Imaging Resource has an article on a new toy recently delivered to technicians at LensRentals.com. (It should tell you something that the writers at Imaging Resource call the article a "Nerd Alert".)
The "toy" is a custom designed machine from Optikos designed to facilitate calibration of camera lenses.
The machine works by shining three pin-point sized light beams through the lens. The first beam travels straight through the lens assembly. The other two beams hit the lens at an angle. The sources for these two beams can be adjusted to change the angle at which the beam hits the lens.
The machine then produces a display showing the effect of shining the light beams through the camera. These results can be use to determine whether the lens is off-center. If the lens needs to be calibrated, it also produces real-time feedback while the lens is being calibrated.
The real-time feedback aspect promises to greatly decrease the amount of time needed to calibrate an off-centered lens.
LensRentals.com currently only rents equipment. They don't offer repair or calibration services. (They do sell their rental equipment after owning it for two year if you happen to be in the market for used lenses or camera bodies.)
The machine does seem to be something other companies might be interested in, including those that offer repair services.
Check out the LensRentals.com blog to see the machine in use.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Camera and Lens Announcements and Reviews for the Week of March 23
Cameras
Panasonic announces Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7, and GM1 kit
Fujifilm FinePix S9200 Review
Pentax K-3: Eight pages added to our ongoing review
Sony Cybershot DSC-HX400V Review
Casio Exilim EX-10 Hands-On Preview
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6: Lab Test Results & Comments
How the Fujifilm X-T1 Shocked Me: A Quick Hands-On Overview
Lenses, Filters and Adapters
Panasonic Announces New F1.7 High Speed Leica Summilux 15mm Lens
Panasonic announces 15mm f/1.7 Leica-branded lens for Micro Four Thirds
Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 Pricing Announced, Pre-Orders Now Available
Tokina Launches First Cine Lenses
Two lenses for Canon full-frame and APS DSLR Cameras
One for Panasonic micro four-thirds MILC.
Zeiss announces Compact Zoom CZ.2 15-30mm T2.9 lens
Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8ED AL [IF] SDM Lens Reviews
Lomography x Zenit 85mm f/2.2 Petzval Art Lens Review
Sony FE 24-70mm Zeiss lens review
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G FX – Field Review
Panasonic announces Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7, and GM1 kit
Fujifilm FinePix S9200 Review
Pentax K-3: Eight pages added to our ongoing review
Sony Cybershot DSC-HX400V Review
Casio Exilim EX-10 Hands-On Preview
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6: Lab Test Results & Comments
How the Fujifilm X-T1 Shocked Me: A Quick Hands-On Overview
Lenses, Filters and Adapters
Panasonic Announces New F1.7 High Speed Leica Summilux 15mm Lens
Panasonic announces 15mm f/1.7 Leica-branded lens for Micro Four Thirds
Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 Pricing Announced, Pre-Orders Now Available
Tokina Launches First Cine Lenses
Two lenses for Canon full-frame and APS DSLR Cameras
One for Panasonic micro four-thirds MILC.
Zeiss announces Compact Zoom CZ.2 15-30mm T2.9 lens
Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8ED AL [IF] SDM Lens Reviews
Lomography x Zenit 85mm f/2.2 Petzval Art Lens Review
Sony FE 24-70mm Zeiss lens review
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G FX – Field Review
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Memory Card Sale
Adorama is advertising 25% off Lexar Professional Memory Cards.
CF, SDHC and microSDHC cards are included in the weekend special. (Special also includes a 32GB USB JumpDrive for those needing a little more off camera storage.)
CF, SDHC and microSDHC cards are included in the weekend special. (Special also includes a 32GB USB JumpDrive for those needing a little more off camera storage.)
Friday, March 28, 2014
Adorama Tripod Deals
Adorama is advertising deals on camera tripods, 55 models to choose from ranging from a $7.95 travel model to a remote control model currently priced $498 ($200 off).
Every photographer should have a good tripod. Here's your chance to get one on sale.
Every photographer should have a good tripod. Here's your chance to get one on sale.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
What Differnt Megapixel Numbers Mean When Comparing Cameras
Digital Trends has an online article comparing the Canon EOS Rebel T5 to the Nikon D3300.
The fact that the Nikon D3300 sports a 24MP APS-C sensor vs. the 18MP sensor used by the T5 makes this look like a very one-sided comparison, but what does that 6 megapixel difference really mean when comparing the two cameras?
Take a look at the maximum image size each camera is capable of producing.
The T5 can produce a 5184 x 3456 image. The D3300 can produce a 6,000 x 4,000 image. Those numbers appear to be closer than the 30% difference represented by the megapixel number. Applying a little math, the D3300 image is 15% wider and 15% taller.
If the D3300 image is only 15% larger, why is the megapixel count 30% greater?
It's because you have to increase size in two directions in order to keep the aspect ratio. Increasing both height and width by 15% increases the surface area by 30%.
That raises the question: which number should be used when comparing the two cameras? The 15% height/width increase or the 30% increase in surface area?
Personally, I'd go with the 15% increase for one simple reason: printing results. Print sizes are usually compared based on width or height. D3300 images can be printed at a size 15% wider than those produced by the T5.
(To get the increase in printing width when comparing cameras with different megapixel counts, take the percentage the smaller number must be increased and then halve that result.)
The 15% number also makes sense when comparing the prices of the two cameras. The T5 with kit lens costs $550. The D3300 with a similar lens costs $650.
That amounts to an 18% increase in price.
Nikon seems to be admitting that it's 24MP sensor is only 15% better than the 18MP sensor in the T5.
Footnote: Remember we're talking image size not sensor size. The two cameras use the same size sensor. The D3300 has a larger pixel count because it uses slightly smaller individual photosensors. This allows it to produce images that are larger than produced by the T5 when viewed at the same resolution.
The fact that the Nikon D3300 sports a 24MP APS-C sensor vs. the 18MP sensor used by the T5 makes this look like a very one-sided comparison, but what does that 6 megapixel difference really mean when comparing the two cameras?
Take a look at the maximum image size each camera is capable of producing.
The T5 can produce a 5184 x 3456 image. The D3300 can produce a 6,000 x 4,000 image. Those numbers appear to be closer than the 30% difference represented by the megapixel number. Applying a little math, the D3300 image is 15% wider and 15% taller.
If the D3300 image is only 15% larger, why is the megapixel count 30% greater?
It's because you have to increase size in two directions in order to keep the aspect ratio. Increasing both height and width by 15% increases the surface area by 30%.
That raises the question: which number should be used when comparing the two cameras? The 15% height/width increase or the 30% increase in surface area?
Personally, I'd go with the 15% increase for one simple reason: printing results. Print sizes are usually compared based on width or height. D3300 images can be printed at a size 15% wider than those produced by the T5.
(To get the increase in printing width when comparing cameras with different megapixel counts, take the percentage the smaller number must be increased and then halve that result.)
The 15% number also makes sense when comparing the prices of the two cameras. The T5 with kit lens costs $550. The D3300 with a similar lens costs $650.
That amounts to an 18% increase in price.
Nikon seems to be admitting that it's 24MP sensor is only 15% better than the 18MP sensor in the T5.
Footnote: Remember we're talking image size not sensor size. The two cameras use the same size sensor. The D3300 has a larger pixel count because it uses slightly smaller individual photosensors. This allows it to produce images that are larger than produced by the T5 when viewed at the same resolution.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Adorama Deal on Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Auto Focus Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Adorama is currently promoting a $200 instant rebate on Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses.
Price after rebate at Adorama: $469.
"Instant Rebate" can indicate a manufacturer based deal. Similar discounts may be available at other outlets.
(Adorama is the outlet in my sources that is advertising it. They would probably appreciate you buying from them since they are the ones making sure people know about the deal.)
Price after rebate at Adorama: $469.
"Instant Rebate" can indicate a manufacturer based deal. Similar discounts may be available at other outlets.
(Adorama is the outlet in my sources that is advertising it. They would probably appreciate you buying from them since they are the ones making sure people know about the deal.)
RHS Photography Competition 2014
Hat Tip: ePhotozine
The Royal Horticultural Society is now accepting entries for its 2014 photography contest. The contest is open to photographers outside the United Kingdom and you do not need to be a member of the society in order to enter.
There is an entry fee of £5 per entry (£6 for non-members). The fee is waved for the contest's under-eighteen category.
