This is quite weird, if you have signed up with Room the Agency of late, you'd realize that they have added a new terms and condition clause which is totally unexpected.

Hi benard

You have been a RooM member for a while now and as a small collection of serious shooters we pride ourselves on our collective spirit. We have excellent exposure at Getty, with their 1 million clients, in over 100 countries:




Without every RooM member getting involved and supplying the right content, that sells, everyone suffers, because it affects our exposure on the Getty and iStock sites and therefore reduces our sales potential.

As one of the last few guys who have yet to upload content to RooM we have now put your account on temporary review.

This means that if you do not upload a minimum of 5 images, at least 1 of which must be a model released people image, before 10th April, that are all, or mostly all, accepted – review may take place after this date – your account will be deleted soon after.

Only the best, mostly people, shooters are invited to join RooM, you are one of the few that has a treasured account - this is your last chance to save it.

If your account is closed you will only be able open a new account by invite, as we are changing our sign up rules. With over $1 billion in annual sales, that’s half the World’s stock photography market, going through our channel, you might regret letting your account lapse into closure.

So please allow me to reply to Room the Agency in an open letter.

Dear Room Creative Team

Forgive me but you didn't leave a personalised signature so I have no idea if you are male, female or just a mail-bot programmed to send out email threats to photographers in your network.

From the tone of your email, I gather that you are quite exasperated by the lack of images in which you wish to sell online at the cheapest possible rate. Now the reason why I have not responded is this, I downloaded your Room the Agency iPhone app to see if I could submit photos on my iPod Touch, apparently I could but the value of such works don't seem to be much.




I have joined up as a lite-contributor thus I would only enjoy a 35 percent commission for every sale. Your Elite contributors enjoy up to 40 percent, which is just 5 percent more than what I am getting. Thank you but I think you can keep you 5 percent as I am sure it will contribute immensely to your pantry budget.

Secondly, I do not understand why you want a model released picture to be included in any of my submissions when your own rights managed pricing guideline is as ambiguous as the NSA's stand on personal privacy. You have implied that if I do not submit ONE model released picture, then you are going to close my account.

I have two issues with this. First being that a model would designate a person who is willing to sign a paper as a release and since I don't own a gun to make anyone sign a piece of paper I would have either pay them in cash or in kind if you so wish me to grant them sexual favors. You see, signing away your rights as a model would imply that the person is knowing indulging your passion for want of money. And even if you live in a third world country, a fat and aging prostitute would demand money from you even if you took a picture with her clothes on. 

The second thing about this issue is that all model released photos should be rights managed so to speak. With that, I am afraid that I have no idea what you are talking about when you say things like:-

Rights Managed (RM) PricingPrices are often higher than RF, but far fewer sales are made. Rights Managed (RM) pricing is based on how the image is used. There are many variables with RM pricing: editorial v advertising; length of usage; number of territories; and much more – the wider the use of an image the more it costs the client - but some usage, such as inside textbooks, is much cheaper than others and can be quite low.
We only sell the largest file size we have on file to clients and cost is strictly controlled by what they use it for.

If you can put it out in plain English, like maybe a 50% commission from the total deal, then I would probably be much happier with instead of twisting the words around like a serpent in heat.

For the record, regardless of how much you sign for or price the photos, there is a commission structure which you can share with photographers remains the same regardless of the number of licenses you sold to a buyer. What's more, your license type from RF to RM is rather rigid for the buyer and it tanks out at 500,000 copies, the irony is that you use an honor system and take no interest in making sure that the print run is not exceeded. So will you bill them more if you found out they fibbed a little by understating the print run? Do you have the means to police the issue? 

Lastly, based on the offering, and also with your own admission, there is no way to expect more sales from a photo that is Rights Managed. So even if I paid a model to pose for me, obtain the model release and send it to you, there is only a slim chance of making a few hundred dollars. How many hundreds I might make remains a mystery for me as your chart to photo buyers failed to illustrate how much they have to spend to buy a photo from you. 

I am sure you make millions from the 1 billion sale turnover you like to brag about. For photographers, they might be real lucky to earn some regular beer money for all their work. So let's have a beer when you have the time to drop by for a talk, I just hope you're buying. 

