'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.'
The article goes on to imply that Adobe ignored their advice after consulting photgraphic trade organisations. It doesn't make clear whether Jeff, Seth, Bruce, Andrew, Martin, Katrin, etc. continue to hold to their previously expressed view, or if they now support Adobe.
Edit:
Apologies - the article is much longer than I thought (doesn't stop at the list). Jeff does indeed share his current opinion. You can judge for yourselves and add comments there if you are so inclined
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I thought the article was a little parochial. For example, I am unclear how Adobe Stock Photography is intended to work outside the North American market, where the ASMP etc are not relevant. If you are based in England, do you have access to global stock providers or just those in your geographical region? And who are they?
The other issue not mentioned in the article is competition law. Is Adobe's conduct anti-competitive? It it similar in effect to Microsoft leveraging their control of the PC desktop operating system to overtake Netscape with Internet Explorer? Adobe has a near-monopoly in its market with Photoshop, and selling stock images through Photoshop is, arguably, no more an essential feature of an image editing application than IE is an essential component of an operating system. I simply raise the point as an as yet undiscussed issue worthy of consideration. But as I help run a small stock agency, I have an interest here.
And consider, in this context, the name. Its "Adobe Stock Photos". You have to be prepared to accept Adobe branding.
Quentin
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
[ QUOTE ]
The other issue not mentioned in the article is competition law.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny; I was thinking the same. US authorities seem to lack the power to act on competition, but the European Union is bolder in this regard. Incredibly, Bill Gates stood in front of a US judge, looked him in the eye, and solemnly declared that IE was integral to Windows while at the same time an ordinary Joe in Australia was just posting a site - 98 Lite - making it trivial! The EU has been firmer with William, though. Adobe Inc v Europe can only be a matter of time. Should be interesting!
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I'm generally supportive of Adobe, but I think releasing this technology while it's limited to RF is a mistake, and I've told them so, as I always do when I see them do something I think is boneheaded. I tried hard to talk them out of it (as did pretty much every photographer whose input they solicited), but we didn't succeed. So we move on, and keep hammering at them to do everything in their power to extend the technology to benefit all photographers, not only those whose business model is based on RF.
When Microsoft decided to give away its font library, a bunch of people claimed that it would be the death of typography. It became apparent pretty quickly that Ariel wouldn't cut it for a major ad campaign, and people continue to produce new high-quality typefaces. I suspect (and, frankly, hope) that once the dust has settled, pretty much the same thing will happen with RF. If you want exclusivity, you won't buy RF, if you want bold new images you won't buy RF, and anything that gets the younger generation used to actually paying for intellectual property will, in the long run, benefit everyone who makes a living from intellectual property.
But I still wish they'd waited until the pieces were in place for the technology to support rights-managed.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I also like your thoughts on why RM will continue to be sucessful but I am worried that if this venture by Adobe is sucessful, it may help to force creative RM photographers into the RF world.
Rick
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
[ QUOTE ]
But I still wish they'd waited until the pieces were in place for the technology to support rights-managed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't blame them for this. If Adobe had waited until it had everything perfect before going ahead, it risked its competition providing a better solution for photo buyers (one that perhaps ignores RM photos completely, like Corel's photo discs did in the past).
Mathew
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I don't accept the argument that Adobe could not have included RM images in some form.
Both Alamy.com and small independent online libraries like www.agripix.co.uk have automated RM sales systems.
It ain't rocket science.
RM standardisation is a figleaf, and a small withered one at that, to disguise what is the latest manifestation of a mighty intellectual property landgrab. Its not just RF I'm talking about, its happening across the intellectual property space.
eg:
a) Extension of patents to business processes and software, often at the expense of inventors not bankrolled by big companies. This is one way of attacking open source software by the way, as OS developments cannot afford the legions of IPR lawyers employed by large companies.
b) Disney corp seeking to extend the length of copyright law
c) Increasing use of copyright to protect objects and buildings by property owners preventing said objects from being photographed without payment of fees. (Selfridges department store in Birmingham, Eiffel Tower lighting in Paris)
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