The contest has five categories: Plants, Abstract and Details, Celebrating Gardens, Seasons, and Wildlife.
The winner in each category receives an award of £500, with a £2000 award for the contest.
The prize for the under eighteen entries consists of a £500 gift card at Wex Photographic. (Don't forget to factor in shipping costs if entering from overseas.) There are two categories here: under 11 and 11-17.
The contest is open until November, providing ample opportunity to take photographs for the contest.
The Royal Horticultural Society is now accepting entries for its 2014 photography contest. The contest is open to photographers outside the United Kingdom and you do not need to be a member of the society in order to enter.
There is an entry fee of £5 per entry (£6 for non-members). The fee is waved for the contest's under-eighteen category.
The contest has five categories: Plants, Abstract and Details, Celebrating Gardens, Seasons, and Wildlife.
The winner in each category receives an award of £500, with a £2000 award for the contest.
The prize for the under eighteen entries consists of a £500 gift card at Wex Photographic. (Don't forget to factor in shipping costs if entering from overseas.) There are two categories here: under 11 and 11-17.
The contest is open until November, providing ample opportunity to take photographs for the contest.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
More Deals and Promotions
Hunt's Photo and Video updated their promotions page yesterday.
Deals include $158-$208 off of DxO software, camera and lens deals, and deals on various accessories including tripods/monopods and filters. Cameras include the new Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera for $995. (Super 16 video and capable of saving in RAW mode for under $1,000. Gizmodo Review)
The bottom of the page includes a list of events sponsored by the store. (It's based in New England with stores in four states.)
Adorama is currently offering instant rebates on mirrorless cameras and DSLR cameras, including bundles.
(Save $650 on a Sony a7r bundle. End price is $2,994. Save $680 on a Nikon D7100 kit, end price $1,547.)
Roberts Imaging is offering 10% off at their eBay Store.
(Check the facebook page if link does not work.
Deals include $158-$208 off of DxO software, camera and lens deals, and deals on various accessories including tripods/monopods and filters. Cameras include the new Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera for $995. (Super 16 video and capable of saving in RAW mode for under $1,000. Gizmodo Review)
The bottom of the page includes a list of events sponsored by the store. (It's based in New England with stores in four states.)
Adorama is currently offering instant rebates on mirrorless cameras and DSLR cameras, including bundles.
(Save $650 on a Sony a7r bundle. End price is $2,994. Save $680 on a Nikon D7100 kit, end price $1,547.)
Roberts Imaging is offering 10% off at their eBay Store.
(Check the facebook page if link does not work.
Deal Alert: $200 Instant Saving on Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 Zoom Lens
Hat tip: SLR Lounge
B&H Photo currently has the Sigma 17-50mm lens listed with a $200 instant savings. The lens normally costs $669. $200 amounts to a 30% savings.
Versions are available for Sony/Minolta, Sigma, Pentax, Nikon and Canon APS-C sensor cameras.
B&H Photo currently has the Sigma 17-50mm lens listed with a $200 instant savings. The lens normally costs $669. $200 amounts to a 30% savings.
Versions are available for Sony/Minolta, Sigma, Pentax, Nikon and Canon APS-C sensor cameras.
Monday, March 24, 2014
No Piracy Software Anti-Piracy Organization Caught Pirating
What is it with groups or companies involved with enforcing intellectual property rights themselves violating copyright?
First it was Getty Images pirating images relating to the earthquake in Haiti.
Now, it's the No Piracy Software Anti-Piracy organization.
The group ran a facebook ad where they featured a pot of gold. The tag was that individuals that turned in their employer for software piracy could get a "pot of gold" in return. The pot of gold image the group used in the ad was lifted from a website dedicated to baking and decorating. (Cake Central.)
Here's a Newsflash:
Putting an image on a website does not make it public domain. The photographer still retains the intellectual property rights to that image.
You would hope that people working for companies involved in enforcing intellectual property rights would understand that. Apparently they don't know that or worse, just don't care.
The problem is that not only do these groups undermine their own credibility with this behavior, they undermine the concept of intellectual property rights. One of the justifications for theft of intellectual property is "everybody does it."
Having groups involved in enforcing intellectual property rights engage in theft themselves will just enforce that mentality.
Thank you, Getty and No Piracy.
First it was Getty Images pirating images relating to the earthquake in Haiti.
Now, it's the No Piracy Software Anti-Piracy organization.
The group ran a facebook ad where they featured a pot of gold. The tag was that individuals that turned in their employer for software piracy could get a "pot of gold" in return. The pot of gold image the group used in the ad was lifted from a website dedicated to baking and decorating. (Cake Central.)
Here's a Newsflash:
Putting an image on a website does not make it public domain. The photographer still retains the intellectual property rights to that image.
You would hope that people working for companies involved in enforcing intellectual property rights would understand that. Apparently they don't know that or worse, just don't care.
The problem is that not only do these groups undermine their own credibility with this behavior, they undermine the concept of intellectual property rights. One of the justifications for theft of intellectual property is "everybody does it."
Having groups involved in enforcing intellectual property rights engage in theft themselves will just enforce that mentality.
Thank you, Getty and No Piracy.
Deals of the Day: Save on Nikon D7100 and D800
SLR Lounge has a couple of Nikon Deal alerts.
Save $500 on a Nikon D7100 kit
Available at B&H Photo. (Body only or different bundle available at Amazon.)
$200 Instant savings on the Nikon D800.
Also at B&H Photo.
Save $500 on a Nikon D7100 kit
Available at B&H Photo. (Body only or different bundle available at Amazon.)
$200 Instant savings on the Nikon D800.
Also at B&H Photo.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Camera and Lens Announcements for the week of March 16.
Sunday tends to be a slow day when it comes to photography related news. This provides an opportunity to go back over the previous week and highlight any product releases or announcements not covered during the week.
Cameras
Nikon 1 V3 camera
Nikon announced release of the Nikon 1 V3, an 18.4 Megapixel system camera without a low-pass filter. Capable of full auto-focus on every frame when shooting at 20 fps. (News release was actually on the 13th. Camera was getting coverage last week, including reviews.)
Copy of news release for the Nikon 1 V3.
DxOMark image quality test report.
PC Mag: Nikon Details 1 V3 Mirrorless Camera.
Samsung NX Mini camera
20.5 Megapixel interchangeable lens camera. (Smallest ILC available now)
Copy of news release.
PC Mag: Hands on With the Samsung NX mini
Samsung NX mini First Impressions Review
New Gear: Samsung NX Mini Camera
Kodak
Kodak Pix-Pro S-1 showcased
Kodak Pixpro S1 Micro Four Thirds Camera Hands-On Preview
Kodak PIXPRO Astro Zooms Hands-On Preview
Firmware updates for the Canon D6 and Nikon D4.
Firmware updates for Alpha a7 and a7r (and the Canon/Nikon updates above)
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 review
Nikon D4 compatibility issue with Lexar 400x and 1000x CF cards.
Lenses, Adapters and Filters
Samyang 12mm f/2.0 wide-angle lens
For mirrorless APS-C cameras.
Copy of press release.
More information from Imaging Resource (includes other lenses that have been upgraded by company.)
Samyang announces new wide-angle lens for APS-C cameras.
New Gear: Samyang Announces 12mm f/2
Rokinon Announces 10mm f/2.8 and 12mm f/2 Lenses For APS-C & Mirrorless
Tamron SP 90mm/2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro review.
Olympus 9mm f/8 Fisheye Body Cap Lens Review (inexpensive fisheye lens option)
Kodak PIXPRO SL10, SL25 And SL5 Smart Lenses Hands-On Preview
(Lens+sensor unit, uses wifi to communicate with smartphone. Technically a camera that uses smartphone as means of control.)
Fotodiox Vizelex Canon EOS lens to Sony E-Mount adapter/ neutral-density filter combo.
Cameras
Nikon 1 V3 camera
Nikon announced release of the Nikon 1 V3, an 18.4 Megapixel system camera without a low-pass filter. Capable of full auto-focus on every frame when shooting at 20 fps. (News release was actually on the 13th. Camera was getting coverage last week, including reviews.)
Copy of news release for the Nikon 1 V3.
DxOMark image quality test report.
PC Mag: Nikon Details 1 V3 Mirrorless Camera.
Samsung NX Mini camera
20.5 Megapixel interchangeable lens camera. (Smallest ILC available now)
Copy of news release.
