: This is a pandering question - just like there are no more chimney sweeps, as Winslow pointed out in his interview.

DAVIS:  In some sense, you’re choosing to be a journalist and/or an artist. And it’s true that those are not necessarily well-paid fields. If you feel drawn to telling stories, in my eyes it’s a worthy trade. 

COMMENTARY: There is no honor in living the "starving artist" creedo. In 2007 I wrote (here - http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/01/ready-proud-starving-artist.html ) The Proud Starving Artist. It's not a worthy trade, yet, from all accounts, Ms. Davis has little personal experience in less than well-paid fields, her income is protected (rightly so) by the NY Newspaper Guild.

DAVIS:  That said, I’m a single person who’s not trying to raise a family.

COMMENTARY: Yes, the revelation of a severe bias on this entire topic, and one that illustrates she's not able to fully recognize the full state of the field.

DAVIS:  I do find the rates that some freelancers have to work for very low and especially for my friends who are committed to working exclusively in journalism and not taking advertising jobs for ethical reasons. 

COMMENTARY: Yes, very very low rates. Even the most legendary of photojournalists cannot, and do not, work exclusively in journalism, because it's, to Winslow's point, financially unworkable. Any photojournalist who believes they can afford to turn down an advertising job "for ethical reasons", I believe, either has no bills or is living with a trust fund, and hasn't woken up to the reality of being a photographer, with all the financial challenges Winslow outlined.

DAVIS: I came of age after the so-called golden age of photojournalism. I have a question: What, to you, is the difference between now and then? 

ESTRIN: There are fewer editorial assignments, there are far fewer — mostly poor paying — newspaper jobs. It was never an easy field. And documentarians never made money — they’re probably better off now. 

COMMENTARY:  Estrin gets it right, up to the point where he then says this - 

ESTRIN:  But, I think in many ways it’s a golden era for photographers now.  There used to be a few dozen gatekeepers, editors or curators who decided whether you succeeded or not. Today you can bypass the gatekeepers and publish directly to your own audience. There were a few hundred people, mostly white men, who could make a good living internationally by parachuting into other countries. It wasn’t a very diverse bunch. 

COMMENTARY: Yes, lots of photographs, for, as Winslow noted, 1/100th of the price. "Golden" is not a word I would use to describe the state of the field of photojournalism. The average stock photo price back 15 years ago or so was $980, now it's about $1. The rate that a news wire paid for an assignment in 1980 was about $150, now, adjusted for inflation, it's $74.  

DAVIS: Yeah, all I can say is let that die.  When I was in photojournalism school I had an identity crisis because almost every photographer I admired or we talked about in class was a white man with a head of white hair and a great big beard. 

COMMENTARY: Ms. Davis was in photojournalism school 2008 - 2012 or so.  If she was only being taught about white men with white hair and beards that were photojournalists, then she can fault her professors for that. The winningist Pulitzer photographer, who won more than anyone else, is a woman, covering conflicts. Sure, she referred to:

DAVIS: Occasionally there was a Caroline Cole or Barbara Davidson but typically women we discussed covered conflicts. It seemed the only way to carve out a path for yourself, as a woman in this field, was to go out into the war zones as if to say, ‘I can do anything a man can do.’ But you should be able to be a woman in photojournalism and tell stories from your unique perspective. You should be published, and you should also be able to do that if you’re black and you live in sub-Saharan Africa. Or if you’re Indian, or if you’re Japanese— your unique perspective is valuable, and it’s to the benefit of us all that it be shared. 

COMMENTARY: Off the top of my head there's Guzy, Adarrio, Bruce, Restek, and then there's LePage, who gave her life doing so in 2014, among many others. I'm guessing there are few in sub-Saharan Africa who an afford the $25k in gear Winslow referenced in order to do this job, when the median income there is $742 to $762 per year (measured in 2005 purchasing-power parity-adjusted dollars) according to  the Economist (here).

ESTRIN: When I was your age I walked door to door with my portfolio and I was lucky if maybe the secretary would take it, you know, because I didn’t have the connections. And if this small group of people didn’t say, “yes, you can come in,” then you couldn’t come in.
DAVIS:  This is why I love the Internet, Jim. The door’s wide open. Lots of people are rushing through, though, so you better be good. 

