Adobe Stock Photos–Good or Bad for Photographers?
There has been a lot of net chatter recently about Adobe’s launch of Creative Suite 2 and the inclusion of a new feature called Adobe Stock Photos. Even before the official announcement on April 4th, some photographers gleaned a bit of information from the leaked press release that said: “provides access to Adobe Stock Photos, a new stock photography service that offers users one-stop shopping — across five elite stock image providers — to deliver high-quality, royalty-free images for layout and design”. The mere mention of “royalty-free images” seems to be an emotional hot-button issue for photographers.
One poster to the Rob Galbraith Forums seems to sum up the feelings of some photographers: “So it looks like they {Adobe} have decided to go into competition with photographers. It is time for me to start looking for a new image editing application”. (see thread here) So is the Adobe Stock Photos service going to be good or bad for photographers? PhotoshopNews takes a look. . .
In the interest of disclosure, let me state that I am an alpha tester for Photoshop and that over the years I’ve done a variety of projects with Adobe including; writing, speaking, and consulting. While I do get paid to write and speak, as a consultant and alpha tester I am unpaid. I do it to advance the progress of Photoshop and to represent the photographic industry’s need for features and functionality. Over the years, the photographic alpha testers such as Martin Evening, Katrin Eismann, Seth Resnick and myself (with other dedicated folks) have been useful for getting a lot of photographic oriented features into Photoshop since version 5.0.
Over a year ago, we were informed that Adobe was looking at incorporating the capability to buy stock photography, in particular, royalty-free stock photography from within Creative Suite 2 via Adobe Bridge. We all expressed our concern and told Adobe in no uncertain terms that photographers would have a strong negative reaction to this. We suggested that they solicit feedback from the various photographic trade groups to confirm our opinions. At this point, I am not at liberty to say how and where Adobe did so-I’ll let Adobe and the participants of those discussions pick their time to talk about those discussions-but let’s just say that Adobe didn’t decide to add the Adobe Stock Photos feature in a vacuum.
Why would Adobe do this?
For the simple reason that they try to develop features and functionality that helps their customers and the fact is that graphic pros like art directors and designers make up the majority of Adobe’s customer base. Adobe’s research determined that art directors and designers needed a simple and quick way to access images. Adobe decided to build in an efficient method of transaction and fulfillment and to offer that from within Creative Suite 2. There was of course, considerable work required to engineer such a solution and the natural question is if they could do that for “royalty-free” couldn’t Adobe do it for “rights-managed” stock photography?
The simple answer is no, not at this time. Why? Because the rights-managed stock industry is not yet standardized enough to provide the architecture for conducting automated multi-provider online transaction and fulfillment. Each rights-managed stock provider has their own set of standards and backend technology that would make it technically impossible.
That is not to say that it can’t happen in the future. If and when the stock industry can enable it technically, Adobe would be foolish not to. Right now, there are considerable efforts being made by the stock industry to make this feasible. One major area where effort is being made is in standardized licensing terms. How can there be a standardized licensing and transaction technology when the terms of licensing aren’t yet standardized? With royalty-free this isn’t a major hurdle–the terms from various providers are already very similar–for rights-managed, they are all over the board.
