Scoopt: Our target is the guy with the cameraphone

Scoopt's Kyle MacRae responds via email to my post this week about the new service, which offers to sell your photos or videos to a publisher for a 50-50 split and a six-month exclusive license.

Here are Kyle's comments:

With reference to the initial Scoopt six-month exclusive license, you said:

That's quite a commitment to make to a new player, and I'm not sure many citizen journalists will go for it. I suppose if you're a prolific photographer, you might take a chance on Scoopt. If they do good by you, then that six-month term might not seem so stiff.

I think it's important that we draw a clear distinction here between professional photographers, aspiring professional photographers -- and somebody with a cameraphone who just happens to be in the right place at the right time and snaps a newsworthy event. Scoopt was set up specifically and exclusively to represent this last group.

My contention is that the true amateur doesn't know or care about photographic licensing -- and, further, nor should they care. Scoopt is not for people making a living or seeking to make a living from photography; Scoopt is for somebody who realises that one day he just might take a great picture and could get some money for it. The true amateur with a cameraphone doesn't want to phone a picture desk editor and haggle or auction a photo.

Indeed, the true amateur probably doesn't know what a picture desk editor is, or how to approach one. But he does know that newspapers and magazines buy pictures if the picture is strong enough. Scoopt helps him make that sale.

Scoopt also protects the rights of our members. What happens when an amateur with a hot photo phones up a newspaper? Chances are he'll (unwittingly) sign away universal rights in exchange for the price of a hot dinner. The paper will then sub-license the photo around the world and the photographer will receive not a further penny. But with Scoopt, the photographer always retains copyright. We will license the photo for publication on his behalf, potentially time and time again -- and the photographer will ALWAYS get 50% of the fee.

We need an exclusive license for the reasons given, and which you quoted.

Basically, we must be able to guarantee to a publisher that we can deliver what we promise -- for instance, a one-day-only exclusive right to publish a photo on the front page. The easiest approach for us would undoubtedly be to demand assignation of copyright from our members. In other words, when a member submits a photo, we would automatically own that photo and could do whatever we want with it. (This is what our lawyers advised!) However, we simply feel that this is unfair on the photographer. It is, we believe, right and proper that even a complete amateur with no interest in or knowledge of copyright and licensing should retain copyright to his own works, always. The six-month exclusive license is a compromise that gives us the security we need to trade on his behalf without stripping the photographer of his rights.

In summary, if Scoopt was a traditional photo agency pitching to traditional pro or pro-am photographers trying to make a living from photography, I'd agree with you and we'd offer a range of (complicated) licensing agreements.

But Scoopt is different. We represent the true amateur who gets a scoop snap of a newsworthy event and wants a) the best possible price and b) an easy life.

Comments

[Josh Wolf]

6 months to have the scoop on a story? What, you've got a picture where George Bush actually looks intelligent and the newspaper wants to save the shot for just the right occasion?

Why the 6 month exclusivity term? In regards to photos, I do see the need for an exclusivity term - as the medium requires significantly less bandwidth than video - but I think this time period really shouldn't be longer than 7 days and 72 hours would probably be sufficient.

I recently made a quick little rant for Current per Robin Sloans request. Come check out the video when I post it to my videoblog on October 7th.

[Kyle MacRae]

"Why the 6 month exclusivity term?"

True, a daily newspaper either wants a scoop on the day or not at all -- and we're geared up to serve papers on the basis -- but leadtimes for a monthly magazine can be months. We HAVE to be able to guarantee that a photo we license on an exclusive basis remains exclusive until the agreed publication date, which means we have to be the sole agency during that period. I think we'll drop the exclusivity period to three months, in fact, but it's too early to be sure. Perhaps the key point to remember is that we're not dealing with professional or pro-am photographers here, but rather with people who just get lucky with a cameraphone. They don't necessarily understand or care about copyright and licensing terms, nor will they have any great desire to publish photos on a blog or sell them themselves after 72 hours or even 72 years. They just want (and quite rightly so) to make a bit of money when they happen to stumble upon a newsworthy event and take a fantastic pic. Nevertheless, we have a duty to protect their interests. We do this by a) allowing them to retain copyright at all times, and b) striking the best possible deal for their photos. An initial period of exclusive representation is fairer than a copyright grab and the best way that we have come up with yet to guarantee that we can deliver what we promise to media buyers.

Cheers
Kyle