Reed Business Information (RBI Ltd) have recently made another of their periodic attempts to get photographers to sign up to a rights-grabbing contract. This has happened every few years since the 1990's, with significant lack of success. Unlike at most publishers Reed's own desk staff tend to see no merit in forcing an issue thrust upon them by accountants, and if photographers resist they still have magazines to get out. At that point the photographers win and the issue is forgotten for a while.

This time around just one photographer is known to have caved in and signed. If Reed is as good as their vague 'maybe' promise, he will at least be a very busy man even if his pictures are now effectively theirs. Reed's silver-tongued spiel is something of a masterpiece of soft-sell that fails to conceal its real message is "give us more for less, or else":-

As you know, the publishing business has changed dramatically over the past few years, driven by the growing importance of the Internet.
All major publishers have had to make significant changes in their internal structures and working practices to enable them to meet the needs of both print and web. The web works to a different rhythm, with content published continually rather than periodically.
For these reasons, we also need to change the way we buy content from our external contributors. As with our old internal processes, the old ways of buying external content, which worked for print, don't work in a world of print and web.
So we have put together a new contract (copy attached) setting out how we need to work with external photographers. These are the key points:
When we commission work from you, we will agree a single fee with you in advance which will allow us to use and reuse the pictures produced in all media across all Reed Business titles and products at any time.
* The fee agreed for each individual job will include all expenses, production fees etc.
* We may specify a period during which we have exclusive use of the pictures (i.e. during which you cannot allow anyone else to use them). But after that period (or from the start if no period is specified) you are free to sell the pictures elsewhere. If anyone outside of RBI contacts us expressing an interest in your pictures we will refer them to you.
* We need you to comply with a service level agreement that covers things such as quality and delivery of work.
* Payment will be according to RBI's standard payment terms.
* We will credit you on first publication of any pictures, and wherever possible thereafter..
The above terms supersede any previous agreement you may have with RBI and any terms and conditions you may issue on your invoices or otherwise. They will apply to all new work commissioned after the date of this letter.
We need to buy photography on these new terms if we are going to be successful in the new world of publishing. So in future, we are only going to be able to commission work from photographers who sign up to them.

Elsewhere, the lucky recipient is told

The benefit to photographers who sign up to the new contract is that they will become part of a pool of approved suppliers who can be used by all RBI products. Photographers on this list may well find themselves being commissioned by publications that have not previously used them.
I hope very much that you will be part of that group...

Aside from the noxious red-highlighted grabby bits and jam-tomorrow promises, the letter is frankly same-old bullshit. The "different rhythm" of the web is one of unviable ad revenues where only free content really works profitably for publishers. Therefore publishers would like free content so they can obtain profits without the inconvenience of paying the photographer.

As a short-term bit of special pleading this has now been going on for 20 years, ever since cover CD's were seen as the next big thing that unfortunately didn't make a profit yet. Well, publisher profits have increased, photographers' fees and profitability have plummeted ever since.

There's always an excuse, a carrot and a stick, for getting photographers to underwrite publishers' speculative business development. Further down this road, does anyone imagine Reed are going to offer to pay more if and when their web revenues increase? It has never happened in 30 years, and now we are going backwards to the 1970's. More for less is always the way. If web does pick up, they'll be pleading for lower rates because print is no longer earning like it did.

Incidentally, although the photographer retains copyright, what they get to keep is exclusively controlled by Reed for a standard period of 2 years. Any sales must go through them during that time. After 2 years, the photographer gets his copyright back.

Reed staffers reportedly view all this as just an annoying interference in their working relationships with photographers they want to work with,. Reed Global Procurement, the beancounters upstairs, are just making their lives harder. So just say no, the world won't end, and RBI will likely forget it for a few more years again.