There is a major effort underway to address the lack of standards for licensing. The PLUS Coalition (PLUS stands for Picture Licensing Universal System) is working to implement licensing standards and systems that will standardize the terminology and provide a universal licensing language. This is what is currently lacking that prevents Adobe from offering both royalty-free AND rights-managed stock photography in their Adobe Stock Photos product. And this lack of standard terms is not Adobe’s fault-the responsibility lies with the stock and photographers’ industries. However, Adobe has committed to strongly supporting the PLUS Coalition which also has the involvement of a variety of organizations including;
APA (USA) - Advertising Photographers of America
PACA (N America) - Picture Archive Council of America
IPTC (Worldwide) - International Press Telecommunications Council
ASMP (USA) – American Society of Media Photographers
AIGA (USA) - American Institute of Graphic Arts
AAP (USA) - Association of American Publishers
AOP (UK) – The Association of Photographers
ASPP (USA) – American Society of Picture Professionals
AIPP (Australia) – Australian Institute of Professional Photography
BAPLA (UK) – British Association of Pic. Libraries & Agencies
CAPIC (Can) – Canandian Association of Photographers & Illustrators
CEPIC (Europe) – Coord. of European Picture Agencies
EP (USA) – Editorial Photographers
GAG (USA) - Graphic Artists Guild
NANPA (USA) – North American Nature Photography Association
NPPA (USA) – National Press Photographers Association
Pyramide - UK (UK)
PPA (USA) - Professional Photographers of America
SAA (Worldwide) - Stock Artists Alliance
SPAR (USA) – Society of Photographers & Artists Representatives.
TAU Visual (Italy) – National Association of Professional Photographers
PPOC (Canada) — Professional Photographers of Canada
VAGA (USA) — Visual Artists & Galleries Association
Without standardized licensing terms, multi-provider rights-managed stock simply can not be engineered into Adobe Stock Photos. How long will this take? I can’t answer that, but I would suggest that the PLUS Coalition and its membership work on the issue ASAP.
Some may say that Adobe should have held off introducing Adobe Stock Photos until such time as the technology and licensing were feasible for RM stock. Perhaps, but royalty-free is a valid business model today and to not make this service available to their customers when they could, would essentially be trying to hold back commerce. Adobe is not interested in holding back commerce. The lack of standards is not Adobe’s responsibility–even though Adobe is now strongly supporting many standards initiatives. And while photographers may have strong feelings about royalty-free, the graphics industry has used clip art for years so the transition to royalty-free photos was a natural transition and Adobe has engineered an elegant way for designers to search and deploy RF.
Will Adobe Stock Photos hurt photographers?
No-that damage has already been done by photographers themselves. Royalty-free photos don’t just magically appear, they are created by photographers. And while assignment and RM photographers hate RF photographers, it’s the same old thing–some photographers hurting other photographers’ business models–that has been going on as long as there has been a photography business. If you want to see who ultimately is responsible for the current state of the photographic industry, look in the mirror. We have met the enemy and they are us–and I know this from a long history in the industry. I was a charter member of the APA Chicago chapter and served as chapter and national president of APA. Been there, done that, have the scars to remember it all by.
The photographic industry is in major meltdown due to radically changing technologies, major shifts in buying practices and the general devaluation of photography in the marketplace. And while there are certainly dedicated hard working trade organizations working on behalf of the photography industry, they are often working at odds instead of together. Even worse is that all combined, the memberships of the organizations represent only a subset of all photographers. Many photographers, it seems, like to fancy themselves as creative lone-wolves that refuse to support the industry by joining the organizations. They prefer going it alone but then squeal like a stuck pig when the industry suffers set backs.
No, photographers have primarily themselves to blame for most of the ills of the industry. Adobe didn’t cause the problems created by royalty-free photography. However, Adobe may seem like a convenient target for photographers to rant about. Going back to the forum post “So it looks like they [Adobe] have decided to go into competition with photographers. It is time for me to start looking for a new image editing application”. Yeah, right-like photographers are going to run out and use GIMP. Get real. Photoshop owns the professional graphics market. Boycotting Photoshop CS2 is an empty threat void of realistic consequences. Plus, Photoshop CS2 has so much more stuff in it for photographers.
There is something that you can do however. As a direct result of the photographic industry’s input, Adobe has announced the Adobe Photographers Directory, a listing of professional photographers accessible directly from within Adobe’s creative professional products. So while Adobe will be making RF stock available in Bridge, they’re also making finding a professional assignment photographer easier as well. Working with ASMP to seed the directory, Adobe will work with APA and other organizations to help make the Photographers Directory a viable and valuable alternative to RF stock.
Will this help?
