In a statement posted on the Kodak Web Site under the title “Update on Kodak’s Transformation,” the company announced that it will cease producing digital cameras, pocket video cameras and digital picture frames “to focus its Consumer Business on desktop inkjet, online and retail-based printing—areas that offer the most significant opportunities for profitable growth. Kodak will continue to offer camera accessories and batteries, which are universally compatible with other brands,” the statement said.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “The move during the first half of the year should save more than $100 million a year, and Kodak expects to book a $30 million charge from exiting the business.”

The statement also said that it was “likely” that some of the cameras, video cameras and digital frames it announced at CES would not be launched.

Eastman Kodak Co. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on January 19, 2012. In its filing in US Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, the company reported that it has $6.8 billion in debt and $5.1 billion in assets. Kodak has struggled for years as the photography business has moved to digital photography.

Related: Kodak Files for Bankruptcy Protection
Kodak Shares Below $1, Could Be Delisted From NYSE

Sinking under legal bills, the Shaw Family Archives [SFA] has tentatively agreed to a 5-year, $3 million licensing deal with its arch-enemy–the estate of Marilyn Monroe–to pull itself out of bankruptcy. The deal would give the Monroe estate control over commercial licensing of hundreds of Monroe images shot by the late photographer Sam Shaw, and finally end protracted litigation between the two companies.

Under the terms of the proposal, the SFA would grant the Estate of Marilyn Monroe LLC “the sole and exclusive right and license” to exploit photographer Sam Shaw’s many images of Marilyn Monroe for commercial uses. The SFA would continue to license the Monroe photographs–including Shaw’s iconic “blowing skirt image of Monroe–for editorial, fine art and exhibition purposes.

Because the SFA filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last summer, the agreement with the Monroe estate is subject to approval by a federal bankruptcy judge. A ruling is expected later this month.

In court papers seeking that approval, the SFA says, “the Agreement is critical to the [SFA's] effective reorganization as it ensures the longevity of the [SFA]  as a business by providing the [SFA] with tangible benefits, including: a minimum income that is more than the [SFA] has made in the last three (3) years…and ending most, if not all, of the litigation” between SFA and Monroe’s estate.

Melissa Stevens, operations manager for SFA, characterizes the deal as “a business arrangement that both parties feel will be mutually beneficial to the continued preservation and promotion of both Marilyn Monroe and Sam Shaw’s legacy.” (more…)

An apparent administrative slip-up has stirred an uprising at music and celebrity photo agency Retna, with photographers complaining that the agency is failing to report sales, pay royalties, or respond to calls and e-mails from frustrated contributors. Retna’s CEO acknowledges the problems, but blames them on his predecessors, and has told contributors he is correcting them.

Photographers started comparing notes last week after an agency employee sent notification about the agency’s change of address in New York City. Instead of copying photographers in the blind carbon copy (BCC) field of the e-mail, the agency employee distributed the names and e-mail addresses of dozens of photographers so all could see who had received the e-mail.

Read the full story on PDNOnline.com.

In Eastman Kodak Company’s most recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, dated January 3, 2012, the publicly traded company reported receiving notice from the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) warning that its stock was in danger of being delisted “because the average closing price of Kodak common shares was less than $1.00 over a consecutive 30-trading-day period.”

The one-time film giant has struggled to re-build its business as photography moves to digital imaging.

According to a report today on the Wall Street Journal Web site, Eastman Kodak Co. may file for bankruptcy if “in the coming weeks efforts to sell a trove of digital patents fall through.”

WSJ.com cited unnamed sources and noted that a spokesman for Kodak refused to comment on “market rumor or speculation.”

Kodak has six months to bring its minimum share price back above a dollar. In a press release (see the full Kodak press release below) about the NYSE notice, Kodak outlined factors that could prevent it from regaining share price compliance within a six-month period.

If Kodak does file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and its proposal is accepted by a judge and its creditors, Chapter 11 bankruptcy would allow it to reorganize its finances and restructure its debts without liquidating its assets.

Filing for Chapter 11 would not result in Eastman Kodak Company common stock remaining listed on the NYSE. The company would have to be restructured and relisted. (more…)

A number of US photographers may be able to collect royalties they never knew were owed to them, thanks to the efforts of the Authors Coalition of America to collect payment for photocopies of works by US authors that are made in foreign countries.

