| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Bruce Bennett -now photographer's "Judas"
John Harrington, Photographer
 |
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 3:08 AM on 04.06.05 |
->> Jonathan Daniel wrote:
>>>The Founding Fathers of this country didn't have to attend a bs class from Rickman…They figured out how to create a nation for themselves.
Right. So, after Article VII of the Constitution, they needed TWENTY SEVEN amendments (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/), and many now say they need one or two more. Because they got it right the first time? No, the founding fathers did the best they could, and society has continued to improve on what they did.
And perhaps J Daniel Photography could have benefited from a BUSINESS CLASS (as opposed to a suggested Rickman “bs” class) so you could “say no to the man”, in the form of your employer, Getty Images/Sport. Could it be that, having recently joined “the fine staff of Getty Images/Sport” you wanted to “suck up” to Bennett/et al as you note you do to others in the “who are your Heros” post you recently made? Try talking to several of your heros and ask them about running a successful business – many of them know how to. I know some of them and they are.
>>> How many damn times do I have to tell you all? For the shooters, it's about the WORK. We have no say in what else goes on except when our fingers hit the button.
Actually, you have LITTLE say into how you hit the button. You’re dictated to “follow the ball/puck/etc”, and you’re using long glass, told what iso to use, and told where to stand on the field or risk being arrested (see latest NPPA magazine if you disagree). The editors are hungering for the new wireless technology, so there are no more runners, and 1/2 way through your shoot, you get a phone call and the editor says “shoot tighter…’ it’s been tested and has happened already.
>>>But, come on, chooches, work for yourself or work for the man: You're still working in situations you don't control. You're a freelancer? You work for many bosses.
Yes, and an appropriately paid freelancer can turn down the tobacco companies, and other jobs they find morally objectionable, if they want to. A homeless photographer cannot, nor can a starving photographer say no to a bad deal.
>>> You work for a company? You work for many, many bosses. These people are known as SHAREHOLDERS. Guess what? You still have to answer to SOMEONE.
Yup. Welcome to being a grownup, where you always have someone to answer to, especially when you’re an employee and not the owner.
>>>How about a REAL job for Mr/Ms Hot Photo Shit? Try…bagging groceries… working on cars in a dealer repair shop…building houses… work three jobs…Or...you can sit around and have a big-ass attitude like some people on this thread. And make sure you tell us all about it. We do what we do. Period.
I can only presume you’re not suggesting I am Mr. HPS, and you’re making gross assumptions about people’s origins you know nothing about…and attacking them on such a personal level suggesting they’ve never held a “real” job. My life/work history suggests I’ve done exactly many of the things you suggest are real. When you can make amazing pictures, images which are the result of great cerebral effort, you stop being paid for your abilities for physical labor, to your abilities with your eyes/mind. Not everyone has that talent, and for those that do, wasting it is a great injustice.
Your new employer, Getty Images, states on your website:
“Getty Images employs some of the world’s most renowned photographers, artists, photojournalists … keeping the company on the cutting edge … that helps shape the visual world….We are stewards of inspiring excellence and consistently demonstrating our values.”
Further,
“The Obligation to Care. We must truly care about this business and our colleagues.”
Now, that may be too cerebral for you, but those are the tenants of your new employer, one who treats photography as a business.
They say “…with the goal of turning a disjointed and fragmented stock photography market into a legitimate and thriving industry.”
That means making it profitable – on who’s back? Oh, right – we discussed this before – your back, and Bruce Bennett’s back, with cuts in pay/etc.
>>> You want to change the photo world? Get a job in the business that MATTERS.
For me, I am in a job that matters – it matters to me – I make pictures that peole like. It’s that simple. People continue to pay for that. Yes, lucky me. And I feel I have an obligation to make a difference by helping other photographers remain in business by running a sound business that takes in more than it spends. Saves for a rainy day.
>>>> Some of you might wonder why many of us have dropped off this site and these message boards….
Hmm….perhaps because you had nothing constructive to say? Nothing that was helpful or insightful, but rather a diatribe of complaints?
As you continue to age (gracefully I hope), and Getty cuts you loose for a graduate of Brookfield High School over on Ridgewood for 1/2 your pay who they can direct wirelessly, and you find yourself taking one of those “real jobs” you talked about earlier, I honestly feel that your talents (as illustrated on your bio page) will go to waste behind a counter.
