September 21st, 2015

Can Software Judge the Esthetic Merits of a Photograph?

Market-landing-page-desktop-mockup-bgThe past year has seen a big spike in automatic photo-tagging, with Lightroom, Flickr and EyeFi all rolling out software that scans images and applies tags based on the image’s contents. Even though auto-tagging has had its share of missteps, EyeEm has an even more ambitious agenda. Its software not only scans and tags images based on content, but passes esthetic judgement on photos as well.

EyeEm’s judgement passing algorithm, dubbed EyeVision, isn’t new, but as of today it’s seen a significant overhaul. Jackie Dove at The Next Web has a nice piece exploring EyeVision’s capabilities.

EyeEm runs a stock photo market and, like all stock photo markets, wants to surface the best images whenever a prospective customer is searching for something. The new EyeVision software update purports to do just that–it can find images by tag but also pass judgement on which photos are more esthetically pleasing than others in its archive. Photographers take note: humans are no longer the sole arbiters of taste.

According to EyeEm’s CTO Ramsi Rizk, EyeVision can detect not simply what’s in a photo, but emotions and abstract contents. As Dove explains, “EyeVision recognizes 20,000 objects (hat, shirt, man, sun), photographic concepts (rule of thirds, vanishing point, symmetry, negative space) and abstract concepts (surreal, sadness, emotional, alone, carefree, exciting, tradition) and is constantly learning.”

It’s not just software crunching numbers, but software informed by the judgement of human photographers. Rizk told Dove that the esthetic judgements “comes from hundreds of thousands of photos that have been painstakingly curated by our community by professional photographers and our team…” This one-two punch of software guided by expert human input is what EyeEm hopes will be a critical differentiator as companies like Adobe, Google and others seek to tackle the same problem.

But EyeEm’s ambitions raise an interesting question about the future of photography in a software-driven world. Can we trust algorithms to pass judgement on what constitutes a “beautiful” image or is that criteria so subjective that it doesn’t really matter who (or what) is judging?

October 25th, 2013

PPE 2013: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Social Media

The theme of Thursday’s PhotoPlus Expo panel “Practicing Safe Social Media” seemed to be that social media is a necessary evil in today’s photography industry so photographers need to be smart about how they use it. The ASMP-sponsored panel had a variety of speakers who each brought a unique viewpoint to the discussion. Covering the legal ramifications was attorney Ross Buntrock; giving the media’s perspective was AOL/Huffington Post Photography Director Anna Dickson; representing the photo industry was photographer Richard Kelly; EyeEm CEO Florian Meissner provided a social-media company’s viewpoint.

Buntrock and moderator Peter Krogh broke down the terms of service agreements for four popular social-media sites, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest and Twitter, and the news was pretty bleak. All four TOS agreements are essentially broad licenses that allow the companies to provide the images and data from their sites to third parties. This doesn’t mean that they own the copyright to any work you post on their networks. The panelists illustrated that point by briefly discussing the case of Daniel Morel, the photojournalist who successfully sued AFP, the Washington Post and Getty for using images from the Haiti earthquake that he posted on Twitter without his permission. However, it does mean that these platforms can let advertisers use your image in sponsored posts without your permission and without compensation. (Buntrock noted that adding a copyright symbol to your image before posting it to these social networks doesn’t impact the TOS at all.)

It would be easy to just say, “Forget, I’m not going to use social media.” Except Dickson made an interesting point that the reason she’s on Instagram is because that is where everyone else is—both photographers and photo editors like herself. Whereas five years ago she would’ve followed photographers on Flickr, now it’s Instagram. She also said the “look” of Instagram photos is popular now, so many websites, including AOL/Huffington Post, use the site to find images for articles and slide shows.

So herein lies the rub: You want your work to be followed and found by potential clients, but you don’t want to give it away for free. Meissner’s company, EyeEm, is trying to eradicate this issue by providing the same social features as Instagram but including a notification system that alerts photographers when a third party wants to use their image, and offers compensation for that use. Other sites and services were mentioned as also having some sort of permission or compensation model, including Stipple, Scoopshot, SmugMug and PhotoShelter.

However, until one of these sites has the same massive user base as Instagram or Facebook or Twitter or Pinterest, they don’t solve the immediate problem of how to get exposure while also protecting your work on social media. Kelly’s strategy for dealing with this issue is simple: Know what your message is on social media before you start posting on these sites. For example, he uses his accounts to keep followers up to date on what he’s working on, advocacy issues for photographers and his teaching gigs. That’s it. He doesn’t use the tools to post new work or market himself. And Dickson, to a certain extent, supported Kelly’s idea by noting that she loves it when photographers post behind-the-scenes images so she can see what they are up to as well as get a peek at their personality.

At its core, this is what social media was originally intended for—sharing who you are and what you are up to. Though you can use these tools to market your work, it would be wise to think of how you can do that without actually posting the finished image since it can easily spread around the Web without your attribution and without you ever seeing a penny of compensation.

Related Articles
In TwitPic Copyright Claim, Daniel Morel Seeks $13.2 Million from AFP, Getty

AFP, Washington Post Violated Daniel Morel’s Copyrights, Judge Rules