PC Mag: Hands on With the Samsung NX mini
Samsung NX mini First Impressions Review
New Gear: Samsung NX Mini Camera
Kodak
Kodak Pix-Pro S-1 showcased
Kodak Pixpro S1 Micro Four Thirds Camera Hands-On Preview
Kodak PIXPRO Astro Zooms Hands-On Preview
Firmware updates for the Canon D6 and Nikon D4.
Firmware updates for Alpha a7 and a7r (and the Canon/Nikon updates above)
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 review
Nikon D4 compatibility issue with Lexar 400x and 1000x CF cards.
Lenses, Adapters and Filters
Samyang 12mm f/2.0 wide-angle lens
For mirrorless APS-C cameras.
Copy of press release.
More information from Imaging Resource (includes other lenses that have been upgraded by company.)
Samyang announces new wide-angle lens for APS-C cameras.
New Gear: Samyang Announces 12mm f/2
Rokinon Announces 10mm f/2.8 and 12mm f/2 Lenses For APS-C & Mirrorless
Tamron SP 90mm/2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro review.
Olympus 9mm f/8 Fisheye Body Cap Lens Review (inexpensive fisheye lens option)
Kodak PIXPRO SL10, SL25 And SL5 Smart Lenses Hands-On Preview
(Lens+sensor unit, uses wifi to communicate with smartphone. Technically a camera that uses smartphone as means of control.)
Fotodiox Vizelex Canon EOS lens to Sony E-Mount adapter/ neutral-density filter combo.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Appeals Court Upholds Copyright Protection for Image Collections
Hat Tip: Photo District News Online
An Appeals Court has reinstated a lawsuit against a textbook publisher that was thrown out by a lower court on the grounds of improper copyright registration.
Alaska Stock sued textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin after the textbook company (allegedly) violated the licensing agreement with the company, including exceeding the print run allowed by the agreement. Houghton Mifflin argued in court that the stock company's Federal Copyright application was invalid on the grounds that it didn't include a description of every work that the company was registering for protection.
Alaska Stock followed the procedure set out by the Copyright Office for registering collective works. This allows for registering in bulk by describing the general nature of the work being registered. It has been in place for 30 years and, as the appeals court points out, has been used by the publishing industry to file for copyright protection for things like magazines and newspapers. (More to the point, works like Houghton Mifflin's textbooks.)
According to he Court of Appeals, the registration for a collective work only needs the title of the collective work and the name of the collective work's author. (Here, that would be "Alaska Stock CD catalog 4"with Alaska Stock as the author.) Alaska Stock included both of those in its registration application. The names and titles of the including works were additional information not needed to make the application valid.
Allowing this type of bulk registration makes sense when you consider the purpose behind registration.
Registration is not done to put individuals on notice that a work has been copyrighted. Copyright protection is automatic.
Registration for Federal Copyright protection is done for the benefit of the Federal Government. One of the requirements is that the copyright holder provide the Government a copy of the work being registered. This allows the Government a way to procure works without having to pay for them. It also provides a way for the Government to determine what is subject to protection in case of a lawsuit. In exchange, the Government provides a cause of action for copyright violation beyond what is available absent registration.
Copyright law provides the Copyright Office the authority to determine how works are registered. It developed the method for bulk registration followed by Alaska Stock and there is no legal reason to deny them the benefit of registration. The registration process in question allows the Government to determine that the works involved (both the catalog and individual images) were included in Alaska Stock's application.
This is all that is needed as far as the Government is concerned.
Copyright registration is not required to put the infringing party on notice that the work in question is subject to Copyright protection. Protection is automatic. It only impacts the penalty for violating protection.
In this case, the Appeals Court basically held that registration was effective for the collection as a whole and for the individual works in the collection. That means Houghton Mifflin could face fines for every single image it used not just a single fine for violating the copyright on the catalog. Multiple willful violations could result in a penalty running into the millions.
This case does provide some good news for photographers. It means that any photographer that engages in the bulk registration of photographs should have a Federal cause of action for the copyright violation of any image registered by this method.
An Appeals Court has reinstated a lawsuit against a textbook publisher that was thrown out by a lower court on the grounds of improper copyright registration.
Alaska Stock sued textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin after the textbook company (allegedly) violated the licensing agreement with the company, including exceeding the print run allowed by the agreement. Houghton Mifflin argued in court that the stock company's Federal Copyright application was invalid on the grounds that it didn't include a description of every work that the company was registering for protection.
Alaska Stock followed the procedure set out by the Copyright Office for registering collective works. This allows for registering in bulk by describing the general nature of the work being registered. It has been in place for 30 years and, as the appeals court points out, has been used by the publishing industry to file for copyright protection for things like magazines and newspapers. (More to the point, works like Houghton Mifflin's textbooks.)
According to he Court of Appeals, the registration for a collective work only needs the title of the collective work and the name of the collective work's author. (Here, that would be "Alaska Stock CD catalog 4"with Alaska Stock as the author.) Alaska Stock included both of those in its registration application. The names and titles of the including works were additional information not needed to make the application valid.
Allowing this type of bulk registration makes sense when you consider the purpose behind registration.
Registration is not done to put individuals on notice that a work has been copyrighted. Copyright protection is automatic.
Registration for Federal Copyright protection is done for the benefit of the Federal Government. One of the requirements is that the copyright holder provide the Government a copy of the work being registered. This allows the Government a way to procure works without having to pay for them. It also provides a way for the Government to determine what is subject to protection in case of a lawsuit. In exchange, the Government provides a cause of action for copyright violation beyond what is available absent registration.
Copyright law provides the Copyright Office the authority to determine how works are registered. It developed the method for bulk registration followed by Alaska Stock and there is no legal reason to deny them the benefit of registration. The registration process in question allows the Government to determine that the works involved (both the catalog and individual images) were included in Alaska Stock's application.
This is all that is needed as far as the Government is concerned.
Copyright registration is not required to put the infringing party on notice that the work in question is subject to Copyright protection. Protection is automatic. It only impacts the penalty for violating protection.
In this case, the Appeals Court basically held that registration was effective for the collection as a whole and for the individual works in the collection. That means Houghton Mifflin could face fines for every single image it used not just a single fine for violating the copyright on the catalog. Multiple willful violations could result in a penalty running into the millions.
This case does provide some good news for photographers. It means that any photographer that engages in the bulk registration of photographs should have a Federal cause of action for the copyright violation of any image registered by this method.
Wedding Photographers Acting Badly: Lawsuit Threats and Non-Disparagement Clauses
It's interesting how two different websites will cover similar subject matter on the same day.
DIY Photography has an article covering Non-Disparagement Clauses in Wedding Photography Contracts and SLR Lounge has one on Couples Threatened By Their Wedding Photographers Over Bad Reviews.
I'm not a wedding photographer, so I don't have any personal experience in this field. (My father did act as a wedding photographer when a couple of my cousins got married. That's not exactly the same thing since he was taking pictures at a relative's wedding for free.)
Barring unforeseen accidents, a wedding involving rational people and a competent photographer should never result in any sort of legal action.
The problem is, not every wedding involves rational people. You're talking about an extremely emotional situation and some people just don't handle the emotional stress well. The photographer can make a convenient target to blame when it comes to the Bride's "ruined" wedding, even if they did nothing wrong.
The photographer is just as capable of being the source of a problem. The photographer's duties include more than just producing good wedding photos. They have a responsibility not to negatively impact the wedding ceremony. A bad attitude or intrusive actions can do just that. Unfortunately, photographers can only control one side of the equation. They have no control over the actions of the people that are part of the wedding, including the one paying for their services.
Even the best wedding photographers can encounter completely unreasonable clients. The question they have to answer is how to handle this type of client. Legal responses are usually the last resort that should be considered.
Non-Disparagement Clauses
I suspect that the photographers that include these clauses may have encountered one of those completely unreasonable clients. Including the clause in the service contract does provide some additional legal ammo when it comes to addressing defamatory statements made on social media or review sites.
These type of clauses don't really prevent bad reviews in general. The client is the only person covered by the non-disparagement clause. The rest of the party is free to post bad reviews if the photographer provides poor service.
They can also prove counter-productive. Prospective clients may see the clause as a red-flag (if they actually read the contract) and can result in lost business.
