Do You Want A Sweetie little Photographer?

I have recently completed my application for the 2014 Design and Artists Copyright Society’s ‘Payback’. Something I do every year during the summer.  Indeed, something I have done for many years, since the scheme was first made available to photographers.

But this year it has not been the same and many photographers have queried the extended mandate that we have been asked to sign – BEFORE we are able to collect that money that has already been collected on our behalf.

What is ‘Payback’        

Best explanation is the one that DACS themselves give:

‘Payback is an annual scheme run by DACS to distribute the money owed to visual artists by various collective licensing schemes.

These licensing schemes cover situations where it would be impractical for you to license your rights on an individual basis. For example, when a student in a library wants to photocopy pages from a book which features your work. As the creator of the work being photocopied, you are entitled to a royalty, but rather than ask the student to contact you every time they photocopy your work, the library pays an annual licence fee that covers their students photocopying copyright protected books.

It’s not just libraries and universities that do this. Many different types of businesses and organisations buy a similar licence too.

The money is then shared out among the creators whose work has been featured. Authors and publishers receive a share of this money through Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS) and Publishers Licensing Society (PLS) respectively. As a visual artist you can claim your royalties through Payback.'

Photographers all over the UK look forward to what is seen by many as their ‘Christmas Box’, as the payment which for many can be a thousand pounds or more usually arrives in early December, having been collected during the previous financial year.

However in 2014 something changed.

DACS has previously collected under the following licensing schemes:

Publications:

• Photocopying (by central, local government departments, universities and other business).
• Slide collection Licensing Scheme (in educational establishments)

Television:

• Cable re-transmission of UK Broadcasts
• BBC prime and BBC World
• Off-air recording of programmes (by educational establishments)

This year instead of simply acknowledging monies already collected, which photographers had always done as part of the application process, artists now had to sign a cleverly worded document including the following:

• I grant to DACS an exclusive licence and a mandate to negotiate, claim and administer the secondary rights in my artistic works, or the secondary rights in the artistic works of those individuals to the extent we are authorised to represent them (the ‘Authorisation’). I warrant that I have full right and title to grant this Authorisation. In consideration for granting this exclusive licence I will become a Payback Member of DACS.

This gives DACS the mandate to act on the behalf of photographers in licensing that currently doesn’t take place.  It gives licence to DACS to expand PAYBACK in any way it sees fit without recourse to the very people it purports to represent. 

• ·        Is this good?
• ·        Is this fair? 
• ·        Is it correct?

Let us be clear what is being done here. DACS is holding to ransom the money it has already collected on behalf of its members, and which is already there to be distributed.  In order to get this money – legitimately belonging to the creators (not DACS) creators are obliged to sign away unspecified new secondary rights, giving DACS carte-blanche to represent photographers without any further recourse to those same creators.

Regardless of how good DACS are, or how efficient they might be, why do they need to give the impression that they are holding their member’s money to ransom in this way, – sign up or you don’t get your money we have already collected. (At least that is how it feels to me, and I find it difficult to interpret their action in any other way)?

Both the UK government and the European equivalent are keen on extended collective licensing, but not just for what has already been described. (see the DACS FAQ page) DACS want to be in a position to be THE collecting society granting licences on behalf of photographers, and our blanket permission means that they can claim to represent us, without any of that laborious having to consult us rigmarole. This actually will be very useful as DACS goes into battle with the big guns of secondary licensing The Copyright Licensing Agency.

DACS say that they will consult us before doing anything. But will they though, now that they don’t have to any more?

Extended Collective Licensing, by its very nature removes control of licensing from the creator.  If the image licensing market becomes one run through ECL then control of works removed from the creator, and even opting out of the ECL scheme will do little to regain that control (work will be used regardless and the creator will not get paid at all).

Q.      Why do government and large organisations like ECL? 

A.      Because it is cheap.

Cheap to run and brings in blanket licensing which will of course be tailored to the low end product (and costings), but encompassing high end superior quality, heavily maintained collections of work.

Granting DACS this right to negotiate on our behalf and to be our representative in the Copyright Licensing arena is a two-edged sword.

