|
Sunday Night Brainwave/Embedding Image Tracking Devices?
|
Is this a silly suggestion or what does anyone think?
I just read the PDN article about the price Corbis paid for lost images ($100-$1) And I just thought if they have that many images they don’t really give a rats about how much is an image really worth on the open market?
Is it not possible to perhaps organize a contract which states that a residual payment be made from say the website an image is displayed on by the number of hits that page receives.
if the page carries advertising that is normally how they decide what fee the advertisers pay so if we said OK here is a photo of say Osama Bin Laden being arrested (or something of the sort) then if the news websites were to run it then obviously it would get a huge amount of hits.
Thus the advertisers would be paying premium rates so I don’t know why it wouldn’t be possible to say OK can I please have $0.025 everytime the image gets a hit.
Obviously it would take a bit of organisation to work out how to register the hits etc, but wouldn’t that change the attitude of those accountants running the media a little bit?
I am looking for alternatives for the old pay a ‘set amount per image’ for a specified territory and copyright, maybe this way you could hopefully do away with the idea that the image would get picked up unlawfully and used illegally.
Is this a dumb idea or perhaps worth thinking about a bit more?
by
lisa hogben
at
Sun Apr 06 09:57:39 UTC 2008
(ed. Apr 8 2008)
sydney,
Australia
| Bookmark this
| Digg this
|
|
|
It makes sense to have payment linked to usage for sure, but do people automatically click photos on pages if they like them? Maybe the images is only partially shown and then if a cursor hovers over it it gets revealed fully? Way too much web techy stuf i really dont have a clue about but things (y’know like technology and stuff…) change so quick some teenager in California is going to make his first $1m on something like this.
THis kinda rocks I just hope they could possibly think of going beyond the Britney world
http://gumgum.com/
|
Gumgum is pretty much exactly what I mean, but I would want to control the images myself through my own website.
If they have done it I am sure that everyone else could actually get the service up and running.
No more stolen photo threads then eh!
|
Lisa, are you talking about the news website (for example) counting how many hits the page with the photo receives or the photographer having some mechanism that informs them how many times a photo of theirs on some external news website is viewed? The first is already used by pretty much any webpage, that’s exactly how people work out how popular their pages are – also similar to how Google Ads works (but theirs works on the number of clicks per ad, rather than views per page, but similar principle)...
Such a system is one way to work out royalties for use of media content online, and is great if your work is going up on something like the TIME.COM website or other massive news portal that gets a lot of hits, but you can really get the raw end of the stick if your pics go to Joe’s Blog.com or some other small backend of the web. No hits = no royalties.
The other mode – a programmed ‘device’ of some sort that tracks how many times a photo is viewed or loaded and sends this information back to the content creator (the photographer in this case) is a bit tricky, as this isn’t currently an option in the JPEG IPTC fields or any other part of the file structure of a JPEG file and so would not as such be able to be ‘built in’ to an image file unless a new format was created. The other way to do something like this would be to build a page counter device into the page the photo is embedded, but this would pretty much be the same as option one, and would require the news organisation or website owner to do the re-coding of their site… not the photographer themselves….
|
Ed How are you? French Polynesia- lookout!
Glad to hear from you.
I guess what I would like to do is be able to track where my images end up, I just found some of my stuff out there on Google images and I sure as shit didn’t license anyone to make free down loads from them, so if I sell something to any publisher I want to be able to say contractually that they are in breach if I don’t get paid a usage fee for that kind of thing. Why has Google Images got my pictures? I don’t care how they got them but they have them and they are out of context and if I don’t get paid Joe Bloggs somewhere in Idaho, Iceland (just fictional OK!) could use my shots as a screen saver and I don’t get a bloody cent for my medical bills which I incurred as a direct result of shooting the job that Google Images has a picture from. So if Joe Bloggs is getting something of mine for free would he give me something of his for free? IE a small motor car that I could drive to my next job so he can get a new screen saver from Google Images for free?
You get my drift I am sure. I have only just done this search on Google images in my own name, ‘cos a friend was here and had a look, so I was quite surprised. The images where all licensed only to the magazine I shot them for so I would love to embed something into my images where I could track them and then base a usage price on them where ever they showed up.
If we had something like this and watermarks don’t do anything to stop people using the images at least we could save ourselves the drama of all the legal BS to get compensated for the illegal use of images. For instance the CNN case where someone lifted someone’s images from their blog/website and then submitted them as unsolicited content to CNN, who ran them without the content creators OK.
Shit we have a user pay system in EVERY other facet of our lives, why the hell in photography exempt from this?
|
|
|
|
Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
|
 via RSS
Recommended
|
 via email
You can unsubscribe later.
|
|
|
|
