Brand Sunsets (and Kodakit)

I wish there were such a thing as "brand sunsets." A sunset provision in public policy, as you might know, is "a measure within a statute, regulation or other law that provides that the law shall cease to have effect after a specific date, unless further legislative action is taken to extend the law." It would be nice if brand names had to be retired after the conditions which earned them their luster in the first place had changed irrevocably for the worse. So many great brand names get dragged through the mud after their glory days are gone.

The "brand sunsets" idea is just idealistic fantasy, of course. You could never enforce such an idea, because so many companies have complex arcs during the course of their existences. So I'm just musing here, not suggesting serious reform. But maybe there could be a word for when an older, trusted brand has been seized by miscreants and the public's residual trust in the name is being exploited in what can be interpreted as, well, swindles.

Consider the situation with "Kodakit." A company that happens to share the same name as the former august, principled, ethical, legendary and trusted American photographic giant, Eastman Kodak, which I once heard described as "the bluest of blue chips*," has set up a division, Kodakit, which pilfers pretty much every conceivable photographic right from the people who own them...photographers, which Eastman Kodak used to serve so well. Its contract details a rights grab with all the integrity of the small print in a smarmy, cynical fly-by-night "photo contest."

Why? Because "to manage copyrights…is a pain point for [clients]," in the words of Kodakit's chief marketing officer. Do an assignment under contract for Kodakit, and you surrender your "entire copyright." You aren't allowed to keep your own outtakes (!), you can't use the shot for your own promotion, and you can't even claim that you're the person who took the picture you took! Then-Kodak-CEO Jeff Clarke called this "building upon [Kodak's] longstanding legacy as one of the most trusted names in film and photography." Right. Stripping the copper piping out of the once grand old building might be a better way to put it.

It's so much more convenient not to have to be fair and ethical.

Several websites are sounding the alarm about this. The two I've skimmed are PDNPulse and PetaPixel, and I refer you to those sites if you want the full rundown. Suffice it to say I wouldn't touch "Kodakit" with someone else's ten-foot pole, and I don't think anyone else should either.

Last ray of sunlight
Pie-in-the-sky though it might be, one excellent example of brand sunsetting did occur, and with one of photography's most august company names, too: when the Leitz family sold Leica, it forbade the buyers to use the Leitz name. You'll never see Ernst Leitz on a post-Leitz-era Leica.

That's the way to do it.

Because really, is what Kodak doing worthy of Kodak? Shame on Kodak for besmirching Kodak.

Mike
(Thanks to Michael J. Perini)

*"A blue chip is a nationally recognized, well-established, and financially sound company. ... Blue chip companies are known to weather downturns and operate profitably in the face of adverse economic conditions, which helps to contribute to their long record of stable and reliable growth." (Investopedia)

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Here’s the situation

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Geoff Wittig: "One of the wackier recent attempts to strip-mine the Kodak brand for residual value involved a scheme for renting hardware and software to permit the customer to 'mine' for Bitcoin. Near as I can tell, this is a vaporous electronic faux-currency about as solid as pixie-dust and unicorn dandruff, hence a fertile field for get-rich-quick schemes. The same dynamic is at work with Polaroid. Once a solid brand name for instant photography, it's now evidently a label anyone can stick on a piece of shabby plastic stuff for a licensing fee."

Michael Perini: "If the process of swindling the creator's rights to his or her own images under the guise of streamlining the copyright issue isn't bad enough, the next step is that if the the client 'rejects' the work (or pays a pittance for it), the rights are passed to Kodakit. They now have an ever growing set of stock images that they own but didn't pay for.

"One would hope that common sense among photographers will cause this effort to whither on the vine. Disgraceful."

Comments

[PWL]

While I’m no communist, Kodakit is a typical example of the kind of corporate ethics (or lack thereof) we’ve seen too much of lately. Anybody remember Enron? Anybody remember 2008?

[James Bullard]

This sounds like when I was an army photographer. "Do an assignment under contract for Kodakit, and you surrender your "entire copyright." You aren't allowed to keep your own outtakes (!), you can't use the shot for your own promotion, and you can't even claim that you're the person who took the picture you took!"
All the photos I took were credited "US Army Photo" but at least things were loose enough in the lab that I was able to make prints of the best ones for myself.

[Phil]

Audio trade names are an excellent example. Fisher is not the same company, and I seem to recall Harmon-Kardin, or am I thinking of Altec Lansing? RCA, GE and Black & Decker small appliances, and the list goes on. You can't tell who's playing without a program. Look at Newell Brands: Rubbermaid, Sunbeam, Dymo, Sanford, Paper-Mate, Oster, Coleman and the list goes on.

[John Camp]

A music site which encourages subscribers to upload their musical material has this notice:

6. USER CONTENT. You hereby grant Company a license to use the materials you post to the Site or Service. By posting, downloading, displaying, performing, transmitting, or otherwise distributing information or other content (“User Content”) to the Site or Service, you are granting Company, its affiliates, officers, directors, employees, consultants, agents, and representatives a license to use User Content in connection with the operation of the Internet business of Company, its affiliates, officers, directors, employees, consultants, agents, and representatives, including without limitation, a right to copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate, and reformat User Content. You will not be compensated for any User Content. You agree that Company may publish or otherwise disclose your name in connection with your User Content. By posting User Content on the Site or Service, you warrant and represent that you own the rights to the User Content or are otherwise authorized to post, distribute, display, perform, transmit, or otherwise distribute User Content.

