Wimbledon pioneers split-second photography technology by Capture

 

 

The All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) has scored a first during The Championships, Wimbledon 2017 by using Capture’s ground-breaking LIVE EVENTS technology that allows images to be delivered instantly direct from camera – complete with caption information – to multiple simultaneous global destinations.

DMLA is excited to be using the same technology for the DMLA 2017 Conference in October thanks to the sponsorship by Capture.

You can read the Wimbledon article here

Wimbledon pioneers split-second photography technology

 

 

Dateline: July 20th, 2017

The All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) has scored a first during The Championships, Wimbledon 2017 by using Capture’s ground-breaking LIVE EVENTS technology that allows images to be delivered instantly direct from camera – complete with caption information – to multiple simultaneous global destinations.

The system augments the battery of high-tech photographic equipment operated by The Championships’ ace team of photographers – headed up by AELTC photographic manager and sports photographer Bob Martin – that even includes robotic cameras perched on rooftop vantage points.

Thousands of iconic moments that crystalise the essence of Wimbledon have been ‘Captured’ via this technology ecosystem during this year’s Championships, allowing rapid deployment of imagery to the website team and hungry social media sites.

Bob, an award-winning sports photographer who has photographed every major sporting event, stated: “Only the best will do for The Championships both visually and technically. We like every department at Wimbledon to continually live up to our slogan ‘In Pursuit of Greatness’.

“Fractions of seconds can be game changers when you are striving to produce world class imagery in fast-moving tennis matches across 18 different courts and with hundreds of players and countless amazing moments both on and off court.”

“Working with Capture’s terrific technology – and their supportive team – means we can focus on shooting the best images, confident in the knowledge that seconds later they will be being delivered via the Capture system, complete with captions, correct location and attributed to the right photographer. We can even switch members of the photographic team around between courts and matches, and still be sure the right information accompanies the images. It helps to deal with the instant demands of social media,” added Bob.

Alexandra Willis, Head of Communications, Content and Digital at Wimbledon, said: “Bob and his team produce world class content for us, and we are delighted that Capture – who we have worked successfully with in other areas for several years – has brought such immediacy to this process to ensure that we are able to put photography at the heart of our channels.”

Abbie Enock, CEO of Capture Ltd, said: “We have worked with Wimbledon for more than three years, with systems that manage the image library and also brand quality benchmarking – and are very proud to have been able to provide Capture LIVE EVENTS for The Championships. The AELTC, Bob Martin and his team are wonderful clients to work with.”

Capture LIVE EVENTS is part of Capture’s suite of ‘building block’ products that address every step of the digital and commercial licensing workflow – including elegant, shop-window, front-end Capture WEBSITE.

A general view of the grounds on the first day of the Championships 2017 at The All England Lawn Tennis Club, Wimbledon. Day 1 Monday 03/07/2017. Credit: AELTC/Bob Martin.

View inside Centre Court during the Ladies’ Singles match between Angelique Kerber (GER) and Irina Falconi (USA) on the second day of The Championships 2017 at The All England Lawn Tennis Club, Wimbledon. Day 2 Tuesday 04/07/2017. Credit: AELTC/Thomas Lovelock.

IMAGERIGHTS ACQUIRES IMAGE WITNESS

 

 

Boston, MA – ImageRights International, the global leader in copyright enforcement services for photo agencies and professional photographers, today announced the acquisition of Australia’s Image Witness, whose rapid scan image search technology fortifies ImageRights’ technology leadership position in the fast-growing copyright enforcement services industry.

Read the entire article here.

IMAGERIGHTS ACQUIRES IMAGE WITNESS, STRENGTHENS IMAGE SEARCH TECHNOLOGY ARSENAL

 

 

Solidifies ImageRights’ Leadership Position in Copyright Enforcement

Boston, MA – ImageRights International, the global leader in copyright enforcement services for photo agencies and professional photographers, today announced the acquisition of Australia’s Image Witness, whose rapid scan image search technology fortifies ImageRights’ technology leadership position in the fast-growing copyright enforcement services industry.

Complementing ImageRights’ intensive image search and leading-edge image recognition technologies, Image Witness’ highly regarded image search algorithms have been specially designed for rapidly scanning very large, content rich websites for both image licensing and copyright enforcement purposes.

