Interesting announcement today over on Flickr’s blog - Curated Connections: A new Flickr licensing experience.

If I understand the announcement correctly, Yahoo is trying to capitalise on the huge photo library that is Flickr by marking themselves as the middle man (or more politely, providers of “assistance, outreach and connectivity”) between the creators and typical photo agency consumers. Call me cynic, but saying that “…we will look for ways to showcase your photos on the Flickr blog and across other Yahoo properties like News and Travel” also reads a lot like, oh and we’ll get all these great images for our online properties for free… yes, call me cynic.

Could they have done this before? Yes, years and years ago. After all, 500px has done it with a much smaller library. And if done correctly, it could actually change the market.

Difficulties

Well, the obvious one – where does the Curated come in “Curated Connections”. Obviously they can’t allow every single image access to the platform or it would scare off any potential buyer. A premise of any photo agency needs to be quality across the collection, and Flickr, although with a vast amount of amazing work, also has a lot of rubbish (500px has the upper point here). It does need to be curated, and preferably by humans.

They have a head start already in the process based on their partnership with Getty Images. The Flickr collection on Getty is not immensely shabby. However, how much effort Yahoo chooses to put into this may dictate the success or failure of the whole thing.

Pricing Models

No details. 500px opted for making participants agree in licensing their images royalty free (the main reason I have not paid much attention to the idea). The Getty/Flickr partnership allows both royalty free and rights-managed licenses, albeit at ridiculous low percentages for photographers. It will be interesting to see how this will work, as soon as more details are available.

And the final question?

What about the Getty/Flickr partnership? The big names that Yahoo is using to illustrate their Marketplace are prime targets for Getty, so I’m quite curious to see how they are going to approach this… Interesting times.

What does this mean for photographers?

One of the major concerns photographers face in the digital age is the unlicensed use of their images. Whether being done by lack of knowledge or knowingly infringing on other people’s copyrights, using unlicensed images is an increasing trend and represents a serious loss of revenue for photographers both amateur and professional.

The commercial need to showcase our images to the masses, whether on photo sharing sites and networks or on our own sites, exposes whole collections to those thinking that “just because it’s available online, it must be free”.

If you’re paranoid enough (not saying it is a bad thing), reverse image search engines permit us to, up to a limited extent, fight back this unwelcome side effect by allowing photographers to find where their images are being used online, albeit generally one by one. After an infringing image is found, the next step is up to the photographer, deciding to ignore it, attempting to license it, using take-down notices, or suing.

The concept is not new and there are several services on the market doing exactly the same thing, raging from free (e.g. TinEye) to very well paid (e.g. PicScout). Some services even allow you to upload your whole collection and, periodically, they’ll screen the web and report on any findings. Some large stock agencies are widely known for using these large scale services and aggressively pursuing infringers.

With the Orphan Works legislation (that I seem never to know if it has been approved or not, with all their back and forward), reverse image search provides another strong method for a photographer’s identity as author of an image to be established. Many would probably agree that this is the most important function reverse image search can have for photographers.

First impressions of Google’s reverse image search

The service seemed to become fully functional for me through a Chrome extension even before the roll-out at images.google.com. When you read this, I’m sure that the roll-out will be complete.

To test how good it was finding image use on the web, I tried it first with some images that I know to have limited stock value and, as expected, besides my own sites, weren’t found anywhere else. This totally changed with more conceptual images – Google was able to find them in many different sites, unlicensed, and of which I was not aware of. On the left you can see an example of a results page. This image was found 27 times, 21 of them unlicensed use.

The results with the similar images feature was not as good. One of the uses of similar image search can be to find derivative images, and it did not find some derivative work using my images I know to be around. At most, it was able to find images with similar color tonalities or similar patterns. This is probably the feature that needs more development in this service, but it is also the most difficult to do well.

The service is very very fast. Also surprising was its ability to recognize some of the subjects and point me to sites where I could read more about them (Wikipedia mostly).

In general, this service is very useful, easy and fast. It can be another tool for photographers to use against copyright infringers, but it can also turn into an immense and depressive waste of time. If you’re prone to paranoia, use in moderation.

If you want another first impression of this service, David Sanger has a very nice write up on this.

In the next days I’ll write my comparison between Google and TinEye when it comes to usability and results.

What do you think of this service? Have you tried it? Do you think it will be any useful? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

When the photoblog gathers work not only from one good photographer but from seven of them, then it turns into a place that you should not miss.

Fine Art Photoblog

This is the case with Fine Art Photoblog. Brian Auer, together with six other known photographers, just lunched a daily updated space where you can see and admire their work. If you fancy having a nice photo on the wall, each of the works can be bought in a variety of forms, that are sure to meet your tastes.

If you want to know more about this project, visit it at Fine Art Photoblog. You can also read their press release there. If you’re used to read sites through feeds, their’s is also available.

Each of he photographers can be found not only on this new gallery but also on their personal sites:

• Brian Auer
• Neil Creek
• Andrew Gibson
• Andreas Manessinger
• Cody Redmon
• Joseph Szymanski
• David Ziser

I can only wish this group of fine artists all the best with their new venture.

It’s a space I’ll make sure to visit regularly, for it sure is up to par with the best photoblogs out there.

photo by OZinOH

Once in a while the subject of copyright in photography comes forward.

It is an area where, understandably, there is much misconception, mainly because there is not a “universal” law on copyrights in photography. Actually, different countries have different laws and even inside the same country, like the US, copyright laws change from state to state.

A few day ago I received an email from Martin Dean with a strange story that might have had to do with copyrights. While, for the most cases, doubts come when the rights of the photographer are in question, his was, I believe, a little different:

 

Hi,

I have a question that you might help me with.