The photographer is faced with the situation of balancing the effect of having that clause in the contract against the effect of not including that legal option in the contract. I suspect most photographers will choose not having that clause in the service contract unless they have encountered "The Client from Hell."
Any photographer or company that includes this clause without having encountered an irrational client first, is probably one best avoided. Including a non-disparagement clause proactively is a clear sign of a photographer or company that is going to be far to quick to threaten legal action in order to "protect" their reputation.
Someone that concerned with their reputation is not going to be concerned with the needs of the client.
Non-disparagement clauses also provide an opportunity for some very bad publicity. Threatening to sue over an honest review can be a very bad idea if the tactic becomes public knowledge. The attempt to control negative press may itself generate an even worse problem.
It will eventually get out that a company or photographer is constantly harassing clients with lawsuit threats. That may negatively impact business far more than the honest reviews would have. Especially if those reviews include the photographer's attempts to rectify any problems that occurred.
DIY Photography has an article covering Non-Disparagement Clauses in Wedding Photography Contracts and SLR Lounge has one on Couples Threatened By Their Wedding Photographers Over Bad Reviews.
I'm not a wedding photographer, so I don't have any personal experience in this field. (My father did act as a wedding photographer when a couple of my cousins got married. That's not exactly the same thing since he was taking pictures at a relative's wedding for free.)
Barring unforeseen accidents, a wedding involving rational people and a competent photographer should never result in any sort of legal action.
The problem is, not every wedding involves rational people. You're talking about an extremely emotional situation and some people just don't handle the emotional stress well. The photographer can make a convenient target to blame when it comes to the Bride's "ruined" wedding, even if they did nothing wrong.
The photographer is just as capable of being the source of a problem. The photographer's duties include more than just producing good wedding photos. They have a responsibility not to negatively impact the wedding ceremony. A bad attitude or intrusive actions can do just that. Unfortunately, photographers can only control one side of the equation. They have no control over the actions of the people that are part of the wedding, including the one paying for their services.
Even the best wedding photographers can encounter completely unreasonable clients. The question they have to answer is how to handle this type of client. Legal responses are usually the last resort that should be considered.
Non-Disparagement Clauses
I suspect that the photographers that include these clauses may have encountered one of those completely unreasonable clients. Including the clause in the service contract does provide some additional legal ammo when it comes to addressing defamatory statements made on social media or review sites.
These type of clauses don't really prevent bad reviews in general. The client is the only person covered by the non-disparagement clause. The rest of the party is free to post bad reviews if the photographer provides poor service.
They can also prove counter-productive. Prospective clients may see the clause as a red-flag (if they actually read the contract) and can result in lost business.
The photographer is faced with the situation of balancing the effect of having that clause in the contract against the effect of not including that legal option in the contract. I suspect most photographers will choose not having that clause in the service contract unless they have encountered "The Client from Hell."
Any photographer or company that includes this clause without having encountered an irrational client first, is probably one best avoided. Including a non-disparagement clause proactively is a clear sign of a photographer or company that is going to be far to quick to threaten legal action in order to "protect" their reputation.
Someone that concerned with their reputation is not going to be concerned with the needs of the client.
Non-disparagement clauses also provide an opportunity for some very bad publicity. Threatening to sue over an honest review can be a very bad idea if the tactic becomes public knowledge. The attempt to control negative press may itself generate an even worse problem.
It will eventually get out that a company or photographer is constantly harassing clients with lawsuit threats. That may negatively impact business far more than the honest reviews would have. Especially if those reviews include the photographer's attempts to rectify any problems that occurred.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
March Madness Deals
Seems like everybody wants to get involved in March Madness.
Olympus has "Slam Dunk" Deals.
National Camera Exchange is advertising instant rebates up to $400 on cameras and lenses. (The page didn't work correctly when I viewed it. They screwed up the html code.)
Adorama is offerin $100 or $250 instant rebates on cameras and is advertising a $100 Mail-in rebate on Tamron lenses.
Olympus has "Slam Dunk" Deals.
National Camera Exchange is advertising instant rebates up to $400 on cameras and lenses. (The page didn't work correctly when I viewed it. They screwed up the html code.)
Adorama is offerin $100 or $250 instant rebates on cameras and is advertising a $100 Mail-in rebate on Tamron lenses.
Time for a Little Blog Spring Cleaning
I notice my label list seems to have gotten a little out of hand.
I think it's time to do a little Spring Cleaning on the blog and throw some of them out.
I think it's time to do a little Spring Cleaning on the blog and throw some of them out.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Deals of the Day: Canon Lens Rebate, Camera Equipment Backpack, Save on Prints
B&H Photo is advertising up to $200 in mail-in rebates on Canon L Lenses. Deal runs through 3/29/14. (Mail-in rebate may be available on purchases from other retailers. B&H is the outlet advertising them.)
Adorama has a deal on the Kata 3N1-33 DL Sling Backpack. Sale price is $74.99 regularly priced $149.99. The backpack will hold a DSLR camera equipped with a zoom lens along with several other lenses and a flash module. (Backpack can also be used with a camcorder and has area for laptop.)
Adorama is also currently offering $300 savings on the Olympus OMD-EM5. (That's $999 to $$1,099 for the camera with kit lens or a bundle including lens and other merchandise.)
Adorama also has a deal on orders from AdoramaPix that runs through 3/31/14. Get 40% off of purchase with code: PXWELCOME.
Adorama has a deal on the Kata 3N1-33 DL Sling Backpack. Sale price is $74.99 regularly priced $149.99. The backpack will hold a DSLR camera equipped with a zoom lens along with several other lenses and a flash module. (Backpack can also be used with a camcorder and has area for laptop.)
Adorama is also currently offering $300 savings on the Olympus OMD-EM5. (That's $999 to $$1,099 for the camera with kit lens or a bundle including lens and other merchandise.)
Adorama also has a deal on orders from AdoramaPix that runs through 3/31/14. Get 40% off of purchase with code: PXWELCOME.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Samsun Video Explaining Its ISOCELL CMOS Image Sensor
Hat Tip: DP Review
Samsung uploaded a video explaining its ISOCELL image sensor to YouTube a couple days ago.
The design is meant to isolate the individual pixels (photosites/photodiodes) from each other in order to prevent image noise.
Isolating the pixel sites from each other becomes more important as the sensor's size is decreased or the number of pixel sites on the image is increased. Both require using smaller pixel sites packed closer together. Image noise increases when pixel sites are moved closer to each other.
Samsung uploaded a video explaining its ISOCELL image sensor to YouTube a couple days ago.
The design is meant to isolate the individual pixels (photosites/photodiodes) from each other in order to prevent image noise.
Isolating the pixel sites from each other becomes more important as the sensor's size is decreased or the number of pixel sites on the image is increased. Both require using smaller pixel sites packed closer together. Image noise increases when pixel sites are moved closer to each other.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Calumet Photographic Abruptly Closes Stores in U.S.
Calumet employees showed up for work this morning, only to find the stores shut down after Calumet filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
(See articles at Amateur Photography, Pop Photo, Chicago Tribune, SLR Lounge, and PetaPixel.
Calumets Bankruptcy filing declared $0-$50,000 in assets vs. $10 Million-$50 Million in liabilities.
(The Chicago Tribune story gets the asset declaration wrong. Way wrong. Pop Photo apparently used that as their source, so they get it wrong as well. Amateur Photography didn't mention the declaration. PetaPixel lists $0-$50,000 in assets.)
The abrupt nature of the closing has resulted in problems for the people with personal property located inside the shuttered stores. This includes cameras left for repairs, cameras purchased by customers waiting for pick up and the personal property belonging to Calumet employees.
Individuals that rent camera equipment from Calumet are also effected. The rental property cannot be returned while the stores are closed. This matters as the rented equipment apparently does not belong to Calumet given the asset declaration. It apparently still belongs to the manufacturer.
That rental equipment will have to be accounted for during the bankruptcy proceedings as it appears to belong to a Calumet creditor.
As to the abrupt nature of the store closing, that is partially due to the nature of a bankruptcy. Calumet had a duty to protect all the property in its control that either belonged to someone else or would be liquidated as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.
The stores will have to be opened long enough to allow an audit of the equipment and fixtures inside.
That procedure should result in any personal property belonging to customers or employees being set aside for retrieval. It should also allow an opportunity for rental property to be returned.
Update:
Imaging Resource has just joined in on this issue. One thing they point out is that there are multiple Calumet filings.