WTF? No one told me I would appear in a Playboy ad!

This is a post of something I wrote on my other photography blog which is intended for a mobile audience. For those of you who have heard, there are some individuals who shoot stock and earn over US$100,000 a year. If you want to get to that bracket, then you gotta know what sells and what doesn't sell on stock image libraries.

Stuff that Sells

For the most part, the demand comes from the corporate sector where they had enough of paying for rights managed photos, a royalty free option is preferred and yes, you need models in the picture and we are not talking toy airplanes here.

The Hot Stuff that every Stock Agency is looking for are:-

Model Released people doing things. So, rather than just standing there, we want people out walking (not a dot on the landscape), shopping, using technology, celebrating, engaging, all the everyday activities we enjoy, in fact.

Story Telling Themes that Sell:-

Concepts, with and without people. Such as – Adventure, Balance, Connection, Discovery, Escapism, Fragility, Growth, Hope, Idyllic, Journey, Loyalty, Motion, New Life, Persistence, Real People, Sharing, Teamwork and Young at Heart.

There are caveats to this list and besides the property and model releases you are expected to furnish, you also need to avoid the following in all your pictures:-


Trademarks and Logos
Before you submit photos for consideration, make sure you whip out your trusty desktop or notebook computer and fire up Adobe Photoshop. Stock Agencies do not want to see any trademarks or logos in your picture. Combing through your image for offending logos and trademarks is easy. See that logo on the jacket that says Hugo Boss, well take that out and that Coke Bottle in the background? Just erase the logo and word Coke from the bottle.

Art Installations
Don't submit photos with famous arts of works in the background. Waste of time really as all that is already copyrighted. So for example you want to pose a model next to Rodin's Thinker, well think again dude. It's not going to fly with the Agencies. Public monuments are fine, like the Eiffel Tower, London Bridge and Statue of Liberty but it has to be in a context of something.

Events and Concerts
If you had to buy a ticket for a sporting event or performance, you cannot shoot any fucking thing intended for commercial use there. It can be for editorial use and that restricts your market by about half. The paying customers are always the corporates who are looking for royalty free exceptions. If you can produce a picture they want, they will skip paying for a rights manage photo and go for yours. Will this make you any richer? I seriously doubt it.

What me? Royalty Free? Are you kidding?

If you had sports pictures from a curling event in Sochi Russia, well you can't sell that as commercial stuff unless you fucking hire the damn team to pose for you in a make believe set. That too must be sans Olympic attire and logos in the background. And you can't sell it as an Olympic image either, just Curling.

The same applies for concerts. You can't shoot in a U2 Rock Event and sell that as a commercial image. Bono will clearly tell you it is a no-no.

Stock Image Agencies would Puke if you Tried Submitting...

There is a list here too. Don't bother looking too deep into it as I am sure you have all tried to make your first million in stock photography by venturing out to your own back yard.

1. Squirrels, Ducks, Geese, Swans, Pigeons and all the birds and animals you find in your garden or local park
2. Seascapes, Shorelines and Lakes - especially the one's with long shutter speeds
3. Sunsets over water
4. Sunsets behind Trees
5. Trees
6. Generic landscapes with no distinctive geographical, iconic or stylistic features
7. Snapshots of dogs and cats
8. Nature abstracts submitted as "backgrounds"
9. Insects – unless they are fantastic
10. Objects on a white background – especially Food and Still Life images.
11. Animals in captivity, where it's obvious they are in a Zoo or Safari Park
12. Individual Flowers and Plants outdoors, especially close-up without any context or visible sky

This list isn't as extensive as I would like but it is a start. For the record, there are tonnes of these types of photos on Flickr which people are already giving away for free. So what makes you think that picture you took in your back yard is going to make you any money?

How to Make Your First Million in Stock Photography

Invest in those freelance models. Remember what your Mom said about bringing strangers home? Well it's going to make lots of money if they can sign a model release and do you bidding. Pose them with props, such as your TV remote, Playstation 4 controller or in your bathtub taking a bubble bath. Activities like these sell like hotcakes as Royalty Free Imagery.

