Todays Guardian Protest

Photographers are very proud of their contribution to their industry, not least of these, those who contribute to the Guardian and Observer newspapers (Guardian News Media).

Outside the Guardian today were a number of contributors to the Guardian. Noticeable in his support of his colleagues was former Observer Sports Photographer and multiple award winner Eamonn McCabe, who went on to become the Picture Editor of the Guardian, and cartoonist Steve Bell.




The protest at the Guardian today by photographers was one that makes me very sad. That the Guardian and Observer of all newspapers should be imposing a rights grab on their most treasured contributors (their contract photographers), not to mention anyone unfortunate enough to receive a commission from the Guardian or Observer from today, is a huge disappointment.


“On 28 July, Chris Elliott, managing editor at Guardian News & Media (GNM), wrote to freelance and contract photographers to inform them that the company would cease paying reuse fees.” See British Journal of Photography

The petition against this action, now at over 900 names gives an indication of how photographers feel, and this number is rising steadily every day.

Speakers at the rally during the protest included John Toner the NUJs Freelance Organiser, so often championing the rights of NUJ Photographer Members, Jeremy Dear, General Secretary of the NUJ, also very vocal in supporting his photographer members, Steve Bell the Guardians excellent cartoonist, supporter of his photographer colleagues, and member of the Guardian NUJ Chapel committee, and Pete Jenkins, deputy chair of the Unions Photographers Sub Committee and Freelance photographer whose first contributions to the Guardian (and Observer) were more than twenty-five years ago.





More than thirty photographers and their supporters were there to condemn GNMs unfriendly proclamation.





The NUJ report is here.

I was privaleged to be allowed to say a few words to my colleagues, and they went something like this:

“I have been a newspaper photographer all my working life, cut me and I bleed ink, that kind of thing.

I had my first picture in the Guardian more than twenty-five years ago, and I have had maybe hundreds of images used, commissioned, live and on spec since then. I have been proud to supply the Guardian as most photographers are.

But I have seen changes. Over the years fewer photographers are used, rates become stagnated, there is a higher reliance on PA for regional work, and now there are fewer photographers, fewer stringers, fewer on contract and fewer images used.

The Berliner saw a dramatic change in the Guardians use of photography, fewer images needed to fill smaller pages, and smaller images used.

This latest move shocks me. That Guardian News Mediahas so little regard for its suppliers, its photographers, also makes me sad, and I am disappointed that they should treat us in this way.

I have few images published in the Guardian (or Observer) these days, but that doesn’t affect how I feel.”


How interesting to read about the Scott Trust set up in 1935 to ensure the continuation of the Manchester Guardian.


The core purpose of the Scott Trust is:

· To secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
· All other activities should be consistent with the central objective. The Company which the Trust owns should: be managed to ensure profits are available to further the central objective; not invest in activities which conflict with the values and principles of the Trust.
· The values and principles of the Trust should be upheld throughout the Group. The Trust declares a subsidiary interest in promoting the causes of freedom in the press and liberal journalism, both in Britain and elsewhere.


Photographers around the UK, and indeed around the world, will be wondering how this rights grab move by the GNM management fits in with the core purpose of the Trust. I wonder what John Scott would think were he alive today?


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


Member of: The National Union of Journalists

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

Guardian Media Rights Grab - latest

Hi Folks,

The latest move in the Guardian rights grab is that the NUJ in conjunction with the British Photographic Council has set up a petition site:

GNM Photographers Petition

All Editorial photographers who could possibly submit to the Guardian in the future, or who have done in the past are requested to sign.

If all professional (and would be professional) photographers would lend their support - we are all potential Guardian suppliers , that would be a big boost.

Please sign.

Your anticipated support is much appreciated

Kind regards



Pete Jenkins
Vice Chair, Photographers Sub-Committee, NUJ
www.petejenkins.co.uk
www.onlinepictureproof.com/petejenkins
www.photographerspro.eu/pete_jenkins/


Member of: The National Union of Journalists

The Guardian Still Doesn’t like Us.

After my blog piece on this new Guardian (GNM) 'rights grab', there was a mention on the British Journal of Photography web site ‘Photographers protest Guardian's rights-grabbing move’

They quote a spokeswoman from the Guardian saying the following:

“We are currently operating in unprecedented trading conditions and have been compelled to look at costs across the entire organisation.

The changes announced bring us in line with other national press and our terms and conditions for freelancers remain amongst the best.