COMMENTARY:  This was true for females, males, and minorities, but there are a number of photographers without connections that made it.  Quality can win out over connections. Quality, consistency, and dependability are what will give a photographer a good reputation in the industry, you don't need a connection to have these qualifications. 

ESTRIN:  How old are you now?
DAVIS: Twenty-six.
ESTRIN: I’ve known you for five years.
DAVIS:  I know. I’ve been here since I was 21. I’m a product of this newspaper. 

COMMENTARY: This, more than anything, illustrates Ms. Davis' lack of standing to comment on the state of the industry of photojournalism.

DAVIS: When I was accepted for the New York Times internship, I was thrilled but I did not expect to get hired here full time. I started here as an intern on the multimedia team which we no longer have. I think “multimedia” is a culture that’s seeped into The New York Times visually across the board. But when I started, there were only a few of us that did photos and videos. And then I was hired into photo. After a year I was moved to video. 

COMMENTARY: Malcom Gladwell, in his book Outliers: The Story of Success, talks about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs being born and in the right place at the right time (reference - http://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2015/11/09/right-place-right-time/ ) . Davis esentially acknowledges this occurred to her - she was in the right place at the right time and was one of a few people who were doing photos and videos. Kudos to her, but this does not give her perspective the same standing as Mr. Winslows.

ESTRIN:. You can write, you can photograph, you can do video, You can do VR. It’s a little hard though, in truth, to do many things at the same time.
DAVIS: Right, I know what you mean. It’s very hard. This job is supposed to be hard though. The thing I always consider is that I never want the gear or the shooting to get in the way of connecting with that person and thinking through the story. And that’s why it’s good to work on teams. If I had my way I would work with a cinematographer all the time. 

COMMENTARY: Estrin is right, you can't "click the shutter" while you are trying to catch good audio, nor can you capture a critical moment with both a still camera and a video camera in each hand. 

DAVIS: It’s hard for small newspapers that have photographers go out and shoot and edit a video story and do stills in one day. That’s just too much. And you’re going to get mediocre product across the board. 

COMMENTARY: Yet that is often what Ms. Davis' paper asks of so many of it's photographers who freelance for them.

DAVIS: We’re a newspaper with more resources than most people have. And we get more time on stories than most journalists. I realize we are lucky here. 

COMMENTARY: this is probably the biggest understatement of this article.

ESTRIN: What do you think are the effects of photography becoming so widespread?
DAVIS: Before pens and paper were accessible people were carving their ideas into stone tablets. I bet when pen and paper came along the writers were skulking around grumpy like, “now everybody thinks they’re a writer.”  Well, everybody is a writer. And everybody is a photographer. And there should be no ill will on that matter. If there’s a story that’s happening in the middle of nowhere North Dakota and there’s nobody there to cover it except for John Doe with his iPhone, then thank God for John Doe with his iPhone. In terms of being able to share information and stories, we’re in a great position right now. 

COMMENTARY: NO, not everyone is a "writer" or a "photographer". Just because you can write, doesn't make you a writer worthy of the NYT. Ask your editors. And just because you can take a photo doesn't mean the NYT will publish them. There are countless people who fancy themselves writers online, who's only readers are their family members and close friends.

ESTRIN: It’s the democratization of photography.
DAVIS: I do believe all these changes will continue to promote people who traditionally have not been empowered. And I hope that editors will hire with intentionality. 

COMMENTARY: The "democratization of photography" isn't necessarily good. While some might suggest that a democratization of an industry (whether it be writing, or photography) is the commonization of that industry away from academics or the priviledged, that is not necessarily good. An academic will distill disparate insights and apply history to their output. And, well, I can't see far enough back in time to a point where "the priviledged" are the journalists and photographers. Yet, as Winslow suggests, that era may be soon arriving.

DAVIS: The best advice I can give to young visual journalists is that things are always going to be changing. Change with them. People are always going to get discouraged. Encourage them. Maybe one day they’ll do the same for you. There are always going to be stories to tell. Maybe right now more than ever before.

COMMENTARY: I've spent the better part of my 28 year career encouraging people to survive and thrive in this industry. I always encourage those I help to "pay it forward."  This Q&A, if not unanswered and allowed to stand unchallenged, will do such a great disservice this this industry. 