You bet. Studies have shown that pricing is not the single largest factor in a photo buyer’s purchase decision. The largest factors are ease of access and speed of fulfillment. If photo buyers could easily find alternatives to RF Stock, they would seriously consider those alternatives–even if they had to pay more. The Photographers Directory will be such an alternative, if and only if the directory has a lot of very good images and photographers available. So when your trade organization sends out the information on how to enter yourself, it would behoove you and your organization to register.
Some may still complain that Adobe is profiting by the Adobe Stock Photo products. Yes, that’s true. By the same token, they could profit more if rights-managed was also available-and as we’ve seen that’s not yet technically feasible. But Adobe didn’t do this merely for “profit”, they did it to address the majority of their users, graphics pros. While digital photography is exploding, with more and more photographers using Photoshop, photographers are still a drop in the bucket in total Adobe software sales. But it’s an important drop. Look at the attention Adobe gives photographers–out of all proportion to their customer base. Why? Because Adobe cares about photographers. Really, they do.
While to many photographers Adobe may seem to be a faceless corporation, I can tell you from experience that they are an unusual corporation and certainly not faceless. I personally know about 100 Adobe employees. And while that’s a small fraction of Adobe’s 3,700 employees in 26 offices around the world, the fact that all the employees I know share common traits leads me to believe that Adobe has a distinct personality, a culture, if you will. The engineers, marketing and executive folks I know are all extremely hard working, passionate and dedicated to producing the best they can–given the limitations of computer programing.
Of course, as a publicly traded corporation Adobe must honor it’s shareholder’s wishes and indeed must turn a profit. Since the dot com bust, very few silicon valley companies have continued to grow and have such enviable stock performance. Adobe’s success is a direct result of their leadership and their people. They like to make money the old fashioned way-they earn it by producing the best professional graphics software available.
So, will Adobe Stock Photos be good or bad for photographers?
In the long run, I suspect it will actually be good. It will force the rights-managed stock and photographic assignment industries to take the steps needed to standardize and engage in modern transactions. To help the industry and offset the negative aspects of RF, Adobe is trying to make assignment photographers more accessible with the Photographers Directory. They are working with the PLUS Coalition and IPTC on standards and are also working to inform and educate both photographers and graphics pros about issues such as copyrights, digital workflows, color management, etc. They are working on open standards such as DNG while maintaining other critical file formats such as Archive PDF and TIFF.
So, Adobe ain’t the bad guys here folks. . .in fact, we need all the help we can get from Adobe. It would be useful to take this opportunity to do something positive for yourselves and your industry. Get behind your photo trade group and support them-join if you aren’t a member. Put your best foot forward and register for the Photographers Directory. Do something contructive for the photographic industry. . .but whatever you do, please stop squealing like a stuck pig.
By the way, if you’re not from rural America the reference to “squealing like a stuck pig” points out that pigs are particularly prone to making excessive loud noises out of all proportion to the severity of an injury–such as when getting an ear tag put in or getting their tails docked to prevent tail rot. You wouldn’t believe the noise they make when suffering even the most slight discomfort. . .you know, kinda like when photographers hear the term “royalty-free”.
By the way, comments are turned on for this article. So, don’t be shy about expressing your opinions. Please keep it civil and useful. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks will result in the comments being removed and the people making those posts removed as a registered user. Only registered users are allowed to post.
For privacy concerns regarding registration, please see the PhotoshopNews Privacy Statement.
April 8th, 2005 at 1:40 am
Hi Jeff,
I noticed that you referenced my post on Rob Galbraith’s Photoshop forum. You may have read my first message where I asked “why not Rights Managed as well?” If I had any clue that Adobe was actively pursuing this direction I most likely wouldn’t have gone on to say that I was looking for another application. I’m glad I stumbled upon your editorial.
You see, I am really one of Photoshop’s biggest fans. I place my order for the latest versions as soon as they are announced. I use Photoshop from morning to night and whenever someone mentions it is expensive, I explain that it is the cheapest tool I have. It’s my favorite program and the one I use the most to produce RM stock photography. I had been reading about some of the new features of CS2 and I was excited about getting the upgrade.
