Moral Rights

 

“It is a logical and legal absurdity to talk of licensing works whose authors cannot be identified while there are still significant groups of authors who do not have the right to be identified.”

This was Viscount Bridgeman, speaking in the House of Lords during debate on the Digital Economy Bill, Clause 43 Monday 8th February 2010

 

Moral Rights , What are they, Why we need them, and why they are important?

(Whenever the words creator, author, photographer or similar are used they should be read as non-gender specific, and to denote all genders as appropriate.)

Moral rights are frequently misunderstood by many people, especially those who don’t think they have any to defend.  Indeed, many creators who actually do have a vested interest in their own moral rights often state that it is not an issue  - mainly because they don’t understand the concept or the facts of the matter.  But in today’s world of ‘Facebook’ and ‘Flickr’, ‘MySpace’ and ‘Twitter’, Internet based social networking makes everyone a creator, and everyone a publisher.

How would you feel if a major newspaper took your image from your Facebook site and published it, but didn’t give you a credit or pay you?

How would you feel if an oil company followed your Twitter link and took an image of yours and used it in a ad campaign and didn’t ask you first?

How would you react if the BNP took a personal image from your website and used it as part of their party literature, didn’t ask you, didn’t credit you and didn’t pay you?

So what are ‘Moral Rights’.

According to the Intellectual Property Office, (IPO) the Government department that deals with the matters of copyright in the UK:

“Moral rights give the authors of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works and film directors the right:

·        to be identified as the author of the work or director of the film in certain circumstances, e.g. when copies are issued to the public.

·        to object to derogatory treatment of the work or film which amounts to a distortion or mutilation or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director.

In contrast to the economic rights under copyright, moral rights are concerned with protecting the personality and reputation of authors.”

In the UK, (currently), as is suggested in the IPO explanation, there are a number of differences between copyright here and say in Germany and France and other sectors of Europe.  In the UK, several publishing arenas (most notably Newspaper and magazine publishing and some book sectors) are classed, as an exception to the general rule and the publisher is not obliged to recognise the creator/author.  

In addition, in the UK, unlike other areas of Europe, the right to be recognised as the author of ones own work has to be asserted, and is not automatic.  In the UK a creator has to demand his or her moral rights and cannot expect them as in other countries to be applied automatically.

Further to the IPO definitions, we can add three other moral rights which are recognised widely other than in the UK, they are:

• The right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously.

• The right to decide whether a work may be used or not.

• The right not to have work falsely attributed to you.

So why do we need ‘Moral Rights’?

Whilst moral rights are distinct and separate from economic rights they are becoming more and more important and interwoven.  With clients becoming more and more cost-conscious, and the business of photography (in particular) becoming more competitive, being recognised as the author of ones work becomes more important than ever before.

Indeed, it would be incorrect to say that a mere credit alongside a photograph whether on the web, in a book or magazine, or in a newspaper can be used in itself to pay the mortgage, the rent or buy food, but

it is true to say that having a credit alongside ones work raises awareness of ones abilities as a photographer and this can be very useful when acquiring clients.

With the proliferation of the Internet (World Wide Web) in publishing today, where more and more imagery is used than ever before, having a credit alongside ones work has several functions.  Not only is there the already mentioned ‘raising ones professional profile’, but also in a climate where too many people believe erroneously that something published on the web is in the ‘public domain’, having an acknowledgement of an author or creator does go some way to asserting ownership, and it becomes less easy for an infringer to claim, "I didn’t know".

Orphan works have been raised as an issue in recent times with legislation proposed both in the United states and in the UK, and although each time the legislation as proposed has been rejected, it is clear that at some point in the near future orphan works will be legislated for.

The current accepted definition of ‘Orphan Works’ is that they are created works for which for whatever reason have become detached from their creator, and now although they may well be in copyright and owned by someone, because the author cannot be identified, their status is in question.

Because it is an 'orphan', does not mean that it does not belong to a creator, far from it, as copyright extends through the life of an author and for seventy years after their death, this means that the huge majority of photographs that have ever been created are actually still in copyright, and to use them permission must be sought from the copyright holder.

Just because at one instant in time the creator/photographer/author of a work is unknown, this does not change the status of the copyright of an image or work.

Why are ‘Moral Rights’ important?

They way that photographs and other created works are published is through a licensing system.  This is important, because of the very large number of ways that any created work can be used.

The licensing system allows for a relatively small fee to be charged say for the use of an image at a small size in one issue of a magazine or newspaper, and a much larger (justified) fee for a work that is published in a nationwide poster campaign.  It clearly makes sense for there to be a difference in the fee charged for these two very different uses, and this is the great advantage of licensing for the client/user/customer.  One pays for the use.

If the use is small the fee is small.  If the use is greater, so is the fee.