---

* Correction: A previous version of this article referenced an outdated job position for Marcus Yam, as a freelancer for the New York Times. He currently is on staff at the Los Angeles Times. The post has been updated to reflect this updated position. We can only hope he remains on staff.

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]

No So Fast. VHT v. Zillow Group Bodes Poorly for Rights Holders

While some are celebrating an $8.3 million dollar judgement against Zillow affirming they infringed on the copyrights of VHT, this really isn't all that good for rights holders, nor the photographers that produced the images - they will not see a dime.

There were a total of 28,125 images that were alleged to have been infringed, and of those, 19,312 were registered. The defendant even went so far at one point to admit they infringed upwards of 5,000 images, yet the court found that of the 28,125 image that were infringed, 3,373 were willfully infringed, and awarded $1,500 per image (instead of what could or should have been as much as $150,000 per image had it not been a database registration) and of the 15,939 other images that were infringed, the court awarded $200 per infringement, and the actual damages awarded was $2.84 per image. (Yes, two dollars and 84 cents).  That equates to $79,875 as the actual damages that Zillow has to pay for what VHT claimed was 28,125 images infringed.

Of the $8.3 million dollars, all the work produced was done as a work-made-for-hire, where the photographers were paid $60.00 to photograph AND MEASURE each home. So, in addition to taking the photographs, they had to do the manual labor of measuring each room of the house as well, all for $60, and they will receive $0.00 because they did not own the copyright nor any rights to the photos.

VHT's actual damages award	28,125	Rate: $2.84	79,875.00
Total actual damages from infringement eligible for statutory damages			54,846.08
Number of Image Infringed Willfully	3,373	Rate: $1,500	5,059,500.00
Number of Image Infringed Innocently	15,939	Rate: $200	3,187,800.00
Number of Images Infringed Neither Willfully nor Innnocently	0

Both sides are expected to appeal this ruling. As an interesting sidebar, this case was heard and decided by the same judge that issued a temporary restraining order halting President Trump's Executive Order on immigration.

(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]

"One Shot" - Behind The Scenes at the Olympics

In 10 minutes, you get a remarkable insight into all the hard work that goes into covering the Olympics as a professional photographer. Produced by the International Olympic Committee, this video reveals just what goes into covering the Olympics - all the advance work, multiple cameras both hand-held and remotes, and logistics. The video is very matter-of-fact, not really glamorizing the still photographers' job, but also not revealing the back-breaking efforts, long hours, access changes, and commutes to and from the venues.

(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]

Nikon KeyMission 360 - Teardown For Door Removal

The Nikon KeyMission 360 holds great promise as a tool to create immersive visual experiences. In putting the camera through its' paces, I found that the limitation of the battery, at 1 hour and 10 minutes, created limitations when I needed to place the camera in a remote location where I could not trigger it from afar, or when I wanted to capture longer than the internal battery would allow. In order to capture a longer video, an external battery connected to the camera was needed.

The challenge occurs, when the door of the KeyMission 360 is opened, as it then intrudes into the final stitched video/photo, which is distracting. The solution is to remove the door of the camera.

 The tools necessary to accomplish this were fairly simple - a Torx T5 was used for the screws on the protective plastic covers on both sides, and a Phillips #000 was used for the rest of the screws. A Smudger - which is essentially a dull-tipped knife tip that allows you to get in between seams, and fine-tipped tweezers were useful as two of the side covers had plastic click-notches. The tweezer tip got the plastic up over the notch tab, and the smudger helped hold it and lift it smoothly. Here is the partial tear-down of the KeyMission 360 to the point where the door could be easily removed:

Click here to see the full-sized image of the partial tear-down in a new window.

Here is a close-up of the hinge area once the door was removed:

Once the camera is re-assembled without the hinge, a 90-degree left-angled MicroUSB cord allows you to power the camera externally, running the camera while the battery is charging, and lowering the profile and visual interference on longer-duration captures. It goes without saying, that with this door removed, the camera is no-longer waterproof.

