RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Debacle’

Fro is fired up about the ShutterFest competition debacle and we’re with him on this one

02 May

You probably know the story by now: Sal Cincotta, owner of the site Behind the Shutter and its associated ShutterFest conference, entered and won his own photography competition. Not surprisingly, many people are upset about this, and have said so on the internet. Cincotta wrote a lengthy post on Facebook defending his actions, stressing that the judging was fair. Still: he entered and won his own photo competition. It just doesn’t look great any way you spin it, does it?

Much has been said about the whole debacle, but nobody rants like our friend Jared Polin aka Fro, so we think it’s worth 8 minutes of your time. And for the record, we think it’s a bad idea to enter your own photography competition. 

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Fro is fired up about the ShutterFest competition debacle and we’re with him on this one

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Did Instagram Lose 25% of Their Users Over Their TOU Debacle?

29 Dec

The NY Post is out with a somewhat sensationalistic article this morning suggesting that based on data by AppData that Instagram MAY (emphasis on MAY) have lost 25% of their users based on last week’s TOU debacle. From the Post:

“[We are] pretty sure the decline in Instagram users was due to the terms of service announcement” on Dec. 17, AppData told The Post.

Instagram, which peaked at 16.4 million active daily users the week it rolled out its policy change, had fallen to 12.4 million as of yesterday, according to the data.”

The NY Post of course has a certain reputation when it comes to journalism (remember the photo of the guy about to be hit by the subway train?).

Staci Kramer, whose journalistic reputation is stellar, pointed me to another article on the subject written by Zach Seward suggesting that the Post story was “bogus.”

Seward does a bit of analysis on the Post’s piece and suggests that it’s flawed for a number of reasons. The first reason is that the data is based on a subset of the users not the entire user base. This is of course the first way to attack any sort of statistical data. It’s why we have the famous margin of error. I don’t know how big a subset of Instagram users this data represents, but in general if you have a large enough subset, you should get a reasonably representative view of things.

Is the Instagram data flawed for this reason? Who knows.

I find Seward’s second claim more questionable though. Seward seems to be suggesting that the reason for the decline in activity has less to do with the Instagram TOU debacle and more to do with something much more obvious, Christmas.

From Seward: “But more to the point, the drop in active daily users of Instagram’s application on Facebook occurred between Dec. 23 and Dec. 25, according to AppData. (Look for yourself!) Instagram released its new terms of use on Dec. 17, igniting controversy almost immediately, but AppData doesn’t show any significant decline in usage until Christmas.”

So this little bit got me thinking. Historically speaking the holidays are a very strong time for photo sharing sites. It makes sense. People take a ton of photos of family during these times and like to share these photos. Just last month, for example, Instagram was crowing about how great a Thanksgiving Holiday they had had. They had a blog post especially dedicated to the “record usage” on Thanksgiving.

Is Christmas really a time when people slow down on photo sharing, as Seward might suggest? Do we like to share photos of our turkeys and stuffing but not our Christmas trees and stockings? Do people share fewer photos on Christmas than Thanksgiving?

Flickr of course is seen by many as a natural beneficiary of Instagram’s TOU debacle. Anecdotally I’ve been seeing more and more and more of these sorts of posts. So I wonder when people posted more photos on Flickr — Thanksgiving or Christmas?

My analysis is fairly crude, and I’m not at all calling it scientific, but you can get a rough idea of the number or photos posted on Flickr during a time frame by looking at the unique number that Flickr affixes to every new photo uploaded.

I post pretty much every single morning on Flickr, so let’s look at my stream for an example.

The very first photo I posted on Thanksgiving morning this year was this one. I posted it at 6:12 a.m. This photo represents the 8,208,796,934th photo posted to Flickr. Almost 24 hours later when I posted my first photo the day after Thanksgiving at 5:43 a.m. it was given the number 8,210,250,875.

This means that in the (almost) 24 hour span between early Thanksgiving on the West Coast and the day after there were about 1,453,941 photos posted to Flickr.

Now, how many photos were posted to Flickr during the similar time frame on Christmas?

I published my very first photo to Flickr on Christmas morning at 5:55 a.m. It was given upload number 8,306,197,725. A little over 24 hours later on the day after Christmas at 6:02 a.m. I uploaded photo number 8,309,811,751 at 6:02 a.m.

So between these two time periods there were 3,614,026 photos uploaded to Flickr.

Roughly speaking there were over twice as many photos posted on Flickr over Christmas than over Thanksgiving. Even if you average out the exact number of minutes between the two days (my time between posts on Christmas had an extra 36 minutes between posts) the Flickr data would still seem to hold up.

