Kodak Theatre, the famous theater on Hollywood Boulevard that hosts the Academy Awards, may soon have a different name. As part of its recent bankruptcy filing, Kodak is now trying to get out of the 20-year, $75-million-dollar naming rights contract it signed back in 2000. The theatre’s about page states,

The naming of Kodak Theatre, in a 20-year marketing partnership with Eastman Kodak Co., was one of the most significant non-sports corporate sponsorships in history. Kodak’s prominence and long-standing connection to the film industry in Hollywood made the relationship a natural. In fact, for the 78th consecutive year, ever since the inception of the Academy Awards, Best Picture was produced on Kodak film.

The next annual payment owed by Kodak is reportedly $4 million.

(via The Hollywood Reporter)

Image credit: Kodak Theatre by mkoukoullis

Bloomberg writes that Kodak’s bankruptcy announcement yesterday was simply another step in CEO Antonio Perez’s grand plan to sell off the company’s photography divisions and patents in order to focus on selling digital printers and ink. At the same time, the company has been quick to reaffirm its dedication to producing film. Kodak marketing director Audrey Jonckheer was quoted by BJP today as saying,

Film (still and cinema) remains a profitable business for Kodak, and we have the broadest and most respected portfolio of films in both segments. We have taken steps to sustain the business as it has declined, and we know that there are hundreds of passionate fans of film for the artistic and quality reasons they cite. We remain committed to make film as long as there is profitable demand for it. And as I noted, it is still profitable.

That’s definitely good news for film photography lovers. Want film to survive? Just keep buying it, and hope other shooters do the same!

Kodak Bankruptcy May Get Out of Photography, Make Bet on Digital Printing [Bloomberg]

Image credit: Grama’s photo emerging from the Kodak printer at Target by Scorpions and Centaurs

Well, the rumors were true: today the iconic photography company Kodak announced that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. What this means is that the company is given permission to continue its normal operations as it struggles to restructure and transform into a sustainable business. While we probably won’t see the death of the Kodak brand, the company has stated that it intends to transform into “a lean, world-class, digital imaging and materials science company”, and that they’re planning to sell off “significant assets” during this process. It remains to be seen whether Kodak continues to play a significant role in film photography once it emerges out the other end of bankruptcy protection (if it ever does).

(via Reuters)

Thanks for sending in the tip, Ian!

Image credit: kodak by zrs_one

CNNMoney has an interesting article on how the Kodak brand will likely survive even if the company itself declares bankruptcy:

Many potential buyers are also weighing the value of Kodak’s brand-name since there’s been a lot of talk that it may consider filing for bankruptcy. For now the company plans to restructure out of court.

Kodak’s brand name (not its patents) could easily generate more than double Polaroid’s sales price, said Jamie Salter, the CEO of Authentic Brands. “There are a lot of categories that Kodak could attach its name to. People would feel very comfortable using Kodak paper,” said Salter.

Like Polaroid, Kodak has brand cache all over the world offering potential buyers the opportunity to tap global markets.

The Polaroid brand name sold for $88 million in 2009 after Polaroid the company declared bankruptcy in 2008.

Why bankruptcy isn’t a brand killer [CNNMoney]

Image credit: Kodak Tri-X Pan 400 by Rubin 110

Kodak was warned by the New York Stock Exchange yesterday that its stock will be delisted if its price remains under $1 for the next six months. The stock has had an average closing price of below $1 for over 30 consecutive days now, and is no longer compliant with the NYSE’s requirement for minimum share price. Sadly, the company might not last another six months: the Wall Street Journal reported today that the company is now preparing to file for bankruptcy, which will likely happen in the coming weeks unless the company succeeds in its efforts to sell its 1,100 digital imaging patents. The revelation added insult to injury as the stock price plummeted another 28% today.

Image credit: NYSE by brian glanz

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Kodak may be “a shutter click from extinction”:

Once ranked among the bluest of blue chips, Kodak shares sell today at close to $1. Kodak’s chairman has been denying that the company is contemplating a bankruptcy filing with such vehemence that many believe Chapter 11 must lurk just around the corner.

The Rochester, N.Y., company said it had $862 million in cash on hand as of Sept. 30, but at the rate it’s losing money from operations (more than $70 million a month), that hoard would barely last a year.

