Photo Agency Rumors flying

Keep an eye on the blogs later as I am hearing that their is an aquisition about to be announced in the photo agency world ;-) That's all I am hearing.

Follow Up to Radiohead's Music Model

We reported on Radiohead's move to put their latest album online for "pay what you want" prices. Early results are streaming in from comScore, which show that about 6 in 10 downloaders, rode the free gravy train, and didn't pay a thing for the album since it was made available online on Oct. 10. Looking at this worldwide, 1.2 million people visited the album's Web site last month, which is a pretty good amount of traffic but nothing what I would have thought for the amount of publicity this move got and the fan base that Radiohead had. A "significant percentage" downloaded the record on the site. This is all according to comScore estimates.

Looking closer, 38% of all downloaders worldwide paid something for the album, bless their generous hearts ;-), while 62% downloaded it for free. Rock on Freeloaders. Paying downloaders forked over an average of $6, with U.S. consumers paying almost twice as much ($8.05) as those from other countries ($4.64).

Between the "freeloaders" and paying downloaders, overall revenue came to an average $2.26 per album. If you figure that the band most likely would have gotten between $3 and $5 per album through their label it doesn't look that good monetarily but what were the intangibles.

Success or Failure aside, we have to look at the intangible factors that could translate down the road into increases in ticket sales, a new audience who downloads the music for free to test against their taste preferences, more publicity due to this move, increased goodwill from consumers and other revenue brought in down the line. We will just have to wait and see but this is really a great case study for how to sell your own media online when you have an audience.

Google Announces Android and Open Handset Alliance

Here is the press release:

Despite all of the very interesting speculation over the last few months, we’re not announcing a Gphone. However, we think what we are announcing — the Open Handset Alliance and Android — is more significant and ambitious than a single phone. In fact, through the joint efforts of the members of the Open Handset Alliance, we hope Android will be the foundation for many new phones and will create an entirely new mobile experience for users, with new applications and new capabilities we can’t imagine today

Android is the first truly open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices. It includes an operating system, user-interface and applications — all of the software to run a mobile phone, but without the proprietary obstacles that have hindered mobile innovation.

We didn't really find anything concrete in the call or press release in terms of products or services. However by going mobile, this represents a major growth opportunity for Google, which wants to bring the Internet (along with search and contextual ads) to your phone. The software development kit will be available on November 12.

For more info on the man behind the Google Phone, Andy Rubin, check out the NYTimes article.

How long does it take to produce video?

An interesting post from andydickinson.net expanded on a previous article where it was claimed that it can take up to 1 hour of total production time (from pre-prod to shooting to editing) for every 1 minute of useable video footage (for journalistic purposes). Read the article for the details, but more importantly, this is a crucial cost metric to understand for anyone that would ever think about buying stock footage (or requesting a certain clip). Of course it would depend on individual circumstances, but if you can assign a dollar figure to that production effort, you could really get a good estimate of how much money and time you save by purchasing content from a third-party site.

If anybody wants to venture a guess as to how much you think 1 minute of journalism-focused video production costs, we'd love to hear it!.

Video and Image Stabilization from News Videographer

News Videographer is a great blog for multimedia journalism, constructive criticism of your journalistic work, reviews of video gear, software, online distribution and general news about most things related to Internet video. Something we are very interested in here at Cutcaster.

Angela Grant does a super job with the articles with the help of a few contributors. Kevin Jacobus wrote a piece on techniques for improving video and image stabilization. He outlines some methods which are particularly important for anyone shooting their own content. To paraphrase Kevin:

1. Electronic image stabilization in camera. Don’t use it.

2. Optical image stabilization on the lens. Some lenses have optical image stabilizers that manipulate a prism to steady the image.

3. Mechanical stabilization. A tripod or monopod.

Some are obvious and some are not. For more information check out the article and keep up the good work Angela and Kevin.

Getty Revenues below Expectations

Getty Images, the stock image provide, had revenues of $209mm in the third quarter which came in again below expectations. Mike you were right and I was wrong about it being a short on bad news. The market obviously didn't find too much wrong with it as the stock is up 9%. Can you say short squeeze?

Here are some notes from the conference call which were paraphrased from Seeking Alpha.

Micropayment is good and "the use of and demand for visual content primarily in online usage is exploding.": Thank you very much. Getty CEO Jonathan Klein has just finished his opening remarks, and said nothing about Getty we didn't already know. He twice stressed that Getty's new $49 web-resolution images are a "super low resolution" product. (Fact check: Resolutions of the $49 images are typically 338 by 506 pixels, which is pretty low.) Sure that doesn't make the photographers happy to hear this. Klein also said, "Micropayment is very good for the visual content industry," and noted that it is disproportionally good for Getty, since it owns market leader iStockphoto. "The key difference is iStockphoto's highly profitable e-commerce based business model. Revenues generated here are from the licensing of images through e-commerce not by advertising." And he again mentioned plans for Getty's as-yet-unlaunched consumer Web site. Anyone know what this is going to be called? Is it called Greenfield?

In the Q&A, Klein says the company is considering web-res pricing for its video products. Klein earlier acknowledged that footage was in a "transition" period" and under "a two year investment program into ad content." "Footage will become much bigger, bigger business for us in the future. Our overall cost familiar with the increasing demand for digital video, as bandwidth constrains disappear and video finds its way from big screens to smaller screen, and the web and mobile devices." Klein did water down his excitement by saying that, "You will notice on the numbers that it has not been a great year for footage and 2007 has been very much a transition year for our footage business. We do expect double-digit growth in 2008 and beyond." Good news for Cutcaster.