The combined image search systems will instantly deliver comprehensive, actionable image sighting reports to clients through their ImageRights dashboard at imagerights.com. The sightings are first analyzed by ImageRights AI, which sorts, ranks and groups the sightings by domain owner, all of which expedites license review and facilitates claim submission by copyright owners. The ImageRights AI can then recommend if a claim should be pursued directly through ImageRights license compliance or through a partner law firm and estimate the initial demand, all in less than three seconds. Since the launch of its integrated image search and case management platform, ImageRights has processed more than 50,000 copyright infringement claims.

“I have known and followed the developments at ImageRights over the years, so when the opportunity was presented I knew ImageRights was the perfect fit,” reflected Matthew Johnson, founder and CEO of Image Witness. “ImageRights has always had an upstanding reputation in the industry and I am glad to see that our clients will be in such great hands.”

Image Witness’ clients will be seamlessly transitioned to the ImageRights service platform and will immediately have access to ImageRights’ fully automated US Copyright Office registration service. Agencies and photographers can register their images with the US Copyright Office through their ImageRights account, either from their ImageRights dashboard or by using the ImageRights Plugin for Adobe Lightroom. ImageRights has successfully registered more 600,000 images with the USCO through the service since its launch less than two years ago.

The Image Witness acquisition also propels ImageRights into the web auditing services market. “Image Witness’ rapid scan image search can be immediately integrated into our existing platform,” said Joe G. Naylor, President and CEO of ImageRights. “We can now deliver extremely fast and accurate image use reporting, accelerating revenue recognition for agencies that previously had to rely on the self-reporting of image use by their largest media and enterprise clients.”

 

Prayers for Ben Schultz

As some of you might already know, our friends Jeff and Joan Shultz’s son, Ben, needs our prayers and support. He was gravely injured during a training exercise as a firefighter in Anchorage, Alaska on June 5th, 2017.  Jeff Schultz was the former owner of Alaska Stock and a familiar face at PACA/DMLA events.

Ben is now in Colorado at a specialty hospital for brain injuries.  There is a fund-raiser for his family scheduled for August 4th in Anchorage — see info below.  If you’d like to donate auction items to this fundraiser please contact: Megan Nicolet at Elite Sports Performance, one of the main sponsors of the event at: 907-952-3200 or megangnicolet@gmail.com

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, text

 

There is also a GoFundMe site for Ben’s Family that you can find here.

Jeff was a long-time member of PACA/DMLA and served as our treasurer for many years.  Our hearts and prayers go out to his family and to Ben.  I know this will be a long, tough road, so anything you can do will be deeply appreciated.

You can read updates about Ben and send your thoughts and wishes here.

SmartFrame, New DMLA Corporate Sponsor, Asks if Technology can Fight Technology

The biggest discussions and debates at the recent CEPIC Congress where centred around Google and our industrys efforts to overcome its dominance on search, and the negative impact it’s having on our on-line licensing and copyright preservation. We also explored emerging revenue opportunities and what the future holds for our industry.

Conversations naturally focussed on legal and lobbying efforts made by industry bodies such as CEPIC, DMLA and BVPA in this area, but we also wanted to highlight to members an emerging technology solution called the SmartFrame, that solves many of the issues discussed in our seminars. Read the entire article here.

Is the best way to fight technology with technology?

In our CEPIC Congress ‘Thank you’ newsletter we mentioned a few of this years very well-attended seminars. 

The biggest discussions and debates where centred around Google and our industrys efforts to overcome its dominance on search, and the negative impact it’s having on our on-line licensing and copyright preservation. We also explored emerging revenue opportunities and what the future holds for our industry. 

Conversations naturally focussed on legal and lobbying efforts made by industry bodies such as CEPIC, DMLA and BVPA in this area, but we also wanted to highlight to members an emerging technology solution called the SmartFrame, that solves many of the issues discussed in our seminars. 

SmartFrame were a sponsor of this year’s CEPIC Congress, indeed you may have seen their coffee cups around, met with their team, or have attended SmartFrame CEO; Rob Sewell’s seminar: “Regaining Control of your Online Images” on Friday afternoon. 

At his session, Rob demonstrated this innovative image technology that has the potential to revolutionise our industry, and addresses many of the issues discussed at this years congress. 

For those that didn’t catch that session; the SmartFrame is a patent-pending, secure, embeddable, trackable and interactive digital image format, which is looking to redefine the digital image standard in the coming months & years. 

As we all know, gaining control and properly policing image content on the Internet is long overdue, and whilst all the legal work being done is helping, it’s going to be a long and uphill battle. Rob believes that the best way to fight technology is with technology – much like anti-piracy control for audio and video content has been accomplished using technology – he believes the SmartFrame technology can do the same for the image industry.  