While people may share photos differently on Instagram than they do on Flickr, both are basically photo sharing sites where you share photos of your friends, family, holidays, etc.

I find Seward’s suggestion that Christmas is possibly the real reason for Instagram’s usage decline to be dubious in light of this Flickr data.

Why would people upload 2x as many photos on Flickr at Christmas over Thanksgiving but not on Instagram? One answer of course could be Flickr’s awesome new mobile app. Of course this new mobile app would seem to be aimed most directly at Instagram users leading me to believe that Instagram probably has actually lost ground between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

How much of this is attributed to the TOU debacle and how much of this is attributed to the new Flickr app I don’t know, but I certainly don’t think “Christmas” is a very good reason for why the Post’s data is flawed, or worse, “bogus” as Seward would suggest.

Flickr also recently gave every user 3 months of free Pro service — they certainly seem to be taking advantage of Instagram’s misstep here.

So where did those 25% of Instagram users go who MAY have left the service POSSIBLY over the TOU issue? Well, MAYBE at least SOME of them went to Flickr.

Apparently Instagram denied the 25% number to Gizmodo but didn’t really clarify much beyond that.”

‘”This data is inaccurate,” an Instagram spokesperson told us. “We continue to see strong and steady growth in both registered and active users of Instagram.”‘


Thomas Hawk Digital Connection

 
Comments Off on Did Instagram Lose 25% of Their Users Over Their TOU Debacle?

Posted in Photography

 

Why the Instagram Debacle Just Taught Every Tech Company to Take Your Photos More Seriously

22 Dec

Why the Instagram Debacle Just Taught Every Tech Company to Take Your Photos More Seriously

“Whatever kind of victory all those protests achieved, it wasn’t one for consumer rights — if anything, Instagram is the real winner here. The company just managed to score a round of positive press for retracting an unpopular change and give itself the ability to actually use photos in ads.” — Nilay Patel, The Verge

Over at the Verge Nilay Patel makes a case that the backlash earlier this week against Instagram’s unpopular TOS update was actually a loss for consumers not a gain. He argues that Instagram’s current TOS is broader than their more explicit proposed one and so consumers are worse off, not better off. Because Instagram technically still holds the rights to sell your photos under their current TOS, and even more broadly, the consumer backlash was misguided and really did more harm than good.

I disagree with Nilay and feel that actually this week’s backlash was one of the more significant movements yet for photo sharing on the web.

It’s not that Facebook (whose TOS is equally broad) and Instagram couldn’t legally sell your photos on the web under their broad TOS in the past or in the future, it’s more that *politically* it is now far more difficult for them to begin selling your photos out from under you on the web using their broader TOS.

Who cares what the TOS says, the message that Facebook got loud and clear this week is not to f*** with your photos. Your photos are important. You care about them. They are much more personal to you than Facebook may have previously considered. They have emotional importance and significance and collectively your users will rise up and bash you in the face if you try to exercise terms of your TOS that your lawyers have allowed you to screw around with photos. Whatever your future monetization strategies might be, they will not be based on a loss of control over OUR creative efforts — even our duckface creative efforts.

No, there is no question about it. Instagram lost this week and they lost big. This is in no way a positive for Instagram. People trust them less and they had to turn around and eat crow, they gained nothing.

Flickr won big at Instagram’s expense and Google+ won a little. Flickr won more because like Instagram their site is 100% about photography. They also just released a pretty awesome new iPhone app that is in fact even slickr than what Instagram currently offers.

Flickr also went out of their way last year to really drive home the ownership rights of your photos. This old forgotten post was revived with new life as a stark contrast to what it felt like Instagram was trying to pull. Kevin Systrom eventually even had to parrot back some of that “yes, we know your photos are your photos” stuff in his awkward non-apology apology.

Dan Lyons wrote a post that talked about Google+ winning some here too. Google+ smartly has a provision in their TOS that specifically limits their rights to your photos to basic operational use. Google+ is probably the most active community of photographers on the web today and are a natural beneficiary from what Lyons’ refers to as “Facebook Greedheads.”

The biggest winner or all though was you, the photographer. Whatever Instagram’s original intention was in being more specific in their TOS, it backfired on them. The idea that they could/would profit off your emotionally significant photos without your consent, authorization or most important, sharing the dough, hit a nerve with photographers and likely won’t be tried again by anyone in a long, long time.

The thing is, this didn’t have to be such a painful learning experience for Instagram. There was/is in fact a HUGE opportunity for some smart social media property make a ton of money off of your photos, Instagram just went about it wrong.

