I think this underscores the precarious nature of developing with regards to Myspace. Widget models can be shut down by internal changes to the Myspace architecture, while external models can and have been C&D’d. The bright side is the hope that as Myspace users grow older, they will mature onto services and systems which are easier for developers to enhance & embrace.

Basing one’s entire busines model on widgets for myspace seems like a pretty crazy business plan.

This is basic business principles 101: it’s not a good idea to have a business that depends on another business.

you’re assuming that business principles and models won’t evolve over time with a changing market and changing technologies.

I’m not a Flash developer, so I’m not sure if I’m correct in saying this, but couldn’t you make the widget interactive? If the widget can load/reference data from the server it’s being pulled from, why the hell can’t they produce the functionality they need in the widget itself (Flash can do cross-domain AJAX within itself right?) MySpace took away the click ability, but the widget is really mini-portal to your website is it not? In reality, it’s similar to redesigning your site for mobile functionality: smaller screen, less clutter…..

This company isn’t basing its whole biz on MySpace widgets, just this newest initiative.

Is there a reason why there are *so* many spelling error and typos throughout this article?

Just to see if you were paying attention. Thanks.

Marshall,

The Cooqy guys say they have a workaround - I tried it with Flash 9 installed and it seems to work:

http://mashable.com/2006/07/31.....ce-update/

Pete, I saw that - very interesting. I suppose things like that will test whether it’s really a security step or brand lock in behind all this. Thanks for the update.

A business model revolves around selling photos and taking 35%. Our Spy Stream was originally designed as something to help make the site more interactive for our user. We realized later that we could turn this into a widget that users could place on external pages and be quite useful because they would never have to constantly update it. I might be 23, but I remember all of the dot com companies with business models solely dependent on advertising. We will continue to develop the widget because we feel there’s great potential there, but it will never become our only business model.
I look foward to sharing further releases with you!

This is an interesting business, however I do see some potential legal wrangles in some categories:

Sports. According to the rules of most of the major leagues and events, you are not permitted to attend an event, take photographs and then sell them unless you have obtained the proper permissions. Typically your ticket to these events contains fine print stating that by entering the venue, you give up certain rights. Certainly people break these rules and get away with it, but with the Internet making the wholesale distribution and sale of these types of photographs possible, it is not out of the realm of possibility that if this gets out of hand, sports organizations will take action against the distributors (like SpyMedia). Whether they win remains to be seen, but these types of lawsuits are very expensive to defend.

Celebrities and athletes. There is nothing illegal about taking photos of well-known people (or anybody for that matter) so long as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. However do sites like this make it clear to buyers that the ways that they can use the photos are limited? Is it possible that somebody buys a photo of Paris Hilton on SpyMedia for $10 and does not understand that they cannot use the image in a commercial manner (to promote a product, merchandising, etc.). If they misappropriate somebody’s image after buying a photo on SpyMedia, what are the ramifications to the seller and SpyMedia? Is it possible that the facilitator of the transaction gets dragged into the dispute?

I see the potential of a service like this, however for anybody planning to use purchased photography for a professional purpose, I don’t think that this type of service is viable. I’m in the media business and would never use a photograph purchased from “PhotoGuy222″ in a magazine or website simply because I have no reasonable guarantee that this person is the true copyright holder and has the rights and authority to sell the photo in question. There are very good reasons we work with major agencies: you know the rights are not in question and you get access to a large collection of photos with one buy. You don’t have to browse through a dozen sites like SpyMedia and purchase on a photo-by-photo basis.

On the photographer side, most professional photographers are likely to want more robust licensing and rights clearing to protect their interests. SpyMedia is fine for the hobbyist but not somebody that makes a living selling their photography.

If SpyMedia provided more oversight and had real contracts in place with its sellers and buyers to ensure that all content being sold is legit, it might have a shot at larger success with major media clients, but it would then be competing with all the other photo agencies out there. As it stands now, its appeal of allowing anybody to register, upload photos and have them available for sale instantly is exactly why it won’t gain traction on a larger scale. That’s not to say some major media outlets won’t ever purchase anything from services like this, but I think they are already very well served by the major agencies the vast majority of the time. I think services like this will have marginal success with non-professionals looking to buy some photos on the cheap, but this is not going to be a significant business. Bounties are an interesting twist but again, major media already have resources and connections in place to obtain photographs of interest. I don’t believe you’ll see them taking the time to post lots of bounties on SpyMedia hoping that somebody comes through.

Interestingly, the barriers to entry for duplicating this type of system are very low and it would not be difficult for photo sharing sites like Flickr to implement something like this. As user-produced content distribution sites continue to proliferate, I think it will only help reinforce the position of the major agencies since they provide one-stop service and will be the only way to cut through the clutter.