To be recognised as the author of ones own work is fundamental to the production and use of any artistic work.

But it isn’t just a matter for professional photographers.  Amateur photographers whether serious producers or just those exchanging images in social media need to have their moral rights recognised as well.

It is now well documented that UK media (and others of course) trawl social media sites looking for images that they can incorporate in their news coverage.  This is not just to widen their coverage but as an active way of reducing costs.  There are numerous documented cases where images have simply been lifted and published.  No permission sought, no credit given to the photographer and of course no fee paid.

UK publishers are presenting contracts to photographers which strip them of copyright, economic and moral rights, often for the same or lower fees than were previously paid for single use rights:

Daily Mail caught in copyright infringement storm 

The Daily Mail has reaffirmed that it doesn't infringe on photographers' copyright after it was caught using four images without their authors' authorisations

26 May 2010

Bauer Media facing rights-grab furore 

Bauer Media, one of the UK's largest publishing companies, is rolling out new contracts to its freelance photographers, grabbing 'in perpetuity' all of their copyrights and moral rights.

13 Apr 2010

Agence France Presse's slap to photographers

Agence France Presse filed a complaint against Haiti-based photographer Daniel Morel, claiming he engaged in an “antagonistic assertion of rights” after the photographer objected to the use by AFP of images he posted online of the Haitian earthquake.

28 Apr 2010

Guardian to slash photographers' fees

Freelance press photographers have been dealt another blow after Guardian News & Media announced it would cut its space rates by up to 50%, only a few months after it stops paying reproduction fees.

01 Apr 2010

British National Party Voters Don’t Exist

In the last few days the British Nationalist Party (BNP) have started to deliver their campaign leaflets. There are at least two varieties but they are both quite similar and their main campaigning point is against immigration. You can see leaflets delivered by the BNP around the UK thanks to The Straight Choice a website dedicated to mapping campaign leaflets. The current leaflets feature a section titled “Why we’re all voting BNP” with photos accompanied by a bit of text, presumably this is to encourage people to think BNP voters are just like you. Unfortunately for the BNP none of these voters are real and you can prove it by using web-based reverse image searches.

May 13, 2009

If images are published without a byline, whether this is in a conventional paper printed newspaper or a digital printed Internet article it can create the impression that the image is in the public domain and that no one cares about the paternity.  Whilst this is a total false impression, one can see how an ignorant public who have been taught little enough of copyright can come to the conclusion.  One of course would not expect those working for newspapers to behave in the same way.

Publishing without a byline is also the most common way of creating an orphan work.  Newspapers do it routinely.  Social web sites like Facebook and Flickr routinely strip all metadata from images as part of their operation, so even when photographers diligently complete all metadata fields with image identity and paternity this image is lost on publication.  Anyone copying or downloading that image, even if they do it with every intention of contacting the photographers may find it more difficult or impossible to do so.

But it is not just large publisher, companies and political parties who find steal and appropriate images for their own ends. Individuals do it as well.  See the case of Daniel Morel whose images were allegedly stolen by Lisandro Suero before being taken up by AFP.

Images can be copied from the web and re published almost anywhere.  Now many photographers (especially amateurs) are quite happy for their work to be copied and redistributed, but in most case the assumption is made that the original source is attributed and a link provided.  If there is no requirement for even this minimal social nicety, then even the much abused Creative Commons licensing form ceases to function.

The arguments against Moral rights.

There are those who feel that creators don’t need, or shouldn’t have moral rights, whilst ironically at the same time asserting their own rights in work that that they have assembled.

The Newspaper Society (NS), Newspaper Publishers Association (NPA) and Periodical Publishers Association (PPA) who represent publishers in the UK are very happy with the current working practice that means they don’t have to credit photographers (at all).

They argue that for employed staff, as they (the employer) supply the cameras and equipment enabling the photographer to work, that therefore the actual creator does not need a byline.  Whilst current law gives ownership of the images produced to the employer, on what possible basis should the creator be deprived of recognition for producing his or her own work?  There is no reasoning that makes sense of this.

As today’s photographic publishing ethics demand that documentary and news photographs not be altered or tampered with in anyway, they can only be the creation of one photographer.  In the cases of deliberately altered pictures (montages etc) then surely this also must be acknowledged alongside any creator byline?

We are told (by the NS, NPA and PPA):

“Turning to Moral Rights, there are of course various exceptions to the ‘paternity’ and ‘integrity’ rights which operate where a work is produced in the course of employment; for publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical; or for the purpose of reporting current events. These are all practical measures which recognise the exigencies and unique nature of the newspaper and magazine businesses. All the exceptions and qualifications are designed to ensure that the rights do not impose unduly burdensome obstacles on normal business activity. Existing models would be impossible if some of the proposed changes to moral rights were adopted, which would impact adversely on business and press freedom.”

