More and more often I see my photos in advertisements in the newspaper, or a model will tell me that so and so saw them in the Edmonton Journal, or the Saskatoon Star Phoenix ...  I bet most of you have received these phone calls or opened up the paper yourself and seen your work.

So, last week a photo of mine appeared in a small paper in an advertisement for a huge name in the agricultural industry.   The newspaper is small with a circulation of only 59,000 so all is on the up and up. 

BUT, I simply can't believe that a huge international company like this would pick one tiny little market to place an ad one time in a little tiny newspaper.  I'm speculating it is a much, much bigger campaign. 

This particular photo has sold a few hundred times, but I just checked and there has never been an EL. 

So, as artists - are we hurting our industry if we shrug this off or should we individually perform audits in these situations? 

First - as I said, I'm only speculating that the photo has been used in more than one publication, but there is a high probability that it has been used on a US/Canada campaign.

Number of copies:  am I right about usage, a photo can be printed up to 500,000 times (DT/IS) and then requires and EL.  That is a combined number isn't it, not a per publication figure?

If we want to run a little audit, what do we do in this case?  Do you phone the marketing department, the legal department, or the division that ran the ad? 

I have to say, that in times like this - exclusivity would sure make things easier!  Do you start the phone call with "I'm performing an audit on my distributors and would like to know which agency you purchased _______ from".  Obviously I can't point my finger in this case and say "you didn't buy an EL", because hey - maybe they didn't even need one.

Anyone have experience with this?

I can't say I have what it takes to follow up on this, (is it worth it for 20 or 28 bucks?) but part of me thinks we need to educate the buyers and owe it to each other to make sure licenses are properly purchased.

Thoughts?

There's always some joker that has to go and spoil a good family photo.   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1206018/Squirrel-crashes-holiday-snaps-How-cheeky-rodent-star-couples-photos.html

Remember that this poll is anonymous.  Please only vote if you actually use Photoshop.

I have been saving to buy a full CS4 Design Suite since - oh, January!  It makes me sick to know that it will cost around $2038 CDN plus 12% taxes (at least the price dropped about $400 since I started wishing!)  How on earth do small businesses and independents spend this kind of money on necessary software?  Yes, upgrades are somewhat affordable, but man-o-man that initial cost is prohibitive.  I saw a poll on another photography website, and the results were overwhelmingly slanted to "no legal copy".   I believe that they were more of an "amateur" crowd, and we are a somewhat "professional" group - I wonder how we will collectively rate in this poll.

This site was mentioned in Wacom's newsletter this month.  If anyone wants to fiddle with making simple animations here is the link http://www.doink.com/.  I didn't go so far as to sign up, so I can't answer any questions, sorry!

Last month I noticed people (not me) talking about having a good month at StockXpert.  Already this June 6 I have as many PPD as I normally have at month's end, so it looks like June could be a good month for me if it keeps up.   (Although I have so few photos there it's impossible to spot trends.)

Is this the turning point for StockXpert after their sale - they can spend again on marketing and tradeshows etc?  Are others seeing better PPD's?

Does anyone know if this is truth or rumour?  It's a few days old now, I thought there would be chatter if it was correct.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/fotolia-takes-a-massive-50-to-100-million-round-from-ta-associates/

If we were having this conversation a couple years from now I bet the subject would include "geotagging", but for now... the question is - do you put the location of your photograph in your keywords, subject or description?   Does it belong on location shots?  I've been drifting away from including locations, but does it affect sales?

I think about this from time to time, especially today with 9 DT sales all searched by the keyword "Manitoba".   (A province in Canada).   One day both Leaf and I had an abundance of Saskatchewan dl's  - likely same buyer thanks to our common keyword.

I feel that a buyer deserves as much information as possible - but often location keywords are rejected.  How would an editor in Romania know what a Manitoba is when they look at keywords?  The newish (and quite progressive) Zymmetrical,  removes the description field from our data which must make it tough to search for travel or scientifically labeled photos.  So, what happens to the micro buyer who is proud to shop "local"?  Or a buyer who is making a travel guide or making a local economics presentation?  I'm guessing a very high percentage (over 95%) of buyers need generic, but what about these specific buyers?  I don't deal with traditional agencies so I might be wrong, but I thought the trads require location tagging?