The ACA has published a royalty distribution list that names dozens of US authors–including some photographers–who are eligible to collect royalties. The list doesn’t say how much each author is eligible to collect, but those listed can fill out forms and contact the ACA about collecting the money.

The list, along with instructions for collecting payments, is posted here on the ACA Web site.

Among the photographers whose names appear on the list are Sam Abell, Walter Bibikow, Andrew Hetherington, Corinne Day, Philip Lorca di Corcia, Gary Hershorn and others.

The ACA is one of 22 author organizations in the US that formed a coalition in 1994 to receive and distribute royalties for photocopies of copyrighted works that are made in foreign countries.

The ACA says on its web site that the royalty collection system originally did not identify authors individually, so the royalties were “used for the benefit of authors” by the 22 organizations that received the royalties. Starting in 2007, however, the ACA began receiving so-called “title-specific” royalties for “visual materials authors.” That means the individual authors are identified in some cases, so the ACA is able to disburse those royalties to the identified authors.

Two university professors specializing in intellectual property law are conducting what could be an intriguing study of “creativity among photographers.” To get photographers to participate in their survey, they’ve launched a nature photo contest for professional photographers. Those who participate will be paid $10, and will be eligible for a prize which may include $1,000 in cash and publication on the Huffington Post Web site.

The researchers are Christopher Sprigman, a professor at the University of Virginia’s school of law, and Chistopher Buccafusco, an assistant professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Chicago-Kent College of Law.

They have asked us not to disclose the exact purpose of the study, to avoid skewing the results. But they have cleared the study with UVA’s Internal Review Board (a research ethics committee). They have also promised to share their results when the study is completed, and convinced PDN that the findings may be of particular interest to our readers.

Moreover, photographers who participate will be debriefed about the study and its exact purpose immediately after they complete the study questionnaire, Sprigman says — no need to wait for the results to be published.

To participate in the study, click here.

Sprigman expects the study to be completed by August. We will share the results with PDN readers when he and Buccafusco make them available.

Getty has announced a take-it-or-leave-it rate cut for its editorial contributors under a new contract that specifies 35 percent royalties for all sales. Under current contracts that will soon expire, Getty pays photographers 50 percent for some sales, and 35 percent for others.

Photographers who don’t sign the contract will be terminated when their current contracts expire.

The agency notified photographers of the changes on November 9, giving them 30 days to sign the new contract. The agency told photographers that the new contract terms will enable Getty “to more easily modify content use across more and new license models, products, services and selling environments, including subscriptions, high-volume customer deals and new or emerging pricing, licensing and payment models.”

In other words, customers will be paying less for images in some cases. By cutting photographers’ rates, Getty will be able to offer images at lower prices with less negative impact on its own bottom line.

Asked whether Getty has found itself unable to compete for low-priced business without asking for concessions from suppliers, agency spokesperson Jodi Einhorn said, “No….[W]e are developing new ways for customers to use more of our content and as a result, new ways to pay contributors must be created in these situations.”

One way photographers benefit from the new contract, Getty says in the November 9 memo, is that photographers will now be paid in 60 days rather than 120 days. Einhorn also told PDN that Getty is “making changes and improvements around how we share and license our content, which will benefit our photographers,” by providing more exposure and more potential for sales of their images.

Einhorn did not say how many photographers are affected, or whether they are resisting the changes. But she did say, “It is totally normal for those affected to have questions. So we are responding to questions we receive and our team are always available to discuss any changes with our photographers, to help them understand these changes.

There’s no better argument for eschewing a buyout or work-for-hire contract, than Michael Grecco’s real-world example of how he earned more than $140,000 in licensing fees over an eight-year period from one advertising client. Because the contract had a set licensing period, every time the client wanted to use the images after the license expired, Grecco had to be paid again. John Harrington, Grecco’s partner for the 2011 PhotoPlus Expo seminar Licensing: Putting Money Back in Your Pocket, presented a similar case study to demonstrate how he earned $940 from an editorial client who wanted to use additional takes from a cover shoot for two sister publications not included in the license.