This is disingenuous to say the least, and does not stand up to examination. 

To quote Paul Ellis:

“All newspapers are laid out by automated, scripted, digital processes.  Properly by-lining a picture is a simple matter of editing the layout script to extract the photographer's name from the image's IPTC.  Nothing more.  No "forced delegation of decisions" is needed.  Our requirement is utterly cost-free to the publisher.

These people talk as if they're still in Fleet St. dealing with hot metal.”

The argument made by the publishers relies entirely on the general ignorance on the side of the reader, of the processes involved in publishing in the 21^st Century.

The Publishers say:

“Often individual articles, not just whole newspapers, are the work of several individuals.”

But not photographs of course!  Photographs are supposed to be published without addition or removal, so are only the creation of the photographer concerned.

They go on:

“The rationale for the disapplication of the right of attribution vis-à-vis a newspaper or magazine lies partly in the practical difficulties of ascertaining which of the individuals who contributed to the final published version of an article – researchers, journalists, sub-editors – should be accorded a by-line. It is not practical or even possible to identify and credit them all.”

Yes, publishers really do say this.  If publishers are unable to keep track of a digital image presented to them, or that they have acquired, or that they have scanned themselves from hardcopy or negative, then surely that indicates a severe problem with the internal systems being used rather than a tiresome difficulty presented by outsiders that they have no control over?

We are further told:

“Similarly, a news or picture editor who is briefing a freelance reporter or photographer on some fast-moving drama needs to be confident that the key terms over rights ownership and are well established and understood in advance.”

This is true.  When professional photographers supply a competently run picture desk, everyone involved understands copyright and ownership.  How does competency adversely affect moral rights?  This should be the very occasion when creators can be assured that all their moral rights will be upheld, surely?

They tell us more:

“We are unaware of any evidence that the current regime gives rise to any significant negative outcomes either for publishers or for contributors. Individual issues about sub-editing or crediting are easily dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  Proposals to strengthen moral rights are less to do with attribution and integrity than with bolstering the economic power of those claiming them.”

Increasing moral rights so that creators are recognised as such automatically, has no adverse affect on any publisher acting in a law abiding and open manner.  Many would believe that the only publisher who it would be seen to gain some sort of benefit out of deliberately withholding the name of a creator would be the sort of publisher that wished to exploit such works without the knowledge of the creator.

There is another benefit to attribution, which has not been mentioned yet, and that is the benefit to the reader, viewer, consumer, or user.  Giving a verifiable by-line gives some reassurance to the user that the content they are viewing can be trusted and relied upon.

Publishers continue

“The preservation of strong copyright protection for publishers, together with effective means of enforcement, is vital under the UK, EU and global intellectual property regime.  The application of moral rights would be addressing a problem whose existence is unclear and would have a detrimental effect both on existing models and on the development of newspaper and magazine companies‟ content and information services across media platforms.”

Why should strong copyright protection only be for publishers?  Surely the same strong copyright protection and this includes moral rights, should be shared by both publisher and creator.  After all we would not want to see one law for the rich and one law for the poor, as we know that would be totally unjust and unfair, and equally unacceptable.

The problem with deliberately withholding credits and author information from images and other work is that it immediately creates orphan works, and as we have seen with the British library, currently trying to digitise the national newspaper archive, the biggest single problem they now have is recognising whose work they are trying to digitise.  As this is being done by a third party company wanting to make profit from that digitisation process and subsequent distribution, it is a necessary and understandable legal essential that permission must be sought from each and every creator.  To do any less would be to totally undermine copyright across the globe.

James Murdoch v the British Library 

James Murdoch has accused the British Library of acting for commercial gain with plan to digitise newspapers – the library says this is 'patently not true'

 The Guardian, Monday 7 June 2010

Finally the publishers tell us:

“Strengthening moral rights would increase uncertainty for publishers and weaken copyright law.”

It is very difficult to see how strengthening moral rights could possibly affect publishers adversely in anyway, especially if they are acting in a correct a publicly acceptable moral manner.  Asserting all the moral rights discussed would only strengthen publications, and ensure that all dealings with creators were honest and above board, which is I am sure exactly what all publisher want in their dealings with their suppliers.

How can strengthening moral rights weaken copyright law?  Moral rights are the bedrock of copyright law.  Without Moral rights it is difficult to see how copyright law can work to the advantage of anyone other than the unscrupulous.

“The exception to the right to be identified as the author of a journalistic work was introduced to the 1988 Act at the last minute and in the days of hot metal typesetting. Then, publishers perhaps had cause to fear that the slug of metal bearing the photo credit or article by-line would fall on the floor and be kicked.”

