Will they come for the stock libraries next?

[mickfly]

Photographers call on News UK to ditch exploitative contract

[John Mitchell]

Once upon a time I did a lot of freelance travel writing for newspapers in Canada and the US. They used to buy one-time rights to the photos that I submitted with my articles. Then, beginning in the early 2000's, the big newspaper chains started demanding all rights, first to photos and then to everything -- photos and text. I tried to negotiate fairer terms with the papers that I wrote for. However, they wouldn't budge, knowing that there were plenty of eager beavers out there willing to toil for nothing just to see their work in print (Sound familiar?). In the end, I had to quit contributing to newspapers altogether. I don't know what UK news photographers will do, but if they don't stop rights-grabbing, it will spread like wildfire.

[MizBrown]

Huge amount of rights grabbing for some time.

 

Too many people are desperate to get recognition, to the point of paying to be published or paying to have work up on web sites.

[Allan Bell]

Sign the contract but cross out those explicit terms and initial them.

It will be up to the group to either accept or reject the altered contract.

Maybe make them think again.

 

Allan

 

[spacecadet]

7 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

Sign the contract but cross out those explicit terms and initial them.

It will be up to the group to either accept or reject the altered contract.

Maybe make them think again.

 

Allan

 

That's not the point- of course they will be rejected. There will be plenty who will accept, but decent journalists should not be put in the position of having to choose between a rights grab and no work.

[Allan Bell]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

That's not the point- of course they will be rejected. There will be plenty who will accept, but decent journalists should not be put in the position of having to choose between a rights grab and no work.

 

Agreed. They should be treated fairly and not have to worry about such things.

 

Allan

 

[Robert M Estall]

Rights grabbing has been going on for a very long time. A publisher or packager would have a person who's job was contracts as long as I can remember. Not to be left to photographers and picture researchers over a tipple in the pub. They were never push-overs! For the most part, they took the view that I was only doing my job by holding out for best terms and it was vital to not get in any sort of temper.

 

 Terms like "in perpetuity"  and "through-out the universe" started appearing twenty years ago. I'm afraid it will get worse, not better.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Robert M Estall

[MizBrown]

This is one where a good agent is useful, but agents for artists tend to charge more than agents for writers (15% last time I had a contract with a mainstream publisher).  

[Chuck Nacke]

You all do not get it.  G, A & SS (just to name a few of the current majors) partially created this and everyone who happily

accepts the  shrinking commissions from XYZ agencies is part of the problem.  I remember day rates, I remember

"combat pay" I remember licensing "First Time rights, Second Time rights etc." I remember not working without

retaining the rights to "all images."  If you all want to make pictures, fine.  If you all want to be paid for making

pictures, do it better and don't let anyone license or as too many of you say "sell" them for peanuts. 

 

I've heard the same as the OP's URL for over 30 years and I've been part of actions against publishers who tried

to grab photographers rights, not much has changed in those years.  The main difference is that 30 years ago the

"photographers" fighting for their rights were professionals who had years of experience in the business.

 

My own opinion:

I will add that there are too many involved in the licensing of images, who are not trained in the profession.

Let's not even talk about "Photojournalism."

 

Chuck

[Betty LaRue]

Back over 20 years ago, I bought my African Gray parrot, Echo. I quickly subscribed to a magazine about pet birds.  It was a glossy, and nice. The editors actually solicited stories and pictures to be sent in free gratis from readers. I could hardly believe people were so eager to do that just to see their work in print. The magazine made it clear they owned all rights.  The stories were like a long paragraph, but often had a picture.

I wrote a lengthy article for the magazine and submitted two accompanying pictures, but clearly told them what my fee was for one-time rights. They paid. Two, maybe three page spread, (I’ll have to look again) story and pictures (film). I guess they liked it well enough to pay.
And yes, I was excited. As much for being paid as seeing my work in print.

[geogphotos]

This has been happening in all sectors of the economy since the 1980s. It's what happens when Unions do not have power and the owners have all the power. In UK it was called Thatcherism.  Don't you remember when Murdoch locked out the printers in Fleet Street and moved to Wapping? Which side were you on back then?  

 

They already 'came' for the Unions. It started with the miners because they were the figureheads on the entire movement. Which side were you on back then?

 

They came for every group of workers in turn and stripped away careers and job security for zero hours contracts and subsistence wages with no security and no pension rights.

 

Which side were you on when they did that to everybody else?  

Edited September 22, 2020 by geogphotos

[sb photos]

3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

This has been happening in all sectors of the economy since the 1980s. It's what happens when Unions do not have power and the owners have all the power. In UK it was called Thatcherism.  Don't you remember when Murdoch locked out the printers in Fleet Street and moved to Wapping? Which side were you on back then?  

 

I remember those times. A friends father was a machine minder and on the Wapping picket line, dangerous times.

[spacecadet]

3 hours ago, sb photos said:

Wapping picket line, dangerous times

Pretty dangerous for the people trying to go to work as well, as I recall.

[Cal]

On 20/09/2020 at 19:03, MizBrown said:

Huge amount of rights grabbing for some time.

 

Too many people are desperate to get recognition, to the point of paying to be published or paying to have work up on web sites.

 

Agreed. I've stopped commenting to this effect on social media. Too many people on instagram and the like - who are actually decent photographers - willing to give their work away when company XYZ asks "can we feature this on our page". They don't get that the company isn't doing it for the good of their health, but to SELL PRODUCTS and that in a just world the photographer should be compensated accordingly.

[MizBrown]

30 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

Agreed. I've stopped commenting to this effect on social media. Too many people on instagram and the like - who are actually decent photographers - willing to give their work away when company XYZ asks "can we feature this on our page". They don't get that the company isn't doing it for the good of their health, but to SELL PRODUCTS and that in a just world the photographer should be compensated accordingly.

 

Will the photographer be responsible if the company uses unreleased pictures of people to sell their products?   I suspect the company will manage to claim it was the photographer's fault.

[Cal]

3 hours ago, MizBrown said:

 

Will the photographer be responsible if the company uses unreleased pictures of people to sell their products?   I suspect the company will manage to claim it was the photographer's fault.

 

Not sure. Thought provoking question though and probably a bit of a can of worms. I'd think that if you uploaded something to social media and then effectively donated it to someone else it would be a stretch to find the OP liable.

 

This is one of the reasons I really like the Alamy platform. Not filling out the releases section on the optional tab (either by accident or on purpose) ensures your image will not be sold under the pretence of being released, so if some bozo uses it commercially and then gets sued that's on them and not you. As perhaps evidenced by a thread I made on here a while back, I have what is perhaps a slightly irrational fear of someone recognising an errant fencepost or other such object in one of my images and trying to sue me into oblivion just because they could. I often don't mark up the releases section unless I am absolutely positively sure I can, even down to the fact that the ground the image was on not being privately owned. Well, I try my best at least.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Cal

[MizBrown]

1 hour ago, Cal said:

 As perhaps evidenced by a thread I made on here a while back, I have what is perhaps a slightly irrational fear of someone recognising an errant fencepost or other such object in one of my images and trying to sue me into oblivion just because they could. I often don't mark up the releases section unless I am absolutely positively sure I can, even down to the fact that the ground the image was on not being privately owned. Well, I try my best at least.

 

I'm marking no releases for traditional craft items -- somewhat a moral principle that the style/tradition is some group's intellectual property, though one could argue that the basic design is long since out of copy protection.