No wonder the company is trying to find someone to purchase its online photo sharing service for hundreds of millions. Even if it did manage to find a buyer, the sale would only buy a few more months of life unless the company can figure out how to stop the bleeding.

Kodak’s long fade to black [Los Angeles Times]

Image credit: Money Going Up in Smoke by Images_of_Money

Earlier this month, Kodak sold off its sensor business in an effort to raise some cash to stay alive and hopefully turn things around. Now the company is looking to get even leaner by selling off its online photo sharing business. Photo sharing? Kodak? Yup, it’s called Kodak Gallery. While it’s not surprising that the camera maker has online services, what might be surprising is the price they’re looking to sell it for: according to the Wall Street Journal, it’s in the “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Kodak first jumped into the online photo sharing and printing game in 2001, when it purchased Ofoto for somewhere south of $100 million. The service reportedly amassed 75 million customers worldwide and was bringing in $150 million in annual revenue at its peak. However, it has never been profitable and last month saw only 1.5 million visitors. In addition to the service itself, Kodak is selling off some of its valuable patents related to uploading and sharing photos online.

Kodak Seeks to Sell Online Photo-Sharing Business Kodak Gallery (via Reuters)

Kodak’s stock plummeted again today, losing nearly 50% of its value and closing at $0.78 per share. The company was worth over $30 billion back in 1997, but todays stock price pegs the value at just $200 million. Prominent investors in the company are calling for its sale, but apparently there’s been hurdles in selling off its patent portfolio, and now bankruptcy might be on the horizon. A quote by a company spokesperson a couple days ago caught my eye: when asked why Kodak was struggling in the digital market, the response was,

We have one of the leading digital camera line-ups, including top-selling pocket video cameras with differentiated features, and a wide range of digital cameras that feature the unique “Share” button.

That kind of explains things, doesn’t it? The end appears to be very near…

Tom Petters, a former owner of Polaroid was sentenced yesterday to 50 years in prison for heading up a $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme.  One of Petters’ lawyers, Paul Engh, told reporters that his client is likely to appeal the sentence.

In 2008, Petters was charged for money laundering, wire and mail fraud. He allegedly used falsified documents to convince investors that he was putting their money towards consumer electronics produced by Polaroid and his other associated companies. Instead, prosecutors say Petters paid investors with profits made from other investments.

Petters was found guilty in December 2009. US District Judge Richard Kyle handed the sentence yesterday.“This was a massive fraud and the defendant’s involvement in the fraud was front and center,” Kyle said.

The already troubled Polaroid company, which had previously filed for bankruptcy in 2001, was purchased by Petters in January 2005. Under Petters’ watch, the company fell into bankruptcy once again, in 2008.

(via Amateur Photographer)

We reported last month that the New York auction house, Sotheby’s will be facilitating the sale of more than 1,200 photos from the Polaroid company’s collection this June. The photos include images captured by legendary photographers and artists such as Ansel Adams and Andy Warhol. Sotheby’s estimates that the collection will raise some $7.5 million to $11.5 million, which will go towards paying for Polaroid’s Minnesota bankruptcy court.

Yet while Polaroid regains its financial footing, several featured photographers feel they are at a loss — if the photos change hands, they may lose their contractual rights.

According to the British Journal of Photography, some of the photographers are motioning for a re-hearing, hoping that the courts will reconsider selling the collection.

When the auction was first announced, photographer Chuck Close shared his disapproval in an interview with the New York Times that such a groundbreaking collection should go to the auction block:

“There’s really nothing like it in the history of photography.” But, he added, “to sell it is criminal.”

While the sale of these images is not technically illegal, the copyright laws are muddied in this situation. Typically, when a print is sold, the artist or photographer retains the copyright, along with the ability to reproduce his or her image. However, with these Polaroid images, the original image is unique.

Originally, when the artists gave the images to the Polaroid collection, their contracts granted them perpetual access to their work. But when the auction occurs, the contract will be nullified once the work is sold. Since the one of a kind images shot on instant film cannot be replicated, the artists require direct access to their work in order to license it.

In an interview with the British Journal of Photography, American critic Allan Coleman sums up the problem:

“Since they don’t have access, they can’t license the works. All they have is the copyright, which is meaningless now. I don’t think the court understood the unique nature of the collection.”

(via The British Journal of Photography)