(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]

The Failure of Visual China Group

VCG (blue line) 11/15/16 through 12/14/16, compared to the market composite index (orange line). Source: Bloomberg: VCG

Visual China Group (SHE:VCG), has seen a significant loss in the last month losing far more market value then the general malaise of the Shenzhen overall composite index.  This is important because, as VCG goes, so goes Getty Images. The highly regarded Selling Stock report on the turnaround potential of Getty Images concludes "There is almost no chance that Getty will regain any market share in the Midstock or Premium space. I expect revenue overall will continue to decline. The only question is how much, how fast." (link here, 3/26/15.)

"How fast" is becoming more clear now. Visual China Group's opening price on the Chinese stock market at ¥9.00 ($1.30USD) on February 3rd 2013 was met with a one-third loss by the close of trading that same day to ¥6.00 ($0.87USD) (Historical: SHE:000681, 2/8/2013)  . On June 5, 2015 it enjoyed it's peak valuation at ¥65.87 ($9.54USD) and then plummeted along with the rest of the Shenzhen Stock Market, with CNN reporting (here) that the bubble burst with a 13% plunge in recent days, and by July 2015 the market had slightly stabilized (CNN here) , but VCG had dropped to just  ¥25.00 ($3.62USD) or roughly a two-thirds loss since it's peak a month prior. 

vCG's last peak of ¥40.69 was on December 31st of 2015, just a year ago, but as investors digested the January 22, 2016 news of VCG acquiring Corbis, the stock had dropped to ¥23.50 by late January, peaking briefly in late february to ¥31.28, and it's been downhill ever since then, just 6 days later it dropped back down to ¥24.18 on 2/29/16. In the last month, VCG has dropped to a low of ¥19.13 as of the market close today, 12/14/16, over a 50% loss of value since December 2015, where the Shenzhen Stock Exchange Composite Index has shown a loss of approximately 12%. (Bloomberg - here ), so while the overall market recovered from the June 2015 bubble bursting somewhat, VCG has continued to falter, and falter significantly, further, and faster.

The Selling Stock analysis continued "While the demand for photography may be growing (Getty’s numbers certainly don’t show it) prices customers are willing to pay for photos and illustrations are declining more rapidly. The net result is that gross revenue generated by the industry is probably growing at a rate no greater then 5%. "

VCG acquired Corbis from Bill Gates in January 2016, and announced a $100 million USD investment in Getty Images in February, amidst it's February 2016 peak, and then plummet. In February, VCG had a market value of $2.5 billion, this in contrast to the August 15, 2012 report in Fortune Magazine (here) which reported that The Carlyle Group (NASDAQ:CG) had acquired Getty Images for $3.3 billion). Clearly, VCG is seeing it's own valuation plummet as many of it's properties are failing. Certainly The Carlyle Group, which was around $25USD at the acquisition in 2012, is hovering around $15USD today, or a 40% decline since then.  

Just 10 months ago, we opined here "For those in the financial services sector, it's just one more business to watch the numbers on. For those in the trenches of the industry Getty serves, Getty Images is dying a slow and agonizingly painful self-inflicted death. It's like the shrewd investor analyst who actually goes to the farms in Kansas and sees first-hand the crops with lower yields, and gets out while they still can." Since then, VCG has dropped approximately 61%. As we further opined, "Getty Images is near that point where the ships' hull is about to break apart, just like the Titanic. Many with knowledge of this industry know just how low the metaphorical visual "crop yields" are...". To quote the old Verizon commercial, "Can you hear me 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]

The Farce of Creative Commons

Creative Commons is a well intentioned idea gone bad, and finally their existence will be put to the test, in a lawsuit brought that challenges the notion of what is "commercial" versus "noncommercial" use of an image.

Ars Technica reports, in "Creative Commons licenses under scrutiny—what does “noncommercial” mean?" (here, 9/18/16) that an educational company, Great Minds, is suing FedEx because their company (in the form of the former Kinkos that makes photo copies) is charging money for photocopies of this material. The basics are that "print shops, like FedEx, negotiate a license and pay a royalty to Great Minds if they wish to reproduce the Materials for commercial purposes—i.e., their own profit—at the request of their customers."

Now, it would be one thing if FedEx had binders of the material in one corner of their stores and that if a customer took the binder to the front desk and paid just for the photocopies, you might be able to skirt the issue here, but that doesn't seem to be the issue. FedEx needs to be paid for things to be photocopied, so why not have things worth printing/photocopying available for free? but the question becomes one of defining "commercial" versus non-commercial.