SmartFrame:
  • Helps to protect and raise awareness of copyright of images 
  • Drives traffic and sales back from Google
  • Can be shared & embedded in a controlled manner, always linking back to the content owner with a one click path to purchase 
  • Provides valuable business data and intelligence from wherever it is viewed
  • Offers an interactive and engaging viewing experience 
  • And provides new marketing and revenue opportunities for content owners
 

SmartFrame is starting to gain traction across a variety of verticals including the image industry, publishers, brands, fashion, online retail, property and automative sectors. 

Their API and dashboard can be integrated into any web platform or application, and SmartFrames can be updated dynamically and retrospectively wherever they have been embedded on the Internet. Further info can be found at www.smartframe.io.

One of the big challenges, and a key point of discussion at CEPIC, is the issue of Google scrapping and serving content, and the content then being consumed and shared across the internet directly from their search listings, with no attribution or clear path back to the owner. 

The SmartFrame technology mitigates this problem, as it ensures the high resolution image remains invisible to Google and web scrappers, while allowing Google to see a small unusable watermarked thumbnail, complete with a clear call to action such as “View Photo”, which then drives traffic back to the hosted platform to see the full secure SmartFrame version of the image. This has no negative impact on ranking, as you can see from this set of Google Search Results for a photographer currently using SmartFrame. The photographers images are on the first page of Google results here, and if you click to the Google Images view you’ll see the top ranking images are also SmartFrame thumbnails – all leading back to the photographers website – where the viewers can experience the SmartFrames and license the images directly or share them in a controlled manner. 

Further examples of SmartFrames with various configurations can be viewed here SmartFrame Examples

SmartFrame have a busy features release schedule coming throughout 2017. Next up will be their Tracker feature, which will allow users to view where their images have been shared and embedded and how viewers are interacting with them. Then later in the year SmartFrame users will be able to communicate and advertise to their audiences in new and targeted ways, such as affiliate advertising & product linking to sales stores, in order to generate new revenue streams for our industry, alongside boosting more direct image sales.

The SmartFrame team are also working with a reverse search engine company to find infringements, and rather than asking for infringing uses of images to be taken down, they are asking them to swap them out for SmartFrames. In this way they are not only changing the way new content is being published, but also beginning to convert historical content too, helping the content owners to develop larger audiences, greater engagement and driving more traffic back to their / or third party platforms to monetise a variety of products and services. 

Could this be the future way to protect and monetise our content and grow our industry revenues? 

SmartFrame have put together a very generous offer for all of this years CEPIC delegates – they are offering FREE integrations and 12 month’s FREE use of their Showcase, Tracker and Monetizer upgraded packages.

To book a demo and experience how this technology can help revolutionise your business please contact us directly at hello@smartframe.io or visit www.smartframe.io/request-a-demo

www.smartframe.io 

DMLA Joins Opposition to NY State Right of Publicity Bill

DMLA recently joined many stakeholders in an urgent last minute push to oppose an amendment to New York State’s right of privacy statute, converting it to a right of publicity (Assembly Bill A08155 and Senate 5857-A) that would have granted a broad and ambiguous descendible right of publicity to anyone for 40 years after death, regardless of whether the person was domiciled in New York.

The media was particularly concerned as it looked like this bill had potential to pass before the end of the legislative session last week and the language would have had a severe impact on many forms of expressive speech, including the display and sale of prints and the licensing of photographs, video and other forms of visual art. DMLA prepared a memorandum in opposition and together with many law professors, media associations and individual companies (such as Getty Images and Shutterstock) signed on to full page advertisement published in the Albany newspaper urging the legislature to reject the bill as an attack on the First Amendment DMLA, and member Getty Images joined the lobbying efforts of the New York New Publishers Association and hired their lobbyist to work on this slowing down this bill. Last Tuesday Nancy Wolff, joined by Terry Byford and Eric Rachlis of Getty Images, joined other stakeholders at the State House in Albany New York to ask the legislature to slow the bill down right and get it right so it won’t hurt photographers, image library, and the media companies, many of whom are in New York, who use their services.

In the end the legislature in both houses did not bring the bill to the floor to vote before the end of session last week but its sponsors made it clear that they want to work with stakeholders to create an acceptable descendible right of publicity bill to be voted on in the near future.