Viscount Bridgeman speaking in the House of Lords during debate on the Digital Economy Bill, Clause 43 Monday 8^th February 2010

 

“Moral rights are currently one of the poor relations under UK copyright law. Many of the concerns about orphan works that we have talked about today would be cured if there was a proper right of attribution-a proper moral right-under UK law, particularly for magazines and newspapers, which are currently exempted.”

Lord Clement-Jones speaking in the House of Lords during debate on the Digital Economy Bill, Clause 43 Monday 8^th February 2010

So the Moral rights that we need to be put in place for photographers are:

• The right of authorship or paternity: any user of the work must state the name of the author unless released from the obligation by the author.  This right should be automatic and should never require assertion.  The release of obligation should never be as the result of bullying or oppressive coercion.   
• The author/creator should also have the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously.
• The right of disclosure: the author has the discretion to decide whether, when and how the work will be made public.  No one should be able to publish a work without first referring to the creator, and abiding by the creator’s decision.  
• The right to respect for the integrity of the work: the author may oppose any change, distortion or mutilation of his work and any prejudice to his honour or reputation, no one should be allowed to alter or change a work prior to publishing without the creators express permission.

• The right of withdrawal: the author may withdraw a disclosed work in return for compensation to the publisher.  If a photographer is unhappy with the use of an image within a particular publication, campaign or context, then they should be allowed to prohibit use even when the work has been commissioned.

And for these rights to work they need proper legal support both in law and with the means by which enforcement can be initiated and function.  Misuses, lack of credit, deliberate or careless transgressions all need financial sanctions easily obtained and enforced.  The onus on enforcement should not be left solely to the creator who is often simply not in a position to perform this function

• These rights need to be inalienable, although waiverable.

• They need supporting with legislation. 

• Countering or not honouring these rights need to be punishable within law, and this must be made easily accessible.  Most creators are sole traders and do not have the finances of medium to large publishing companies.  This status must not be allowed to prevent creators getting their rights honoured.

• Deliberate and careless transgressions of these moral laws need financial disincentives.

The moral rights of creators are basic human rights.  They are not costly to follow and honour.  They are of a benefit to society, both the user and the creator.  All creators are users, and indeed in today's digital social networking culture all users are also creators.

If moral rights are allowed to erode further, then we will simply find many of the benefits of digitisation which society values (rightly) so highly will be lost.  As a society we must not let that happen.

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

Member of: The National Union of Journalists

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

Orphan Works Countdown

It has been a while since I wrote in this blog. Things have been very busy one way or another.



The Orphan Works debate has been increasing in intensity, especially now as it seems to be all coming to a head with the current Digital Economy bill about to clear the House of Lords and be rushed through the House of Commons. Current thoughts are that the Labour administration want to rush this through before the election, which is coming ever closer.



Many photographers have been working very hard behind the scenes lobbying MPs and Lords, meeting up with the great and the good, and there is much to report. The EPUK (Editorial Photographers UK) organisation (amongst others) and its members have worked particularly hard, and some individuals have done a phenomenal amount of work.



One of the best places to look at to keep up with what is going on is Copyright Action administered, organised and written by that most knowledgeable and hard working of photographers Tony Sleep.



For my own part, my exchanges with the IPO continue. Very frustrating as now-a-days, instead of answering questions, the last response I got was a very dissapointing



“I'm afraid I don't have time to pen you a full reply at the moment,..”


and


“have a look at this webpage”



"The Digital Economy Bill: What it means for photographers"





This was my response:

Thank you for this link.


Have you read it? It does seem to be really way off the mark, and if this is how the IPO is going to enlighten photographers I am afraid you guys are seemingly way behind the real situation and need to catch up.



I am disappointed that you don't have time to pen a full response as this subject is getting a huge amount of discussion at the moment and photographers are very concerned at the way the legislation is forming. As I have the ear of maybe thousands of photographers I would urge you to take the time.



I raised a number of important points and not one of them is answered sensibly or in anyway satisfactorily by the "The Digital Economy Bill: What it means for photographers" piece.



The legislation was sold to us, (and by you to me), on the basis that libraries and academic institutions needed access to already published work for cataloguing in digital databases. This bill goes way beyond that, and specifically makes provision for commercial organisations to commercially use orphan works. The two are not the same and to try and say they are is disingenuous at the very least. Many photographers have come to the conclusion that they are being deliberately misled. From what you have told me so far how can I counter this thought?



From the document.

"The Government’s intention is that there should be no financial advantage from miss-identifying a work as an orphan work".