(Continued after the Jump)

Commercial use is not easily defined. Selling a t-shirt with an image/graphic on it. Making a print and selling the print. Using the photograph in an ad for an organization.But what about  Using an image in a blog? Using an image in social media?

Frankly, all of the above could be argued either way by a skilled attorney.

The Creative Commons wiki notes (here)  NonCommercial turns on the use, not the identity of the re-user. So a high school student and a multi-national corporation like Nike are equal. The definition of NonCommercial depends on the primary purpose for which the work is used, not on the category or class of reuser. So if Nike was printing t-shirts with a CC-licensed image/graphic on it, provided they were not charging a fee for the t-shirt and giving it away for free , it could be considered non-commercial. But there would be significant value in Nike doing this - they give away t-shirts all the time because people become walking billboards for their brand, so there is a commercial value to them doing so, even if the shirt is given away for free.

What about a cc-licensed photo of a skateboarder doing a trick? It could be printed and handed out for free at skate parks as the skateboarder, sponsored by Nike, goes on a tour promoting Nike as cool and hip. It's a free print, but there is value to the skateboarder and Nike in doing this.  How about a frame shop giving away free prints to people who pay the frame shop to frame the photograph? It's clear the print is free, but the frame shop makes a good profit from all the framing they sell.

In the above examples, the CC element notes "“NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.”"

Here the "commercial advantage" element could easily apply. Consider this case - using photos on a blog - but does the blog sell ad space? Even so, does the blog owner earn money from writing the blog post that the photo is used in, or gain notoriety they exploit elsewhere for compensation? In these cases, the "primarily" applies, but still, it's a commercial use.

Even if the blog post were for a non-profit dedicated to eradicating a disease or the suffering of others, it's still possibly commercial. Someone is going to monetarily benefit. Consider the charity that promotes the inclusion of cancer medications for children in various insurance plans - seems like an altruistic thing to do, as many children are dying from cancers because medication can't be prescribed to them like they are for adults. Yet, when you find out that the organization funding the efforts to make this happen are the pharmaceutical companies that stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars because now insurance must cover their brands of medication, is it commercial now?

What about social media? If a brand is instagramming images out and the feed is free, is there commercial advantage? Sure - the person doing the posting/curating of the images being posted is getting paid and doesn't have to commission artists to create content nor to license them from rights-managed libraries, and instead can just mine the millions of CC images from Flickr. They are getting paid to curate, and the Instagram feed is benefiting from being a cool/cutting-edge organization that then can intersperse advertising in other posts adjacent to that, or after building a critical mass of followers from CC content, switch to paid content/advertising.

I think most people would agree that non-commercial comes into play when a high school or college student does a paper with a photo in it that is CC, but beyond that, most any argument could be made that a use is commercial.

It will only take a few litigation cases and after a few years insurers who underwrite liability will begin excluding copyright claims on creative commons licensing protections, and this will shut down corporate use of creative commons materials across the board. When edicts come down from the legal department that no departments can use creative commons material, companies will stop relying on them in place of material the company pays to produce.

Creative Commons had the chance to define non-commercial use when they first started out. They surveyed stakeholders around the country over a period of months.  The decided against defining that term.

So beware, photographers who use a creative commons non-commercial license are placing their copyright and their work at risk, and are devaluing their work by forfeiting the right to ever issue an exclusive license to any client.

---

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]

Getty Images v. Walter A. Kowalczuk

Getty Images today notified contributors that on June 8th, 2016 it filed a lawsuit against Walter A. Kowalczuk because they allege he "downloaded thousands of images without authorization from Getty Images and profited from those downloads.  In addition, Getty Images believes that Mr. Kowalczuk was not acting alone, and the company is actively pursuing other possible infringers."

Getty Images has been the subject of many criticisms online for their aggressive handling of copyright infringement claims, and just two days ago Geekwire published "Getty Images rights claim against Seattle startup raises ‘phishing scam’ concerns", however, the article notes that the infringer (Aaron Bird) in this case "...will end up paying the settlement fee..."because, well, he infringed. Bird's concern centered around the question of a phishing scam and not whether or not he actually infringed on the work.

