The Guardian has written to contributors imposing revised terms:
Dear Contributor,
Re. Change to terms and conditions for commissioned photography
You will no doubt be aware that we, like every other media outlet in the UK, are experiencing very difficult trading conditions brought about by declining circulations and falling advertising revenues.
As a result we have been compelled to review all of our costs across the company, including the terms and conditions under which we trade with news and picture agencies and freelances.
We are writing to inform you that GNM will cease paying reuse fees in respect of photography it commissions from 01 September 2009. What this means is that from this date GNM's standard terms for commissioned photography shall include a non-exclusive, perpetual licence to re-use commissioned photography in its products and services without further payment.
For your reassurance, copyright ownership of the pictures you supply to GNM remains with you; stock photography and photography commissioned prior to 01 September 2009 are unaffected and will continue to attract our standard space rates; and our standard syndication terms remain unchanged.
Our Freelance Charter ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/article/0,,409883,00.html) and the notifications you receive from GNM when you are commissioned will be updated accordingly.
Should you have any queries regarding the change to our terms and conditions, please contact rights@guardian.co.uk.
The Guardian's policy and the manner of its introduction is bound to cause trouble and damage, not least to the Guardian's image as an ethical newspaper of liberal left-wing conscience aimed at a Fair Trade audience.
In fact negotiations had been dragging on for over 2 years surrounded by claims from the Guardian that new terms met NUJ approval and NUJ insistence that they fell far short. Meetings stopped over a year ago after the Guardian failed to confirm that they would not penalise those seeking different terms as permitted by their own freelance charter.
Newspaper rates are pitiful throughout the industry, having stuck somewhere around 1995 when payment was for first use in a single publication, with space rates and subsequent use forming an important additional income stream. In 1995 the Guardian was paying £150, just £5 per job less than now, according to freelances.
So newspaper photography was on life support long before the recession thanks to publishers paying less for more, even whilst titles were profitable. Bit by bit publishers have awarded themselves expanded rights over the work of freelances, cutting out post-production and wiring fees and expenses, and insisting on free use in subsidiary titles and media, and exclusive syndication rights. Now that conditions are tough the loss of reuse fees and space rates are a substantial reduction which will undoubtedly drive many photographers from the business and limit the coverage many others are able to provide.
The Guardian has in the past wished to be seen as a beacon of 'best practice' where things were least worst. Other publishers will now take the Guardian's lead as a sign that terms and conditions may safely be still further degraded.
Additionally the newspaper has placed itself at the leading edge of adaptation to new media, and appeared to be one publisher who was managing to extract profit from the smoke and mirrors web economy. The admission that contributors' pay now has to be cut despite this alleged success is bad news for the survival of newspapers. All that newspapers have going for them is the excellence of their content, and that now looks unsustainable. The Guardian's previous best offer for web use of commissioned material was only 5% and is now nothing.
NUJ photographers asked to work under this new imposed 'agreement' should now contact John Toner, the NUJ Freelance Organiser.
Predictably perhaps, the announcement of settlement with contract photographers has allowed The Guardian to claim to BJP that the matter is now resolved.
More at http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=869358
Does 'all new commissions' refer to new commissions carried out by freelances as well as contract photographers? Is the ambiguity accidental or tactical divide and rule? And if anyone can leak us a copy of the new terms, we'd like to publish them. Anonymous posting is possible here, else mail to admin@copyrightaction.com
©A admin
NUJ calls for "day of rest" (freelance photographers not taking any jobs) after the Guardian concedes re-use fees for contract photographers, but not for freelances.
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1347
©A admin
I think it's about time the Photographers in this country took a leaf out off the Writers Guild in the U.S. and went on an all out 'strike' with the Media Industry and STOPPED supply any news photographs until such time as organisations such as the GNM and others respect the rights of photographers...
If ALL the photographers simply said "NO" - what are they going to do?
More Guardian train-wreck coverage
Guardian Group posts £89.8m loss, reports the Press Gazette.
Losses of £36.8m, from £26.4m in 2008, on turnover down to £253.6m (from £261.9m) on national newspapers and websites are explained by GMG : "GNM experienced the toughest trading conditions seen for many years…GNM’s aim is to emerge from the economic downturn a leaner and stronger organisation: leaner due to a bottom-up reappraisal of the cost base to ensure it is affordable; stronger because it will continue to invest in its journalism and in maintaining its market-leading positions."
