CJR: "The New Forces that Threaten Photojournalism"

<A href = http://www.cjr.org/issues/2002/4/photo-dorfman.asp> Columbia Journalism

Review article</a>

The conditions that Corbis and Getty are promoting were very much the situation of photojournalism before the establishment of MAGNUM.

Speaking as a stock photographer and Corbis contributor, I was a bit surprised to see how many errors were in the article.

 

I thought CJR could do better.

 

But I'm still left wondering why a story about something that happened two years ago and has been settled almost as long was posted.

Brian, honest question, could you point out the errors?

Thanks :)

So what are the errors? Mind sharing them? It's pretty pointless

to say there are many errors in an article and yet not pointing

them out don't you think?

Sorry Guys!

 

I saw the errors in two areas. First, Corbis was clearly moving from journalism to commercial images back in the early ninties. I was at a convention in 1993 where they were recruiting commercial photographers.

 

Second, it is impossible to imagine that Corbis was unaware of what it was buying when it purchased those European press agencies. The idea that they were unaware of how the system worked at a time when they had already had many of the top people in the industry working for them is tough to swallow.

That sounds like one error and one supposition, not that big a deal. CJR is pretty good about what it prints.

I knew it was an old article, but I missed it when it came out, and I thought it helped

explain the forces shping the employment market now. Today we see photojournalists

being squeezed more and more with new, restrictive contracts that follow straight from

what is described in the article.

From the CJR article;

"First, consider Corbis. On January 28, 2002, the employees of the Sygma photography agency went on strike. Dressed in black, photographers and staff lay like corpses on the floor of their Paris offices to protest a new contract that Sygma�s American parent company, Corbis, was trying to impose."

 

Jan. 2002 sounds recent to me, perhaps the article is isn't in error re Sygma?

 

Isn't it always the case that the boys upstairs squeeze the creative to bulk up the bottom line? I'm grossed out that Bill Gates thinks he's entitled to suck the financial life out of the folks that put THE face on our times. While a photographer, artist or independent film maker are living they should be entitled to enjoy the financial benefits of their work, period. They should not be permitted to sell away their rights under any circumstances, corporations should only ever be allowed to purchase 1 time usage rights and/or pay predetermined residuals (like actors get).

 

If you can't connect an image to a specific photographer at a certain place and time part of the deeper context to the image is lost. How well regarded would the Mona Lisa be without the DaVinci connection? When Gates acquired the API archives it seems he thought controling its images would be everything but to me that kind of reflected glory is a sad, cheap substitute for the real value of the collection.

News photographers are being told to sign new contracts that take away their rights, or

else, basically. Boston Globe workers tried a strike, but the Globe was able to lure some

people back and the action was essentially broken. Newsday recently offered a contract

with onerous provisions.

 

The Gray Lady herself, too: The NY Times's offer (which includes a cancellation of digital

transfer fees) led to a mini-revolt that led to a mild softening of the corporate stance (often

on a one-on-one basis with photographers) but not by much. There's a discussion list for

Times photojournalists that's pretty active and angry -- over 150 messages flying this

month alone. And the ASMP has analyzed the NY Times contract in detail here:

 

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2004/nytcontract.php

 

It ain't pretty.

And the EP group should be mentioned as well (http://www.editorialphoto.com/) as they have been in the thick of this battle for a while now.

 

It isn't so much NEW news as it is CONTINUING news. And this is something that everyone who cares about quality PJ photography (or fair pay) should care about. Publishers have been screwing photographers every way possible for a while now.

I thought it was a good article that provided some details about what is going on with the Journalism business these days, including some of the underlying causes and some possible responses. I have kind of mixed feelings about it all. It seems pretty obvious that the concentration of power and wealth that characterizes our economy is at the base of the problem with the news business as in every other field. I think we can safely assume that everyone in the industry, including the photographers, are feeling the pain. You certainly have to applaud those who stand together to defend the rights of individuals and those who are trying to invent new solutions. However, I don't have a lot of sympathy to waste on the folks who are working hard to make their photos competitive in a corrupted profession. What's the point? For the others who are genuinely interested in exploring the limits of documentary photography, my guess is that the answer is to pick another game, or to find some other ways of jumping out of the constraints of the existing conventions. Not an easy task, to be sure. Douglas Hofstadter wrote a lengthy book on the subject of resolving paradox in art, science and philosophy, _Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid_. Might be worth picking it up so you have something to read while waiting in the unemployment lines.

<i>

Mike Connealy

<p>

"However, I don't have a lot of sympathy to waste on the folks who are working hard to make their photos competitive in a corrupted profession."</I>

<p>

I dunno maybe I am reading this wrong. But... err... what the heck does this mean?<p>

Should PJ's all just give up because thing are not changing for the better in photojournalism?

<p>

Let's see... hmmm I'm already getting kicked in the taco by these jerk off contracts and pay scales - so why don't I just lay down and die. When an editor calls next time I'll just say...

<p>

<b> "Nope dude - sorry but this assignment is a no-go as you guys are way too corrupted!"</b>

<p>

Do you ever shoot PJ work or news? Explain this for me so I can come away with a better understanding of this one.

