I'm not a big fan of this "user-provided content" model for commercial enterprises. If you want to use my work to make money, especially when you are demanding large chunks of licensing rights, pay me. And while I thought JPG Magazine was a nicely laid-out mag, it didn't take long for me to decide I wasn't going to submit pictures to it for token payments while they got all kinds of publication rights and all the money.
Well, it turned out there's not that much money in that particular game:
JPG Magazine Says Goodbye.
Now, several perfectly nice people have lost their jobs, and for that I'm genuinely sorry. But like people who invest in Ponzi schemes, it's hard to have sympathy for people whose business model involves what, to me, seems like a fundamental disconnect with reality. JPG was basically the print version of Flickr. Why, exactly, does Flickr need a print version? I don't know. And apparently it doesn't.
Sorry, guys. Use the lesson learned and try again.
M
Friday, January 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Just a month or so ago, I purchased my first copy of JPG. I sat down at an eatery next door to the retailer where I bought the magazine. By the end of lunch, and after thumbing through the rag, I decided I didn't feel right about buying a magazine made up of content the mag's publishers, essentially, procured for free. I wasn't overly impressed with the magazine anyway.
"Free" is why so many photographers and others are struggling. I returned the magazine to the retailer and managed to get my money back. After reading about the demise of JPG, I'll admit to gloating. (Cuz gloating is free while not taking food out of anyone's mouth.)
Post a Comment