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

NUJ Photographers get excited again

Photographers belonging to the National Union of Journalists are getting excited about the opportunity to set up the Unions first ‘photographer’s branch'. Ok, that sounds interesting, but what does it actually mean, and what is the fuss all about?

There are (according to Pro-Shooter the online Photo Magazine) some 5,000 editorial shooters in the UK, and almost certainly at least this number, probably many more, who obtain some or part of their income from professional editorial or public relations photography. Almost half this 5,000 (2,400+) are members of the National Union of Journalists, and of these more than two thirds are Freelances. Half are probably based in or around London and the South East of England.

Photographers have traditionally been a minority amongst journalists, and in the past, until very recently, largely because of the magic of the darkroom and the mysteries of processing, not to mention the skill required to manually focus a camera and lens combination, on (frequently) moving subjects, they have been regarded as a unique and valued set of skilled workers.

What has gone wrong with our profession?
As photography as a profession has been perceived as becoming easier, first of all because of automated equipment (auto –focus), and more recently by the advances in digitisation, we have found that professional editorial photography has come under severe and sustained attack. Some will say that the real start of this was the Wapping dispute of 1986, when News International dismissed thousands of members of staff to facilitate moving to cheaper premises a few miles away. Others will suggest that the real hammer blow was the introduction of digital scanning, such as the Apple Macintosh Powerbook computers and Nikon Coolscans, which started to be used across the board by newspaper photographers allowing photographers to send (wire) images they had processed on site to their newspaper picture desks from around 1992. Others, will point out that the real damage was done when the Nikon Digital SLR, the D1, was made available in the Autumn of 1999, considered by many to be the first digital SLR that was affordable and practicable for the average working freelance professional.

Of course the truth is that the profession has been under attack for more then twenty years. Pre-Wapping each national newspaper would likely have at least 50 photographers on staff, as many again on retainer, and scores more supplying them on a regular basis around the country. The 5,000 figure mentioned earlier would back then barely have covered those working for National newspapers. Now those reliant on National newspapers for their income number less than 10% of the 1987 figure, as most papers will now have staff photographers numbered in single figures, and much the same for those on retainers. As for speculative and commissioned work around the country, this is now little and infrequent, as most papers will take material by preference from the wire services offered by agencies such as PA and Getty. Even these leviathans are using far fewer photographers than in the past.

It isn’t only the numbers of photographers that have been denuded. Payments for images used have been to all intents and purposes frozen since around 1994, expenses cut, and the photographer is now expected to do more than ever before, and use more and more expensive and complicated equipment which for the freelance means a large investment in gear and in training.

The final insult is that newspapers are now enforcing payment reductions, on those very same fees, which haven’t increased in fifteen years. News International started the latest round of cuts, and others couldn’t stop themselves from joining in, including, the Guardian, and the Glasgow Herald.

So what has this got to do with union branches?
I have been a member of the NUJ since the early eighties. Initially, I was a member of the London Freelance Branch, probably the largest branch in the Union. Based in London and working largely for publications such as the Sunday Telegraph, Telegraph, Guardian, Times, Mail, Daily Express. I regularly attended branch meetings, and in those days there were sometimes less than a dozen of us attending, (todays LFB usually manages 50+). The branch was helpful in many ways and during the eighties I found myself involved in a number of disputes the first of which was Wapping, probably one of the most unpleasant disputes in living memory. I was in my twenties, and was still recovering from the glimpses I had seen of the difficulties in the Miners strike of 1984. The shutdown of the Fleet Street premises of News International actually took me by surprise, and left me in a daze. I was also involved as a freelance in the Advertiser North London dispute.

During these painful times having contact with fellow NUJ members was a godsend. Although in these two particular disputes as a contributor I lost out, there was some help for me via the union, as well as advice, and as importantly communication.

Having others around me who could offer advice in a difficult situation has always been valuable, and often under-played buy those who have not been through the experience.

In 1999, I moved to Nottingham, and due to the distances involved I chose to move from London Freelance to Nottingham. Nottingham is a little city branch with perhaps some 150 members (as opposed to 3,500+ in LFB).