Recently I was in NY for a few days. At my hotel lobby there was a very curious statue with some nice propped lighting. I decided to take a shot of it, more for the weirdness of the setting than expecting an exceptional photo to come out.

I shot a frame and, when was about to move away (my camera was on my shoulder strap), I was approached by a security gentleman that, in very brush terms, informed me that I could not take any photos of the statue. Since he explicitly mentioned the statue I asked what about the rest of the lobby. His answer was strange since he proceeded to tell me that he had instructions to prevent photos from that statue only.

Not much more to say except that I was only left alone after I deleted the photo from the card in front of him and showed him that there were no more photos of the statue.

My question is, can the hotel really do that? I’m just curious about it. It’s not a security matter or anything since it seems that I could take any pictures I wanted as long as it didn’t include that statue.

Thanks for any help.

Before I attempt any answer, I have to say that I’m glad I’m not a lawyer so I can’t answer with complete certainty. Also, I don’t live in the US, so specifics for this kind of situations over there are a bit foggy for me. Nonetheless, I researched about it and came up with a possible explanation. If this was not the case, at least the information for photographers is valid.

Photographing Copyrighted Work

photo by Bah Humbug

It is usually accepted that any statues and monuments that are on a public place are OK to photograph. But OK doesn’t mean legal.

Any form of art (which may include architecture) is copyrighted by the author (until the copyright expires, usually up to 50 years after the death of the author). When you photography a statue or monument, or even a painting at a museum, you are, in fact, creating a derivative work of copyrighted material, which is illegal. Of course that the majority of artists want the exposure placing their work on a public place gives them and know, beforehand, that it will most probably be photographed.

Worse case is when the photographer generates some revenue from the derivative work and there are a few cases where these copyright infringement cases went to court. This is why you can’t sell any photos containing, as an example, the Eiffel Tower at night – the lighting is copyrighted art.

Exceptions (and again, it depends from country to country) exist when the work of art was bought or commissioned with public (federal) funding, in which cases it reverts to public domain.

Conclusions

I’ve had a few situations where I was asked not to photograph certain buildings. While it could have been due to security reasons (I believe it was the case most of the time) it could also have been an attempt from the architect to protect his copyrights. It baffles me a bit then that you can take a photo of a house, as long as it is from the public road, without breaking any copyright laws.

So Martin, I think this is what has happened to you. If you could take photos of everything with the exception of the statue, it might have been that is was not owned by the hotel and just on exhibit and the artist asked the hotel to prevent any derivative works from it, independently of you were going to make money out of it or not. If the hotel could force you to delete the images without the case being filled in court, I’m tempted to say that it couldn’t, but it’s just my guess.

If any of you readers knows of any similar situation or can add more information, just post it on the comments bellow.

Microstock sites are, without a question, a great opportunity for both amateurs and professional photographers to increase their photographic earnings. It is even discussed that due to microstock popularity, the earnings are set to increase.  

Although microstock photography is not as easy as it may sound at first, it’s also not that hard and even simple photos can get a good general acceptance.

If you want to try it (why not), Rasmus shares 5 tips to get you started.

One of the biggest issues raised by photographers wanting to expand into microstock is (of course) finances. Microstock sites are based on quantity of sales opposed to higher prices and many sell photos for $1. This requires that the photographer keep extending the portfolio in order to make any decent ammount of money. Even so you can see that with some effort it can pay for your gear.

Now, why am I going into the Microstock issue?

Today I got an email from Mike Scolins at Noise Marketing announcing the new feature of PhotoShelter, the PhotoShelter Collection.

As many of you probably know, PhotoShelter is a storage service for your photos. For a monthly fee you can upload your (if not all) most valuable photos and be sure to have at least that as a backup, just in case the sky falls on you and you loose everything else.

Now, PhotoShelter launches Collection…

What is PhotoShelter Collection?

For what I’ve seen of their site (yes, I’ve registered), at PhotoShelter Collection, it is my feeling they try to distance themselves from the “regular” microstock sites. Although the more personal touch feels good (they make it sound so familiar), the general guidelines are those of a microstock agency. No word yet as for how tough their reviewing procedure is. From their guidelines, I got the impression that PhotoShelter Collection wants to explore a certain niche inside stock photography, turning it more casual.

Payment

This is where PhotoShelter Collection distance themselves from the crowd: the photographer’s revenue is 70% (85% for photos submitted before November 5th and up to six months) and the minimum price set for a photo is $50. The price is only a recommendation and you are allowed to price your own work. At least, you’ll be getting $35 for each sale minimum. The payout is set at $100 if you choose to be paid by check but they also offer PayPal or ACH as other payment methods (no word on payout here).

Advantages & Disadvantages

I have mixed feelings about PhotoShelter Collection from what I’ve read so far. I haven’t tried to submit any work so I can’t say for now how successful it can be.

Nonetheless, the high revenue percentage, low payout amount and relatively high price per photo make of PhotoShelter Collection something to seriously consider if you want to try selling your images. Also, it’s free to join.

On the other hand, competing with all the microstock sites out there is not going to be easy (is this even their aim?). Although many companies still go for the established (and much more expensive) stock agencies like Getty, the accessibility and affordability of microstock sites is hard to beat and only time will tell how PhotoShelter Collection will establish themselves in the photo market business.

Overall

Overall, I was surprised with PhotoShelter Collection. Maybe this is just a feature to increase sales on their main business (backups) and maybe not. Anyway, I’ll seriously consider uploading some work there and see how it turns out.

If you are already into stock photography and you’re not exclusive to any site, maybe you should also consider at least looking into it.

Disclaimer

Although I just gave a very brief and positive review of PhotoShelter Collection, I’m in no way associated with them (besides having a user account at their site) and this is NOT a paid post. Truly, there aren’t even affiliate links on this post.