Barry,

I would love to hear some more of your views. I will try and talk to as many points as I can without getting to detailed.
- We have spent a great deal of time with our IP attorney going over who has rights and where. With regards to taking pictures at sporting events, we feel we are covered. We require all of our users to submit a description along with every photo that is uploaded to the site. When a user uploads a photo, along with a description, it is classified as a form of speech. This protected speech is why we feel we are on solid ground here, and have extensive case law to prove this point. I know PGA tour events don’t allow cameras, and MLB games only permit lenses

Good to hear that you’ve been considering the legal angles. I am not a lawyer (although I work with them on a constant basis) and while I understand the issues around protected speech, I have never seen this argued as it relates to the commercial sale of photographs and have doubts as to whether it is relevant. Note that most of the major leagues, for instance, claim that any descriptions of its games are their property. You’ve probably heard the disclaimers (”…rebroadcasting, or any other pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, is strictly prohibited…”). This will certainly be tested in the courts sooner than later given the way the Internet is changing the media landscape. I don’t expect the leagues to go after individuals with no profit motive, but I can see them going after for-profit entities and a good strategy is to go after startups since they typically don’t have the resources to mount a tough, sustained defense. They fold and the major corporations get a quick precident-setting victory, even if it is eventually overturned on appeal. I personally suspect the courts will dismiss a lot of these claims eventually, but I wouldn’t want to be the one paying to defend myself against them. Napster was basically crushed because of the legal burdens it faced.

That said, I think the business aspects are more important than the legal. Assurances over rights notwithstanding, I would love to be able to obtain quality photography and other media less expensively from services like yours but right now I don’t see anything that changes the dynamic of the business enough to draw me away from the major agencies for most of my needs. Today I can log in to an agency’s website and find fresh content within minutes. Paying through the nose for that is much more appealing than scouring 10 different services for user-created photos and hoping I can find what I need. I like the bounties feature but if I need a specific photograph urgently, I can’t post a bounty and hope that somebody delivers. Time is money in the media business. I look in my Rolodex and find somebody who gets paid to deliver and has a track record of doing so.

Again, I do think this is an appealing service for people who are non-professionals (eg. run a small website) or whose jobs/businesses don’t rely on obtaining ultra fresh content on a near real-time basis. I think you can build a decent business so long as you maintain a lean organization and don’t load up with VC money. I’ll be sure to keep checking your site and seeing how it, and the others in the space, develop. Best of luck.

I think spymedia is a great company, but I dont think they should rely on myspace for their success. They need to establish/market themselves as a company, rather than a widget on myspace.

Nick,

Actually, the MySpace angle is just that - a journalistic angle. SpyMedia is, and always has been, about the serious business of selling photos to media companies. MySpace is the hot thing right now, so any “MySpace angle” seems appealing, but really that’s just one of the new features here.

The serious business of selling photos to media companies? Ha! Let’s see. There are currently 2197 photos on the site according to their search engine. No standardized resolutions. Not a lot of impressive content unless “jk” is a celebrity I don’t know about (http://www.spymedia.com/SpyForm.aspx?_act=Open&_tab=Entitlement&_for=Details&_pky=3227). If I work for Major Media Conglomerate what exactly is my reason for using SpyMedia? Or is it possible that Time Warner is the company willing to pay $50 for a photo from Butt Cheeks Day at Los Gatos, CA High School (http://www.spymedia.com/SpyForm.aspx?_act=Open&_tab=Bounty&_for=BountyDetail&_pky=24)?

I love these Web 2.0 hype machines like Mr. Cashmore, especially when they’re paid advisors to the company. I didn’t realize there was such a thing as a Web 2.0 consultant. Cash, no pun intended, in while it lasts, right? If I were SpyMedia I’d listen to somebody from the actual industry they’re targetting. Barry’s comments are dead on. AP, Getty, Allsport, Wireimage already dominate this market. User generated content is all the buzz but for every good piece of user generated content there’s a million pieces of crapola. Don’t expect major media to flock to services like this. If you’re hoping to revolutionize the media industry and compete with major photo services that can guarantee quality, quantity and timeliness by building a simple website and branding it as a Web 2.0 service, be prepared for disappointment. This is not a new idea and similar services have been around for years (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sell+photography).

RE Widgets: these can be a VERY valuable supplement to an existing website or service, and this is a big trend for the future.

I have seen traffic, awareness and search engine ranking of my various sites increase greatly after releasing them in widget form.

I think the web will be more and more composed of small modules intended to be used by other websites and services.

So don’t knock the widget, baby ;–)

I agree with Robert above pretty much across the board however what is Spymedia, well potentially it can be any kind of media not just photos leveraging peer production. I would think there are probably more monetizable opportunities focusing on the small biz space with less noise rather then the space they are going after but they have to start somewhere. It just amazes me how many web 2.0s focus their efforts on these widgets for myspace and similar which are nothing more than pick-up joints with lots of flashy noise. In such an environment, its obvious to see that a widget is not going to be any more succesful than a banner of yesterday regardless of its interactive ability…

yep Widgets + Digital Photos + MySpace = $BIG BUCK$

;))