All the e-reading revolution lacked was a revolt of the paparazzi (who a lot of people find pretty revolting already).
The Hollywood Reporter reports that People Magazine was set to follow so many other magazines and launch an iPad application, but has apparently been stymied by a number of photo agencies that supply it with paparazzi snapshots. The agencies want additional compensation for their photos’ use on the iPad before they will let the app go forward. (Though a People spokesperson denied that the launch date had anything to do with the photo agencies.)
Those familiar with discussions say People wants to use photos on the iPad for free, arguing that the app essentially replicates the print product. That negotiation stance has led to the inevitable escalation of posturing: If you don’t pay us extra for iPad, agencies argue, you can’t use our pictures, which spurs threats of keeping rogue agencies out of the print edition on which the lion’s share of revenue is gleaned.
It goes without saying that this has broad and far-reaching implications for every other magazine that uses photos (which would be almost all of them), so it is being watched closely by the rest of the publishing industry.
This puts me in mind of a Techdirt article from April that I almost covered at the time but couldn’t find a suitable e-book angle, about the way that the huge increase in supply from pro-quality amateur photographers made possible by the cheapness and easiness of digital is driving the value of professional photography down. It’s certainly understandable in that light (along with the other recession hits that the Reporter article mentions) that pro photographers are going to be antsy about letting any revenue opportunities pass by.
But given the rise of near-pro amateur photographers, I wonder if magazines might be able to forego these professional agencies and go with amateur-shot photos instead? Probably not completely at this point, but it’s something to think about as