Use expensive props as accessories. Remember the guy who lives down the street who has an exotic vintage Ferrari, well you can find out when he's not home and get your models to pose next to it. Just remember to blank out the number plate for good measure or else he might want a cut from your earnings. Props are extremely important in stock photography. You don't need to feature a logo of the prop in any shoot as long as you pose the model right.

Travel to Places People won't Venture to. If you go to Iceland, you could hire someone to don a space suit eating a hamburger and that will sell in droves. The landscape is nothing like what you will find anywhere in the world. You could even fake a moon landing there. Take along a scale model kit and drop that in your shoot.  Forget the Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty, those have been done to death. Humor sells and if you can use that to good effect, you'll sell millions.

Set up an Indoor Studio to Stage photo shoots. This is probably the least expected but makes the most money. You can for a start have you own studio set up within the confines of your home and shoot models in various poses. All you need are just three type of backgrounds, black, white and grey. You don't even need to have a background element as this can be further added on in Photoshop by whoever buys your photos.

Invest in Photoshop. Yes, you can make a million pictures by compositing various subjects and elements to make a picture. If your photoshop skills are up to mark, you can do almost anything. Add flying pigs into your sunset pictures, make your dog laugh out loud while watching TV.

And if you noticed I didn't say it won't cost you a dime to stage any of this. All of the above cost time, effort and money because that's what the majority of photographers are not interested in investing. Anything which cost them next to nothing to do has been done to death. Taking pictures of garden vegetables, strangers molesting your pet dog or hamster, backyard insects or even those beautiful sunsets at the park might seem lovely to you but no one is going to buy them. The key is to be unique and that calls for models. So if you don't know anyone who will pose for you, time to fire up Facebook and connect with your friend's friends. Who knows, you might get lucky?

Royalty Free is a Hit and Run Business

I bet no one told you this but Royalty Free is just another name for an open retail store that works on a honor system. You take the goods, drop in the money and move along. They do not look after your rights should your image be used by various other people who did not buy your photo. Let's for a moment assume that someone did buy your photo for use in a website. Well guess what? A web surfer will steal that photo and post it on his website and so on. Guess who is going after them for royalties? Well it certainly not the stock image agency. How about the dude who turns your photo into a viral Instagram meme? Do you think you can sue him?

Stock agencies do not as a rule furnish you with the name and address of the purchaser. This is not their beef. You can have your photos submitted as a rights managed photo but that doesn't mean the stock agency will look after your photo either. They only take notice when it is sold as exclusive rights managed for a fixed duration usage. Those pay big bucks. But once you go that way, the chances of you getting a photo sold diminishes as buyers often opt for royalty free if a similar picture is available.

In the corporate world, you need staff to stay responsible to rights managed photo use. Often such responsibilities fall under the guise of the marketing communications department. Smaller companies won't even bother with this and lets the advertising agencies deal with the details. Would they care if the usage rights have lapsed? What do you seriously think they would do if you didn't pay up?

The competition for that corporate dollar is rife. And stock agencies expect you to follow their lead by racing to the bottom is terms of pricing of any photo. They don't care how much you spent staging and capturing that photo. It's not their business to care. They want to sell everything for a dollar if they could.

In the near future, you'd shoot a model and composite various elements to make it new. That's why Photoshop is such a game changer in digital photography. You can make new photos out of old ones. Think for a moment, need a model to wear a new attire? Just change the colors of the clothes she's wearing! Want to have an interesting background? Drop in a bokeh blurred background in Photoshop and you'll have a new picture.

So don't give up your day job for a career in stock photography if you don't have a dime to invest in it from the beginning. It takes more than just back yard pictures to bring home the bacon if you want to carve out your own turf in the stock photo business.

I love Leica lenses. Having owned one, you'll find that there is something really exquisite about the imaging quality. The color, contrast, and clarity is superb. So Leica is celebrating 100 years in photography. Wow. That's a long time. Looking back, one can't help but realize how much photography has changed since then. 

Today, the average digital photo is pretty much worthless. To buy one for use on your website, you pay a dollar for royalty free rights. The only people who seem to be making money from it all are the stock photo agencies who charge you that dollar to download an image. 