An astute observer might ask, whether by signing the DACS authorisation as it now stands are photographers not implicitly condoning Extended Collective Licensing, not just of the things that we know about and approve, but of ECL in much wider fields that we might not be so happy with?

The same observer might ask the question ‘What do DACS know that they are not telling us?’

What makes this all the more difficult is that I actually want DACS to represent me in the collecting of secondary licensing, as currently they are the only option we have. As other options make themselves available then I may wish to move my allegiance.  But what I do want to be sure is that DACS are truly representing my wishes and that they ask me BEFORE they undertake new activities and not simply present me with ‘fait accompli’.

Ransom  (Merriam-webster)

Full Definition of RANSOM

1. a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity
2.  the act of ransoming

See ransom defined for English-language learners »

See ransom defined for kids »

Examples of RANSOM

1. The kidnappers demanded a ransom of one million dollars.
2. The family is willing to pay ransom for his release.
3. The ransom note explained the terms under which she would be released.

Origin of RANSOM

Middle English ransoun, from Anglo-French rançun, from Latin redemption-, redemptio — more at redemption

First Known Use: 13th century

Getty strike again...

The British Journal of Photography has just run a very interesting story

Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringement » British...

bjp-online.com

The controversial move is set to draw professional photographers’ ire at a time when the stock photography market is marred by low prices and under...

I have to say that I certainly had not seen this coming. The difficulty for everyone else (photographers that is) who are not the corporate Getty (and I include their editorial supplier photographers) is it will have an almost immediate effect on every other supplier of editorial ‘smudgery’ (Smudger - Fleet Street slang for Photographer). Not so much a race to the bottom, but the floor simply vanishing under our feet...

The effect of this move by Getty could be to remove an entire market (editorial stock photography). One understands the basics of taking over a market by reducing the cost – indeed there have been many famous exponents, but even ‘Walmart’ don’t actually give it all away.

The consequence may well be that theft of images by companies will actually increase even though there is now a vast source of free imagery available legitimately.  Many ' bloggers' and other users of the internet have been working on the basis that everything is free on the Internet, something that up until now Getty appear to have been agreement with professional creators; that 'free' is an incorrect interpretation of what the Internet really is. Now Getty have given into this abandonment of the International Copyright law, and sanction wholesale use of their work. Good for Getty – in that this is a data mining exercise, but no so good for those individual creators relying on the Getty payments every month; payments that most if not all Getty freelance photographers have seen decrease by a huge percentage in recent years.  

For everyone else (photo creators, suppliers and aggregators)  this is going to have an (adverse)effect. Will internet content users recognise that this is simply a Getty initiative or that this move simply vindicate what they have wanted to believe all along (everything on the net is free); with the consequence that other creators will find that their work is further stolen and used without permission, infringers pointing to Getty as their motivation. Will would-be infringers realise that the copyright laws have not actually changed?

Getty has believed in its market domination for many years, and we have seen them buy-out many of the agencies (inc Tony Stone, Allsport and many more), that were of very high quality, and had become household names. This latest move simply builds upon this, and is a calculated  to undermine the smaller creators and suppliers for whom the Getty buy-out is not an option.

It will potentially make it more difficult for creators who must sell licences. This is a deliberate attempt to annihilate the current market, and create a new Getty centric one.

But, there could be a positive effect. This move *should* make specialist creator controlled collections even more valuable, and therefore more important that each of us (individual creators) chase up every theft. Copyright law is on our side thankfully. It is going to be difficult, but we have to stand firm against Getty queering our pitch.

Interesting that fellow creators in the music industry whilst they have found sales of discs and CDs etc. fall, they have managed to take control of the copyright situation on the internet and with on-line sales through access ports such as 'I-tunes'. Instead of giving up and letting the theft of music tracks on-line go unchecked they have come up with new revenue streams that make theft less attractive and on-line paid access actually desirable for the consumer and user. If only we could do this in the image industry instead of the big aggregators constantly undercutting each other to the advantage of no one and at the direct cost to the creator. 

It is of course a carefully planned move by the image giant. From its very inception the Getty Juggernaut has been all about domination of the image market. This latest move is all about data mining.

By supplying markets which are not great revenue generators  (for Getty) with freebies they will be ensuring that each image leads directly back to Getty.

