RE: [Leica] The Decisive Moment

["Tim Atherton" <tim@picturedesk.org>]

this isn't the point - what both Corbis and Getty have done is buy up
numerous agencies and both have failed to understand the basic functioning
of the stock and editorial market.

They failed to keep promises to photographers that the agencies they belong
to would continue to function (specialised stock or photojournalism agencies
who got work not because of low prices or volume, but quality). They then
changed contract terms with photographers to the point of screwing the
photographers. They became surprised when photographers then wished to leave
and withdraw their images - in some cases failing to realise the individual
photographers owned them, because the agencies were just that - agents -
where Corbis etc want to be content suppliers - content which they control
100%. In many cases photographers have had to take legal action to regain
their own property - their images.

In the case of the historic Bettman archives (think the Hindenburg in flames
etc) previously, researchers as well as magazines could access any image -
even if it took time. Now access has been severely restricted and only
saleable images are now accessible and the archive as a whole is
unavailable.

Despite buying up the majority of the major stock agencies and
photojournalism agencies, neither Corbis nor Getty Images turns a profit.
Both have tried to set up their own photojournalism/news agencies - Corbis
failed miserably - it's Sept 11th coverage was days behind anyone else and
laughable - this while backed by Gates' billions and the best available
technology in the world. Getty has fared slightly better, but not much.

This is partly because they have failed to hang onto any of the major,
experienced, well know photo agency managers and staff they bought up - all
have eventually left in disgust. So have the majority of "name"
photographers, with high levels of sales, that they initially "bought" along
with the agencies.

This happened about the same time Corbis realised that in the news and
magazine business it's no use having all of yesterdays images in stock, when
what people want is today's - and it takes dedicated, skilful photographers
to keep producing those.

Sygma Paris is the most blatant example of their lack of understanding of
the photography business, because the peculiarities of French law, as well
as Paris being the worlds largest editorial market, have highlighted them.
They appear to have managed to ignore the way French law protects freelance
"employees", threatened to basically almost destroy photographers images and
to top it all of, sent layoff notices tied to a Happy Thanksgiving email -
ironic in itself, but also a holiday the French couldn't give two hoots
about.

This story is about two arrogant , greedy, rich individuals (well, family in
one case) trying their best to one up the other, while dominating the market
and screwing the individual.

And yes, it is a sad day for photography, because they have, in the process,
destroyed the small organisations which have nurtured some of the worlds
best photographers and photojournalists and produced some of the worlds most
memorable images, while putting nothing in it's place.

It's not the free market - it's greed - "I think I'm rich enough to own the
worlds visual content".

Tim A





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Marc James
> Small
> Sent: February 12, 2002 8:20 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] The Decisive Moment
>
>
> At 09:49 PM 2/12/02 -0500, Kevin Argue wrote:
> >The economy is not the problem. Attitude of the US media giants is the
> >problem. Read American Photographer a few years back on the World Press
> >winners and lack of publication in the US. Salgado gets in the
> NY Times but
> >the rest would rather pay for photos of Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise than
> >documentaries on poor parts of the world.
> >
> >Kevin Argue
>
>
> Kevin
>
> This is a capitalist society.  I do recognize that Canadians attempt to
> avoid approaching this reality.  Most READERS and VIEWERS would
> much rather
> see pictures of Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise (whoever they are)
> than of some
> 'poor part of the world'.  The folks who OWN these publications want to
> make money, or else they'd not own them.  So, cleanly and
> clearly, they buy
> and publish pictures which are of interest to their audience.  If a
> photographer wants to shoot pictures of dismal areas which have no market,
> then so be it.  He is to be lauded for his dedication to Reform and damned
> for his lack of common sense.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +276/343-7315
> Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html