Leica has moved away from film to digital. Good for you. Look at the spiffy new Leica 100th D-Lux 6 with 5,000 of these will be sold world wide. That said, it will be a collectors item. I don't want to go into the pricing. You can't do that with a Leica. It has a great lens and that should cost you in the ballpark of a full frame DSLR alone. 

To pay that much for a camera speaks volumes of Leica photographers. Rich, affluent and probably a point and shoot enthusiast. You are not going to be the next Alfred Eisenstaedt or Robert Capa. 

Instead, we find Leica indulging their fans with Street Photography and offering courses and exhibitions for would be street photographers. This genre of photography was made famous by HCB, who in his free time spent hours upon hours on the streets of Paris. But Leica, haven't you noticed that the people who buy your cameras do not necessary venture out to the street? 

The typical Leica user would probably avoid spending too many hours on the street as his Leica gear would cost more than his left kidney on the black market. You can go to a cafe and the moment you put down your camera bag or gear, you'd be assured it'll be gone within a few minutes of you taking your eyes off it. A Leica camera is like magnet for thieves and robbers. Unless you venture out with a shotgun in tow, chances are people everywhere will try to rip you off. 

Lastly, why Street Photography? As a career pursuit, it won't be as financially rewarding as Paparazzi Photography. Even wedding photography makes more money on a regular basis than any street photographer. You should be aware that the constabulary of every Western country has an axe to grind with people who point cameras in the street. Post 911 they say. It's a sign of a would e terrorist. 

Then there is the privacy issue. In Hungary, it is illegal to take photos of people on the street without their consent. In the age of the NSA with eyes on your Facebook profile, you'd be happy that your face doesn't appear in a picture on Flickr captured in a embargoed country. 

What's more street photos are often made up of people, with recognisable faces. This means that if you ever tried to sell a street photo as a royalty free stock image, you'd be asked to supply a model release. You can of course take photos when there is no one around. For this, all you have to do is wait till the eerie hours of the night to do so. But I understand that Leica cameras don't handle well in low light, so are you saying that this is a myth?

Regardless, I think you are doing well financially as a camera manufacturer. Those limited edition cameras are genuine rip offs but hey, let's keep that a secret between the both of us. I still think you make fabulous lenses and I am addicted to them. Saves me hours behind the desktop trying to enhance those digital images on Adobe Lightroom. For this, let me wish you a very Happy Birthday, and let the good times roll. 

Was the product rushed? What about the light leak issue? Was the promised firmware update released to address more issues with the camera?

I can't help but feel that the product was rushed to market without proper testing. I know Sony well, having worked with them in the past on several cameras, they seem to like to gloss over some of their weaknesses time and again. Their chief problem is that they want to catch the buying wave of consumers.

The A7 series is no different. A full frame interchangeable camera that is not entirely a DSLR, and yet, gives the impression of having a full frame quality imaging is probably the best snake oil they have sold to the masses so far.

I did a little research on the dynamic range capability of the camera. This is measured by dpreview.com and all you have to do is select the suitable camera for comparison so I don't use any crafty methods to debunk any myths.

If you look at the above chart, the A7r performs very poorly in dynamic range charts. Compare that with the Nikon D600 in auto mode, you can see the difference. I have also taken the liberty to compare two other popular cameras, the OMD-EM5 from Olympus and the Fujifilm Xpro1. The Xpro1 doesn't have a auto mode so I have selected a ISO 200 setting. Dollar for dollar, you can't beat the Olympus OMD EM5 in dynamic range capability.


What Dynamic Range doesn't offer you

Dynamic range charts tell the sensitivity of the sensor in capturing light in both the highlights and shadow areas withint a picture, it does not tell the deal with issues such as  noise reduction algorithms or color accuracy.

I care much for high ISO as I rarely ever shoot above ISO1600, having ISO 6400 is useful if you are a professional but I don't have such a requirement on my day to day shooting.

Even in low light, I prefer to use a tripod for the camera and shoot at a slower ISO. I don't shoot dance or music concerts very often, and for that I have no need for a high ISO and even higher shutter speed to stop motion.

The dynamic range chart tells a clear picture that the Sony A7r is not a good camera to use in high contrast scenes even in DRO mode, and you probably have to use HDR capture to get more out of your images, meaning...you need to carry a tripod for a three frame capture.