This is not a rights grab. The changes announced, in practice, will affect only a very small proportion of contributors. Stock photography and photography commissioned prior to September 1 2009 is unaffected. Furthermore, our standard syndication terms remain unchanged. We seek a non-exclusive licence to re-use new commissions, not the copyright. We have to establish a sustainable cost base for the future.”


It cannot be denied that the Guardian along with a number of other newspapers (But by no means all), is suffering in the current economic downturn – much the same as the rest of us I would imagine! I am a freelance; no one is going to be exposed to the tide of economics more than I. But did photographers cause GNMs problems? – well no. Are they such an expense that taking more from them will somehow revitalise GNMs financial position? – well no, far from it. The one thing you can say is that the freelance photographers on contract to the Guardian, (their staff compliment is very low, possibly even non-existent these days), are very much part of the newspapers strengths.

“The changes bring us in line with other national press”.

Well, who, exactly? And if indeed this was the case, how does one justify bad behaviour in a civilised society, surely not by saying the ‘other guy does it so it’s ok?' I bet Saddam Hussein was just kicking himself all the way to the gallows, that he didn't use this as a defence at his 'trial'.

The Guardian say that other papers have already imposed rights grabs, and indeed the inference is that they all do. None of those newspapers have tried it on with me - only the Guardian. Perhaps the Guardian would care to name those newspapers it is merely emulating - they haven't done so, so far?

Had such a letter gone out from other publications I am sure there would have been the same outcry. I didn't react against the Guardian out of spite; I would have reacted to this letter whoever had sent it.

I understand that the 'Herald' in Glasgow is trying to do the same thing, and I am aware that the photographers there are reacting against the demand, and bitterly resent it.


Fleet Street has changed hugely in recent times. Whereas ten years ago I would have probably supplied images on commission or request to virtually every Fleet Street publication every week, now those requests are fewer and far apart.

Even those based in London, (where I was until 1999), are getting much less work than ten years ago, and for many outside the M25 it has almost vanished except on extra special jobs which simply have to have a local professional.

I make it clear again, whenever I supply a client, whether it is on commission or whether it is from my stock files, I supply that imagery on a one-use one-fee basis. If the client requires more than one use, then this can be negotiated, but it would be commercial suicide for myself or any other professional editorial photographer to suddenly change our working models to a one (low) fee for an unlimited unspecified use. Why would we want to do this? How could we make such a system pay?

If GNM want to have the same rights to our work as they would with staff photographers, then perhaps what they should be looking at doing is starting to take on staff photographers again, and paying them the going rate. That way they would have 'all rights' - in exchange for a salary.


The Guardian representatives often tell us:

“Our terms and conditions for freelancers remain amongst the best”

Unfortunately these days that is only in their dreams. The myth that the Guardian are the good guys unfortunately has taken a huge battering over the past few years, what with enforced syndication to the direct detriment of the contributor, and now this rights grab.

It doesn’t matter how many times Guardian management staff tell us this isn’t a rights grab; it clearly is. The Guardian wants re-use rights for free. Not just re-use in the paper, but web use, use in books, and use for any other product they come up with. These are rights they had to pay for in the past, as do other publications. To now assume those rights for free, is by any definition I have come across, a rights grab.

Merely repeating the words, ‘This is not a rights grab’, doesn’t magically make it the case – far from it.

The changes, despite the assertions to the contrary will affect all future commissioned photographic contributors to GNM publications. That GNM use fewer photographers now than ever before is sad and unfortunate, but this new rights grab will affect all contributors.

If the award winners like Tom Jenkins aren’t affected then that would make it all the worse that they do this to every one else. If Tom is affected, then how must he feel? What a way for the Guardian to repay his loyal services and his most excellent photography? Didn’t Tom win four awards in PPY 2009?


That the Guardian dare not make this retrospective is down to contract law, not I imagine some generous gift to the photographic community. To tell us that standard syndication remains unchanged is also somewhat misleading as they have only just introduced enforced syndication which specifically affects their photographic contributors, and is to the detriment, in some cases we are told, to the sum of many thousands of pounds per annum, of the freelance contributor.

Finally, after telling us that this is not a ‘rights grab’ our spokeswoman explains

“We seek a non-exclusive licence to re-use new commissions, not the copyright. “


I would be happy to consider licensing on this basis, and I am sure others would to, but there would have to be some financial compensation for this new ‘non-exclusive licence’. If there is no extra money then it remains a rights grab – there simply is no other phrase that covers it.

ONE FEE – ONE USE.


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

Member of: The National Union of Journalists