StockPhotoTalk | Special Interest Blog

War Moblogging: First US-Coffins, now Humiliated Iraqian Captives

Since 1991 the policy of the U.S. government was to prohibit the press from photographing returning military dead.

This, as we all meanwhile know, changed rapidly as a contract worker* of Seattle - stationed in Kuwait - snapped photos (while on the job) of coffins being loaded onto a transport plane. Shortly after that a website presented hundreds of photographs of flag-draped caskets. This story has made headlines around America and the World.

The New York Times therefore stated: "Pentagon Ban on Pictures of Dead Troops Is Broken."

What's this got to do with online journalism and new media? Plenty.

"This episode demonstrates, everybody's a reporter these days. With digital cameras, photo cell-phones, and nearly ubiquitous Internet access, constraints on "the press" only apply to professional journalists; they often don't apply -- cannot apply -- to device-carrying members of the public who happen to witness, say, a planeload of caskets returning from Iraq. Government efforts to limit what the public sees are increasingly futile." (PoynterOnline, E-Media Tidbits ).

Obviously this story continues. New photos at The Memory Hole are online showing US soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis. Even pictures of Iraqis beaten to death.

Former CIA Bureau Chief Bob Baer said: "We went into Iraq to stop things like this from happening, and indeed, here they are happening under our tutela." Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of coalition operations in Iraq, admitted that this was not an isolated series of incidents.

Anything else you have to disclose before we discover it by our own?

_______________________________________________
*The release of the photographs [by the Pentagon] came one day after a contractor working for the Pentagon fired a woman who had taken photographs of coffins being loaded onto a transport plane in Kuwait. Her husband, a co-worker, was also fired after the pictures appeared in The Seattle Times on Sunday. The contractor, Maytag Aircraft, said the woman, Tami Silicio of Seattle, and her husband, David Landry, had violated Department of Defense and company policies. (The New York Times)

Mirror pages for TheMemoryHole.org: 1; 2; 3
© for the photos: United States Air Force; TheMemoryHole.org/Russ Kick; Unknown

Lomography, New Topographers and Moblogs: The Ultimate Reality Program

Jogn Jerney of The Daily Yomiuri On-Line writes excellent about "Moblogs drive the adoption of camera phones" and Lomography:

"Lomography is naturally a film-based endeavor. But a digital version of the practice of shooting from the hip is fast becoming a worldwide phenomenon, enabled by a new generation of digital camera-equipped mobile phones...as with Lomo photographs, quality is not the prime consideration. Instead, the style and personality of the photographer and subject is what really generates interest. When looking through moblogs, you find yourself constantly looking for the unexpected but often enjoying the ordinary."

Editor´s Choice: Photoblog/Moblog of the Week

[2nd week]

The choice of this week may seem strange to you:

< < < Pan-O-Rama > > >

From what we understand this site is of german origin. We have no indication if the people behind Pan-O-Rama are using the Noblex or Linhhof/Fuji or "only" additional software programs (like PanoramaFactory which is mentioned) to create their panaroma images. It is however open to every photographer (you have to register with their blog provider Antville) and up and running since June 2003. Some images are very traditional in using the panorama feature (outdoor, landscape), but others rise above mere mediocrity.

Some of our favorite photos:

1
2
3
4
5

________________________________________________________________
[1st week: Blog of the Photo]

BlogWalk 2.0: Holy Christ, the Germans are coming!

Remember that thing with the Internet ten or twelve years ago? The Germans were late as always, but the moment they discover something it sounds like "hey, we invented it!".

We had the BloggerCon II. Soon the BlogTalk 2.0 in Vienna.

And now the BlogWalk 2.0 (1; 2) in Nuremberg May 28th: "The role of personal Webpublishing for self-organized and informal learning."

"Participation requires an invitation. However, if you feel the theme of BlogWalk 2.0 makes a perfect fit with your professional work and interests, get in contact and start a conversation."

As of today, already "9 participants" are confirmed to participate. "This makes up a nice core group." Holy Christ. Good Luck.

The C | summit Cameraphones 2004:Announcing the OneWorld/OneDay Project

A little shy as we are we´ve proposed stuff like this earlier (last paragraph) but this is not the place for the We-told-you-so-speech. This project of C | summit Cameraphones 2004 is great:

"A presentation about a proposed non-profit project is based on the goal of documenting the beauty and passion of all human life for one 24 hour period on Valentines Day of the year 2005 by 100,000 cameraphones, photographers and videographers throughout the world. The project will coordinate access to celebrities for student film makers and photographers. We believe that this would become the most valuable reference for anthropologists in five hundred years, while driving adoption and U.S. uptake. We intend for this project to be bigger than Hands Across America, more artistically impactful than Burning Man, and more fun than the Macarena. A portion of the proceeds will be donated to charities benefitting the vision impaired. This will lead to an open group brainstorming about ways to tip the market for mobile imaging."