Do you need another camera?

I am of the opinion that you should have two different cameras to cater to all your shooting needs. The casual shooter only needs an iPhone to get good results in daylight, and the second camera should address the weaknesses of the iPhone in everyday use, like poor dynamic range, poor shutter speed response and poor noise handling, and poor low light response.

Say you have a good iPhone/Nokia Lumia 1020 for your everyday use and want something more. Then your best choice is to consider your shooting requirement, ask yourself this:-

How often do you shoot in low light?
Do you shoot action subjects?

These are the only two question that is pertinent. Fast AF and shutter speed is probably the key to your action requirement, while in low light, you need to handle  such shooting with a combination of low light capability and high ISO capture.

What does Sony Needs to Do?

Address their weak points, namely poor high ISO handling and dynamic range. Their noise reduction algorithm stinks, and DRO was something they were bragging about when I worked with them on the A700 Resource Portal. It sounded very futuristic then but today, as you can see form the poor dyanmic range results, it has taken a severe beating.

Sony cannot rely on their mass market brand name alone to sell cameras. I still do believe they are able to come out with innovative products but the performance issues often associated with it leaves a very bad aftertaste on the consumers who have bought into them.

A product must be sold on its strengths and not price points alone. A full frame camera like the A7r looks tempting at that price but the performance of the camera is less than desirable. The rush to put more pixels into megapixels must stop. Consumers will get tired of the same sales pitch and turn to their smartphone cameras instead, when this happens, Sony Alpha Cameras are doomed.

In the days of analogue photography, all you got were negatives or slides which needed to be exposed via a hardcopy print. You went down to the Photo Lab, told them which frame you wanted to print and you'd be given a choice of sizes. I remember fondly that it was the infamous 3R size photo that did the trick and much later in the 1990s, it was the postcard sized 4R.

The 4 x6 inch print won the world over as it was a 3:2 aspect ratio that suited 35mm photography. The 3R eventually fell out of favor world wide as the cost of the print was only marginally cheaper than the 4R.

Why did the 4R print won the world over? Well if you care to look, it was the natural size for almost everything from landscapes to portraiture.

What your Eyes Can See

Unfortunately for mankind, we are not built with auto zoom lenses to which we can zoom onto details like a camera. Images have to be of a certain size before we are able to admire and see them in their full glory. The 4R print is probably the best size for just about any type of photo and I tell you this from experience. Any print that is too small will mean you need the eyes of a hawk to admire and appreciate.

Pros always love having large prints made of their photos for use on walls. The crucial thing about having it big is that all the detail and nuances of what makes that photo great is for all to see. No squinting required. This is why large screen devices are always the preferred choice for showing off a digital photo portfolio. Devices like the tiny iPhone is just not going to cut it.

The 4 x 6 postcard is probably the optimum size for everyone if you ever wanted to make your pictures available for viewing.

Printing on Digital Printers

There are two competing print standards in digital portable media for photos, those from Zink and the other is from Canon and Sony. Both the Sony and Canon photo printers are geared towards producing 4R size photos.

Of late, there has been a lot of interest in photo printers from Zink as they are known to be much cheaper than the ones offered by Canon and Sony. Initially, Zink photo printers produced very poor quality photos from the Pogo line of printers but over time, the quality has gotten better. Zink paper sizes for photo printing comes in three sizes, 2x3, 4x6 and 3x4. The Socialmatic camera is rumoured to be using a 2x3 print just like the new LG Portable Printers. 

I won't go into detail on the 3x4 print as it was made solely for the Polaroid Digital Instant cameras that failed to rock the photography world. The Socialmatic camera seems to have piqued the interest of the masses with its stylish design and instant photo capability with a smaller size print. 

I must add that judging from the print size alone (2x3) which is technically half the size of a borderless 4R photo, Socialmatic cameras will have limited appeal with more demanding mobile photographers. 