From this statement alone it is clear that the Government and therefore the IPO are missing the point entirely. Of course, as photographers we don't want to lose out financially, but more to the point we do not want to lose control of our work - period. I cannot stop my work becoming orphaned - it happens all the time, every time a newspaper publishes my work for starters, and many magazines also don't credit. My work has a value, as much as anything else because I have control of it and its distribution. If I lose this control and a third party can sell rights to its use without my specific agreement, then my control is gone and the value of my work is reduced. There is also no set ‘market rate’ - that is purely an invention of publishers. Different photographers, especially experienced ones negotiate appropriate rates, usually way above those rates that publishers claim are 'the going rate'.



Orphan legislation as has been laid out is ‘back to front’. The legislation's sole purpose is to allow orphan works to be freely used. What creators want is the means by which works can be prevented from being orphaned in the first place. All libraries and academia need is a concise exception. What creators need is the right to be recognised as the authors of their work all the time - no exceptions. If we get the credit then the orphan situation diminishes hugely. And words are not enough. We need the teeth with which to bite those that refuse credits.



From the document.

"A diligent search will in most cases still allow the original rights holder to be identified through the searching of databases, advertisement of the intention to use, use of electronic messaging (in the case of sites such as Flickr for example) and other steps"



There is no way of making a diligent search, there are no databases... Cart
before the horse again.



From the document.

"We are aware that some creators would like a change in the way moral rights work, particularly with regard to the right to identified as author of a work. This is however a polarised debate: publishers and users of copyright works are concerned that any change would prevent them from carrying out legitimate editing activities and add unacceptable overheads to established business practices."



This is absolute nonsense. How does giving a photographer a credit affect activities or acceptable (some established practices are from acceptable) business practices?


From the document.

"If the Digital Economy Bill becomes law, then the government has committed to a broad consultation before legal rules for orphan works schemes are developed. At this time (planned to be the second half of 2010) we would like to hear from creators and copyright owners of all types, as to what they believe the issues are for them. The consultation process will be widely publicised, and you will be able to contribute your views at that time."



Legitimate concerns could be dealt with now. Making the law first and asking us after does not seem to be a sensible way about dealing with such an important issue, as by this time we are merely adjusting legislation rather than stopping wholesale mismanagement from happening.



Perhaps one should consider why the US has backed down from such legislation before going further?

I don't feel that I am getting much further by talking to the IPO, but I am hoping that I can still make a little ground, someone out there might still be listening. The IPO sincerely believe that any problems will be dealt with in the autumn. If I were being overly generous I would say that the IPO are simply closing their eyes and ears to reasoned debate.



the truth seems to be, and the IPO tell us this in their discussion of moral rights, is clear that they are simply doing what the BBC, Publishers and the British Library, have asked them to do. The BBC and Publishers have no interest in authors rights, as acknowledging that we have any at all messes up their exploitation of our creations. It is in the interest of Publishers to open up the world of crowd sourcing, microstock, and personal publishing. Orphan Works licensing is a positive gift to such exploitation.



Professional creators are of no interest or importance in this new model of trading and licensing. As we are all too aware, most publishers business models when it comes to the web, deeply flawed as they are, continue to involve free publishing on the web, with therefore very low margins. To achieve this publishers (including the BBC) want free or nearly free content. It would appear that Lord Mandelson, 'Prince of Darkness' is giving his masters everything that they want.



I note that the the IPO term the Moral rights debate as a polarised one. As a photographer I know exactly what that means. It means that the debate has been turned to one direction only and anything that is out of line is simply removed. No-one in the IPO or government is interested in what we as creators think, only in removing us as a threat in this Brave New Digital World'. It stinks!








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


Member of: The National Union of Journalists


Polarise (from free dictionary)

Verb	1.	polarize - cause to vibrate in a definite pattern; "polarize light waves" polarise natural philosophy, physics - the science of matter and energy and their interactions; "his favorite subject was physics" alter, change, modify - cause to change; make different; cause a transformation; "The advent of the automobile may have altered the growth pattern of the city"; "The discussion has changed my thinking about the issue"
	2.	polarize - cause to concentrate about two conflicting or contrasting positions polarise disunite, separate, part, divide - force, take, or pull apart; "He separated the fighting children"; "Moses parted the Red Sea"
	3.	polarize - become polarized in a conflict or contrasting situation polarise divide, part, separate - come apart; "The two pieces that we had glued separated"

National Union of Journalists

The Union (National Union of Journalists) at large is a strange beast. Where like minded members communicate, like this blogging thing; usually some constructive stuff is done. Did you know that the Guardian petition is now up to 730 names? Slowly but surely, there are more names every time I look. It would be a great achievement to get this above 1000 in time for the demonstration outside the Guardian on the 1st September.

So whereas photographers are fairly active and organise different events, protests, campaigns, some areas of the union need Union organisers holding their hands and doing it all for them, and even then occasionally no one else turns up. I have attended a number of events where I have been asked to become involved because I am a regional representative, or the NEC member, I give up my time, make the effort, and find that it is just me and the organiser that turn up.

