Maybe there is a flaw in the photo industry itself? Is today's model of licensing and sales of photographs viable? How best to sell your photos? Will open resources photo stocks increase supply growth up until the number of pictures will not reach a level where photographers could not even very cheap to sell good photos and make money on those that sell?
Theoretically, this horrible scenario is likely to become reality. Already Shutter stock alone offers more than 5 million photographs, which do not require payment of royalties, and, as stated CEO John Orangey, each month the number of new revenue in the millions. Number of images in the bank Dreamtime also exceeded 5 million. Due to the fact that the old photos - sold or not - remain in their bases, photo stock will continue to grow indefinitely. Since the proposal ahead of demand - in the world has always been more pictures than buyers - prices will become lower and lower.
In fact, this is something that has already resulted in micro stock. Between the license fee, part of $ 1 (the photographer gets only pennies), and their photos almost no difference.
But photographers have to worry not only about the total number of available photos. In the end, it is difficult to imagine that prices will fall even lower. They also should worry about the growing competition. As the proposal continues to grow, the contribution of each individual photographer in this proposal is reduced, as well as his chances to become an author, who sold their work. In the photo industry can rotate the same amount of money, but this amount will be divided among a growing number of photographers, while each individual photographer will receive less and less.
As a minimum, these considerations ...
... middle of paper ...
...if photo banks will increase, No Equivalents own research showed that buyers are willing to pay various sums of money depending on future use. They already have the opportunity to choose from almost 100 million photos with Free Creative Commons licenses on Flicker, but if they want to receive commercial photography, they turn to micro stock, but for more substantive goals, they are still willing to pay for a traditional runoff.
More importantly, photobanks runoff can grow indefinitely, but the buyer does not have the patience for a long time to choose. Unsold photos soon into oblivion, and the old out of fashion. Photographers who are satisfied with their income from the discharge, soon lose their earnings if they do not offer a new photo.
Perhaps the most photo industry is flawed, but most likely the problem with the idea of countless, light sales photos.
Johnson, Brooks. Photography Speaks: 150 Photographers on their Art.” New York: Aperture Foundation Inc., 2004. Print.
The art world of photography is changing all the time. Peter Schjeldahl starts out with a very strong and well written paragraph about the world of art. Peter Schjeldahl says, “You can always tell a William Eggleston photograph. It’s the one in color that hits you in the face and leaves you confused and happy, and perhaps convinces you that you don’t understand photography nearly as well as you thought you did”. These couple of sentences are very strong and flow so well together, and they grab the reader’s attention. Peter explains how William Eggleston was known as a great American photographer.
Perhaps the optimal solution for Napster’s dilemma is the possibility of a cable TV type payment. Users pay a certain monthly fee for all the downloaded music they wanted. They could chat with their favorite artists, get first claim on concert tickets, and browse possible downloads by genre. The new system would pay the artists their royalties and sell millions of older titles that at present are sitting in vaults because no stores will give them shelf space. This option has the advantages of cooperation between the music industry and Napster. Napster users will have the same type of service as they do now, with extras so they won’t have to turn to no-fee options (Gnutella and Freenet). Music companies will be able to use the Internet for sales of all their merchandise. If music companies can package a better experience people will pay for it. In a recent survey of college students more than two thirds of the respondents would be willing to pay for a $20 dollar monthly fee of a similar service. The only foreseeable disadvantage of this solution is the plausibility of the record companies cooperating in such an effort.
Piracy causes people to lose the motivation to create. Companies, filmmakers, and musicians are all interested in producing and selling their products. However, many companies and people lose motivation to create products if they cannot make a profit from their products. For ex...
piracy issues over the Internet would cost record companies more money than what they are
Will we find a replication of this history in P2P technology? Even though we will have to wait qui...
a far cry from the early days when photography required huge cameras, patience and money.
I think that this will be true as older cars get sold for less money.
Recently, one of the most famous photographer get involved into the “Photoshop scandal”. The scandal begins at a show in Italy. One Italian photographer find out an obvious manipulation on Steve’s print. The sign on the road was moved, otherwise it may block the man’s leg. Even though Steve McCurry deleted the origin photo on his blog, people and publications across the Web quickly began digging to see what other McCurry images they could find that had been seriously altered. (1) The result turns out several other photos also have such manipulations. Hence, a hot topic has been discussed a lot lately: Whether should we use Photoshop for photos. After tons of research, I believe that allow to use Photoshop for photos will definitely
Technology has propelled the film industry into investing in cheaper, more effective means of receiving the same cinematic look and quality while providing a streamlined process to easily manipulate the image in post production. R.C. Varenas, a writer and filmmaker tells us upfront that digital filmmaking is cheaper (Varenas). “What once cost $100,000 might now cost $10,000” (Varenas). The cost for a celluloid camera can vary from $100,000 to $500,000, whereas the cheapest digital cameras can start at $99 and go upward of $100,000. The price differences give different variations on quality and versatility of the cameras allowing anyone on a small budget to purchase or rent one. In a film, the limitations for the production come down to the budget; this extends to beyond filming it, but editing the image as well.
The industrial revolution created the societal circumstances necessary for photography to be born. The first and most obvious condition is that of technological advancement. Industry was advancing and expanding so rapidly that history appeared to be distancing itself from the present with unusual speed. Up until this time period life had not changed much from decade to decade or even from century to century. Photography’s popularity during the industrial revolution was, in large part, a result of people’s desire to slow down the perceived acceleration of history (McQuire). It has been argued that the acceleration of historical time is “leading to the possible industrialization of forgetting” and that “we will not only miss history…we will also long to go back to space and times past.” (Virilio)
+pointing out some shortages of digital cameras when compare with traditional ones and gives some advices.
Just two decades ago, saying “copyright” to teachers most likely conjured images in their minds only of the fine-print notice in the front of a textbook. Today, with a world of Web 2.0 technology at their fingertips, copyright issues for teachers can be confusing and complex. Add to that an ever-increasing emphasis on technology literacy in our states’ education standards – forcing teachers to incorporate applications and resources that may be uncharted territory to them – and the waters get even murkier. Teachers bear the double-burden of carefully abiding by copyright laws in their day-to-day incorporation of technology in the classroom, while instilling copyright ethics in students as they meet state standards for technology and media literacy. A review of the copyright literature related to education provides some clarity on copyright and fair use applied to classroom practices, suggests barriers to copyright compliance among educators, and provides suggestions on how to teach copyright ethics to a tech-savvy generation.
Photography as a profession has developed along with the advancements of camera technology. Photographers can be seen everywhere, whether they are highly advanced or a just a mere amatuer. Many people find a living in this business by taking professional photographs for families, sports events, and even the traditional senior pictures.
However, in recent years, it is not uncommon to see copyright in the possession of a third party other than the creator. These companies make use of copyright as an investment and financial tools to gain profit. In this case, the use of copyright loses its original purpose of protecting the creator, but used as a mean for financial gain. This could possibly hinder creativity as innovation becomes a financial tool catered to the tastes of the general public, while the less marketable new ideas goes unnoticed by the general public under the copyright laws. It is crucial to note that online platforms such as blogs, Facebook and Youtube, and people making their music/works available online for free shows the rapid surge in the number of people willing to sacrifice their copyrights to market themselves to the world. In this highly saturated market, copyright laws can become less relevant as marketing and business is placed on higher