As I have mentioned before, print size will dictate how useful a print will be. For something this small you only have two choices:-

• Portraiture, half body capture or Selfies
• Close up to Macro of still life or any objects

The Zink's  2 x 3 smallish photo size is unsuitable for a host of other things you'd might want from a printer namely:

• Lanscape or Cityscape photo
• Architectural Photography
• Group Photos with a Background Scenery
• Full body Photos

First, the print resolution plays a part in giving you detail in a photo but on a smaller print area, you are not going to see much. This means that should you frame or print a photo that has got wide vistas, chances are you won't be able to see the faces of people in group photos or see the details found in any form of architecture with Socialmatic Camera Prints. 

I don't know about you but this is a huge bummer for people who want slightly larger prints. The 4 x 6 paper option is still yet unavailable for Socialmatic use and even if it does come out, it will be a humongous piece of hardware. That's not going to be a hit with people who already carry too much gear with them when they travel or move about. 

This doesn't mean you can't have an optional 4 x 6 printer from Zink which cost roughly US$0.50 a print whereas the Sony and Canon print version cost roughly US$0.36 per print. At those prices, there is nothing to stop you from walking into a Photo Lab and getting yourself a print from a self service Kiosk at the same price. 

Socialmatic will have its Day

I think it would be great if you could hand someone a print the moment you capture an image and still retain a digital copy of the image in your camera and this is what the Socialmatic camera is going to be used for. 

Often, people these days never get to see pictures of themselves in print as everyone shares them digitally via social media. Thus the Socialmatic camera will be primed for social occasions where a digital print will be made for all those in attendance instead of having them shared on Facebook. 

This might sound quite useless to some but for the socialites among us, it will be god send. Socialmatic camera at least in my books will be what its moniker says about it. It's for social use only. 

By now, everyone would have heard of the XT-1, the new DSLR camera from Fujifilm. Its retro look is positively amazing and the dials make it easy for you to select exposure options while wearing a glove, but is it really a new camera?

For those who have some technical background, you'd realise that this is the Xpro-1 in a different costume. The Xpro-1 has a rangefinder style jacket while the XT-1 will wear a DSLR outfit. 

I hate to say this but the innards, regardless of what they sell you on the features, is the same thing. Underneath it all, the camera uses the same 16 megapixel sensor. 

Why the same sensor?

Good question. But the underlying reason is still the cost that went into developing the sensor. Those of you who know how much effort is spent into R&D will understand that Fujifilm has to make money from this. Selling a million units a year isn't going to claw back the investment made and photographers have to stick around to buy the same camera twice before you see any significant changes to the specification. 

Developing new tech is an expensive affair. Fujifilm also charges a premium over its models and this means that it won't sell that many units. As of 2013, none of the DSLR manufacturers were actually seeing any increase in profits. The stagnating market has been due to Smartphones taking over most of the market for cameras. 

So when you put the same sensor into a variety of models, your amortize the cost of development and hopefully claw back the dollars poured into development. Sony does the same thing with its range of sensors as it sells it off to different manufacturers. 

Performance versus the Price

There is no denying that there will be a demand for performance in the professional circles and this is where the XT-1 will come in handy. Having seen the test performances of Fuji's X-trans CMOS sensor, you will be impressed by its noise handling in low light at 1600 ISO. In fact, it kicks most of Nikon's and Canon's Professional line up at that ISO range. Price performance wise, it can't be beat. I love seeing the details and if I ever wanted to shoot in low light, I would use a tripod to hold the camera steady. No point trying to make a statement by hand holding and pushing the ISO handling right up to 6400. This is where Nikon and Canon's line up will truly show its colors—a feat which I have little use for. Take for example the D4 or the Df. Fitted with a 16 megapixel sensor, it goes head to head with the TX-1. From ISO 1600, you won't notice much difference until you up the ISO to 3200. From here, you'd see how the large sensor DSLRs will shine. 

Dynamic range wise, there isn't much difference. That is until you throw in a large sensor unit (full frame) into the arena. 

Comparison made from dpreview.com

Body alone, the Xpro-1 sells for about US$1100 online. This is just a tad cheaper than the US$1300 selling price of the XT-1. The Olympus EM-5 sells for roughly US$800. Both the Nikon 610 (uses the same 600 sensor) and D4 are way out in the US$2000 ballpark. 

Then you have daylight capture which can already be handled with a smartphone. Not a good thing all the time since it doesn't give you the 'bokeh' quality everyone is crazy about but heck, I got a work around that keeps me happy. So daylight shooting isn't a big thing. 