The $49 question: Klein answered a question about the critical reaction from photographers that greeted his company's $49 web licensing price. "The communication with the photographers didn't clearly enough outline what we had in mind," Klein says. The $49 images, he says, can only be used online. "It's a super, super low resolution image. It cannot be used in any other way." He noted that once Getty explained why it was offering this product (to attract web users who were shopping elsewhere, resulting in declines in RF sales at low resolutions), photographers were "much more comfortable." I don't know if I believe that. From our conversations with photographers they still seem pretty upset and i sense a defection of sorts from Getty because of this and other reasons. "We created a new product for a new market and they're feeling much more comfortable and confident about it." As evidence, Klein noted that blogs and forums had been quiet for several weeks about this topic. Shout out to the Cutcaster blog here. He said low-resolution RF volumes have recovered to the levels they were at in the last quarter of 2006. Many of those buyers are lapsed customers or completely new customers. He added: "Frankly, we had very little pushback from the photographers we work very closely with. Some of the pushback was from people we had very little relationship with who felt it was an opportunity to make a point, and we respect that." Ouch.


The shares whipped around a bit after the news. They are up now in a down tape. I was amazed at how much they talked about microstock and recognize this growing trend, whether good or bad for the overall market space. I think they are happy as clams that they bought and got Bruce L. to come in and help them with their technology. It had been 5 years since the Getty website was relaunched with new changes last August.

Consumer Selling and Buying of Images and Footage - Copyright Issues

We keep coming back to Copyright issues because they are so important to the integrity of our marketplace but also because many people look at them as a gray area and don't really understand what they can and can't do. While there may be hundreds of legal details involving the use of copyrighted materials, the basic principles of the U.S. and international copyright laws are pretty simple -- if it is an "original work of authorship," you may not use it without the permission of its creator. And just to be safe, always ask.

Copyright laws state that any "original work of authorship" is protected
from the moment of its creation. It is very important to understand that
such a work need not be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office to
enjoy copyright protection. Infringements can result in severe penalties
as well a significant legal expenses which is no fun for anyone but the lawyers.

The U.S. Copyright Law is simply the governments best attempt to provide
creative people with the legal clout to benefit financially from their
creations. It is not, as some seem to think, a roadblock to the
dissemination of information. In truth, lawmakers have bent over
backwards to make sure information is widely disseminated. A "fact" is
never copyrightable.

On the Cutcaster website there will be information about creators and any restictions that may be associated with a particular video or photo.

Students and others interested in using photographs without charge can
find many usable stock photos by going to any internet search engine such as
Google or Yahoo and typing in "free photography" of "free stock photography." If you need help let us know.

For more information click here or to see Cutcaster's Copyright Policy click here.

Photographers on Imagestate

We are very sorry to hear this for those affected but wanted to report on it in case people had news. StockAsylum posted some important information for professional stock photographers who had images with Imagestate or Heritage Image Partners, Ltd. An organization that represents professional stock photographers is appealing for information about a British stock photography distributor that will be dissolved on Jan. 12, probably without paying its photographers and, perhaps, without returning their images.

"If any reader has any information about the location of contributor property or current contacts for Imagestate, Heritage Image Partners, Ltd., or (bankruptcy administrator) Kroll, please contact SAA," Stock Artists Alliance said in a prepared release.

What a nightmare on the day after Halloween. Scary stuff indeed for anyone that makes a living off their images. About the Image wrote, "In addition to losing out on payments many contributors are now worried original images will not be returned, Sumner reports. "We have gone through a long list of contacts trying to get work returned as Imagestate seems to have a revolving door employment situation," he says. "It's been impossible to get answers or action on any of these issues, and there's been no communication from them at all to explain to photographers what's going on." This highlights one of the biggest fear contributors have to photo agencies. That the agency closes up shop, doesn't pay you, and you can't erase your images from the database so they are out of your control in the content abyss.

The organization also encouraged stock distributors doing business with Imagestate to communicate with contacts at the company. Let us know if you need anymore information about this or your stories.

I'm still not sure how they raised 2mm dollars and announced it the day before all this took place. Strange.

We promise you this. Cutcaster will never act like this if things turned south. We would never hold the images, allow people to delete them immediately and there would be a steady stream of information either on the blog, our forums, over email or calls with concerned parties. That was the pledge we made when we started Cutcaster. To always be here and available.

Cool Mashup by Neistat Brothers

I was at a fun party last night and met two filmmakers, the Neistat Brothers, Van and Casey, who made an especially cool mashup of the Jurassic Park trailor. Stick around for the ending when they play the two trailors side by side. Anyway you guys can make the player bigger on your site. Thanks to Dana from Plumtv for sending it along and Ian and Grahm for bringing me to the party. Good times.

The Neistat Brothers have some cool art as well. Check it out.

Chris Williams

Our buddy, Chris Williams, just re-launched his website with a new look. Click on over and take a look when you get a chance. Click on the storyboard, graphic design and miscellaneous links on the left hand side to see his work. We really dig the updates he made and it looks awesome.