I am travelling down from Nottingham on 1st September to demonstrate outside
the Guardian and I know that there will be a large number of photographers in attendance, and some (many) will have travelled further than me. That is because so many of us care about what we do, and are passionate about our work.

I have been very lucky in my life. Most of it I have worked in newspapers, and most of that in sport. It has been fantastic. I have met people, seen events, and been a part of things happening that I could never have, had I just been an ordinary member of the public. And yes I have also got huge kicks out of seeing my pictures in double page spreads and stuff, and bigger kicks out of some of the cheques I have had (in the distant past). But I have really enjoyed my job, and I hate to see how so many publishers are making it all turn sour.

Back to NUJ stuff.
Most of the staffers in the union have their chapels, and so many of them are going through difficult times, with redundancies etc, that the members seem little interested in the wider picture, or often in many cases freelances, even those working close to chapel members. A classic example of that was at Drogheda, where the freelance contract photographer was frozen out of chapel publisher discussions and meetings and ended up being forced out of her job and replaced with someone working for 20% less.

Branches with very few exceptions are made up of chapel members who feel no need to attend branch meetings. The exception here is the freelances. The most vibrant well-attended branches in the union are often the freelance branches - London Freelance is a good example, or largely attended by Freelances (Nottingham). But even with LFB, the turn out is still only around 1% of membership on average (so I am told).

There are branches that do better. My own branch Nottingham has just over 150 members, but regularly has in excess of 15 members turning up at meetings. Few union branches can boast a regular 10%+ turnout. But there are other branches that do as well. In Nottingham there is a good support network for members, and it is rare for a week to go by without my helping some member out in some way, even if on occasion it is only to direct them elsewhere :-)

The Union is only its members. Members, who do stuff. All the photo initiatives that we have seen over the past year have all been initiated and done largely by ordinary members. Yes, of course, there has been a lot of help in certain areas by the Organisers, and Pam and John at the Freelance Office are invaluable and punch well over their own weight, and work tirelessly, but never the less without the members doing things few of our initiatives that fall under the NUJ umbrella would get off the ground.

Nottingham is a vibrant branch because we make it so, same for LFB.

EPUK, that most excellent of resources, came as a result of NUJ photographer
members motivating themselves and doing it, same with Alan Murphy’s ‘Irish Photographers’ list - he did that himself – he didn’t have to. Going back in the past, 1988 Copyright Act, UK Press Card all came about because members got up off their
arses.

Nobody does it for us - we do it. The union is simply the organisation that
binds us together and on occasion assists with knowledge and expertise in
certain areas.

We do need to support those who are shouting on our behalf, because if they
stop, who will do it for us?

Things we can support today:

Guardian Rights Grabbing petition

'Guardian protest' on
1st September

'I am a Photographer not a
terrorist' - I sense a bit of Jess Hurd there :-)


So sign the petition, write to the Guardian, take that picture and send it
in.

Our industry is on its arse, maybe, just maybe, we can get it back onto its
knees... :-)

Kind regards



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


Member of: The National Union of Journalists

Photography Matters

Hopefully, by now you will all be aware of the 2nd NUJ Photographers Conference taking place in London at the Institute of Education on 18th May.


As many of you know, I missed the first conference, despite being involved a bit in the organisation as I was unexpectedly carted off to hospital the week it was taking place. However, it was reported to me by the scores of people who contacted me afterwards as being the best conference the NUJ had ever had. Personally, I am looking forward to the 2009 conference being much of the same.


I know many of you will already have booked, but quite a few won't have, and are probably wondering why you should? What do I get for my £10 I hear you ask? Life is difficult enough as it is, with clients closing down, publications unilaterally deciding to cut rates - rates that haven't in most cases increased in 15 years, why should I spend all that time and effort to come to London. What's in it for me?


Well I kind of understand that too. Myself, I am a photographer and have been all my working life, it's all I really know, and the photographers who represent us in the Photographers sub-committee are very much the same too. So in conjunction with the Freelance Organisers John Toner and Pamela Morton we have tried to put together a programme of talks and discussions that will be of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of photographers.


This is a series of seminars and discussions aimed at helping as many members as possible improve their lot in today’s difficult financial climate.


So this is what I reckon you will get for your £10:


9.30am - Registration/Tea & Coffee
Time to have a chat, network, and perhaps recover from your journey. Also the chance perhaps to talk to some of the professional concerns attending the conference to see if there is any way they can help you with their particular professional services

10.00am - Welcome to the conference - John Toner, Freelance Organiser, NUJ
John is the organiser (along with Pamela Morton) who in most cases deal with photographer issues and represents us in a number of ways with the Police, at newspaper and publisher meets, the IPO etc. Just how many ways does the NUJ work on your behalf without you even realising it?