So when I read that Adobe was going to sell RF exclusively from a select group of agents, it was like a kick in the stomach. As you say yourself, Photoshop is the “only” program. This is like a direct line to the client. In the space of a few seconds, I suddenly knew how the hardware store owner felt when Home Depot moved in across the street…not very good.
Your article offers me some hope, so I think I will just sit back and see how things develop as there is not much I can do anyway. I would like to make a few comments on your article though.
First of all, you suggest that Adobe is offering RF stock as a service to their customers. I guess so, but I doubt that they are doing this for free and I know you also address this. But I think it is important to note that they will be making money from a business model that only pays about 20% to the image creator. Do you think that is good for the industry?
Secondly, you say again and again that photographers are responsible for the damage to the industry. That is about as true as saying drivers are responsible for drunken driving…or that people are responsible for crime. It’s true but it means nothing.
Finally, I find it about as humorous as you do, the idea that another application could even come close to what Photoshop offers, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for a newcomer. Freehand, Corel Draw and Illustrator have been making each other better for years.
I think Adobe should be cautious about the arrogance that can result from thinking they are the “only” one…even though it works for Microsoft.
Thanks again for the article. I wish I had belonged to an association so I would have known earlier that Adobe has a goal of incorporating RM stock into their scheme.
Best Regards,
Rick Boden
p.s. Regarding your farm reference, I was born on a farm and unfortunately my memories of squealing pigs differ from yours. I wrote a description but decided to delete it as a service to anyone reading. Suffice to say, these pigs did have something to squeal about.
April 8th, 2005 at 2:08 am
When I first got into the biz, the current evil then was stock photography. . .photographers selling stock had a real negative impact on assignment photographers–why would anybody pay somebody to shoot something custom?
Then along came royalty-free and then assignment AND stock photographers had a common foe.
I have a long-standing dislike of RF, but my dislike won’t make it go away.
And yes, I do think that by and large, photographers are their own worst enemies, unfortunately.
In the 80’s, I was a commercial director and join the Directors Guild of America (DGA). It was amazing how the directors could come together-both rich and famous as well as struggling and unknown- and get together to organize their industry. While not technically a trade group or a union–it’s considered a guild, or a hybrid, in the history of the DGA, there’s never been a strike. Why? Well, if you don’t have a director, you don’t have a film or TV show or a commercial. They never had to go that far.
I honestly believe that if the photographers and I mean 75% or more of all working photographers-advertising, editorial, stock, PJ’s, fine art, event and portrait and wedding photographers got together, there would be the real possibility of instituting standards and bringing about positive change in the industry.
But alas, I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. So, we have photographers undercutting other photographers, we have RF, Work For Hire, buyouts, etc.
None of which Adobe has had anything to do with except to offer to try to help the photo industry.
BTW, I was never around for the slaughter. . .if that’s what you were referring to. . .I was just around for tagging and tail docking. Lots of squealing for no reason-perhaps they were squealing about their future?
April 8th, 2005 at 3:56 am
This is a debate that will run and run.
I think one subtle point that should be welcomed is that Adobe is opening a massive distribution channel. As any photographer knows… it’s 80% marketing and Adobe is probably the best known name in photo imaging.
Adobe, I believe, is enabling end users who wouldn’t ever use a stock agency the opportunity to buy photographs for the first time.
April 8th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Well I’m afraid that being listed as a photographer in a photographer’s directory within Photoshop is not going to help picture byers find me. Just do a Google search on Photographers and/or photographers with a specialty, and you’ll get thousands of links. No one goes behond the second or third page. Same thing will happen with this Photographers’ directory. But it certainly is perfect for Corbis, Getty and the likes. These folks will sell thousands of images and split the commision with thousands of photographers. So, they’ll make a bundle and photographers will make a few bucks.