Nottingham branch is more of a community than say London Freelance. Although as with most branches the majority don’t attend one meeting to the next, there is a relatively high turnout of 12% to 15% most months, sometimes far higher. The city and county have a number of publications and organisations with chapels, so most union members tend to be unionised within the chapels associated with their workplace, so that they are closer to the work they do and the problems they have. Each such chapel has a father/mother, (a chairperson) and a secretary, and other officers from the workplace fulfil the various other roles.

The chapel officers then make regular reports to the branch, and these are read out or discussed at the meetings and the branch as a whole offers assistance as required. So in Nottingham we have chapels for the Nottingham Evening Post, BBC, and ITV. All of these have had issues over the past few years and the branch has done much to support them, whether it is industrial action (not necessarily strikes), redundancies, or individual cases of bullying.

I have participated as fully as I am able, as have many other branch members, and proffered support as and when it has been required.

For me the biggest thing about Nottingham branch is the fact that it brings together freelances and staffers from the industry into one room, once a month. The chance to exchange experiences, swap stories and network, both socially and for business is a great boon. In fact the great majority of those who attend Nottingham branch are freelance in one sector or another.

If a member has a problem that they cannot deal with on their own, or needs advice there is often someone in the branch who can help, or at least knows someone who can help. Nottingham is fortunate in that for its size it is a strong branch, and often has representatives on the National Executive Committee, several of the Industrial Councils such as the Freelance, Broadcasting and New Media.

Nottingham is fortunate too in that it has a healthy photographer membership with (for instance), Alan Lodge, Rob Rathbone, others and myself. A broad range of experience, which we are able to share with our colleagues as and when required. Many other branches do not always have that good fortune.

What of activism?
This means different things to different people of course, but when talking of activism in this context, I am thinking of trade union activism, and more precisely working to make the conditions of professional photographers better. This involves many things including (but not exclusively) remuneration, expenses, copyright, rights grabs, orphan works, helping other photographers in difficult situations, responding to calls for help, dealing with poorly grafted legislation as it affects photographers and the implementing of such.

Meet ups are very important, but so is communication in general. Without the ability to communicate with hundreds, even thousands, by way of the Internet, e-mail lists and forums, I could not possible represent photographers as effectively as I have been able to. Communication is everything, and after all, the NUJ is a communications union. Forums such as EPUK (which I am not involved with), and NVJ Photo which I am allow photographers hundreds of miles away from eachother share experiences and react very quickly indeed. It was because of the speedy communication that e-mails gave us that we were able to do so much so quickly towards helping Kash in Afghanistan. If we had had to do everything by telephone I am convinced the whole campaign would have been far more difficult, and who can say, but probably less successful.


So there are many things that people can do to get involved. Be careful not to make the mistakes I have made, and lets hope that going forward, lots of other NUJ photographer members can share in future successes, in the way that I have been privileged to have been able to do.

NUJ Photographers Branch Meeting, 6.30 pm, 16th July 2009, Headland House, 308-312, Gray's Inn Road, London, WC1X 8DP

So very soon we could have ourselves our first photographers branch. That will be good news for all NUJ photojournalists. After that we should be asking for our own Industrial Council.

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

Why is it that so many professional photographers seem to be having such a difficult time at the moment?

Why is it that so many professional photographers seem to be having such a difficult time at the moment? It isn’t just the economic crisis that seems to have been triggered by the banks, as many editorial photographers at least have been under increasing financial pressure over the past ten years.

Many have blamed digital imaging, but that is not really true either, although without question the ‘digital revolution’ for want of a better expression has certainly been a trigger. There are many myths about digital photography, not least being how easy it makes taking good quality photographs, and how cheap it makes photography. The former is of course nonsense, as the skill required in taking a good picture has not changed since the day of Fox Talbot.