One filing is for Calumetphoto.com. That lists $0-$50,000 in assets. Another is for Calumet Photographic. That lists $50 Million to $100 Million in assets an under $50 Million in liabilities. Calumet Logistics lists $50 Million-$100 Million in assets and liabilities. Calumet Internation, Inc lists $1 Million to $10 Million in assets.
All filings list the same business address. Based on this, Calumet Logistics is the main business with the others the different branches.
The store portion of the business has assets that match or exceeds liability.
(See articles at Amateur Photography, Pop Photo, Chicago Tribune, SLR Lounge, and PetaPixel.
Calumets Bankruptcy filing declared $0-$50,000 in assets vs. $10 Million-$50 Million in liabilities.
(The Chicago Tribune story gets the asset declaration wrong. Way wrong. Pop Photo apparently used that as their source, so they get it wrong as well. Amateur Photography didn't mention the declaration. PetaPixel lists $0-$50,000 in assets.)
The abrupt nature of the closing has resulted in problems for the people with personal property located inside the shuttered stores. This includes cameras left for repairs, cameras purchased by customers waiting for pick up and the personal property belonging to Calumet employees.
Individuals that rent camera equipment from Calumet are also effected. The rental property cannot be returned while the stores are closed. This matters as the rented equipment apparently does not belong to Calumet given the asset declaration. It apparently still belongs to the manufacturer.
That rental equipment will have to be accounted for during the bankruptcy proceedings as it appears to belong to a Calumet creditor.
As to the abrupt nature of the store closing, that is partially due to the nature of a bankruptcy. Calumet had a duty to protect all the property in its control that either belonged to someone else or would be liquidated as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.
The stores will have to be opened long enough to allow an audit of the equipment and fixtures inside.
That procedure should result in any personal property belonging to customers or employees being set aside for retrieval. It should also allow an opportunity for rental property to be returned.
Update:
Imaging Resource has just joined in on this issue. One thing they point out is that there are multiple Calumet filings.
One filing is for Calumetphoto.com. That lists $0-$50,000 in assets. Another is for Calumet Photographic. That lists $50 Million to $100 Million in assets an under $50 Million in liabilities. Calumet Logistics lists $50 Million-$100 Million in assets and liabilities. Calumet Internation, Inc lists $1 Million to $10 Million in assets.
All filings list the same business address. Based on this, Calumet Logistics is the main business with the others the different branches.
The store portion of the business has assets that match or exceeds liability.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Win a Sony a7 MirrorlessCamera System by Registering for B&H Webcast
B&H Photo is hosting a webcast discussion on Sony's new a7 mirrorless camera.
The camera has been well received by reviewers.
The webcast panel consists of two professional photographers and Sony's Senior Manager of Technology (Mark Weir). It starts 1:00 PM EST on March 18. Questions can by submitted via twitter.
Registering for the webcast will enter you to win prizes including a Sony a7 camera with 28-70 lens.
Other prizes include 32MB memory cards. (You can never have too many of these.)
The camera has been well received by reviewers.
The webcast panel consists of two professional photographers and Sony's Senior Manager of Technology (Mark Weir). It starts 1:00 PM EST on March 18. Questions can by submitted via twitter.
Registering for the webcast will enter you to win prizes including a Sony a7 camera with 28-70 lens.
Other prizes include 32MB memory cards. (You can never have too many of these.)
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Getty Announces End to Partnership with Flickr
Hat Tip: PetaPixel
(Also thenextweb)
Getty has terminated its 6-year long partnership with Flickr.
Under that partnership, visitors to Flickr could request a license to use images loaded to Flickr. The licensing was done through Getty. Getty would also actively browse Flickr images to add to its library. When Getty encountered a Flickr image it wanted to add to its library, it would contact the owner and ask permission to license it.
Both of those are now ending.
Flickr users now have to go through the same contributor process as every other photographer.
The images licensed from Flickr will now be part of Getty's "Moment" collection. This means people that already have images with Getty will just have the location on Getty's website change.
The Moment collection includes something called "Moment Mobile". These are images taken and submitted using a mobile device. Currently only iOS devices qualify for mobile submission. Android devices will be added later.
My take on this?
Getty is abandoning a revenue source with this move. Currently, anybody that finds a Flickr image they want to license can do so by requesting a license online through Flickr. The request goes to Getty and Getty handles the license request.
Ending that process forces anyone wanting to license a Flickr image to contact the photographer directly. Many professional photographers are capable of handling licensing themselves. Those that don't want to handle the licensing themselves can go through a site that doesn't screen submissions first. Forcing the licensee to contact the photographer cuts Getty out of the equation.
A company abandoning a revenue stream is a questionable decision, no matter how small the stream.
Couple the move to allow submission via mobile devices with embedded images for social media sites seems to indicate Getty becoming obsesses with Social Media. Social Media sites had around $16 Billion in revenue in 2013, and Getty apparently wants a piece of that.
The largest share of that revenue was generated by facebook. Facebook accounts for roughly a third of that $16 Billion. (Maybe more, since that $5 Billion was in 2012, not 2013.) Zynga and Groupon are the other "Social Media" companies that had over a billion in revenue that year. (I accused Getty of having Google envy yesterday, I might have to revise that to facebook envy.)
The problem?
Getty is not a Social Media company, and its current business model is largely incompatible with being one.
Professionals that use Social Media use it as a promotional outlet. It is a cheap way to provide information about themselves and their products or services. This includes photographers looking to sell photos or looking for clients. Photographers may upload images to sites like facebook as part of this promotional effort.
These same photographers may then link to sites where there images can be purchased. This would include sites like Getty where they can be licensed for use in magazines, newspapers or on web sites.
Getty as a source of Social Media content has an interest in offering that content as cheap as possible. Free being best.
The lower the price they charge for the content, the less desirable they become as an outlet for those seeking to license their images.
In order to make this Social Media targeted move to work, Getty needs to spend as little as possible on the images it offers. This explains, in part, the termination of its partnering with Flickr. Under the Flickr TOS, the photographer retained the rights to the images uploaded to that site. Getty can not just use those images.
Don't be surprised if Getty's agreement with Flickr is replaces with a similar one with facebook.
Facebook's TOS states that uploading images the facebook provides the company with a transferable royalty free license. Getty could re-market those images without having to pay the photographer that uploaded them. (A product you can get for free and make money off of, what could possibly go wrong?)
This move to becoming a Social Media content provider does not bode well for the photographers doing business with Getty. Getty now has a conflict of interest when it comes to marketing their images.
(Also thenextweb)
Getty has terminated its 6-year long partnership with Flickr.
Under that partnership, visitors to Flickr could request a license to use images loaded to Flickr. The licensing was done through Getty. Getty would also actively browse Flickr images to add to its library. When Getty encountered a Flickr image it wanted to add to its library, it would contact the owner and ask permission to license it.
Both of those are now ending.
Flickr users now have to go through the same contributor process as every other photographer.
The images licensed from Flickr will now be part of Getty's "Moment" collection. This means people that already have images with Getty will just have the location on Getty's website change.
The Moment collection includes something called "Moment Mobile". These are images taken and submitted using a mobile device. Currently only iOS devices qualify for mobile submission. Android devices will be added later.
My take on this?
Getty is abandoning a revenue source with this move. Currently, anybody that finds a Flickr image they want to license can do so by requesting a license online through Flickr. The request goes to Getty and Getty handles the license request.
Ending that process forces anyone wanting to license a Flickr image to contact the photographer directly. Many professional photographers are capable of handling licensing themselves. Those that don't want to handle the licensing themselves can go through a site that doesn't screen submissions first. Forcing the licensee to contact the photographer cuts Getty out of the equation.
A company abandoning a revenue stream is a questionable decision, no matter how small the stream.
Couple the move to allow submission via mobile devices with embedded images for social media sites seems to indicate Getty becoming obsesses with Social Media. Social Media sites had around $16 Billion in revenue in 2013, and Getty apparently wants a piece of that.
The largest share of that revenue was generated by facebook. Facebook accounts for roughly a third of that $16 Billion. (Maybe more, since that $5 Billion was in 2012, not 2013.) Zynga and Groupon are the other "Social Media" companies that had over a billion in revenue that year. (I accused Getty of having Google envy yesterday, I might have to revise that to facebook envy.)
The problem?
Getty is not a Social Media company, and its current business model is largely incompatible with being one.