It is obvious that, with a reported 80,000,000 images in their archives, even a one-tenth-of-one-percent (.01%) number of infringements in a year that's still 8,000 copyright infringement cases. As such there has to be a system to handle that many infringements.  In 2013, in an effort to resolve what was likely massive infringement issues with Pinterest, Getty entered a deal with Pinterest, which PBN reported on here - Deception? Getty Images & The Pinterest Deal (12/13/13) and again PBN reported here - Monetizing Getty's 35M Image Archive via FREE Editorial Uses - about Getty offering a solution to reduce infringements through free use of the work they represent. While PBN wrote critically about both undertakings, and questions remain about the success of each, the question remains as to whether or not Getty Images contributors are receiving a portion of the revenue from these efforts, however, Getty is trying to find ways to reduce infringement and monetize the content they represent.

Getty Images should continue to aggressively pursue any theft of the intellectual property that they own wholly, or which they are charged with protecting on behalf of their contributors.

The Getty 2011 Contributor Agreement specifies:

1.11 Right to Control Claims. Getty Images shall have the right to determine, using its best commercial judgment, whether and to what extent to proceed against any third party for any unauthorized use of Accepted Content. You authorize Getty Images and Distributors at their expense the exclusive right to make, control, settle and defend any claims related to infringement of copyright in the Accepted Content and any associated intellectual property rights (“Claims”). You agree to provide reasonable cooperation to Getty Images and Distributors and not to unreasonably withhold or delay your cooperation in these Claims. Getty Images will not enter into any settlement that will compromise your ownership of the copyright in Accepted Content or that prohibits your future conduct with respect to Accepted Content without your prior written consent. Getty Images will pay you Royalties on any settlements it receives from Claims. If Getty Images elects not to pursue a Claim, you will have the right to pursue it.

Infringers don't like getting caught stealing, and so many claim innocence or ignorance, or attempt to fall back on a faulty fair-use claim. When those don't work, they begin to try to characterize Getty's efforts - wrongfully - as "extortion".  "The Art Law Journal" is a blog that is masquerading as a storied institution of art law journalism, but is nothing more than a facade - a week attempt by it's parent company, Orangenius, to appear to be supportive of creators and their rights. Their article "How to Respond to a Getty Images Extortion Letter"  includes the characterization that Getty "has created an entire business around sending letters to suspected copyright infringers and demanding exorbitant payments in return for not being dues [sic]." What Getty's business is built around, is the lawful licensing of intellectual property, so the author is flawed in his characterization of Getty's "entire business".  The author offers the defense of his writings by noting of his tips on how to respond to Getty "This response letter is not designed to alleviate anyone’s responsibility if they are infringing on Getty Images copyrights." It's pretty clear, if you downloaded an image and did not obtain permission to use the image in a non-fair-use situation and you did not pay a fee for said use, you're infringing. 

In August of 2009, PBN published a post titled Obama Image Copyright Infringement Issues  where Getty was also pursing the infringer of works Getty was representing.




The case is not currently listed in the online records database, which can sometimes take several days to update. When it does, we will update the story with the case number and formal "plaintiff v. defendant" title.

(entire statement after the jump)

Statement from Getty Images regarding the Kowalczuk case

As you know, we take copyright infringement and the protection of your rights very seriously and work hard to ensure that your work is properly licensed. Getty Images is continually pursuing a high number of copyright infringements, usually with the aim of turning individual infringers into customers. 

However, we want to let you know about an unusually serious and organized infringement case which you may see reported by the press [as it is in the public domain].

Getty Images has taken action against a serious copyright infringer who was discovered to have improperly accessed, downloaded and distributed Getty Images content through social media. 

In early March 2016, Getty Images received a report from one of its customers alerting us to suspected copyright infringements that were taking place via a private group hosted on Facebook.  

The ensuing investigation revealed the Facebook group was being used by some members as a forum for unlawfully trading and/or selling sports photographic imagery owned by or exclusively licensed to Getty Images.  As alleged in the lawsuit filed on June 8th 2016, defendant Walter A. Kowalczuk was an active member of this forum and used it to offer for sale, high resolution Getty Images images, and images belonging to other photo companies, for as little as $0.75 per image, using code names to hide the true source of content and to conceal his unauthorized sales.