Even though we now have auto-focus, auto-exposure; the taking of a high quality photograph still lies in the hands of the camera-user (photographer), and no amount of automation can determine the exact moment to press the shutter or the framing of the image. (Even with the fastest of motor drives, and greatest of luck, the choice element is still with the photographer).

Many people think that good exposure and sharpness denotes good photography - which is of course nonsense. These are merely, (and there are exceptions), the most basic, taken-for-granted requirements. All good photographs should be well exposed and well-focussed, all digital imaging has done is remove the mystique of the darkroom, and replaced it with the joys of the computer. Because in this day and age, even our children are taught to use computers, the familiarity with PCs has given so many people the false illusion that comfort in using a keyboard is the same as actual knowledge and skill. How many times has ‘John’ in ‘I.T.’ been given the job of producing photographs based on nothing more than the misconception that proficiency with computers is the same as thirty years professional experience with a camera?

Despite so few of us being real masters of colour management (and I include myself in this), the entire population now truly believes that the mere ownership of a digital camera makes one a photographer, with the acquired skills of thirty years professional photographic experience.

Even those people who really should know better, the editors who so often are those most directly involved in selecting imagery have been sucked into this idea that it is all now so easy. Easy then becomes synonymous with cheap. Remember when the travelling editorial photographer had to use those Hassleblad drum scanners, and the horrendous price they cost. We were all (newspaper photographers) told that without them we would not get any work, only those who invested in the equipment. Hundreds of us, (thousands), spent (perhaps) £20,000 even then. The papers saved a lot of production time and effort, and yes we got 'wire fees' but probably not enough to quite balance the extra cost of the equipment, and the papers were 'quids in' as we say in the UK.

The next big step (1992?) was to ‘Macs’ and ‘Coolscans’. Thousands of us got sucked into this one. Something like £5,000 to buy an Apple-Macintosh laptop - mine was a 180c, a Nikon Coolscan and ‘Codex’ modem, plus the software to make everything work. No tuition, all skills acquired on the job. This equipment was the minimum required for the sole trader working on his/her own. We produced 4-megabyte files that would be laughed at now, but they did sell well for newspapers, and was the base of an income for many of us for maybe seven years. But this kit had to be upgraded, three times during the next few years and the increased costs were rarely fully recoverable, and within a couple of years, the newspaper clients that had insisted we buy all this still slashed the fees they were prepared to pay for all this extra digital work. The Sun started it and the rest of Fleet Street followed suit, and I am sure there was a similar progression in the US and other market places. The papers saved a huge amount in equipment costs, not to mention manpower, as the images were supplied already digitised, and in many cases practically ready to use bar perhaps a simple digital conversion.

Once so many of us were 'mobile' and able to produce and send imagery almost immediately the papers began to trim the numbers of photographers being commissioned to cover events. Why send your 'own staffer' on commission when you could get regular submissions from the local guy? As this progressed, it became why take stuff in from the 'local photographers', when you could get material in from the regional agency. Which today has become why use any agency when we can get the stuff on the PA feed, which we pay for on subscription?

From a situation where each paper (probably) directly or indirectly employed two or three hundred photographers, we now have papers directly employing five or six with maybe a similar number on contract and possibly using the occasional regional freelance for those 'special' stories too far to send their own guy/gal. Multiply this by the more than a dozen national daily and Sunday newspapers and one can see how our marketplace has changed. No doubt the scenario is repeated in the States, Europe and elsewhere.

These skilled photographers no longer getting work from the national press are doing what? Some (many) have left the industry altogether, but those who remain are working in ways that enable them to earn a crust. Many produce stock. It isn't all amateurs that the professional full-time stock producer is now competing with, but skilled professionals moving over from other parts of the industry.