I would love to have the XT-1 but I reckon the Xpro-1 is a far better deal. Since it is officially being replaced, stocks will be aplenty and price would be cheaper too. And you can't be looking at a significant improvement in image handling between the two. They have the same sensor and performance won't be far apart. 

The Olympus EM-5 has even better value for money if you're not too fussy but when it comes to high ISO, this is where it loses out to the Xpro-1 and XT-1. 

Now that the prices are sorted out, you have to ask yourself on what you'd be using the camera for. Semi-pro or Pro users will find the XT-1 a good buy, but casual users are really better off with the Olympus EM-5 which at US$800, is a hefty discount from the XT-1. You have to justify that price with better dynamic range and high ISO handling found on the XT-1. That said, unless I really find a paying market niche in photography, I won't be getting any of them soon. 

Petapixel.com carried this rather amusing story about a photographer fighting for damages resulting from the use of the images.

"In its new motion, Getty and AFP argue that their conduct was “careless” but not willfully malicious, thus shielding them from the maximum penalty. They argue the most Morel is entitled to is a single DMCA penalty of $2,500 and actual damages of $200,000 — legal fees in the case are estimated to have reached northwards of $8 million."

The last bit probably gets photographers worried. If a DMCA damage is only 200K, WTF is the legal fees all about?

Stolen Goods and Usage Abuse

Having your pictures stolen is probably as old as prostitution itself. These days, someone will rip your image and use it unconditionally via Instagram, posters or a soup kitchen. But there are generally two types of infringes you need to be concern about. People who stole your goods, and the people who abuse the limited copyright license of the image.

The first kind is what AFP and Getty got themselves into. They have to show that they had taken sufficient care in finding out the real owner of the pictures instead of just picking the first guy that is associated with it. By right, the photographer in this case should have sued both the thief and Getty+AFP. But the case does not mention this so I can't be sure if it did happen.

The second ones are those who bought a limited copyright license from you and used it on everything they can think of, including the condom packaging you found from a third world country. These you can do nothing about. They are after all your clients and no carefully worded demand for additional payment is going to win you compensation. 

Thieves like Us

Upscaling a low resolution picture is relatively easy as long as you have the right software. There are a few out there that does just this. Often, you can upscale or enlarge a stolen picture by 3 times. Perfect Resize 8 has a fancy patented, fractal-based interpolation algorithms that makes sure your image stays the same once upscaled.

Any stolen picture from the Internet can be given a new lease of life, including the humble screen capture image. This means no picture is safe, and to post your picture up onto the Web is in some ways giving it away. I am sure as hell you haven't got a team of lawyers looking after your images.

How Pictures get Stolen

Instagram, Flickr and any image hosting service. That's how popular these spots are image thieves. I have known some restaurants or cafes who have stolen images used on their menu. Heck, why shouldn't they? You posted it, and there is no water marking or demand for payment, so sue me!

Even with watermarking, you're just adding a layer of inconvenience as any good photoshop digital artist will be able to do away with it.

Searching for Misused Images

Google Image search is probably the best way to find them. They index more pages than you have read books. Drop an image onto the Google Image search bar and you'll be given all the results. Neat. So now you know your image has been abused and misused. What do you do now?

For someone who has stolen your image, you can issue an Internet take down, which is hardly useful if pictures of your beloved Pomeranian Husky is used in a restaurant Menu in Vietnam or for that matter, for the site to be hosted on a Web server that resides in Somalia. DMCA infringement take downs are as useful as a dog whistle—not everyone will hear it. Fair use compensation? That's like asking for a free blowjob while negotiating with a Hooker.

Why Copyright Does not Pay

In the US, you need to register for a copyright of the said image to enjoy additional protection. If you do sue the party involved, your lawyers are looking at the $$$ legal fees as oppose to staking your claim. If you lose, you still have to pay the lawyer. They don't work for free Starbucks coffees.

Legal fees are totally separate from actual damages. If you wish to pursue a case against someone who has infringed on you, make sure you have a good lawyer who doesn't charge that much and are in love with your work. Or for that matter, an avid photographer himself so that he's as interested as you are in protecting image rights. Everything else is secondary.