As much as Flickr’s deal with Getty sucks (photographers get a miserly 20% payout) photographers on Flickr still went bonkers for it when Flickr released it. The idea that you could actually get PAID to post your photos on a social network, paid ANYTHING, had most users on Flickr clamoring to get into the program, not out of the site.

Even though Flickr/Getty’s call for artists group is now closed (due to overwhelming demand) almost 90,000 photographers joined this group hoping to get selected by Getty for the right to sell their photos for the paltry 20% payout.

The difference with Flickr’s deal though was that 1. you CHOOSE to opt in and 2. at least you got paid something.

What if instead of Instagram saying, “hey, we might sell your photos without your consent and pay you NOTHING,” they said, “hey, do you want to sell your Instagram photos and if we sell them for you split the money 50/50″? Instead of losing accounts and becoming the scourge of the internet for three days, they would have had photographers rushing to sign up and begin marketing their images on their site.

Although there are sites out there like 500px and SmugMug that let you sell your photos now, Flickr is the only larger social network that has a selling program. Google+, Instagram, Facebook, even Twitter, all have a major opportunity to become the first large social network to allow us to license our images through their service and share in the revenue with them. This is a multi-BILLION dollar industry dominated at present by Getty who is not paying creatives enough for their work. What the internet does best is get rid of middlemen when they are being unreasonable, and an 80/20 split with photographers is unreasonable.

Instead of stealing our work and paying us zero, how about using your significant reach in reputation, marketing and search to partner with us and empower us to sell our work together. I guarantee you that whoever comes up with the best program first has some of the best photography on the web flooding your network. Even if 99% of us never sell a single photo, simply giving us the feeling that we have the opportunity to sell a photo would be a powerful incentive to get us active and humming on your network.


Thomas Hawk Digital Connection

 
Comments Off on Why the Instagram Debacle Just Taught Every Tech Company to Take Your Photos More Seriously

Posted in Photography

 

The Salt Lake Art Center Debacle

18 Oct

Heard a good story lately?

Well, you’re about to!

I was escorted off the premises by the executive director of the Salt Lake Art Center during a charity fashion event

Here’s why.

A little over a month ago I was contacted about doing an exhibition photoshoot as part of the Art Meets Fashion event held at the Salt Lake Art Center.  Ticket sales ( each) were set to benefit charities, one of which included the Salt Lake Art Center.  The shoot would be done with custom wardrobe designed by the amazing Michelle Boucher and  the styling team I work with on a regular basis were already committed.  I said yes without hesitation.

The concept I started kicking around involved live animals.  A large black-throat monitor lizard, an 8-foot albino python and a big arse tortoise if I’m being specific.  Obviously this could be problematic so before I even contacted the reptile wranglers I sought (and received) permission from the event organizers.  Then I placed a call to the amazing team at http://www.scalesandtailsutah.com to sweet talk them into donating their time to the event as well.  It took awhile but they agreed.  Everyone was excited.

Then the night of the event came.  We were to begin shooting at 5:30PM so I arrived to set-up shortly before 4PM and was in complete photographer mode, meaning the ONLY thing on my mind was figuring out the best way to shoot the idea.

That’s when I was informed, for the first time, that the animals would not be permitted inside the Art Center.  Later I was told this message was sent weeks before (I didn’t receive it), but either way it didn’t matter to me at that point. The only thing on my mind was figuring out how to make the photo shoot happen and stay within the rules that I was powerless to change.  After all, animals inside an art gallery is kind of an unusual request… I’m fine with it being an unexpected no.

I settled on a spot outside the building that would be just perfect!  Well, I went with the event organizer to talk to Jenny Klekas, Executive Assistant for the Salt Lake Art Center to let them know the fantastic news that we could still do the shoot and not violate their rules.

Upon my very first conversation with her she was belligerent to me with the very first syllable out of her mouth.  I honestly felt like was being scolded by an angry shop-keeper in a Dennis the Menace comic strip.  I can’t emphasize how EXTRAORDINARILY menacing to both me and the event organizer this lady was.

“You cannot have animals anywhere on the premises, and that includes anywhere on the premises,” she ordered in a highly agitated and highly condescending manner.

Fine, I indicated we’d just shoot on the sidewalk off her premises then. I was told that this was also unacceptable because it was “near the event.”

Here’s my deal.  I came to do a conceptual shoot which was pre-planned with many volunteers  many days before Jenny Klekas decided to throw her weight around.  It would have been obvious to any rational human being that I was trying to work within their rules. It seems to me she simply wanted to be right. The message was loud and clear to me.  She was in charge so she had every right to treat me however she pleased.  This upset my delicate sensibilities.