While Getty Images’ investigation thus far has revealed significant infringement, it believes that further investigation will reveal that Mr. Kowalczuk downloaded thousands of images without authorization from Getty Images and profited from those downloads.  In addition, Getty Images believes that Mr. Kowalczuk was not acting alone, and the company is actively pursuing other possible infringers.  Getty Images filed a complaint against Mr. Kowalczuk for copyright infringement, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and other claims.  That complaint was filed in the United States District Court in Cleveland, Ohio.

Getty Images strongly supports a robust and fair industry that recognizes and remunerates our contributors whose expertise, time and livelihood is adversely affected by copyright infringements such as those incurred by Mr. Kowalczuk. 

We intend to hold Mr. Kowalczuk and any others involved in this illegal marketplace accountable for their infringements.

---

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]

500px, ImageBrief - The Crowdsourcing Scoundrels of The Internet

What camera slinging aspiring pro photographer wouldn't want to be a part of a "Photo Quest" these days? A "quest" conjures up Indiana Jones-esque expeditions for the perfect picture - explorers searching for just the right photo to satisfy the "photo gods of exposure." Who could be so ignorant or desperate? Apparently quite a few, like the natives worshipping a false sun god because of a solar eclipse. Some 840 clueless photographers submitted 6,000 images for the chance at winning the "great honor" of having their creative work product commercially exploited along with 50 others whose work was selected for a FOR PROFIT Lonely Planet book, according to MobileMarketingDaily - "500px Launches Photo Quests, Allows Brands To Crowdsource Original Content" (5/23/16).

 We've written extensively here at Photo Business News about the seriously flawed "SPEC" business model, yet, these models continue to proliferate,  counting on photographers (pro and amateur alike) to line up like lemmings and mindlessly follow each other over the cliff of unsustainability. In February of 2015 we wrote "ImageBrief: A scourge on the photographic industry" yet photographers continue to ask questions in various photography forums. Advertising agencies and design firms are using predatory content resellers like Image Brief to source free ideas and content for their pitches, before they even are awarded the projects. One photographer on the STOCKPHOTO listserv reported watching 50 different briefs and none of them were awarded. According to that same poster, Image Brief is now charging photographers to make a submission for the "privilege" of consideration.

Photographers following these models are destined for failure or otherwise are ignorant to the realities of being in business. According to the MobileMarketDaily article, "...it allows photographers a chance to have exposure on a much larger scale than they may readily have access to." What is especially troubling is that the article cites Canon as one of the brands that has run a "Photo Quest", and had thousands of submissions.

(Continued after the Jump)

Jim Pickerell, over at Selling Stock (subscription required) reported back in April "Drastic Royalty Cuts Change Photogs View Of 500px" reports that photographers are now only getting a 30% royalty on licensing of non-exclusive images.  Consider the concept of "agents" in other businesses, like actors, book agents, and musicians, for example. Their commissions hover around 20%. The idea that organizations like these can take 70% (or more) and leave the creating artist with a pittance, is just abhorrent.  Especially when you're one of several participating in the "quest" and standing a one-in-many chance of winning the gross, and then having to take a pittance of income as your paltry percentage. 

Less than a year ago, Visual China Group led a $13,000,000 round of funding (source) and Visual China Group is most recently known for acquiring the assets of Corbis Images and then folding them into their other investment - Getty Images, as we reported here (Corbis Sale to Unity Glory (and Getty)).  This money must be being used to buy servers and hard drives for all the hopeful photographers, as well as the overpaid sales agents - Glassdoor reports (here) that a Product Marketing Manager earns over $80,000. How is that reasonable at a company which has, according to LinkedIn "51-200" employees and Glassdoor currently has 18 job openings?  It seems everybody is earning a very nice living on the backs of the starving-artist photographer.

These organizations will eventually find that the crowdsourcing/"Photo Quest"/ImageBrief model is not a viable solution, but by then the hopes and dreams of photographers will have even been further dashed, and content consumers like ad agencies and design firms will be further down the line of devaluing photography.

500px is apparently intent upon flushing the photography business down the toilet while reaping profits from their deals with large corporations seeking content and ideas for pennies on the dollar, if not free.

---

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]