You are free to disagree with me, but I don't see that what I said was difficult to comprehend. I suggested that people who choose to go to work for big news agencies which distort the news and screw their employees are getting what they ask for. And, the fact that they are minor cogs in a big machine does not exempt them from charges of complicity. This is not wholly my idea; it was spelled out quite explicitly in the CJR article cited in this thread. Did you read it?

The article also states that hungry young would be PJ's are replacing seasoned professionals at bargain prices. This is worrying because it demonstrates a complete lack of respect for quality work. I doubt if publishers are benifiting less than they did in the past from running images and I doubt that photo agencies like Sygma have taken a cut in pay, probably just the opposite. Whether on purpose or through negligence Corbis et al are reducing photojournalism to an entry level occupation, something the equivellent of a McDonalds job.

 

As an illustrator I went through the same kind of thing in the mid-90's. Manipulating pictures on computers, shrinking budgets and a culling of the high priced pro's who hired us (replaced by the younger and cheaper) killed off the occupation (of Norman Rockwell) in any traditional sense. At roughly the same time agencies required handshake agreements be replaced by purchase orders submitted by the "artist" and extended payment time from an average one month (30 days) to an average 60 to 90 days (that's like waiting years if you are living hand to mouth). Interesting that the loss of status and pay came about with the appearance of computers that could turn a parrot into a picture making impressario. Perhaps the digital camera is having the same effect on devaluing photography in the commercial market. Maybe these guys are the canaries in the coal mine for a much larger and more invasive trend?

 

(Wow!!! Two rants in two days, spring must be in the air. Happy spring!!!)

<i>"I suggested that people who choose to go to work for big news agencies which distort the news and screw their employees are getting what they ask for."</i>

<p>

This is warped logic at best. As an example, say you were a working PJ for many years before the situation became as dire as it is at present - so you decide (as you seem to suggest is the only right path) to ditch the PJ gig. Forget your family, your bills, your mortgage, your car payment, your kids college tuition - Just start over, nevermind the fact that your dropping your profession, trying to find a job in a tough economy, and you'll have to retrain in something different and get back out there and start knocking on doors with kids fresh out of college who can afford to work for less. Sound realistic? Not by a long shot. And for what? To uphold some notion of 'absolute truth', or so your complicit with the corporate machine that's screwing you in the first place?! Give me a break.

<p>

<i>"And, the fact that they are minor cogs in a big machine does not exempt them from charges of complicity.</i>

<p>

This is nonsense. It sounds great in a college thesis or some anti-corporate agenda but doesn't pan out in the working world. Frankly I don't buy this whole notion of 'absolute truth' that you seem to be implying and it's relation to news.

<p>

Obviously I read the CJR article and FWIW I have been directly involved in this issue for a long time as it directly affects me, my profession and my income. If you really want to dig deep on this issue I suggest you frequent the forums at

<p>

http://www.editorialphoto.com/

<p>

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/

<p>

It's often easier to make psuedo-philisophic judgements about 'truth' and 'complicity' when it doesn't directly affect your income or profession. Again, I am curious do you shoot news, editorial or have you published PJ work?

<p>

PJ's get screwed by the big guys and are forced to deal with a situation that has many factors completely out of their control and you blame them for it. Go figure.

<i>"I suggested that people who choose to go to work for big news agencies which distort the news and screw their employees are getting what they ask for."</i>

<p>

This is warped logic at best. As an example, say you were a working PJ for many years before the situation became as dire as it is at present - so you decide (as you seem to suggest is the only right path) to ditch the PJ gig. Forget your family, your bills, your mortgage, your car payment, your kids college tuition - Just start over, nevermind the fact that your dropping your profession, trying to find a job in a tough economy, and you'll have to retrain in something different and get back out there and start knocking on doors with kids fresh out of college who can afford to work for less. Sound realistic? Not by a long shot. And for what? To uphold some notion of 'absolute truth', or so your complicit with the corporate machine that's screwing you in the first place?! Give me a break.

<p>

<i>"And, the fact that they are minor cogs in a big machine does not exempt them from charges of complicity.</i>

<p>

This is nonsense. It sounds great in a college thesis or some anti-corporate agenda but doesn't pan out in the working world. Frankly I don't buy this whole notion of 'absolute truth' that you seem to be implying and it's relation to news.

<p>

Obviously I read the CJR article and FWIW I have been directly involved in this issue for a long time as it directly affects me, my profession and my income. If you really want to dig deep on this issue I suggest you frequent the forums at

<p>

http://www.editorialphoto.com/

<p>

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/

<p>

It's often easier to make psuedo-philisophic judgements about 'truth' and 'complicity' when it doesn't directly affect your income or profession. Again, I am curious do you shoot news, editorial or have you published PJ work?

<p>

PJ's get screwed by the big guys and are forced to deal with a situation that has many factors completely out of their control and you blame them for it. Go figure.