10.15am - 11.30am: Choice of:
• The Business of Photography including: Expanding your horizons; Photographers and their websites; Stock photography.

Paul Herrmann, Director of Redeye, Paul is known by many for his work in and around Manchester, working for a wide range of clients.

Nick McGowan-Lowe www.nml.uk.com/ is another well-known photographer and one who understands websites and their benefits to photographers; amongst his portfolio he is the web editor of EPUK. How can photographers use websites to further their marketing and better their businesses?

David Hoffman www.hoffmanphotos.com/ has specialised in social issues photography for more than 30 years. Resolutely independent, he primarily shoots stock for his own photo library, rather than working to commissions. Well known to many photographers for his no nonsense approach. Whilst a good stock library was seen at one time to be the photographer’s pension, this is clearly no longer the case, but in these difficult times how can we make the most of stock?

Jenny Lennox – chair (NUJ Assistant Organiser North of England)


• Video and the photojournalist. Video is seen by many publications as being the next step, and already many national and regional newspapers see video as a necessity.

Antonio Olmos. www.antonioolmos.com Former Miami Herald staffer and based in London since 1993, Antonio travels the world and is a regular for the Observer. Newspapers have grasped video with a passion so it seems, Antonio can tell us more.
George Chin. http://www.georgechin.com George is another veteran, and who has been working in the music industry for a long time. So just how does a stills photographer find himself doing online video?

Pete Jenkins www.petejenkins.co.uk – chair. A veteran photographer starting off with black and white dunk tanks in Fleet Street, now working in Nottingham. Pete is the Vice-chair of the NUJs Photographers Sub-Committee.

11.45am - 1.30pm: Choice of:
• Copyright and Intellectual Property including: Economic & moral rights; Orphan works, European dimension.

Kate Fox, the Thompsons copyright specialist is in a good position to help photographers understand their economic and moral rights. In a climate where publishers think they can ride roughshod over individuals how much can they actually get away with? Kate can help you know when to say NO.

Linda Royles, former Chief Executive at the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies puts Linda in a prime position to understand the Orphan rights issue. It may have gone quiet for a moment, but there is every chance that it could come back. How does it affect us, and what should we do about it?

Pamela Morinière is the authors' rights officer at International Federation of Journalists. Did you know that in Germany author’s rights always remain with the created work?

Pamela Morton – chair. Pamela is the NUJs Assistant Freelance Organiser


• The Dangers of the Trade Highlighting some of the problems photographers might well face when working, particularly abroad, and why it is so important that Photojournalists are able to continue working.

Penny Tweedie, www.pennytweedie.co.uk has worked in more than 70 different countries working for a wide range of clients covering subjects as disparate as child gunmen and women in sport

Guy Smallman, www.guysmallman.com is known for his work both at home and abroad and has had some harrowing experiences, some of them life threatening.
Julio Etchart www.julioetchart.com – Chair. After studying Documentary Photography at Newport Art College, Julio has travelled round the world for the international media.


1.30pm - 2.30pm: Lunch also a Q&A session on Colour Management with Neil Barstow, with Michael Walker

Neil Barstow http://www.colourmanagement.net is acknowledged by many as being the foremost colour expert in the UK, and is available to answer questions during a Q&A session.

Michael Walker is the digital editor of Photo Pro Magazine and is the author of numerous books.

Pete Jenkins - chair. A veteran photographer, beginning with black and white dunk tanks in Fleet Street, now working in Nottingham. Pete is the Vice-chair of the NUJs Photographers Sub-Committee.

Also possibly time to have a chat, network, and perhaps compare notes on the morning sessions. Perhaps the chance perhaps to talk again to some of the professional concerns attending the conference to see if there is any way they can help you with their particular professional services


2.30pm - 4.30pm: Photography in Public Spaces. What are the many problems facing photographers in the streets of Britain? Over zealous policing, confusion over privacy, and a general public that assumes so much?

Jeff Moore (chair of the BPPA) and Paul Stewart (National Association of Press Agencies) will open with a slide show illustrating many of the problems that photographers are facing in todays politically charged environment.

Rupert Grey a consultant with Swan Turton who specialises in libel and copyright law, in addition has been involved in many leading cases in the field of media law. He has wide experience of pre-publication advice to national and provincial papers as well as dealing with claims: his clients include educational and other national institutions, as well as well-known private individuals. He advises photographers and syndication agencies on all aspects of copyright law, and regularly lectures and gives seminars in the UK and overseas on aspects of media law.