Meanwhile from Times Business Online, there are rumours that the Observer is to close as a result of GNM's losses.
Andrew Wiard, writing about the Guardian's new terms for photographers at Pro Shooter, notes that "GNM management is deliberately picking on those it considers defenceless. They would not dare propose a thirty per cent wage cut to the staff journalists represented by the Guardian Chapel. And they are certainly not proposing a thirty per cent wage cut for themselves."
Apparently not. According to a couple of comments to the Press Gazette piece, the head of Regional Media at Guardian Media Group took a £47,000 bonus.
©A admin
NUJ Press Release 4 Aug 2009
Photographers challenge Guardian's rights grab
The NUJ is calling on photographers to demonstrate for their creative rights outside The Guardian offices on 1 September.
The protest is in response to Guardian News & Media's announcement that they will no longer pay for re-use of pictures commissioned from that date.
In a letter to contributors dated 28 July, Managing Editor Chris Elliott stated that the company's standard terms for commissioned photography shall include "a non-exclusive, perpetual licence to re-use commissioned photography in its products and services without further payment."
NUJ Freelance Organiser John Toner said: "At a time when press photographers are suffering severe hardship as a result of the economic downturn, it comes as a further blow to be informed that GNM demands unlimited re-use of photographs free of charge.
"Re-use is not free use."
The announcement follows on from GNM's talks with their contract photographers, who are already resisting moves to end payment for re-use. The Guardian NUJ Chapel has agreed to represent the contractees in a collective grievance - the agreed procedure for raising concerns about employment practices. This was submitted to the company yesterday (Monday) but was immediately rejected by managers.
This latest proposals will affect hundreds of photographers in the UK and further afield.
John added: "We will be working with the British Photographic Council to co-ordinate a mass response to GNM's rights-grab. We urge GNM management to enter into meaningful negotiations."
NUJ President James Doherty, who last week chaired a meeting of freelance members facing a similar rights grab by the Herald group of newspapers, said: "It's obvious that proprietors are determined to put the squeeze on freelance journalists in their continued quest for profits.
"For years, freelances have borne the brunt of cuts in the media industry and this further attempt to undermine photographer's rights is tantamount to legalised theft.
"I urge all journalists to stand and fight both GNM and Newsquest's attempts to steal not only our rights but our future livelihoods."
The demonstration will take place at 9.30am at Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1.
ENDS
For more information, contact John Toner on 07710 314593 or Stephen Pearse on 07921 700 110
©A admin
Chris Elliott's email address is Chris.Elliott@guardian.co.uk
©A admin
My name is Antonio Olmos and I am writing this to my fellow photographers...
As you may or may not know the photographers on contract at the Observer and the Guardian are fighting this along with the NUJ and the NUJ Chapel at GNM. I think the first thing we can do actually reply to Chris Elliott and say you not only object to these new terms and conditions but you will not work for GNM under those terms.
The only way they are going to get this by is if enough photographers work for them. If we let them know the strength of our objections, it may persuade them to back down.
The Guardian and the Observer have a genuine financial crisis. The business is in peril from the recession, online migration and the huge drop in advertising. I love working for GNM, in so many respects its a great company and produces a great product that I genuinely believe in.
But the fact remains, I am a freelancer and I own my images. They want to put me and you on the same terms and conditions as a staff photographer without the benefits of said position. When my contract ends or GNM collapses, I want to be able to walk away with full control of my images.
The License they wish to impose on me makes a mockery of my copyright and renders it meaningless. Free re-use for perpetuity is simply not acceptable.
So REPLY to Chris Elliott and make the force of your argument felt. Everyone who has gotten an email from Elliott should reply. Everyone who is on this List should write to Chris Elliott and let him know this is unacceptable. How many photographers are on this list?
If we all do it, it will have an effect. Do it now, do it today. If GNM gets away with this, in no time this will be the industry norm and our ability to manage our library will disappear.
With love and Affection
Antonio" Antonio Zazueta Olmos
info@antonioolmos.com
0771-729-6351
http://www.antonioolmos.com
Post new comment