Professionals that use Social Media use it as a promotional outlet. It is a cheap way to provide information about themselves and their products or services. This includes photographers looking to sell photos or looking for clients. Photographers may upload images to sites like facebook as part of this promotional effort.
These same photographers may then link to sites where there images can be purchased. This would include sites like Getty where they can be licensed for use in magazines, newspapers or on web sites.
Getty as a source of Social Media content has an interest in offering that content as cheap as possible. Free being best.
The lower the price they charge for the content, the less desirable they become as an outlet for those seeking to license their images.
In order to make this Social Media targeted move to work, Getty needs to spend as little as possible on the images it offers. This explains, in part, the termination of its partnering with Flickr. Under the Flickr TOS, the photographer retained the rights to the images uploaded to that site. Getty can not just use those images.
Don't be surprised if Getty's agreement with Flickr is replaces with a similar one with facebook.
Facebook's TOS states that uploading images the facebook provides the company with a transferable royalty free license. Getty could re-market those images without having to pay the photographer that uploaded them. (A product you can get for free and make money off of, what could possibly go wrong?)
This move to becoming a Social Media content provider does not bode well for the photographers doing business with Getty. Getty now has a conflict of interest when it comes to marketing their images.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Getty Has a Terminal Case of Google Envy
Recently, Getty announced that it will allow free use of images on social media sites through the use of embedded images. (See my original post on this here.)
The consensus analysis seems to be this is just Getty acknowledging it can't prevent pirating of the images it licenses to media outlets for use on the Internet. This is merely a way for Getty to get something out of those sites, when they are just going to use the images anyway.
The problems with that analysis is that the embed program does nothing to address image piracy by bloggers or other social media outlets. The piracy occurs when someone sees a news article on a media outlet. That person then performs a cut and paste operation on the image licensed by that site.
The individuals pirating Getty images don't get them from sites that will be using the embed tool. They get them from sites that official license the image. That means that the image pirates are not going to be re-posting the embed images.
The original piracy is not going to involve an embedded image. That means this program will do nothing to address piracy.
The fact that this does nothing to address piracy suggest that Getty has a different goal. That goal seems to be leveraging its image library in order to become an information technology company. (For some needed background I suggest Getty did What? at the DAM Book. That's "Digital Asset Management" for Photographers.)
Why this Goal?
As the article above points out, Getty was recently acquired by the Carlyle Group.
They paid $3.3 Billion for the company. They have a $1.2 Billion loan payment due in 2016.
Getty had $900 Million in Revenue. A typical profit rate is around 10%. That would mean Getty had roughly $90 Billion in profits.
There is absolutely no way for the Carlyle Group to make that loan payment using Getty's current revenue stream. Carlyle has two choices.
1) Increase the revenue stream by a factor of 10, and do so over a two year period of time. (How realistic is a goal of 50% revenue increase per year for a mature company like Getty?)
2) Increase the revenue/profits enough to sell the company for far more than they paid for it. Carlyle is in for $3.3 Billion plus whatever the interest in on the loan when they pay it back. A conservative estimate would put interest at a minimum of another $300 Million by the time that first payment is due. They probably have to sell for at least $4 Billion to make the sell worth while.
The problem for Carlyle? There is no way to increase revue/profitability to the extent needed while Getty's core business is that of a Stock agency.
The Carlyle Group needs to change Getty's business model, and that seems to be the motive behind the move to offer embedded images.
What Embedded Images Do for Getty
To understand what Getty gets out of embedded images you need to understand a little about how they (and web sites) work.
Briefly, a web page is nothing more than a special kind of text file. The text file tells the web browser what should be displayed on the screen and gives the browser the location of any files it will need. (Modern browsers will allow you the view the source code for a web page. Look under "Web Developer" or "Developer Tools" if you want to see what you browser actually uses to display a web page.)
Embedding adds code to the web page telling the browser to contact a computer run by Getty in order to display the embedded image.
Among other things, this allows Getty to determine the site visited by the person viewing the embedded image. They can determine which image is being viewed. They can also determine the context in which the image is displayed and may even be able to track the browsing habits of the people visiting sites that have embedded images.
This type of information is Internet Gold.
It is how Google makes oodles of money. The people running Getty have apparently decided they want to make Google type money (Goodles?) and are attempting to do so by leveraging Getty's image library.
Getty's Problem
Getty has a fundamental problem when it comes to using its image library this way: Getty does not own the images in its library. It sells them on behalf of the owners.
Check out the first sentence from the press release sent out when Getty was purchased by the Carlyle Group/Getty Management:
Followed in then next paragraph with:
Read those carefully. Creator of imagery? Media company?
Do you notice anything about Getty being a Stock Agency?
Getty has apparently forgotten who is actually responsible for creating the images in its library. Getty does not own the content it sells, it licenses it on behalf of the owner.
That makes them an Agency, not a "content creator" or a "media company", and the difference is extremely important. Getty does not have the right to use property belonging to someone else in whatever manner they see fit.
(And before you cite the license agreement I suggest you look up "Adhesion Contract.")
They also have a duty not to facilitate image piracy. Their embed code implementation does the opposite. It actually facilitates copyright theft. If you visit a site with an embedded image, all you have to do to steal the image is right click on it then "save as".
Before the embedded image program, photographers were guaranteed that the image would be licensed at least once before being pirated. Now, they don't even have that guarantee, and that is due to Getty's behavior.
At the very least, Getty has a duty not to lower the value of the image to the copyright holder. That copyright holder is the photographer, not Getty. Couple Getty basically giving someone else's Intellectual Property away for free with the Morel Copyright Lawsuit, and it seems clear that the people running Getty have no regard for the Intellectual Property Rights of individual photographers.
Getty's core business is selling content created by someone else. Getty's attempts to leverage its library in order to become an information gathering company undermines its core business.
Right now, photographers looking for an agent to represent them when it comes to licensing their images have no reason to choose Getty. They don't see themselves as the photographer's agent.
If you are a photographer, why would you use a Stock Image site that does not view itself as your agent?
The photographers that loaded images to Getty's site agreed to allow Getty to license the image. They did not transfer property rights to Getty. Getty is now licensing those images in a way that benefits Getty, not the photographer. (In my opinion, that is a violation of the photographer's Intellectual Property Rights, and could very well result in lawsuits.)
It should, at the very least, result in mass defections.
How long will Getty last as a content provider if it loses the content it provides?
(As a footnote, I'd like to add that the problems at Getty seem to predate any involvement on part of the Carlyle Group and they may in fact wind up being harmed as a result of this "the images are our property" mentality that seems to permeate Getty right now. The current actions by Getty are very likely to result in enough problems that Carlyle may have difficulty in recouping their initial investment, let alone making a profit.)
As to Getty being an Agent: the company accepts Intellectual Property from the creator. In return, they agree to market the property and share the fee collected from the person purchasing the right to use it. That is, by definition, what an agent does.
Getty may not think of itself as an agent. They may deny an agent/client relationship exist. But a court will probably disagree with them if the issue ever becomes part of a lawsuit.
They have voluntarily taken on the duties of an agent. That makes them an agent.
That creates certain legal duties for Getty. They appear to be ignoring those duties.
The consensus analysis seems to be this is just Getty acknowledging it can't prevent pirating of the images it licenses to media outlets for use on the Internet. This is merely a way for Getty to get something out of those sites, when they are just going to use the images anyway.
The problems with that analysis is that the embed program does nothing to address image piracy by bloggers or other social media outlets. The piracy occurs when someone sees a news article on a media outlet. That person then performs a cut and paste operation on the image licensed by that site.
The individuals pirating Getty images don't get them from sites that will be using the embed tool. They get them from sites that official license the image. That means that the image pirates are not going to be re-posting the embed images.
The original piracy is not going to involve an embedded image. That means this program will do nothing to address piracy.
The fact that this does nothing to address piracy suggest that Getty has a different goal. That goal seems to be leveraging its image library in order to become an information technology company. (For some needed background I suggest Getty did What? at the DAM Book. That's "Digital Asset Management" for Photographers.)
Why this Goal?
As the article above points out, Getty was recently acquired by the Carlyle Group.
They paid $3.3 Billion for the company. They have a $1.2 Billion loan payment due in 2016.
Getty had $900 Million in Revenue. A typical profit rate is around 10%. That would mean Getty had roughly $90 Billion in profits.
