<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>robert hart photography &#187; Photo agency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://roberthart.com/blog/category/photo-agency/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://roberthart.com/blog</link>
	<description>Discourse about photography, the Web and life its ownself</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:56:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Cost v Value: Why Microstock &#8216;Cheap&#8217; Isn&#8217;t Good For Your Brand</title>
		<link>http://roberthart.com/blog/cost-v-value-why-microstock-cheap-isnt-good-for-your-brand/</link>
		<comments>http://roberthart.com/blog/cost-v-value-why-microstock-cheap-isnt-good-for-your-brand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 03:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>robert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Photo agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photojournalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://roberthart.com/blog/?p=354</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey, it only cost a dollar. Here&#8217;s an excellent example of why microstock really lowers the value of your marketing message. Because it isn&#8217;t YOUR message. It&#8217;s a generic sea of white faces that anyone with a dollar can purchase and brand as their own. Next time a client says, &#8220;But I can get that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, it only cost a dollar.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s an excellent <a href="http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2010/03/microstock-why-would-reputable-company.html" target=new>example</a> of why microstock really lowers the value of your marketing message. Because it isn&#8217;t YOUR message. It&#8217;s a generic sea of white faces that anyone with a dollar can purchase and brand as their own.</p>
<p>Next time a client says, &#8220;But I can get that at microstock for a dollar,&#8221; send them to this link.</p>
<p>Thanks to Chris Barton at <a href="http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com">Fair Trade Photographer</a> for this revealing peek at how microstock sausage gets made.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://roberthart.com/blog/cost-v-value-why-microstock-cheap-isnt-good-for-your-brand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>You too can be a paparazzi&#8211;just show up</title>
		<link>http://roberthart.com/blog/11/</link>
		<comments>http://roberthart.com/blog/11/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Paparazzi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photo agency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://roberthart.com/blog/?p=11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The term paparazzi was used by Frederico Fellini to refer to a character in his 1960 film, La dolce vita. It refers to the noisy buzzing of a mosquito and certainly seems an apt description for the swarm of photographers that hover in the presence of celebrities. According to The New York Times &#8220;people paparazzi&#8221; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The term paparazzi was used by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Fellini">Frederico Fellini</a> to refer to a character in his 1960 film, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_dolce_vita"><i>La dolce vita</i></a>. It refers to the noisy buzzing of a mosquito and certainly seems an apt description for the swarm of photographers that hover in the presence of celebrities.</p>
<p>According to <i>The New York Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/fashion/18celebrity.html?_r=1&#038;oref=slogin<br />
" target=new>&#8220;people paparazzi&#8221; </a>are swelling the ranks of professional photographers pursuing celebrities. Now anyone with a camera&#8211;or a cell phone&#8211;can join the pursuit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://roberthart.com/blog/11/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Corbis loses Usher lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://roberthart.com/blog/corbis-loses-usher-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://roberthart.com/blog/corbis-loses-usher-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:29:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corbis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photo agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photojournalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://roberthart.com/blog/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chris Usher filed suit against Corbis for the loss of 12,640 analog images (transparencies and/or negatives) and won a favorable decision two years after the trial&#8217;s end. Monetary damages will be determined in a Dec. 18 hearing.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.chrisusher.com/">Chris Usher</a> filed suit <a href="http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/11/usher.html">against Corbis</a> for the loss of 12,640 analog images (transparencies and/or negatives) and won a favorable decision two years after the trial&#8217;s end.</p>
<p>Monetary damages will be determined in a Dec. 18 hearing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://roberthart.com/blog/corbis-loses-usher-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