The C | summit Cameraphones 2004: The Next Big Thing

If you want to know how they like us to use what they had invented and what we have to pay for it: the C | summit Cameraphones 2004, April 27-30, in Maui, Hawai, has gathered them all together, the Mr. Important and Mrs. Next Big Thing in marketing, finance, business development and technology of the moblogging world.

Stockphoto Discussion: "RF - Dare you say no?" [Stock Artists Alliance]

If you are a subscriber to the the STOCKPHOTO Discussion Group/listserv - now in it's ninth year - there´s ongoing discussion about: "RF - Dare you say no?"
Your starting point should be: [STOCKPHOTO] Digest Number 1938 of Apr 27 and the following digests.

One photographer resigned his Stock Artists Alliance - now in its third year - membership "because [to his believe] they embrace photographers who supply RF along with RM licensed images". He complained that "I am not reading/responding to any personal emails on matters relating to this, having been misquoted, verbally insulted and even threatened with physical violence."

Answer of another photographer: "I remind you the Getty's statistics for the last quarter: Its revenue are 51% coming from RM and 32% from RF (the rest of it comes from footage etc..) while their sales are 62% coming from RF images and 38% from RM ones."

To visit the Stockphoto email message group on the web, go to the Stockphoto.net-Yahoogroup.

Getty Images: "No Shots of a Cheap Shot, and Some Wonder Why"

Bill Werde of the The New York Times recently published an article dealing about "Getty Images' deal for exclusive marketing rights with National Hockey League is called into question when Getty wire service fails to offer photo of Todd Bertuzzi punching Steve Moore at Vancouver Canucks-Colorado Avalanche game in March" (1; 2):

"When Todd Bertuzzi of the Vancouver Canucks sucker-punched Steve Moore of
the Colorado Avalanche last month and drove him face-first into the ice, he
ended two seasons - Mr. Moore's with two broken vertebrae and his own with
an indefinite suspension. He also inadvertently fueled a controversy about
ethics in the rink of photojournalism.
Getty Images markets itself as an unbiased source of news photos with
ethical standards that compare favorably to competitors like Reuters or The
Associated Press. But even though a Getty photographer was at the game, no
photos of Mr. Bertuzzi's cheap shot made it to Getty's wire service, raising
questions about whether Getty's deal for exclusive marketing rights with the
National Hockey League had anything to do with the image blackout.
The photographer at the game, Jeff Vinnick, said the absence of photos was
because he was shooting for the Vancouver Canucks that evening, not Getty.
"If I was working for Getty that night and had a great picture, I would have
sent it to them in a second," Mr. Vinnick said. Canucks management declined
comment, but a spokesman told Photo District News that Getty did not contact
the Canucks to ask about distributing the photos. For its part, the team
determined the photos too sensitive to release on its own.
The N.H.L. is not the only professional sports league that Getty pays
handsomely for exclusive commercial marketing rights for images; it also has
contracts with the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball
and other sports organizations, giving Getty special access to prime events
like the N.H.L. finals.
Michael Sargent, vice president for news, sports and entertainment at Getty
Images, said that when he inherited the sports operation about a year ago,
he sought an end to "official photographer status" with the sports leagues.
"We have an editorial statement of principle with a keen focus on
integrity," Mr. Sargent said.
Competitors and photo editors alike were quick to dispute Mr. Sargent's
assessment. Nancy Andrews, director of photography for The Detroit Free
Press, said she valued Getty Images' news service, but stopped using its
sports images because of its professional relationships. "We don't enter
into a business relationship with the news," she said. "It's as simple as
that."

Some pros are complaining that "the implications - for editorial (and all other) photographers is pretty scary."

Some Minor Changes Here

Some minor changes to the site today:

Starting this Friday the new category

"Photoblog/Moblog of the Week" (Editor´s Choice)

will be introduced.

istockphoto.com: "Bringing the price down to a level where everybody can afford to buy a stock photo"