"......since all the images are served by Getty Images, we’ll have access to the information on who and how that image is being used and viewed, and we’ll reserve the right to utilise that data to the benefit of our business.”

So these free pictures will put Getty all over the Internet. Very clever for the company that can afford to do it, and do it at the expense of all other suppliers in the photo marketplace.

The flip side of this for independent photographic creators could be that independent specialist collection *should* become more valuable if managed properly. The issue now is how the other agencies will respond.

  Getty is looking for comprehensive data mining and data utilisation. If other agencies simply follow Getty in a knee-jerk like manner without the accompanying data analysis approach then they and their suppliers (us) will lose out big time. Geek led Alamy and Corbis will be ones to watch...

I can't work for national newspapers, but I'm a photojournalist; I need someone to publish my work.

 A colleague asked me today, what he should be doing with a lifetime of acquired skills as a photographer  working for newspapers, when newspapers were down sizing, losing staff and cutting budgets to freelances?

What answers could I give to this question, especially as we have just learned that the Mirror Group is following the Guardian, News International and others in losing photographic contributors.

A few years ago after spending all my working life supplying newspapers as a freelance I had to make the decision to carry on regardless, supplying regular newspaper clients for the same money each year, whilst my expenses increased, and in the case of regional newspapers actually for less money than a few years before, or to say enough is enough.

My business model of supplying mostly national newspapers was no longer viable.

Whilst the actual catalyst of change for me was the death of my business partner, it was clear that had that not happened the business would either have slowly expired, or maybe, if I had been lucky my little agency might have been bought out by Getty or one of the others.

The change was difficult, painful, and hard.

I left sport - my comfort zone for more than 25 years, and London where I had been based.  I ended up going part-time for two years – in Nottingham.

When I came back to full-time smudging it was not as a smudger, but as a photographer supplying editorial imagery to businesses, non government organisations, and the local authority.  I also do a hell of a lot of stock.  

From 2003 - 2009 my business improved year on year, quarter on quarter, although the overheads are somewhat scary compared to say 1994 - (the last year I experienced a proper increase in pay from a newspaper).

This last 18 months have been very difficult, and my gross has remained static.  I have had to continue re-inventing myself, my work and finding new clients all this time, and am doing so today.  It is not easy; there is no magic spell.  Many of us (photographers) will not make it through to retirement as full-time photographers; that is clear.  Statistically I suspect those of us who have been in the industry longest will have the best chance of weathering the difficulties.

The one thing I am certain of, however we survive, and to whoever we manage to sell our work, few of us will find that newspapers form a majority of our clientele going forward. The Guardian, The Telegraph, News International, Manchester Evening News, Liverpool Post, and now Mirror Group Newspapers all have either dispensed with staff photographers or cut back to no more than a handful.

Freelancers whilst used in droves twenty years ago, are now hardly budgeted for.  We have to get real, and have to understand, that whilst we may be photojournalists by trade, training and profession, we simply aren't going to be supplying newspapers going forward.

I spoke at length to one of the local universities here in Nottingham a few weeks ago, and virtually none of those who get degrees go into the photographic industry, and none of them become photojournalists, (can't imagine what they do with all those Photography degrees).


"Where do I go now?" My friend asked.



Newspapers are not the only outlets for editorial photography.

In the last fortnight, I have photographed a garden centre and an Aikido Dojo for web sites and promo literature.  I have supplied a German photo agency with hundreds of stock images, I have supplied imagery to the local council for their brochures, edited hundreds of images for UK based photo agencies, supplied images to several unions for web use and staff magazines, copied a 1950s photo album and made it into a photo book, resurrected several 'turn of the century' photographs, and reprinted them for private use.

All of these things have utilised my skills as a digital editorial photographer, none of these clients is a newspaper.

Nobody said it would be easy.




Pete Jenkins
www.petejenkins.co.uk
www.onlinepictureproof.com/petejenkins
www.photographerspro.eu/pete_jenkins/

Member of: The National Union of Journalists

Police release film of suspects' 'terror targets'

Police release film of suspects' 'terror targets'

I have been keeping out of the debate on Police stopping photographers under the Terrorism act section 43 and 44 partly because there are already others out there doing a great job, and to be honest, here in sleepy Nottingham it isn’t actually a major problem, as most of the police around the East Midlands seem to have other things on their mind.