April 8th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
I use Photoshop’s photography, videography and graphics capabilities, and agree that it is without peer. I think an easy to access stock photography library is a great addition especially for people creating web content, or generating newsletters and other things that can use a good picture of “something” with a short deadline.
However, I think that there is a much bigger issue impacting photography rates than RF photos.
The cost and time it takes for a person to become an accomplished photographer are both dropping quickly. 2 million D-SLR’s were sold last year. Budding photographers have forums with very knowledgable people to learn from and instant feedback on their photography efforts, and unlimited picture taking capability. They can also see the work of others very easily. This creates more instantly available competition from a growing number of people. As a result much photography work is dropping in value.
People also want immediate gratification and instant access to large searchable libraries of stock photography will help graphic designers to find exactly what they need so that they can finish their jobs faster.
April 9th, 2005 at 9:03 am
Hi Jeff,
If RF pictures are convenient for the vast majority of Adobe software users, and as you told Adobe sells RF to fulfil their needs, I suggest to all graphic designers, art directors, and buyers for multiple licences to request that Adobe sells his software under RF licence.
Basically a $1000.00 single user licence of PS CS will become an unlimited user licence of $150.00 on whitch ADOBE will get 6 % due to the sub agent distribution split.
In this case Adobe forget that his costumers are photographer’s costumers, and we will advice them to require RF licences for Adobe product.
I wonder if this mail will ever hit this page… But for know I promote this idea as much as I am able along all the photographer’s mailing lists in the world.
Cheers.
Fernand§Ivaldi
April 9th, 2005 at 9:58 am
Jeff,
It has become more difficult for Photographers to make a living doing what they love.
Taking photos has unfortunately become the process that most of us who went into the profession, tried to avoid in the first place. That is, sitting in front of a computer for a good part of their day, like so many other offiice workers in cubicles.
The technology is slowly chipping away at the creative and financial success of many photographers who now find themselves throwing in the towel. It is very hard to compete with the RF image business when the choice is Cheap - Fast - and Unlimited in content.
For those of you in the big markets that have major companies and agencies willing to pay top dollar for image rights, and hire Photographers. Well, no problem.
But for the majority of us the marketplace is falling apart - and so now,
Weddings and Events have become part of the offering.
Of course, you are now competing with everyone invited who cam push a button.
Ed
April 9th, 2005 at 11:47 am
FernandçIvaldi Says:
“If RF pictures are convenient for the vast majority of Adobe software users, and as you told Adobe sells RF to fulfil their needs, I suggest to all graphic designers, art directors, and buyers for multiple licences to request that Adobe sells his software under RF licence.”
Except you forgot one tiny factor, in the case of RF photography, you have a copyright holder who willingly decided (nobody put a gun to his head)to license his work under RF terms. In the case of Adobe, they choose NOT to engage in that type of license. Your comparison is faulty on the face.
I don’t do RF. Most of the photographers I know don’t do RF. But the fact that some photographers choose to engage in RF licensing is their choice.
To be blunt, Adobe, or Corbis or Getty or any of the others that offer RF photography are not the problem. . .it’s a major point that so many photographers fail to grasp. It’s the photographers who have chosen to engage in RF that is the problem. If you want to vent, vent at them.
April 9th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
As I see is Adobe is very prompt to sell photographer’s work under RF licence, they probably value more their work, and show more respects of themselves than for photographers.
I didn’t wrote Adobe have to be forced to sell RF soft. I only wrote than photographers must suggest Adobe costumers to require it. With no doubts Adobe will change their mind, in order to fulfil their costumers demands.
BTW, what’s the Adobe split cut on the gross RF picture sales?
Fernand≈Ivaldi
April 9th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
FernandçIvaldi asks: “BTW, what’s the Adobe split cut on the gross RF picture sales?”
I have no idea. . .what’s Apple’s split on iTunes?