There is absolutely no way for the Carlyle Group to make that loan payment using Getty's current revenue stream. Carlyle has two choices.
1) Increase the revenue stream by a factor of 10, and do so over a two year period of time. (How realistic is a goal of 50% revenue increase per year for a mature company like Getty?)
2) Increase the revenue/profits enough to sell the company for far more than they paid for it. Carlyle is in for $3.3 Billion plus whatever the interest in on the loan when they pay it back. A conservative estimate would put interest at a minimum of another $300 Million by the time that first payment is due. They probably have to sell for at least $4 Billion to make the sell worth while.
The problem for Carlyle? There is no way to increase revue/profitability to the extent needed while Getty's core business is that of a Stock agency.
The Carlyle Group needs to change Getty's business model, and that seems to be the motive behind the move to offer embedded images.
What Embedded Images Do for Getty
To understand what Getty gets out of embedded images you need to understand a little about how they (and web sites) work.
Briefly, a web page is nothing more than a special kind of text file. The text file tells the web browser what should be displayed on the screen and gives the browser the location of any files it will need. (Modern browsers will allow you the view the source code for a web page. Look under "Web Developer" or "Developer Tools" if you want to see what you browser actually uses to display a web page.)
Embedding adds code to the web page telling the browser to contact a computer run by Getty in order to display the embedded image.
Among other things, this allows Getty to determine the site visited by the person viewing the embedded image. They can determine which image is being viewed. They can also determine the context in which the image is displayed and may even be able to track the browsing habits of the people visiting sites that have embedded images.
This type of information is Internet Gold.
It is how Google makes oodles of money. The people running Getty have apparently decided they want to make Google type money (Goodles?) and are attempting to do so by leveraging Getty's image library.
Getty's Problem
Getty has a fundamental problem when it comes to using its image library this way: Getty does not own the images in its library. It sells them on behalf of the owners.
Check out the first sentence from the press release sent out when Getty was purchased by the Carlyle Group/Getty Management:
Washington, DC and Seattle, WA – Global alternative asset manager The Carlyle Group (NASDAQ: CG) and Getty Images management announced today they have formed a partnership to acquire Getty Images, Inc., a global creator and distributor of still imagery, video and multimedia products, from Hellman & Friedman for $3.3 billion.
Followed in then next paragraph with:
Getty Images consistently demonstrates growth, leadership and prominence as one of the world’s leading media companies.
Read those carefully. Creator of imagery? Media company?
Do you notice anything about Getty being a Stock Agency?
Getty has apparently forgotten who is actually responsible for creating the images in its library. Getty does not own the content it sells, it licenses it on behalf of the owner.
That makes them an Agency, not a "content creator" or a "media company", and the difference is extremely important. Getty does not have the right to use property belonging to someone else in whatever manner they see fit.
(And before you cite the license agreement I suggest you look up "Adhesion Contract.")
They also have a duty not to facilitate image piracy. Their embed code implementation does the opposite. It actually facilitates copyright theft. If you visit a site with an embedded image, all you have to do to steal the image is right click on it then "save as".
Before the embedded image program, photographers were guaranteed that the image would be licensed at least once before being pirated. Now, they don't even have that guarantee, and that is due to Getty's behavior.
At the very least, Getty has a duty not to lower the value of the image to the copyright holder. That copyright holder is the photographer, not Getty. Couple Getty basically giving someone else's Intellectual Property away for free with the Morel Copyright Lawsuit, and it seems clear that the people running Getty have no regard for the Intellectual Property Rights of individual photographers.
Getty's core business is selling content created by someone else. Getty's attempts to leverage its library in order to become an information gathering company undermines its core business.
Right now, photographers looking for an agent to represent them when it comes to licensing their images have no reason to choose Getty. They don't see themselves as the photographer's agent.
If you are a photographer, why would you use a Stock Image site that does not view itself as your agent?
The photographers that loaded images to Getty's site agreed to allow Getty to license the image. They did not transfer property rights to Getty. Getty is now licensing those images in a way that benefits Getty, not the photographer. (In my opinion, that is a violation of the photographer's Intellectual Property Rights, and could very well result in lawsuits.)
It should, at the very least, result in mass defections.
How long will Getty last as a content provider if it loses the content it provides?
(As a footnote, I'd like to add that the problems at Getty seem to predate any involvement on part of the Carlyle Group and they may in fact wind up being harmed as a result of this "the images are our property" mentality that seems to permeate Getty right now. The current actions by Getty are very likely to result in enough problems that Carlyle may have difficulty in recouping their initial investment, let alone making a profit.)
As to Getty being an Agent: the company accepts Intellectual Property from the creator. In return, they agree to market the property and share the fee collected from the person purchasing the right to use it. That is, by definition, what an agent does.
Getty may not think of itself as an agent. They may deny an agent/client relationship exist. But a court will probably disagree with them if the issue ever becomes part of a lawsuit.
They have voluntarily taken on the duties of an agent. That makes them an agent.
That creates certain legal duties for Getty. They appear to be ignoring those duties.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Sony A7,A7R Light Leak Issue and Solutions
Hat Tip: Imaging Resource
There have been complaints about the Sony A7 and A7R allowing light to leak through the lens mount area. The amount of leakage is usually very small. The problem is usually only noticeable on lone exposures with a high ISO setting.
Sony is apparantly aware of the issue and is working on a fix.
There are steps Sony owners can take to address the problem, in the meantime. Simply cover the area between the metal flange and the orange gasket with something that blocks incoming light. The options for this are fairly inexpensive and will allow you to continue using you A7 or A7R until Sony issues on official fix.
Gaffer's tape apparently works. Make sure to use gaffer's tape and not masking tape. Gaffer's tape uses a different adhesive that won't leave sticky residue when removed.
Elastic items work. too. Thick rubber-bands have been used. (The kind used by grocery stores on produce items like broccoli.) Elastic hair bands have also been suggested.
The last link shows where you'll need to place the tape or elastic band.
There have been complaints about the Sony A7 and A7R allowing light to leak through the lens mount area. The amount of leakage is usually very small. The problem is usually only noticeable on lone exposures with a high ISO setting.
Sony is apparantly aware of the issue and is working on a fix.
There are steps Sony owners can take to address the problem, in the meantime. Simply cover the area between the metal flange and the orange gasket with something that blocks incoming light. The options for this are fairly inexpensive and will allow you to continue using you A7 or A7R until Sony issues on official fix.
Gaffer's tape apparently works. Make sure to use gaffer's tape and not masking tape. Gaffer's tape uses a different adhesive that won't leave sticky residue when removed.
Elastic items work. too. Thick rubber-bands have been used. (The kind used by grocery stores on produce items like broccoli.) Elastic hair bands have also been suggested.
The last link shows where you'll need to place the tape or elastic band.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Getty Continues to Shoot Self in Foot: Now Offering Free Embedding of Images
Getty Images has been making some serious mis-steps lately. (Starting with the blatant violation of a photographer's copyright protection and followed by several moves that angered contributors.)
The latest move just baffles me completely.
Getty has just announced that it will allow free embedding of images. (Hat Tip: Amateur Photographer.)
I predict disaster.
Getty does limit the use of embedded images in its Terms of Service to "Editorial" use only. I wish them luck trying to enforce that.
It also limits embedding to certain images, and image size is limited as well.
Part of the problem has to do with implementation.
When first written, this article included an example of what you get using the Getty Code. I removed the code after writing the section in bold below.
The embedding code results in an embedded frame, with buttons to share the image. I have tried reblogging on my Tumblr page. There is a scroll bar visible on Tumblr. (I deleted the post after seeing the results. I was primarily just interested in seeing the results.) This is an ugly result.
There is a greater problem with implementation. The above image can be downloaded from Getty as a comp image. The complementary image includes a watermark. The embed code, as implemented, makes the image available without the watermark.
The price to license this image at 507x308 pixels is $65.
Getty has implemented a program that facilitates pirating its hosted images. At least at that limited size.
Getty has just created a huge headache for itself when it comes to fighting piracy. It has also given its contributors another reason to flee the company.
The code does give Getty the option to include advertising along with the embedded image, and to collect information from the website hosting the code. Getty apparently plans to become the photo equivalent of YouTube.