“Let me explain something,” I said, “I’m not contracted with the Salt Lake Art Center and if I want to shoot on public property then I can shoot wherever the hell I want!”

I’ll admit, I shouldn’t have used the word “hell.”  That was rude of me.  I unfortunately have a character flaw, you probably haven’t heard of it because it’s quite rare, but if people are treating me like dirt I generally make a rash decision and act poorly back.  It’s very rare, I was probably the only person in the world that would have said something mean to Ms. Klekas in that instance.

At that point I witnessed something that was really quite sad.  Ms. Klekas threw a literal, adult temper tantrum turning around and shouting at one of her employees, “That’s it, I’m shutting this whole event down!”

I think I broke her.  I’m really good at being mean to mean people.  It’s an odd talent to have…. but I seem to have been born with it.  I apologize to all the mean people I made cry in my life and I include Jenny Klekas in that group.  You being mean to me is not an excuse for me to be mean back and I’m sorry.  Seriously.

That said the story must go on. I’m told, the “I’m shutting this whole event down!” mantra was wielded by art center staff many times that night… but the threat didn’t phase me one bit, mainly because it was obvious this was just a pure bluff from a woman terrified of not getting her way.  Nobody with the actual authority to shut down events with pre-sold tickets throws an adult temper tantrum in front of other people.  Or maybe she did have that authority, which is just another level of sad.

I just walked off… or maybe the event organizer pulled me away… that’s probably more accurate but I didn’t follow up with anyone about that detail.  Either way, Ms. Klekas made it obvious she had no intention of actually working with me and I respected her wishes and stopped working with her.  We never shared another word the rest of the night.

As we were walking away something was said about calling the Sheriff Deputy (stationed on-site 24-hours a day) about this.  I stated to the event-organizer (Ms. Klekas probably could hear me), “Oh good there’s a sheriff deputy here? Lets go talk to him – people with actual authority are easier to work with.”

That was also probably mean, but I’m not apologizing for that because it was also true.

Our next stop was the Sheriff’s office.  Wouldn’t you know it, as we arrived it sounded like the sheriff was talking to someone on the phone about little old me!  Someone was taaaaaattttling!  :-)

He hung up and after a brief conversation the pleasantly rational Sheriff Deputy reaffirmed my opinion that indeed the city sidewalk was public property and nobody at the facility (including him) would stop me if I wanted to take photos there.

He even walked outside and kindly pointed out all the boundary lines for the Salt Lake Art Center so that we would not impede on Ms. Klenkas’ fiefdom.  I can’t emphasize how refreshing it is to deal with people like him after the extraordinarily childish encounter I’d had earlier.  He also informed me that the area I had offered to do the photoshoot in to Ms. Klekas originally was actually not owned by the Salt Lake Art Center, it was owned by the Salt Palace and he kindly walked us to their security office to ask about using the space.

Well, we started scouting for locations and power outlets on the sidewalk and as we were looking around Ms. Klekas was talking furiously with a man dressed in black, with short curly hair within 25 feet of us.  Mind you, I had not had an additional encounter with any employee of the Art Center since my first and only encounter with Ms. Klekas.  Nobody EVER asked me about my version of how the event had transpired to this point, though I did see the man with short curly hair listen intently for a good five minutes to Ms. Klekas’ version.  Her version looked very intense, with a lot more dramatic hand motions and threatening faces than I remember… though I will say this, she was about the same level of angry both times so that part was true. It was shortly after this conversation that the same man escorted me out, without explanation.

I started to walk inside to remove the thousands of dollars of equipment that was sitting in a room we were going to shoot at until 20 minutes ago and was stopped by the man that Ms. Klekas had been furiously talking to moments before.

“Sir, you are not allowed inside the premises,” he says.

I didn’t even ask for a reason, mainly because I couldn’t care less about going into that building anymore.  I was extremely friendly to him though, I shook his hand and thanked him and told him that wasn’t a problem at all.  He told me that my ‘friends’ (meaning photo assistants I think) could come get the equipment for me.  Again, totally fine by me.  Sorry for not helping guys!  :-)

I also told him to convey my apologies to Ms. Klekas for coming off rude and explained that I realized she was frustrated and wanted to let her know that I was dealing with stressful frustration as well. He thanked me back and said he would convey the message to her.  I never once set foot into the building or talked to her or any other staff member of the Art Center for the rest of the night.  I had no problems disassociating myself from the Art Center at this point.  Except for the Sheriff, he was cool.