In many respects, Adobe Stock Photos share more in common with Apple’s iTunes than traditional stock RM or RF sales. It’s a delivery system, not a business model–which many photographers seem to fail to grasp. Adobe doesn’t license the work to sell, they deal with providers who license the work from photographers willing to work under an RF model.
Again, if you want to vent, go out and find an RF shooter and wag your finger at them. . .they are the ones that are having a negative impact on the traditional assignment and RM stock industry. Of course, if you are an RF photographer, I image you would be pretty excited. . .
April 9th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Ed said: “It has become more difficult for Photographers to make a living doing what they love. Taking photos has unfortunately become the process that most of us who went into the profession, tried to avoid in the first place.”
Ed, I agree. . .the photo biz is in the middle of a radical evolution with new tech changing the way we work and new business models change the value of our work in the marketplace.
But change is a fact of life. “Progress” is not always a good thing. . .it’s just a thing. A thing you have to deal with.
When I got into the photo biz in the early 80’s, the then “greybeards” lamented about the “good old days” of the 60’s and 70’s–were there REALLY any good days in the 70’s?.
Now we have a new breed of tech savvy kids who have grown up on digital and have no concept of the “way it used to be”.
Such is life. . .but to piss & moan about Adobe offering RF Stock from within their applications is to place the blame in the wrong location.
Look in the mirror people. . .
April 9th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Francis said: “Well I’m afraid that being listed as a photographer in a photographer’s directory within Photoshop is not going to help picture byers find me.”
Being afraid of something before it’s even tried is anti-creative. No, Google is not particularly useful for finding a photographer. Why do you presume that Adobe’s Photographer’s Directory will opperate like Google?
I would agree that if the directory is nothing better than Google, it’s a waste of time. . .but Adobe has a pretty good engineering track record ya know.
I think the success or failure of the Photographers Directory will depend largely on how much effort individual photographers take upon themselves in registering and putting their best work/portfolio in their entry.
The engineering and the usability is one thing and Adobe can work on that. How well photographers take advantage is something outside of Adobe’s control.
Me? I plan to do a good job of putting my hat in the ring. . .if in a year Adobe’s Directory isn’t working, then let’s all work together to figure out why and work with them to make it better.
But to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even seen it is, well. . .not particularly useful, huh?
April 9th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Jeff,
I kinda feel, and hope you’re right, when you say that Adobe’s intentions toward photographers are for the most part, altruistic.
I think that like a mortar shell, the trajectory of the stock business (model, concept, or whatever you wanna call it) was set once launched; and most of us were never really able to see that simple fact- or figure out where it was headed.
As a result of our “lack of visibility” we have become enablers. We’ve enabled our “agents” to become not just our competitors but also our rulers. We dance with a hand in our pants to THEIR tunes -happy to receive whatever they allow us to keep.
Pretty fu&#in’ pitiful if you ask me- but that’s our reality.
So what are we gonna do about it?
What can we do about it?
After all the failed and failing experiments with
alternative stock venues trying to compete with the 400 and 800lb gorillas maybe ADOBE could actually offer a viable option to our sorry asses and ENABLE US . If we were willing, as Jeff points out, to collectively and/or organizationally AGGREE on standards and practices, who could be better than
A DNG obe to help us implement them.
How?
How about if Adobe launched “Adobe photographers choice” rights (properly) managed photography. Where conscientious clients will be able to say they’re hugging photographers as well as trees in this new digital age.
glenn.
April 9th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Apple sells right protected music.
Adobe made a mistake. Photographers might be only one percent of their licence BUT we hav’e much more influence than that. I’m dealing with major institutions and corporations in France. And will advice them to require RF licence for Adobe products, I’ll also direct them to Unix based freeware. Like it or not. Ther’s nothing I have to discuss here. And nothing you can do either. I’ll continue to suggest photographers all over the world to do the same.
Adobe cares about photographers like KFC cares about chicken.
Fernand◊Ivaldi
April 9th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Glenn,
Yep. . .you’re getting it–in large measure, most of what has happened in our industry was allowed to happen by virtue of the fact that photographers are easy targets for stock agencies, photographer’s reps, publishers, prepress & printing, etc.