The problem is that all Getty's content comes from the Copyright holder. The Copyright holder is harmed if Getty gives the product away for free. Doing that to create a revenue stream (through advertising) may be good for Getty, but the Copyright holder is getting nothing out of that unless Getty agrees to share advertising revenue.
There is no advertising revenue right now to share. Getty is just giving away the product for free.
What Getty seems to have forgotten is that the product it is now giving away belongs to someone else. That person has not agreed to having the product given away.
PostScript: Came Across this take after writing this.
Using the images to collect information and sell ads makes sense for a technology company. It makes no sense for a company representing individuals seeking to sell copyrighted material. What images will Getty have left to leverage after this move?
The latest move just baffles me completely.
Getty has just announced that it will allow free embedding of images. (Hat Tip: Amateur Photographer.)
I predict disaster.
Getty does limit the use of embedded images in its Terms of Service to "Editorial" use only. I wish them luck trying to enforce that.
It also limits embedding to certain images, and image size is limited as well.
Part of the problem has to do with implementation.
When first written, this article included an example of what you get using the Getty Code. I removed the code after writing the section in bold below.
The embedding code results in an embedded frame, with buttons to share the image. I have tried reblogging on my Tumblr page. There is a scroll bar visible on Tumblr. (I deleted the post after seeing the results. I was primarily just interested in seeing the results.) This is an ugly result.
There is a greater problem with implementation. The above image can be downloaded from Getty as a comp image. The complementary image includes a watermark. The embed code, as implemented, makes the image available without the watermark.
The price to license this image at 507x308 pixels is $65.
Getty has implemented a program that facilitates pirating its hosted images. At least at that limited size.
Getty has just created a huge headache for itself when it comes to fighting piracy. It has also given its contributors another reason to flee the company.
The code does give Getty the option to include advertising along with the embedded image, and to collect information from the website hosting the code. Getty apparently plans to become the photo equivalent of YouTube.
The problem is that all Getty's content comes from the Copyright holder. The Copyright holder is harmed if Getty gives the product away for free. Doing that to create a revenue stream (through advertising) may be good for Getty, but the Copyright holder is getting nothing out of that unless Getty agrees to share advertising revenue.
There is no advertising revenue right now to share. Getty is just giving away the product for free.
What Getty seems to have forgotten is that the product it is now giving away belongs to someone else. That person has not agreed to having the product given away.
PostScript: Came Across this take after writing this.
Using the images to collect information and sell ads makes sense for a technology company. It makes no sense for a company representing individuals seeking to sell copyrighted material. What images will Getty have left to leverage after this move?
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Today's Deals: WPPI Specials from Adorama, DxO Software, Nikon D700 Instant Rebate
Adorama has a large number of specials available right now. These are specials they are offering at the WPPI Vegas show and have made available online.
Hunt's Photo and Video is advertising a sale on DxO image editing software. The software is available from Adorama at the same price.
J&R has a $300 instant rebate on the Nikon D7100 Kit
Amazon's deal of the day: up to 65% of Sony Memory cards and USB Drives.
Hunt's Photo and Video is advertising a sale on DxO image editing software. The software is available from Adorama at the same price.
J&R has a $300 instant rebate on the Nikon D7100 Kit
Amazon's deal of the day: up to 65% of Sony Memory cards and USB Drives.
Win a Fuji X-T1 Kit and Battery Grip
PetaPixel is giving away a Fuji X-T1 kit and battery grip.
All you have to do to enter is leave a comment on the contest page of their blog. You get an additional entry if you Like their facebook page.
Just follow the above link. Contest ends March 7, at Midnight.
No restriction on entry (beyond local restrictions.)
All you have to do to enter is leave a comment on the contest page of their blog. You get an additional entry if you Like their facebook page.
Just follow the above link. Contest ends March 7, at Midnight.
No restriction on entry (beyond local restrictions.)
Pentax Multi Mount: Extend the Range of Lenses Available for Pentax Camera
Hat Tip: Imaging Resource via Pop Photo
The Pentax K+ Multi Mount (PK+MM) is designed to replace the original mounting ring in Pentax cameras, allowing the camera to utilize non-Pentax mount lenses.
Using the mount does require removing the original mount first. This is a fairly simple operation performed by removing a few screws, but does pose a slight amount of risk. Replacing the mount will result in the mirror/sensor area of the camera being exposed to the environment (similar to replacing the lens). Make sure to replace the mount in a dust-free environment to prevent contamination of the camera's interior.
Care should also be taken when handling the screws. Stripping the screws heads is fairly easy to do. This makes mount replacements more difficult in the future. The screws are also easy to lose. Try handling the camera over a table or container with raised edges to catch any dropped screws. (A large, shallow plastic tub works for this.)
Replacing the mount instead of using an adapter ring does have an advantage: no image degradation. The Adaptist website has some sample images taken with lenses mounted with the replacement mount. The results shown are fairly impressive. (You do have to wonder how many pictures didn't make the gallery.)
Limitations
The replacement mount isn't perfect.
First, it can't be used with all Pentax cameras. The excluded cameras are primarily the weather-resistant models. A replacement mount for the weather-resistant models is in development.
The mounted lenses can only be controlled manually. No auto-focus or automatic aperture control. There is also no release catch. The lens is kept in place using a tension spring.
There are also additional steps necessary depending on the type of lens being mounted. The most intrusive being the permanent modification to the aperture lever of C/Y lenses.
You also need to ensure that the end element of the lens clears the camera's mirror.
Limitations aside, the mount's expansion of lenses available when using Pentax cameras could prove useful to Pentax users. Especially those with a wide variety of camera equipment at their disposal.
The Pentax K+ Multi Mount (PK+MM) is designed to replace the original mounting ring in Pentax cameras, allowing the camera to utilize non-Pentax mount lenses.
Using the mount does require removing the original mount first. This is a fairly simple operation performed by removing a few screws, but does pose a slight amount of risk. Replacing the mount will result in the mirror/sensor area of the camera being exposed to the environment (similar to replacing the lens). Make sure to replace the mount in a dust-free environment to prevent contamination of the camera's interior.
Care should also be taken when handling the screws. Stripping the screws heads is fairly easy to do. This makes mount replacements more difficult in the future. The screws are also easy to lose. Try handling the camera over a table or container with raised edges to catch any dropped screws. (A large, shallow plastic tub works for this.)
Replacing the mount instead of using an adapter ring does have an advantage: no image degradation. The Adaptist website has some sample images taken with lenses mounted with the replacement mount. The results shown are fairly impressive. (You do have to wonder how many pictures didn't make the gallery.)
Limitations
The replacement mount isn't perfect.
First, it can't be used with all Pentax cameras. The excluded cameras are primarily the weather-resistant models. A replacement mount for the weather-resistant models is in development.
The mounted lenses can only be controlled manually. No auto-focus or automatic aperture control. There is also no release catch. The lens is kept in place using a tension spring.
There are also additional steps necessary depending on the type of lens being mounted. The most intrusive being the permanent modification to the aperture lever of C/Y lenses.
You also need to ensure that the end element of the lens clears the camera's mirror.
Limitations aside, the mount's expansion of lenses available when using Pentax cameras could prove useful to Pentax users. Especially those with a wide variety of camera equipment at their disposal.
Monday, March 3, 2014
The FLIR One: Turn Your iPhone into an Infrared Imaging Device
Hat Tip: PC Mag
There is just no other way to describe this, it's just plain cool.
FLIR has just introduced an infrared camera that attaches to an iPhone, turning it into an infrared imaging device. It's an iPhone case with an infrared, currently only available for the iPhone 5/5s.
It's also fairly inexpensive at $350 when compared to other infrared imaging options. It doesn't have the functionality as those more expensive options, but that price makes it a viable option for some people that can't afford (or need) a full-function model. It's also small enough to fit in a pocket, making it very portable.
Here's a shot of the camera in action (from PC Mag website):
The FLIR one is slated for release later this year.
There is just no other way to describe this, it's just plain cool.
FLIR has just introduced an infrared camera that attaches to an iPhone, turning it into an infrared imaging device. It's an iPhone case with an infrared, currently only available for the iPhone 5/5s.
It's also fairly inexpensive at $350 when compared to other infrared imaging options. It doesn't have the functionality as those more expensive options, but that price makes it a viable option for some people that can't afford (or need) a full-function model. It's also small enough to fit in a pocket, making it very portable.
Here's a shot of the camera in action (from PC Mag website):
The FLIR one is slated for release later this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)