Of course, none of these fees would have been possible if their licensing agreements, which should always include the terms of usage (length of time, type of medium, region, etc) and exclusivity, were not clearly defined. Harrington is a big proponent of PLUS (Picture Licensing Universal System), a non-profit organization with the goal “to simplify and facilitate the communication and management of image rights.” On its site, UsePLUS.com, there is a License Generator tool that allows users to create a license based on the criteria entered. The trade organization American Photographic Artists also has licensing information on its site, APANational.com, or you can work with an intellectual property attorney who specializes in artists’ rights. Grecco also mentioned the importance of obtaining model releases and keeping them on file, especially if you plan on selling images commercially.

An important component of licensing is copyright protection, which Grecco and Harrington also discussed. Though as the photographer you technically own the copyright of an image at the click of the camera’s shutter (unless you’re doing work-for-hire or you’ve ceded the rights of the image), actually registering the photo at the U.S. Copyright Office will make prosecuting an infringement case much easier—a lesson Grecco learned the hard way when his photos were infringed: once when a derivative work was created and another time when a work was reprinted, both without his permission.

Grecco briefly touched on his system for registering his images with the Copyright Office, which he does en masse while the photos are still unpublished (once they’ve been published they must be registered individually): He fills out the necessary forms at Copyright.gov; creates CDs or DVDs with the files, organizing them using Print Window for Mac software; and sends the discs via a shipper that provides proof of receipt, such as FedEx or UPS. This last part is particularly important since the copyright goes into effect on the date it’s submitted, which means the date it’s received by the U.S. Copyright Office.

Though the licensing process seems onerous, it’s worth the extra work; both Grecco and Harrington use their knowledge of copyright and licensing to negotiate better fees from clients. And making extra money on photographs you’ve already taken, that’s just a smarter way to do business.

During a seminar titled “The New World of Online Magazines and Curator Web Sites” this afternoon at PDN PhotoPlus Expo, photographer Sophia Wallace posed a question to photographers who’ve been hesitant to harness the full power of the internet for fear that their work might be stolen: Should you be more afraid of image theft, or of working in obscurity?

This rather direct question, which had resonated with Wallace after she heard it at another talk recently, gets to the heart of the decision that photographers must make in today’s market. You can embrace online publishing on blogs, online magazines, Tumblr pages and the myriad other platforms on which people are looking at imagery these days, or you can keep your work to yourself.

Suffice it to say that nobody in the audience was interested in the latter option. But in case they were, Wallace and fellow photographer Manjari Sharma shared stories about their own experiences that made a strong case for diving headlong into promoting one’s work online.

By getting their work featured by online platforms, such as those run by moderator Stella Kramer (StellaZine) and panelists Julie Grahame (aCurator) and Michael Itkoff (Daylight), each of the photographers had built momentum for bodies of work that eventually led to concrete achievements like exhibitions, advertising commissions and essential project funding.

After having her work circulate one image at a time across various online publications (and in a couple of print magazines), Wallace received what she termed “the email she’d been waiting for.” It was from a curator asking if she would show her work in a three-person show at Colgate University’s Clifford Gallery with photographers Catherine Opie and Jo Ann Santangelo. During her presentation Wallace also showed how, through Google analytics, she could track who was looking at her site and where they came from. It was amazing, she said, to realize that people all over the world were looking at her photographs.

Sharma showed two projects that she’d promoted online. A series of portraits of people taken in the shower in her Brooklyn apartment was discovered by art directors at the ad agency JWT in Delhi, which lead to a commission to replicate that work for ads for a German maker of shower heads that was expanding their business in India. Sharma’s photographs appeared on billboards in 23 cities, she said.

After she created a well-produced Kickstarter video to raise funds for her project Darshan, several photo blogs and other online publications wrote about the work. She ended up raising $26,000 of funding over the course of three months.

Each of the panelists encouraged the audience members to build networks online through Facebook and Twitter, and to help promote other photographers whose work they appreciate. Wallace made the point that opportunities for group exhibitions often come from other artists, and introductions to clients often come from fellow photographers.

Kramer also made another useful point for photographers who might still be hesitant to publish their work online: “The more you are associated with your work, the harder it is to steal it,” she said.