Before we get into it - I believe that if you can't "see" a keyword, it shouldn't be included.   A family in a kitchen doesn't need a location tag.  I would not put the "Manitoba" keyword on a house on a street, but I would definitely consider with a farmhouse backing onto a canola field with a perfectly flat skyline because it defines rural life on the prairies.

Your thoughts and own procedure? 

I would be interested to know what your % of OD sales are.  My individual subs dls are down, but my earnings are climbing as a result of OD sales.  If I am not mistaken, others are doing better at SS these days as well?  It also seems that the OD buyers is bringing new life to old photos.

My OD sales in March made 11.43% of SS earnings.  Down a little bit from previous 2 months.

5 x 2gb Extreme III's for $49 while quantites last.

http://www.adorama.com/IDSCFE32G5P.html

Holy crap, I paid $160 for ONE 3 years ago.  I'm starting to feel like the old granny of digital when I can start saying such things.  Too bad 2gb are almost too small now for all the megapixels...  

If I can just hold out 3 more years, maybe I CAN get a D3X!

I think I'm the only one on this board who takes youth sports/team photos so I'll have to ask the parents with kids in sports - have you seen seen any new product offerings on your team photo order forms that that are fresh/new/cool?  I like to add some new products every year, I think that I was the "fresh" shooter around here for a couple years, but I must be getting old or something as I seem to be running out of hip ideas...  So, if you have seen a product (I have the basics covered: magazine covers, magnets, book marks, traders, etc.)  please do let me know! 

For example:  I'm working on a template for a personalized 11x17 old West style Wanted Poster in sepia tones that has some local references.

Just leaving hockey season and getting ready for soccer.  Thanks!

The first big photo chain I've heard of in trouble.   Likely not the last...


UPDATE 1-Ritz Camera files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:12pm GMT
 
Email |Print | Reprints
[-] Text

• NEW YORK, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Ritz Camera Centers Inc, which said it is the largest U.S. specialty camera and imaging chain, on Monday filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, hurt by the recession and consumers' shift to digital photography.

The Beltsville, Maryland-based company filed for protection from creditors with the U.S. bankruptcy court in Wilmington, Delaware. Ritz said it has between $100 million and $500 million of both assets and liabilities.

Ritz operates under such names as Ritz Camera, Wolf Camera, Kits Cameras, Inkley's and The Camera Shops, and also operates the 130-store Boater's World Marine Centers chain. It said it had nearly $1 billion of revenue in the year ended Nov. 30, 2008.

In an affidavit, Chief Restructuring Officer Marc Weinsweig said the company's lenders ordered the company in January to boost reserves, thereby reducing available credit.

He said this came after the recession caused Ritz's 2008 holiday sales to be "materially lower" than a year earlier. Ritz was also hurt by losses at Boater's World, which suffered falling sales in 2008 as gas prices soared.

"The loss of revenues and profit margins from the diminution in the photo-finishing business proved too much of a burden, coupled with the losses experienced by the Boater's World business in 2008," he wrote.

Ritz said it will seek court permission to obtain $85 million of financing to keep operating while it restructures.

Among the largest unsecured creditors are Nikon Inc (7731.T: Quote, Profile, Research), with a $26.6 million claim, and Canon USA Inc (7751.T: Quote, Profile, Research), with a $13.7 million claim, the bankruptcy petition shows. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

Specifically I need to send a font to the printer but Outlook won't let me attach, I tried from a different e-mail program and same thing - it looks like it is actually a Windows update thing.

It seems that when I got a new harddrive I lost Winzip. I thought that was a free program, apparantly I have to purchase a new copy? 

Would I even be able zip the font and e-mail it?

Anyone have an answer for me?  I've dwelled on this for a couple hours now.  Maybe I'll have to do it the old fashioned way and get a disk to them.