There are still predictions of some people - even from inside the Stock Photo Industry - that what happened to the Music (Napster et.al.) and Film Industry (P2P) somehow finally will occur in the Stock Photo Industry (see the last paragraphs of this posting). From our POV this is obviously pure nonsense as you can not compare - finally, those old buzzwords - B2C to B2B.
In late 2001 there had been a San Francisco-based startup (sorry, no link, they´re gone) on our radar dealing with images in the P2P-area entering the business hemisphere with this idea; they even got VC for it. History.
In addition to it - and besides the two Super G - there is a strong good old boys network in the background with the deeply felt desire: "Don´t change anything! Don´t break up our consensual atmosphere! The wind of change? Yes, only in our pockets! Thumbs up!"
But from time to time new heroes - some wannabes, some real - arise.
Contentbiz - a marketingsherpa publication - has published a long article "How istockphoto.com Sells $4,000,000 Photo Downloads Per Year at $1 Each" that deals with a new company: istockphoto.com. Wannabe or real hero? Discover it yourself.
Basic facts: Founded in 2000 by some "Colorado-based photography nuts", photographers can upload their images to the istockphoto database for free. If a pix is sold, the photographer gets 10 cents (don´t blame me). And photobuyers can buy their high-resolution stock photography for just $1.50 each. They call their company the "designer´s dirty litte secret".
Executive VP Patrick Lor declares istockphoto wiped out two flaws: for the photographer the inventory growth barrier and for the photobuyer the pricing barrier. "The goal was to democratize both ends of the business". To maintain the quality of their stock pool, istockphoto has a three-step quality-assurance system (please see the original article).
The company has an in-house team plus 20 volunteer "image inspectors" reviewing an average of 3,000 new photos per week; about 1,500 are accepted. Right now the database is hosting about 110,000 images.
VP Lor states that istockphoto.com is selling $20,000 of photos per day currently: "We sold 44.52 gigabytes yesterday and the average download ranges from 100k to eight meg. You do the math. Our growth numbers are something like 25-45% month on month growth. It's something like 600% per year. We have a bunch of A-list clients, big Fortune 500 companies have accounts with us. Art directors set up accounts and give their designers all access to it."
This would in fact yield a yearly revenue stream of a least $4,000,000. There are some well-known stock agencies who would love to see these numbers at the end of the year. 
The next target is a deeper penetration of the (photobuyer) designer market. And afterwards - hello Corbis -  the self-publishing consumer marketplace: "This is a business model with almost zero limitations."
If you think with this business model the quality of the images can be only be crap - take a look at the istockphoto.com website. Amongst a lot of everyday stuff there are some stylish cutting edge images - of course not the Getty/Taxi style of being hip, but this is not the only way to see things.
istockphoto.com has a sister company, istockpro.com - also located in Calgary, CA, sharing the same telephone line - with a nifty colorsearch™ image search technology. Yeah, that "pro" at the end: the price structur is totally different in terms of money (mainly starting at  $69.99 up to about $249.99), so are the contributors (f.e. ImageSource, ThinkStock, Brand X and obviously some self-produced material) and therefore the overall photographic image quality. Whereas istockphoto.com is a bit like pearl fishery. But to be honestly true, after a little research and some queries in both databases with the same keywords: there are some pearls at istockpro.com. At incredibile low prices.

To get a first impression what participating photographers are saying, I´m quoting from a posting with the topic "Current Status of Stock Business" written by Monique Harris at Photo.net:

"Before I offer my feedback, let me first say that I consider myself an amateur at photography. I'm still working with a 2 megapixel camera that I got for Christmas two years ago.
Regardless, I started posting my decent photos on IStockphoto.com back in early November. (Istockphoto is a site that sells stock photographs from various photographers.) More than financial gain, my goal was to see if I could get my daughters lovely face featured on a few web sites or advertisements.
Istockphoto pays you a pittance (I could probably find more change just walking down the street!) but that's besides the point. In the 4 months my 18 measly photos have been posted there, I've earned over $1,000.
Not from people downloading my pictures on Istockphoto (where I've not even earned $20). But because I've had companies who have wanted to license my pictures for advertisements. Just this month an ad agency in Canada used one of my photos in an ad for drug manufacturer Glaxo Smith Kline. The ad was featured in 3 different newspapers, with possibly more to come.
Yeah... one of my 2 megapixel pictures that they originally saw on Istockphoto. They came to me, and asked me for my rates. And this isn't one of those 'few and far between' opportunities. I get at least one of these every month.
I think I'm doing pretty well considering the fact that I've got an okay camera, no web site, and only 18 pictures that I'm promoting.
My point is this, if you want to sell stock, be willing to explore EVERY avenue on the web.
Get you own site, promote the heck out of it. Try Google AdWords, if you want immediate exposure on Google. Submit your work to clearinghouse sites like Istockphoto. (Once you register, you can post a link to your web site within your profile.) If you've got the skills, try the more professional sites like Istockpro.com or Corbis.
If you've got a presence in several locations, you'll be hard to miss. This is especially true if you specialize. (My niche is young people of color.)
Anyway, that's my take on the situation. I welcome feedback and questions.
Monique"

But keep mind, that none of "istockphoto.com's participating photographers are making a full-time living from the site." I still wonder that there is no discussion at Editorialphoto.com regarding the business model istockphoto.com is pursuing and the threat it definetely can become in the future for some pros. We´re watching another east-european agency with a similiar business model; we´ll be back in a few days with a comparison and an overview "What are the consequences for the rest of us?"

PS:
This article@contentbiz finally comes up with a related link - to Phototalk. Shortly after mentioning Gettyimages. We´re online since two weeks, we´re doing this for the fun of it. Big thank you! We have however to disclose that this website is *NOT* related to any company in terms of money, interests etc. in any way.