Our thanks to Getty Images for hiring a lobbyist to work on this legislation in New York which permitted DMLA to be represented by a lobbyist as well. If any other members would be able to contribute to this lobbying effort and share the costs, please contact Nancy Wolff for further information.

DMLA plans to continue to be involved in any legislation that deprives a photographers or film owner’s right to display their property and copyright interest in their still and motion images.

You can see the other papers submitted here and here.

Prof. Jennifer E. Rothman

June 8, 2017

Memorandum Opposing Assembly Bill A08155 

Dear Members of the New York State Assembly and Senate:

I am writing in response to Assembly Bill A08155, a right of publicity bill, which was introduced last week and seems poised to be rushed through the legislature before the session ends for the year. This letter offers my initial comments and provides reasons why rushing this bill through would be a big mistake. I would be happy to submit a more detailed analysis of the issues and to meet with any of you and to testify before the legislature with regard to any possible right of publicity of bill in the great state of New York.

New York’s Right of Privacy, currently contained in Sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Laws, was passed in 1903 and has been in place and working for more than 100 years. It is unwise to upset this longstanding legislation and case law in such a significant way without giving the legislation the hearings and consideration that such a dramatic change deserves. New York, along with California, is a particularly important state on such issues, not only because of its size, but also because of the large number of organizations, companies, and individuals likely to be affected by the adoption of such a law. A change in New York’s law is not only likely to impact its own citizens, but also to have reverberations around the country. Commensurate with such stature, the state of New York owes itself, its citizens, and those of the rest of the country due care in considering, developing, debating and adopting such a new and wide-reaching right of publicity.

I am a Professor of Law and the Joseph Scott Fellow at Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California. I have also been a faculty member at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Missouri. I am an elected member of the American Law Institute and an affiliated fellow at the Yale Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

I am nationally recognized for my work in the intellectual property field, and am the leading voice on issues involving the right of publicity. My blog and website, Rothman’s Roadmap to the Right of Publicity, www.rightofpublicityroadmap.com, is the go-to source for content creators, lawyers, and business people who need to sort through the complex issues involved in this area of law. I have published numerous articles on the topic, and have a forthcoming book on the topic, tentatively titled, The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reclaimed for a Public World, to be published in the Spring of 2018 by Harvard University Press.

The proposed bill that I reviewed is posted on my website, although I have recently been sent a proposed amendment offered by SAG-AFTRA that would undermine the speech-protective exemptions of the proposed bill entirely and set up a conflict with both the First Amendment and federal copyright law. Page 2 of

As time is apparently of the essence, I want to briefly highlight several of my concerns with the current draft and urge you to delay moving forward with any bill on the subject until you can fully consider all of the issues and draft a more carefully considered piece of legislation.

Some of these concerns are as follows:

The Bill Eliminates Current Privacy Laws in New York 

Assembly Bill A08155 turns what used to be a “right of privacy” into a “right of publicity” that is a freely transferable property right in a person’s “name, voice, signature, or likeness.” The bill appears to eliminate the right of privacy in New York and replace it with a right of publicity. This sea-change is troubling and calls into question the more than 100 years of case law all decided under the privacy statute. The status of privacy itself in New York would be jeopardized if the bill passes.

Such a change is likely to undermine privacy protection in the state, while at the same time creating great uncertainty (and lots of litigation) about what sorts of uses of people’s identities are allowed, and what are not allowed.

The Bill Dangerously Expands Liability 

The bill greatly expands liability for uses of people’s identities. The proposal would expand liability from being limited solely to uses of a person’s “name, portrait, picture or voice” to cover uses of a person’s “likeness,” including uses of any “characteristic” that is “recognizable” of the person, including “gestures” and “mannerisms.”

This would be a big change in New York law, which has largely avoided the expansive readings of “persona,” and liability for the mere evocation of a person. The proposed legislation might allow White v. Samsung-like holdings in New York. In White, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed liability merely for conjuring up in the minds of viewers Vanna White’s identity by showing a robot on the Wheel of Fortune set wearing a blonde wig and turning letters. This holding has been roundly criticized and has opened the door to actors preventing copyright holders from recasting roles, and making derivative works of their original shows. These are concerns that should be of particular interest to a state that is home to Broadway.

The proposed bill also expands liability beyond uses solely for purposes of “advertising” or “trade,” to include uses that are “not-for-profit,” putting a much greater swath of creative works and speech at risk.

The Bill Provides Post-Mortem Rights without Sufficient Limits or Justifications 

New York has survived for more than 100 years without a post-mortem right of publicity. Performers, actors, models, and citizens of the state have thrived in its absence. Yet, this bill would provide a right that would last for 40 years after death.