We started setting up on the sidewalk and that’s when the sheriff arrived, again.  I’m guessing he was called by the Art Center staff but I’m not sure, the only thing I am sure about is I was standing five feet away when he explained to the staff that I was going to be shooting on the sidewalk, which was public property so I was permitted to be there.  He also kindly pointed out to them where their property ended because apparently there was some question in their mind about that particular fact.

Shortly after we started shooting and the models and animals immediately started attracting a crowd.  Out-of-towners were asking if they could take photos, little kids were asking if they could pet the animals and the reptile wrangler was educating interested people about the different reptiles.  Exactly the type of interest I was hoping to generate for the event and I actually LOVED being outside to do it so to me this wasn’t that big of a deal, I had even forgotten about Klekas-gate.  Then the next thing happened.

At some point druing the shoot I was told (I was kind of focused on shooting) that now the entire styling team were not allowed back on premises.  This included Paula Dahlberg (makeup artist), Steven Robertson (hair stylist), Michelle Boucher (wardrobe designer), Ryan Muirhead (photo assistant), Steven Wood (photo assistant), Tiffany Sanchez (photo assistant), Jessica Garcia, Jayme Vanderhoof and Paris Gibson (all models).  Mind you we were ALL there free of charge donating our time for a charity benefit.

Denise Gibson, the mother of one of the models, was not happy about this and she insisted on returning inside for her daughter’s belongings.  She was physically blocked from entering and was told that since they were part of an “illegal photoshoot” they were not welcome in the building.  Funny, the sheriff didn’t seem to share curly black haired guys opinion about the legality of the shoot, but whatever.

As I usually do with an on-location shoot I had a full team of EXTRAORDINARILY talented photographers as my photo assistants including Steven Wood, Ryan Muirhead and Tiffany Sanchez.  We were all so focused on the fashion shoot that we completely forgot that we should also be documenting this insane drama unfolding around us, which is when Ryan Muirhead snapped this photo of Michelle Boucher, Denise Gibson and Paris Gibson being being physically blocked from entering by the man in curly black hair (the same man that escorted me out).  Paris is the one in the insanely amazing wardrobe, wardrobe not designed for wandering around in downtown Salt Lake.

It was the refusal of entry by this man that led to models having the fantastic option to change OUTSIDE in public… oh, ya, Ryan Muirhead was still taking pictures when they settled on the idea of holding up coats while the models changed right next to the Salt Lake Art Center, in full view of the Art Center staff who was still furiously guarding the doors.

Last night we were inundated with questions about what happened, I had already made it clear that I was waiting to post my version so Ryan Muirhead posted a brief summary of the event on facebook and it immediately garnered some serious late-night interest, and in the morning I was told that Adam Price, the Executive Director of the Salt Lake Art Center had commented on the post.  I was still under the impression he was not at the event (mainly because if there was someone higher on the authority list than Jenny Klenkas I assumed they would have sought out my side of the story before escorting me out) so I was highly confused that he was speaking with such authority about how the events unfolded, especially since he had a highly inaccurate understanding of how the events actually unfolded.

Later that night Ryan Muirhead developed his film from the event allowing us to take a second glance at the person refusing to let the models in to change or collect their personal belongings. Wouldn’t you know it… it was the man with curly black hair.  By an absolute coincidence around the same time I was told that the man in question was the Executive Director of the Salt Lake Art Center, Adam Price.  It made me sad to realize that the behavior was not only sanctioned by top management it was top management.  You can come to your own conclusions about the accuracy of the public comments he made.

Just in case you forgot, Ryan Muirhead took that photo because the models were actively being denied entrance and people were gathering to watch, both inside and outside the event.

Those are the facts surrounding the event as it unfolded. I seriously don’t understand why, of all places, an ART center would be so punitive and vindictive about a photographer who figured out a way to make an amazing shoot happen in a way that didn’t violate any of their rules.  Is that really the message you’re trying to send?  If so then that’s cool I guess, I haven’t donated to the Art Center for years (excluding last night that is) so who am I to tell you how to do your job.

I highly respect the Salt Lake arts community and the people that contribute to it both creatively and financially. There isn’t a ton of money in Utah for the things most artists do so it is driven by passion, and that passion needs to be encouraged, not stifled.  This blog is about a very specific experience, and I write about it in the hopes to create open dialogue in resolving the issue.

I’m happy to report that in the midst of all this we put on an amazing photoshoot and I can’t thank the amazing team enough for all their hard work in getting the job done no matter how badly it was fought against!  Those photos, will be coming soon!

PS – If Ryan Muirhead does not get a Pulitzer prize for this photo then my next beef is with you Pulitzer!!!  ;-)


Jake Garn Photography

 
Comments Off on The Salt Lake Art Center Debacle

Posted in Uncategorized