However, having said that, I have just been reading some of the reporting on the ‘so-called’ hostile reconnaissance video, supposedly taken by an Algerian ‘terror’ suspect.


If the BBC reporting is to be trusted, and similar reports were made in the British Journal of Photography, although one has to note that the initial report by the BJP has been heavily cleaned up of any quotes from police officers, some of which were outrageous, then the police have a pretty strange use of logic!

The original report by the BJP prompted me to write to the editor Simon Bainbridge the following missive:

Dear Sir,

"The City of London Police released video footage taken using a camera phone by an Algerian man in 'hostile reconnaissance' to justify stopping photographers"

What an illuminating statement from the City of London Police reported by BJP today (15th December).

By what logic exactly does the fact that:

"his camera phone had more than 90 minutes of video footage of tube stations, CCTV cameras and sensitive locations around London."

Justify the topping of photographers? Presumably as this arrested person was using a camera-phone when he was doing all this 'filming', the justification is not for stopping photographers at all, but for stopping people using camera-phones? That would include perhaps 25% of the adult population?

If the inference is that this person was conducting covert surveillance, then he did it using an innocent looking camera-phone such as many normal, average members of the public use on a regular basis throughout the day. Using this same logic surely it is very unlikely that Professional (or amateur) photographers carrying thousands of pounds worth of expensive and very obvious Japanese neck jewelry, and staying in one place long enough to be spotted, stopped and questioned by police should be the target of any terrorist stop and search.

Indeed by the very logic of Superintendent Chris Greany of the City of London Police, the police should instead be pouncing on anyone daring to use a camera phone.

Just how stupid do our police want us to think they are?


Kind regards



Pete Jenkins


Sky News have the same basic line as the BBC


If this is the best the police can do to justify harassing ordinary amateur and professional photographers then frankly it looks pathetic. Hostile reconnaissance? Really? If this was a terrorist cell in action and the proof we are told was there then why was the full weight iof the law brought down upon these people?

We are told according to the BBC:

“The police said the CPS had decided there was sufficient evidence to bring terrorism charges, but it was not in the public interest because they would have received the same sentence as for fraud.”

Not in the public interest?

And there’s more:

“Police believe the men may have been a fundraising and research arm of an al Qaeda-linked group in North Africa.”

Yet despite this:

“Two men were subsequently convicted of a huge mobile phone and luxury goods fraud scam and deported after serving prison sentences.”

Not convicted for anything to do with terrorism then? So in fact they have not been found guilty of anything to do with terrorism, so the whole terrorism angle is simply supposition by the police (so we are told)?

And what makes all this worse; this awful stream of images and the subsequent inferences are being used to justify, not as one would expect, the stopping and checking of people using mobile phones as video cameras conducting, (so we are told), hostile reconnasince, but instead as the most feeble justification yet for stopping ordinary professional and amateur photographers and videographers out on the street, hiding nothing.

It is a complete joke. The police simply have to get a grip. How can we seriously can we take our forces of Law and Order when they seem to continually hassle people simply for taking photographs?

Pete Jenkins
www.petejenkins.co.uk
www.onlinepictureproof.com/petejenkins
www.photographerspro.eu/pete_jenkins/

Member of: The National Union of Journalists

Photography Matters

http://www.photography-matters.com/

18^th May 2009, A conference for Editorial Photographers at the Institute of Education, University of London, Bedford Way, WC1, London.

Pics from the event can be seen here:

http://www.onlinepictureproof.com/manage/album_edit_sort.php?a=29405

When around 160 photographers register for an event, some of them travelling many hundreds of miles, you get the feeling that something interesting is going to happen. That’s exactly what I experienced on Monday 18^th May, at the Institute of Education in Bedford way, in Central London.

'Photography Matters', the second photographer’s conference organised by the National Union of Journalist’s Freelance Office staff along with the Photographers Sub Committee, is part of the Unions ongoing efforts to support its photographer members. The conference hosted many sessions aimed at the varied interests of attendees.