In other words, you've just given up almost all rights to your music, for nothing. Artists of all kinds really have to beware of the Internet. These companies are nothing but content sucks, and the artists provide that content, too often to companies that IMHO are basically scammers.

[Paul Richardson]

I think you have the basis for a great screenplay here. Seriously.

[Tim Bradshaw]

What's the relationship between the company that does this and the company that makes film (which I think is Kodak Alaris)? It smells to me like it might be 'not much', and these people are some kind of collection of vampires who have acquired the brand for cheap and are now going to extract everything from it they can in the standard way (SCO springs to mind).

Still, I wish the film people were more realistic about the price of TXP.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

How about just calling out corporate greed with a new term - e.g. the company has ”putresced”.
Which means we need a term for it coming good again, ala Apple. And possibly a new term for companies that keep cycling between good and bad, ala Apple.
I’d suggest use of Phoenix, but it’s already taken for owners that gut a company of funds, send it into receivership, and start over again with the same funds and none of the liabilities from the old company.

[Rick D]

Ugh, sounds like Uber for photographers. No thank you, Kodak's dessicated corpse.

[Earl Dunbar]

If I recall correctly, Clarke was not very popular around these parts.

[Mike Plews]

This brought to mind the high end HiFi brands that ended up labels stuck on cheap junk. Not naming names. Makes me feel old and a little sad.

[Michael Shwarts]

Not just the Kodak name that no longer has the same value as the company once had. Vivitar and Yashica come to mind.

[David Brown]

Mike,

I don't think I've ever seen you angry before. Righteous indignation looks good on you!

[Daniel]

On Giving up Copyright and the State of The Business these days. If most refused to sign "work for hire" it would not be a normal thing.
70's day rate for news shooting was $300 to start and more for involved assignments. Commercial was $500 minimum. Stock agency cut was 70/30 in favor of me -the Photographer. (not "content provider")
Kodak had pro reps who visited, helped with business and technical questions and gave samples so we could check them out. Ordered Kodachrome and 120 film by the case. Sheet film 10+ boxes at a time and ran light balance tests with each new emulsion.
Eastman Kodak provided service, support and quality products.

Business changes are no longer in favor of those who photograph. Stock agencies act as if they are doing one a favor by licensing an image for less than a dollar - through a subsidiary agency and taking 70% for their cut - while telling you what a good deal you have with them. News agencies are tighter than ever and day/assignment/job rates are lower now than 40 years ago while business and hardware costs are higher than ever.

This is progress?

[Steve Caddy]

Reminds me of the time Paul Frank left Paul Frank Industries and the company tried to prevent the founder from trading under his own name. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/09/paulfrank200609

[Ed]

I bought a new Leica M6 in the mid-1980s. Several years later, I somehow whacked the rewind crank loose so I sent the camera to Leica for repair. When I got the camera back, I noticed that they replaced the red "Leitz" roundel with a "Leica" roundel. I think they had to pry the old roundel off to open the camera up but it still bugged the heck out of me from then on.

[George Feucht]

The Leica sister company, which manufactures cinema lenses under the Leica badge (Summilux, Summicron and Thalia), had previously been called "CW Sonderoptic". It recently changed its name to "Leitz Cine". I don't know the legal mish-mash about this, but Leitz lives on in the cinema world of Leica lenses.

[Nick D]

Kodakit contacted me a few months ago (must have a higher web profile than I thought!) and a quick glance at their terms and conditions confirmed that they were exploiters. There are other companies that also do this; at least two to the best of my knowledge. It amounts to the Uberization of photography. Sadly they have realized that there are more photographers than ever chasing less and less work. Their greatest appeal will be to the desperate and the incompetent who if you read their contract will likely not get paid at all. Of course the interesting question is what they charge their clients.

[Terry Letton]

Sorry when I saw this headline all I could think of was a beautiful sunset with a huge Budweiser logo superimposed on it.

[Bill]

Not specifically photographic, but you touched a minor nerve here ... the brand name that really needs to be retired is Bell and Howell. What used to be a trusted name was sold long ago and is now attached to any one of a number of ‘as seen on TV’ plastic schlock products selling for four easy payments totalling $19.95 (plus shipping) ... but wait! There’s more—buy right now and get a second one free (just pay shipping).

[Phil Stiles]

How about Voigtlander? (Cosina)
How about Contax? (Kyocera)
Some brands maintain quality, some don't. Caveat Emptor.

[Mark Hobson]

Every time I pass by Kodak tower in Rochester-3 or 4 times a year-I can help but think of Sauron's Dark Tower and wonder what the hell is going on in there.

[Jim H]

How about "Polaroid" or "Bugatti"....or AT&T - that bankrupt company name was bought by one of the local telcos spun off at divestiture that now owns a satellite TV company and an entertainment company. Guess that's why my phone service is $%^&*()_+!

[Michael Perini]

Perhaps their real motive is not just pay a pittance to gain full ownership, but after that ( or if the work was ‘rejected ‘) the photographer is out of the picture, and they have an ever growing ‘ stock’ library on which they negotiate on their own behalf.
They as much as admit their clients are those who are desperate or don’t know better.
Disgraceful

[Jim Fellows]

Sorry to hear you had a rough birthday. Now I know somebody else who shares my February 25 birthday besides George Harrison.

Happy Birthday,

Jim Fellows

[Ilkka]

I somehow think that the Leitz family is now regretting the decision to ban the use of their name. Why did they change the company name in the first place to include Leitz? (In late 1800s?). To get immortality to their family name. I can also understand the decision to ban it’s use as Leica was in serious trouble and was at that time damaging the famous name with little hope of success.