On one hand, as artists we have incredible power if we understood better how to use it. APA, ASMP, EP & PPA (here in the states) AoP and EP in Ireland, APA in Japan, the AIPA in New Zealand, ACMP in Australia – the list goes on all over the world – need to work together to address common problems in the industry. If we do that, we have power and influence and can bring about positive change.
Unfortunately, our industry has _NOT_ had much success and history working together. We all seem to agree that RF is bad. . .that Work for Hire is bad, that “rights grabs” by publishers is bad. We stumble, often over very petty politics, when we all try to work together.
Due to NDA restrictions, there’s stuff I know that I can’t comment on. But yes, in the days, weeks, months and perhaps years ahead, I think you’ll see that “Adobe’s intentions toward photographers are for the most part, altruistic.”
As I said, photographers make up only a subset of all Adobe customers, yet Adobe is making substantial efforts on behalf of photography and photographers. Working on PLUS for licensing language, working with the IPTC on metadata, working with other software developers and camera companies on DNG, working with photographers on the Photographers Directory, working on educating both ourselves and our clients on copyrights, color management, publishing workflows, etc.
The amount of effort Adobe is putting out on behalf of the photo industry is incredable. More than any corporation I can point to in the photo industry. . .can you think of another company doing more? Kodak? They used to, not so much any more. . .Nikon & Canon, Fuji?
What Adobe has done and is doing for the photo industry is often lost when photographers lose sight of the real battles being fought.
Yeah FernandçIvaldi, you run right out and switch to GIMP dooode. . .
or Microsoft’s Digital Image Pro or Corel’s Photo Paint. You and a few others using inferior products ain’t gonna have any measurable impact. As it is, photographers are already a minority of customers for Adobe. . .making it a smaller number won’t be particularly useful in the long run.
April 9th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
The term “royalty-free” is a misnomer. . .and contary to what FernandçIvaldi thinks (I’m more than willing to admit that there is a language barrier as I don’t speak French and FernandçIvaldi has some problems expressing himself in English–his English is much better than my French)
The term “royalty-free” actually means “broad license” as in a lot of rights granted without additional compensation. It does -NOT- mean that those rights are in any way “unprotected”. It only means that rather than set a specific rate for specific usage, broad rights are granted. There are indeed retrictions to what you can and can’t do.
FernandçIvaldi seems to think that Apple’s iTunes is ok. . .but Adobe’s RF Stock Photos is bad. Let’s look at that for a moment. . .neither Apple nor Adobe actually deal with the artists. The record companies deal with the recording artists and the stock photo houses deal with the photographers.
Apple’s iTunes is a music delivery platform, Adobe’s Stock Photos is a stock photo delivery platform. Apple takes the money and completes the transaction and keeps a %, Adobe takes the money and completes the transaction and keeps a %.
While Apple has engineered technology to restrict distribution only to what is agreed upon on the purchase of a license to a song (remember, you ain’t buying the song, only the right to play the song on the specified computers), Adobe is not introducing any technology to prevent uses of the RF stock images to do other things–no need to as the rights granted are so broad.
Apple doesn’t produce the music, they only deal with the record compaines. Adobe doesn’t produce the RF stock photos, they only deal with the RF stock companies.
Ok, maybe I’m REAL DENSE here FernandçIvaldi, but what exactly is the difference between Apple’s iTunes and Adobe Stock Photos?
Some of the mainstream press is already referring to Stock Photos as Adobe’s iTunes for photography. Adobe is not setting the price nor terms and conditions of the RF purchase–those are dictated by the stock photo houses.
Adobe Stock Photos is the delivery technology, the messenger, if you will. . .
So, you want to kill the messenger? I’m far more concerned with the message. . .and the message is loud and clear, the way designers and art directors are buying photography is changing. If photographers have half a clue, they better adapt their buisness model to factor in RF or they be hurtin’.