Lucas, the point the article made and which was repeated by Rod Grigor is that the people who have made a career in the news business are being replaced by inexperienced people who are willing to take any kind of abuse just to get their foot in the door. It seems like you are just putting a somewhat different spin on the same idea. The real culprits in the story are clearly the big business managers and the politicians they underwrite. However, that doesn't excuse the new guys who function essentially as strike breakers.<br>    I don't think it has ever been easy to make a living from photography, particularly if you are looking to do something with quality to it. Schlock always seems to bring a better price, and news editors have always been mostly interested in selling papers.<br>    I don't worry about making money from my work, and I don't know what it is like to be on the street now trying to do it. In the late '60s and early '70s when I found the idea more appealling, I think there were probably more opportunities to walk into a newspaper or a wire service and sell the idea of a picture. The thing is that, even then, the editors weren't risking anything financially. An ordinary topical news shot published in the SF Chronicle or the Examiner would net you about 25 bucks. I don't recall that AP and UPI were paying any more. One of the last pictures I sold in that period ended up on the back page of the old "Life Magazine" and was picked up by quite a few other publications around the world. I made about $100 on it.<br>    As I recall, the stringers who were receiving some kind of regular salary in those days mostly wore cheap suits. They showed up at the anti-war demonstrations sporting big Press badges and football helmets. Maybe some of them turned into good photographers, but I'll bet most just got chewed up and spit out.<br>    There were some other parallels to the present. The country was bogged down in an interminable war that was sucking the life out of the economy. Jobs were scarce in any profession. There was a lying SOB in the White House. Some things never change.

<i>"There was a lying SOB in the White House. Some things never change."</i>

 

whew.. for a minute there I thought we weren't going to agree on anything - now I see we do!

 

: )

Welcome to the real world boys and girls....This type of crap has been going on in every other industry on the planet.It's called globalization. Corps. feel they need to maximize profits every year(making certain % gains) and your feelings(problems, needs, current standard of living) really don't mean shit. From 'call centers' to 'techies' to 'Levi's' etc. & so-on. Corporate greed is at an all time high in America & around the world. If the working class doesn't band together into serious unions, or, get on board with the corp giants (i.e. buy into stock market!) then be prepared to get flushed.....;)....J

That's a little too easy Jay. Corporations by nature have always been profit driven and shouldn't have to apologize for it. More than anything else their freedom to innovate, grow and exploit has kept America at the top of the global economic ladder for a very long time. Of course fundamental to that are an educated, skilled workforce and a stable political and economic environment, if any one of those conditions deteriorated you would, in short order, be looking at a third world economy. The real issue is finding the right balance.

 

What I think is different now is that technology seems to have displaced the mid-level professional to some extent. Pehaps most apparent here is that the digital camera, instantaneous transmission and digital 'on the fly' editing have eliminated the necessity of dealing with a number of formerly professional positions.

 

What I find gauling and puke-worthy is the lack of responsibility and vision that corporations bring to the table when it comes to dealing with the creative professions.

 

The onus is really on a society that gives a damn, through its government (legislation, etc), that needs to set limits to the exploitation that can occur. For example, it should not be possible for Bill Gates to buy the API archives (akin to buying the Picasso museum for example) and rent, publish and otherwise control the rights to the images of others without compensation due. This is really an issue of democracy in a deeper sense.

Boo-Hoo. Go look online at what happened to the Animation industry in

southern California. Thousands of people who took longer to learn their trade

than a PJ does were basically thrown onto the streets by all of the major

corporations who had employed some of them for 30+years

(Disney,Dreamworks,Warner Bros.) in the name of maximising profit. And the

unions bent over and whistled dixie. There are now no traditionally animated

movies ( a craft almost as old as film) being made anywhere in the continental

U.S.- cheaper to send the work to India, or China, or Canada, or.........you get

the picture. Even PBS, a channel that is publicly funded (your tax dollars at

work) gets to send their kids shows to Canada, rather than employ local

people. Sorry for the tangent, but my point is that in the entertainment/

communication industry this is now the norm. As mass culture spreads and

networks/corporations try to appeal to an ever lower common denominator, it

can only get worse. You think its as bad now as it's going to get? Think again.

Animation and movies fall into a different realm. Walt Disney holds the rights to Mickey Mouse, etc., the animators were each only a small part of the bigger picture. This is more an issue of unique images and should ownership remain with the creator/photographer (as Sygma had done) or with an entity that can use massive preassure to accumulate on their own terms (like Corbis).

 

I really think Corbis is the product of a massive hypocracy on the part of Bill Gates. Consider how much money and effort Microsoft spends defending its own proprietery creation, Windows software. Gates then turns around and tries to deny others the same rights he demands for himself, believe me if anyone understands the advantages of intellectual ownership it is Bill Gates.

>"The onus is really on a society that gives a damn, through its government (legislation, etc), that needs to set limits to the exploitation that can occur. For example, it should not be possible for Bill Gates to buy the API archives (akin to buying the Picasso museum for example) and rent, publish and otherwise control the rights to the images of others without compensation due. This is really an issue of democracy in a deeper sense."<

 

Rod you get my Eggs'actly Award

 

....;)...J<div></div>

(Smile) Thanks Jay! Way nicer than those little pieces of paper you get at the rubber chicken events!