As for the latter suggestion that digital photography is cheaper, well anyone who is caught in the trap of upgrading, whether it be cameras, computers or software knows that this to be a serious error. Back in 1980s, I had Canon A-1s and F1s that lasted what ten years? In fact they never needed actual replacement, but I chose to go down the EOS1 route in 1990. The EOS-1 was a wonderful camera, but cost more than three times that of either of its predecessors (£1500), just buying two was a huge investment. True these cameras also lasted me until I was market led into going digital thirteen years later, but the difference in price from a conventional body to an electronic one has set a trend which has not slowed down. Whilst in £s and pence terms the price of cameras may seem to have stabilised, market requirements (and the lack of longetivity of the bodies themselves) have meant that they need upgrading perhaps as often as biannually. Each body far more expensive than the F1s of yesteryear.

And then one has to take on board the cost of the computer kit that makes all the imagery work. That first 180c Macintosh laptop was £3,500, Photoshop, £500+. Whilst today's computers are no question cheaper, their operating life seems to be no more than two years. More cost in both machine and software.

In 1994 I worked out my operating costs including overheads, running a separate office and working on a 48 week working year, four day operating week, (one day in the office), and my running costs were £50 per day. This included replacement equipment, servicing, car, phone everything. I did the same exercise in 2006 and came up with a figure of £105. In the twelve years between the two calculations my overheads and operating costs had doubled, whilst the commission fees paid by newspaper clients had remained static. Worse than this the expenses paid by those clients had fallen dramatically.

I did the same exercise last year and my overheads have reduced slightly to £95. I now work from home, have an older vehicle, etc.

Whilst I am fortunate in that some of the excellent lenses I purchased back in 1990 are still serving me well, like every other professional I am forced to upgrade camera bodies, computers and software at least every three years. If I don't, I remain less competitive in a market where there is now more competition than ever before.

As a photographer I have had to reinvent my business many times, and in today’s difficult economic climate that is an absolute essential. I am continually examining the services I provide and the markets within which I provide it. I no longer supply to newspapers (95% of my work in 1994), but my main selling point remains personal service and quality.

If my Unique Selling Point (USP) were price, then there would always be someone prepared to take me on. Providing a better service, makes my clients loyal, and despite the difficult times helps provide a regular income.

I no longer do sport either, something which I was heavily involved in from the mid seventies until the end of the last century; that market has died for all but the persistent few who have made themselves an unassailable niche (it can still be done). Sheer quality will always win through, although due to the nonsense thinking in the current market place which places (in so many cases) price above quality, (‘Never mind the quality, feel the width’), one still has to work hard and be diligent, and not expect the earning power of even fifteen years ago.

The myth that digital, has made processing unnecessary is a difficult one as well, as many operators out there do none at all, and even more clients accept this, which is shocking. Gone are the days when film could be given to a specialist processor and a while later prints are produced which the client paid for (all the processing costs). Now, the photographer does that processing – what we need all that expensive hardware and software for. Even with my limited knowledge of colour management I spend between 100% and 400% longer digitally producing the files that my camera produces before I am prepared to give them to a client, than I do actually taking the photographs themselves, it is as much my diligence to processing and editing my images that makes me a quality photographer. This sort of thing is difficult for non-photographers to take on board. I have had many editors simply refuse to believe that this work is needed. What clients deem unnecessary they simply refuse to pay for. These are the clients who want to employ a photographer by the hour and receive a CD of JPEG images totally unedited after the job. Known as ‘Dump and Run’, there are many less professional photographers who simply see this as the way a photographic business is run. No wonder the marketplace thinks that photography is cheap, and why in so many cases the photographs we see in print are so poor quality. Since when did ‘Good enough’ become a marketing strategy for professional photographers?

The days when our collection of stock (our stock library) was for most of us seen as our pensions have gone, (this was a huge shock to me), but photography is not dead. There are more images used today than ever before. The marketplace has changed and we simply have to change with it. It doesn't mean that we have to lower our prices or our service, or quality, but rather that we have to adapt our rather unique services to fit in with client requirements. It also means we have to be evangelists, for quality, colour management and service.

With everyone else chasing prices down to the bottom, there comes a point in every market place when low price simply isn't enough, and clients start asking for something better - quality. The trick for most of us will be to survive until that pendulum swings our way. That means we have to keep our wits about us! :-)

Pete Jenkins

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

Member of: The National Union of Journalists