It is true that approximately 25 states currently offer post-mortem rights in some form (some only to deceased soldiers), and that California, another home of a large number of celebrities with commercially valuable personalities that might generate post-death income, provides a 70 year post-death period of protection. Page 3 of

But just because some heirs and potential heirs, and SAG-AFTRA want such a right does not mean New York should offer one up. What justifies such a right? One need not reward the dead for their lifetime of achievements for which they were already compensated. The possibility of such post-mortem rights does not incentivize the living in any significant (or positive) way. Nor can the dead be offended by uses of their identities after they are gone.

It may be appropriate to provide a limited time post-death bar on commercialization that heirs could use narrowly to prevent crass uses of their loved ones. But why should heirs receive a 40-year windfall? As the battles over recently deceased musician Prince’s estate demonstrate, the winners of the rights over the deceased’s right of publicity may have little connection to the deceased, or at least none that merits their getting a monopoly in using his identity and reaping hundreds of millions of dollars that could instead be spread more equitably in this instance across Prince’s fans and the public.

I note that Minnesota does not currently have a post-mortem right of publicity and when Prince’s estate lawyers and others tried to push through a rushed bill to the Minnesota legislature, that legislature had the good sense to put the brakes on, slow things down and give themselves more time to consider the issues involved. If they determine that something needs to be done, they will be able to draft something that is more carefully thought-through and publicly debated.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the proposed post-mortem provision is that it applies to anyone whose identity is used in New York state―most post-mortem rights are limited to those who died domiciled in a particular state. (California’s right is so limited.) Recently, Washington state and Hawaii have both added post-mortem provisions that apply to those who were not domiciled in the state at the time of death. Such a change in the massive market of New York state will open the floodgates to the heirs of the dead to sue in New York, including those who died in states and even countries, like England, that do not offer such rights to their deceased.

The provision also does not address the effect on previously-produced works that include deceased individuals, raising a host of unanswered concerns.

The provision also potentially leaves heirs with a massive estate tax bill that could force them to commercialize the deceased, even if that is not what the grieving surviving family members wish to do, nor what the dead person would have wanted.

•The Bill Jeopardizes the Very People it Seeks to Protect 

The new transferability of a person’s right to her “name, voice, signature and likeness,” is highly problematic. New York’s current law likely does not allow transfers of a person’s identity to a third-party. As I have written in The Inalienable Right of Publicity, 101 Georgetown Law Journal 185 (2012), allowing such transferability does not help identity-holders, but instead risks their losing control over their own names, likenesses, and voices to creditors, ex-spouses, record producers, managers and even Facebook.Page 4 of

• The Proposed Exemptions are Insufficient, Muddled and the Proposed SAG-AFTRA Amendment Unacceptably Restricts Free Speech, and Newsworthy Uses in the Public Interest that Have Long Been Protected under New York Law 

Although the enumerated exemptions soften the blow of the otherwise broad reach of the proposed new right, at least in the context of news and expressive works, the bill does not define what it means by a “transformative creation.” Perhaps the bill seeks to import California’s First-Amendment based, transformativeness test. But this is a confused test that has generated conflicting interpretations and decisions across the country and much criticism. It should not be imported into New York law, and certainly not without a definition.

The proposed SAG-AFTRA amendment would undermine all of the speech-protective exemptions by making them inapplicable if the use infringes “upon traditionally licensed commercial uses” or replaces “professional performance or modeling services rendered in the entertainment or sports industries” or replicates “the same activity by which the individual achieved their fame or derives their income.” This appears to apply to almost all uses in which a professional performer could have been hired or paid, which could include virtually all uses in expressive works.

This proposed amendment would likely run afoul of the First Amendment and copyright law. It would unduly chill speech and generate massive litigation and uncertainty about the scope of the law. It also would likely lead to the federal courts deciding the scope of New York’s right of publicity law, rather than state courts.

In sum, a lot more thought and work needs to go into any proposed right of publicity in New York. I respectfully request that you do not rush A08155 through at the end of your legislative session and give it the robust, public, open debate that it deserves. It has taken more than one hundred years to develop the right of privacy in New York; it should not be unraveled in a single week. I am happy to be of service to you in the process and to address any questions you have about these comments.

Sincerely,

Jennifer E. Rothman                                                                                                                              Professor of Law and Joseph Scott Fellow                                                                                              Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University