John Toner ,the Freelance Organiser, introduced the days events. John is known by many members for his work in not only individual cases where the union has been able to get involved, but also as the guy who represents the Union’s photographers at many of the sharp end negotiations whether it be the Intellectual Property Office, discussing the future of copyright, or the Association of Chief Police Officers, kicked the conference off talking about some of the challenges we face to day, both economic and some more ‘in your face’ issues, such as difficult policing.

I didn’t get a chance to see any of the ‘Business of Photography’ where ways of expanding ones business potential as a photographer were explored, as I was chairing my own session – video and the photojournalist, but I am told that Nick McGowan-Lowe gave a useful insight to using the web, David Hoffman provided some interesting insights into stock, and Paul Herrman some thoughts on expanding ones business outside of newspapers.

'Video and the Photojournalist' shared the experiences of George Chin who has directed (and also shot) his own short films for various musicians and bands, and Antonio Olmos, who has shot work for the Guardian and Observer. Both talked about the difficulties they faced, how they dealt with equipment choice, pricing and the differences between moving pictures and stills.

'Dangers of the Trade', with Penny Tweedie and Kevin Cooper was also popular, and we saw both an excellent presentation of work – truly showing why what we do is so important, as well as an insight into the experiences of a photographer working in the midst of the troubles experienced in Ireland.

'Copyright and Intellectual Property', was presented by a powerful female panel. Linda Royles gave a thoroughly entertaining and informative update of the current state of 'Orphan works', including where the US legislation started and finished and what has been proposed for the UK. We aren’t safe yet is the message, and we need to keep our eyes and ears open.

Whilst many attendees were eating, looking at the exhibition and chatting to the sponsors a hard core of twenty or so, attended the session with Neil Barstow and Mike Walker to talk about colour management. Too many professionals still only play lip service to proper colour Management, and doing it right is surely one of the most important things that separates quality imagery from the also-rans.

Jeff Moore and Paul Stewart, along with John Toner, were the key negotiators for photographers with the Met Police when the Guidelines were established, and their presentation shows that things have not gone particularly well for press photographers ever since. Good Cop, bad Cop, was excellent but it was the thoughts of Commander Bob Broadhurst, senior officer in charge of the policing of the G20 protests in London a few weeks ago, which casued the biggest stir. Several of the attendees had been allegedly assaulted by Police officers during the events in early April, including a documented shield in the face and a broken arm.

Commander Bob Broadhurst, Pic by Pete Jenkins

The bob Broadhurst tapes http://vimeo.com/4803273 (by Paula Geraghty)

That Bob Broadhurst thought that the UK Press card was called the NUJ card was interesting, and presumably reflects the large number of press cards that are issued by the union rather than by specific news organisations, but that he was so ignorant of how the press card is issued and on what criteria, I found hugely worrying.

This is one of the guys at the top of the police tree. This is one of the senior police officers involved in the negotiation of the Met Police guidelines, the very same guidelines that are supposed to have been rolled out to all the police forces in England and Wales.

"How do we know what their motives are?" he says when referring to holders of press cards, forgetting that the current Press card system was set up in conjunction with the Police, by the major news gathering organisations and the NUJ, CIOJ, BAJ etc.

What we learned from the presentation to the gathered photographers by Commander Broadhurst, and during the subsequent question and answer session, was that Commander Broadhurst has no faith that Press cards are only given to accredited journalists. If that is how their senior management think, then it is clear that the rank and file police officers will be working with this guidance.

Clearly the Press card authority has to have a meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers, (ACPO), and get this deplorable situation dealt with immediately. But meetings may well be not enough. What can we do to get through to British Police Forces, (including senior and junior officers), that those holding the British Press card, regardless of the awarding organisation (NUJ, BBC, SKY etc) are bone-fide journalists, and should not be assaulted with guns, truncheons or shields, and that the behaviour of front-line police officers in these confrontation situations needs to be drastically revised?

Pete Jenkins

www.petejenkins.co.uk
www.onlinepictureproof.com/petejenkins
www.photographerspro.eu/pete_jenkins/
www.petejenkinsphotothoughts.blogspot.com/
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=842175

Member of: The National Union of Journalists