There will be a solicitor to talk about PACE & the Terrorism legislation TBA

Commander Bob Broadhurst is known to many journalists, was appointed Commander of Public Order and Pan London Operational Support in July 2006.and is the policeperson in charge of operational planning for the 2012 Olympics. He has almost twenty years experience of commanding public order events, including the 2009 Gaza protests in London

Dave Rotchelle – Chair. Dave is well known to members of the London freelance branch of the NUJ, as he is the chair of LFB as well as the chair of the Photographers Sub Committee


4.30pm-5.00pm: Break, coffee

More time to have a chat and network. Yet another chance to talk to some of the professional concerns attending the conference to see if there is any way they can help you with their particular professional services
5pm-6pm: Photography Matters: Keynote address by Jeremy Dear, General Secretary, and Michelle Stanistreet, Deputy General Secretary, NUJ, and John Toner, Freelance Organiser.

Sponsors include Sigma, Thompsons Solicitors, TradeClips and Imaging Insurance

As well as learning more about some of the issues we have to deal with in todays 21st century, I am also looking forward to meeting many of the people which whom I correspond and deal with over the year. Meeting people face to face is important.


And don’t forget the tenner (for NUJ members’) gets you lunch as well!


For non-NUJ members I believe that the conference is also great value, after all £40 for a day (including lunch) of informative seminars and the opportunity to ask questions from a number of acknowledged experts is money well spent.


The conference (which includes lunch) will take place at the Institute of Education, Bedford Way, London, WC1, just off Russell Square.

It costs £10 for NUJ members and £40 for non-members.
For details of how to register go to:
http://www.photography-matters.com/


Or contact the NUJ Freelance Office on freelanceoffice@nuj.org.uk


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

Member of: The National Union of Journalists

Regional Newspapers RIP...

What is it about some shopkeepers, themselves small business people, that makes them think that surly unfriendly behaviour to their customers is acceptable? In these difficult days of 2009, with a credit crunched economy, and everyone careful of their pounds and pennies, it would seem even more important that ever before for small business people to provide quality service, even if they cannot compete with the rock bottom prices of the giant corporations, who just want to shift units and for whom customer care doesn’t even register on the radar.

I took back 50 incorrectly supplied CD-ROMs to the little local computer store that I have keenly supported since they opened. Incorrectly supplied in that they were DVDs not CD-ROMs and I have enough DVDs, but currently no CDs.

Instead of a “sorry sir, please let me exchange those for you, and please accept my apologies for inconveniencing you”, I got a tirade of unnecessarily brusque abuse, and it was made clear that not only was it not the shopkeepers fault for supplying the wrong goods, (despite being correctly requested), but it had to be my fault as the customer, for allowing, myself to be fobbed off with the wrong goods. Did I not understand what an imbecile I had been?

Although eventually I got the required CDs, they were not the printable types I actually wanted, and of course the experience has entirely put me off dealing with these jokers again. Supporting your local business has always been one of my mantras, but not if it means I have to take bad tempered abuse. A shopping experience like this really is enough to send people to shopping malls (perish the thought).

Those small companies and one-man businesses need to remember that customers are there to be cherished and nourished. Customers are difficult to acquire, and oh to easy to lose.

***

On Saturday, I was fortunate enough to attend the National Union of Journalists Job Summit in London. The main speaker was one Nick Davies, author of the book ‘Flat earth News’, which caused a sensation amongst journalists as it stated quite clearly, what many of us have known for some time, that regional Journalism is on its deathbed, and that National journalism is on its knees. The unfortunate state of the industry being brought about by greed, and the business practise of using newspapers and other publications as cash cows.

Nick Davies pic by Pete Jenkins

For years Publishers have been maintaining profit margins for the benefit of shareholders by cutting back on journalists, and the rates paid to their staff and freelance contributors. There are examples of regional Newspapers paying £85.00 for a freelance shift in 1994, and paying the same in 2009, in many case actually less. Expenses freely paid in the early nineties are now argued over penny by penny, and in most cases mileage rates remain much the same, even though the price of petrol and running a car have rocketed in the fifteen years since.

Every year there seem to be fewer staff journalists, and the fees paid to freelances appear static, and more is expected for less. Photographers frequently have publishers trying it on; demanding all rights for no extra pay, publishing on the web as well as print editions, and expecting to use freelance content for free, telling creators that they must give up the right to be credited. At the same time as this there are Publishers syndicating freelance work and taking all the revenue from these sales themselves.

Whilst these practises are going on the Publishers are declaring good profits, but the quality of the publications is in many cases declining. Journalists and suppliers are put under greater pressure.

For photographers, the regional press is dead and there is little point in trying to work in that arena, those that do will increasingly become frustrated, find themselves sunder greater and greater stress, and soon without work. Even the nationals do not hold forth a long-term future for professionals, and increasingly newspaper work will become less and less attractive to full time visual creators as they are forced to look for more reasonable outlets for their work.

© 2009 Pete Jenkins