April 9th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Fernand,
), or Holiday Inn might have for some of our kids.
I don’t see where it’s Adobe’s responsibility to protect us from ourselves. Even parents can only- and should only, do so much. We can’t feign naiveté to the fact that companies-particularly publicly traded companies, are opportunistic by nature. Most of us feel a certain kinship to Adobe because of the incalculable hours spent in intimacy in darkened rooms exploring, massaging, and in many cases creating the things most dear to us- our images; using their Flagship product. The reality is that they have no more obligation to us than Ford, Chevy, ( Peugeot
That being said, it doesn’t mean companies can’t and won’t do the right thing if it can be shown to be profitable to them as well.
To do good AND do well.
Just think if Adobe and major photographers’ organizations created guidelines for image procurement, licensing and usage AND some magical new technology materialized that enabled ANY part of any image to be located or traced at will (like a digital DNA…. not that such a thing exists, mind you) or an image that becomes unreadable at some point in time, (does exist in some form) how powerful that could be for us.
Don’t change teams yet.
BTW I did like the KFC analogy.
glenn.
April 9th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
BTW, Jeff in case you have missed it, the two newest things in RF stock photography are $1.00 per image sales and the subscription model…all the pictures you can download for one low monthly payment. Both dreamed up by clever internet marketers but who is ultimately responsible?…why it’s us again! Photographers are signing up in droves so it looks like they are heeding the message about adapting their business model to what people are buying.
And before anyone says this won’t go anywhere, I’d suggest that these models are right about where traditional RF (that was hard to say) was a few years ago. The distributors make 80% so they are getting rich and the photographers are making enough to buy a new camera every year or so. Everyone’s happy as a pig.
If Adobe could someday be selling images for a buck a pop, the iTunes analogy would be very appropriate.
It just occurred to me how similar the $1/image vs. monthly subscription models are to iTunes vs. Napster in music.
Rick
April 12th, 2005 at 11:41 am
As an ex-photographer and an occasional user of RF stock, I have a few issues with the CS2 solution. Firstly, I already have subscriptions to stock agencies, which allow me to use their images at a discount. I get something like 25% off for subscribing to their service. I can’t get these discounts when buying through the Bridge.
I can’t access all the agencies I might wish to, just the big ones, at least for now. So I will not be buying via Adobe.
But, more important to me, I don’t like Adobe marketing to me through, what is in essence a banner ad from within the application. I know designers use a lot of stock, and there may be money to be made selling it, but there is a right and wrong place. Just as I dislike banners and pop-ups on browser windows, I like them even less of software that I have paid money for. Designers use computers and RAM, are we going to have adds for them too in CS3?
Finally, the Bridge Center is already crowded, with no way to modify it, being able to remove the stock section (and several other parts) would greatly improve its utility and would certainly remove some of my objections.
April 12th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
John,
Good comments. And yes, in the Bridge preferences you have the option to hide Adobe Stock Photos as well as other items that show up under “Favorites” such as Version Cue, Home, Documents, Collections and Pictures. So it’s pretty easy to make Adobe Stock Photos go away from your personal setup for Bridge.
If you don’t like Adobe Stock Photos, you can set it up so you’ll never see it.
May 1st, 2005 at 5:33 pm
[...] aw 3. Jeff Schewe wrote an editorial about the controversial new feature in Adobe Bridge, Adobe Stock Photos–Good or Bad for Photographers? Not bad for the first week of publication–even if we do sa [...]
June 29th, 2008 at 2:55 am
[...] DivX A Black Hole For Investors Or Are They Gathering Mass? Good House, Small House, And A Happy ManPhotoshopNews: Photoshop News and Information Archive Adobe Stock Photos–Good or Bad for Photo… Tags adword book pay per click search engine This product is also listed in Fun & [...]
October 21st, 2008 at 7:59 am
I have read all the comments here and there are some very interesting ones, would love to leave my own comments but not sure if the subject is closed, if it is not then i shall participate