I Shot the Photo for a Nuveen Ad at Wrigley Field

The Art Director of Nuveen Investment’s PR company (Fallon) contacted me a few months ago via e-mail asking if I’d be willing to let Nuveen use a photo I took at Wrigley Field last August for a print ad.

cubs wrigley field ad nuveen

The photo was uploaded into my Flickr account and was well-tagged. I license all of my photos with a Creative Commons attribution non-commercial license, meaning that anyone is free to use the image with attribution, except for commercial purposes (I since changed this particular photo to all-rights-reserved to make it even more clear that I wasn’t willing to give it away to Nuveen).

Although I suspect the photo has been on display since the beginning of the season (I’m told it is one of eight on display in the entry way of the skybox area near the ticket booth) I was finally notified today of its use and agreed to terms to license it for the rest of the season. I must say I’m very happy to report that the Creative Commons system works, I’ve made money from shooting a photo that was discovered on Flickr and never expected to, and even though the ad is pretty stupid, at least it’s not above the communal urinal in the men’s room.

An interesting aside, the original photo was in color and was taken during the Chicago Air & Water Show. The jet pictured in the original was rubbed out for the ad.

Facebook: By Adding This App, You Agree to Be Used in an Ad

facebook app beaconThis kind of caught me by surprise — I’ve never seen it — even in the small print of a Facebook App — where adding an application to your profile equivocates signing away your likeness to said app for use in an add on your friends’ profiles. Here’s my friend Patrick Neeman of Speaktech being totally USED and I wonder if he even knows it?

Is this unique to the “Friends for Sale” App being advertised here or is this a standard policy allowed by developers who build Facebook Apps? Seems a little much to me… What do you think?

New Pew Surveys: Online Video & Web Use Among Teens

Breaking from South America debriefing to let loose on some encouraging data released in the past month by the Pew Internet & American Life Project

Lee Rainie’s latest Online Activities & Pursuits survey (d/l .pdf) spotlights increased use of video-sharing sites. Interesting to see this data as it coincides with renewed interest in online video endeavors thanks to the writers strike. Another Pew Survey released six months ago had the percentage of adults (with Internet) who watch video online at 57%. In the end, it’s not about percentages but quality minutes spent viewing online video programming both original and otherwise.

I missed the report on Teen Content Creators (d/l .pdf), released before the holidays, until I caught mention of it on David Weinberger’s blog Friday morning. But a preliminary look at the report shows positive trends in the ways in which teens are engaging in social networks and online activities. Nearly twice as many girls blog than boys, however, that ratio is reversed when it comes to posting online video. 89% of teens who post photos online (47%) say their photos occasionally get commented on.

Previous posts about Pew Internet:
* Is MySpace the Teenage Parking Lot of Today?
* Future of the Internet: Liberty + Privacy
* Pew: Nearly 50 Million Create Own Web Content

Google Buys DoubleClick: More Context, Less Banners?

One could only hope.

Everyone wondered if they’d ever really pull the trigger on this, or stick to their adsense guns while DoubleClick ambled along — and the day has come. $3.1B later, Google is now the king of all Internet advertising (although Yahoo! remains no slouch, most recently expanding it’s one-stop online news ad shop to include McClatchy).

Sergey Brin once hinted at DoubleClick being the “life preserver” as John Battelle mentions in The Search (and as Biz2.0 reminds today), but the metaphor was baswed on Adwords going under. While Adsense is doing fine, Google apparently seized on this opportunity to box out Microsoft and go large.

Rafat at PaidContent reports that the $3.1 billion cash offer is “much more than the rumored $2 billion that Microsoft was intending to pay.” It’s also 10 times DCLK (private since 2005)’s revenue.

How will this work out? Here’s Google’s Presser. Battelle’s analysis forthcoming at his blog.