Pro-Imaging

16 July 2009

We urge each and every one of you to read the NY Times at:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/behind-6/

Issues of note to you:

1.  The article clearly demonstrates United States Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s attitude toward the value of professional, historic photography.  The case gave her a platform to display for her purported “empathy”.  She could have sided with the victorious, 100% innocent (solo) photographer or with the company owned by Bill Gates who according to the trial court negligently lost 12,640 images entrusted to it and which it failed to market. Reflecting the second time a Federal Court had found Corbis negligent in connection with lost images.  Rather than penalize the negligent company she rewarded its massive unexplained loss of the imagery it failed to market by condoning a valuation absurd on its face.

2.  If you had any doubt that stock agencies, in this instance Corbis, regard your images as mere commodities - each of no more value than another - that doubt ought to now evaporate. 

According to the New York Times report, Corbis’ attorney compares photo imagery to “nails” stating their value is based only on the revenue (if any) it/they may have generated by the person or company in whose control and destiny those images lie.

In Mr. Usher’s case, Corbis was found by the Court to have had virtually no records and was negligent in not tracking images entrusted to its care.  The company had never turned a profit up to the time of trial nor could it state with any certainty when any of Mr. Usher’s 12,640 lost images were in fact lost by it.  There was no evidence that Corbis even attempted to license any more than 1% of the Usher images entrusted to it.

So, if one is a lousy and lazy salesperson, unable to sell nails because of an inability to connect with customers, do the nails (by virtue of the salesperson’s failings) become less valuable?  Is the inability of a stock agency, even an inept one, to generate sales of images the determining factor as to the value of the images? Corbis says “yes”.  Mr. Usher had terminated Corbis because of its inability to market the work at (even) levels that Chris had reached by self-marketing.    He attempted to go back to self marketing only discover at that point that 12,640 of the images he sought to market went missing. 

According to the reasoning of Corbis’ counsel, newly discovered images of famous celebrities which had never been on the market would have no value whatsoever if lost prior to a license or sale being made.  By such logic newly discovered, never before seen images of the Rolling Stones and Beatles shot in the 1960’s could not even be professionally appraised as they have had no history of making money for anyone!

The NY Times article amply demonstrates that which we have been saying for years.  But you need not take my word for it.  See what stock agencies do.  Listen to what their people say.  Observe their positions in court cases.  Only after carefully so doing ought you even consider sleeping with any of them.

July 16, 2009

Edward C. Greenberg, PC

570 Lexington Ave.

17th Floor

New York, NY  10022

(212)697-8777