Making a difference through images and through helping others, and speaking out against bad deals is important. To re-quote MLK from an earlier post I made: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Now, friend, I’ll take a tall skim latte to go.
John |
|
Wesley Hitt, Photographer
 |
North Little Rock | AR | USA | Posted: 8:51 AM on 04.06.05 |
->> Wow, Jonathan,
Your defensive post confirms all the previous posts. If everything is right in the world of photography, why lash out at other photographers for their feelings and call them bastards? You did not write the memo.
What Bruce wrote about freelance photographers is what Conseco has done to all the other Major League Baseball players. He stabbed them in the back. He sold out. Do you think that any team will welcome him into their locker room? Whether it was right or wrong to write the memo is something that Bruce has to decide and live with, but freelance photographers (or image hostage takers) are not going to be happy about what was said.
My competition looks me in the mirror. PERIOD
I try to spend my time improving myself, my photography and the profession that I have chosen. As a freelancer, I shoot for Getty's assignment division and have stock with them. The people that I deal with at Getty are professional and some of my favorite people. When the assignment is not enough money for what is being asked or is just not fair, I say no. They never complain.
The security guard that you speak of was probably a former staffer that was fired and ended up with nothing to fall back on. No equipment, no client base, no background in business and most of all, no library of images that they own. |
|
Nicholas Duncan, Photographer
 |
Carpinteria | CA | United States | Posted: 12:44 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> Well, that was certainly a rant. Am I the only one that was left a little confused by it? Sorry Jonathan, but I am just not sure what exactly you were trying to say in a few places. I think an open dialogue is a good thing to help understand each other. So, please don't feel like I am putting you down in a public forum. However, I am a bit confused as to what you meant by the comment "For the shooters, it's about the work." I was also a bit confused by "We do what we do. Period." Could you elaborate a little bit on those remarks? Thanks.
One thing that I think deserves clarification is the difference between a staff position with an agency and the contracts that they offer to their freelancers. With Getty, for example, there is often a HUGE difference. Wouldn't you agree?
One more thing, I don't see why we can't have a civil discussion about the realities of our business. Why is it so taboo? Why do people fly off the handle? I am not out to crucify anyone here. If you are secure about the choices that you have made and the direction you have taken your career, why can't you stand up for your choices without getting so defensive? No offense. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer
 |
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 2:42 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> Nicholas, there are various types of contracts to be held with Getty.
A staffer is treated more or less like any staffer at any agency/paper/magazine the world over. They get paid, they get expenses covered, paid benefits, retirement packages and in turn more often than not relinquish copyright to the employer... Nothing new or out of the ordinary there.
Freelancers (specifically guys who are not employed but are called regularly to cover things) have two options. The standard route is the WFH contract which pays a few hundred bucks and expenses and you surrender your copyright. Very similar to a staffer in terms of treatment except you have no benefits or retirement. As an independent contractor, your copyright is part of your retirement so it's not in ones best interest to sign it away just for a few hundred dollars.
The second option with Getty is to negotiate your ass off with them to get paid the flat rate and expenses but retain copyright. You however are not compensated royalties.
The fourth type is a regular old contributor contract or as I call it/them "royalty contracts". Here you're treated identically as you are with any stock house you've ever submitted to. You shoot things on your own time and dime, but only what you want to shoot when you want to shoot it. You have ultimate control but submit your images to them to market for you and receive a mutually amicable split of the sales. Of course unlike the previous three you receive no upfront payment. It's shooting on spec.
The reason Getty is such a sore topic is because of the overwhelming belief that they are bending everyone over the table because of the WFH contract. The thing is though, the AP, Boston Globe, Orlando Sentinel and several other papers/agencies do the same thing, not just Getty. However, they are the first name brought up or eluded to in any thread about WFH contracts being bad. And yes, they (WFH's) are bad, I'll admit that. It's one of the worst things any photographer could ever do to themselves. But it's not just Getty doing it and no one is holding a gun to peoples heads telling them to sign it.
Like I said though, they are the ones being lambasted most often. When this happens people aren't delineating the difference between the staffers, the corporate brass, contributors or the WFH singees. So (for the staffers) after listening to everyone rip the hell out of their company, who wouldn't get pissed?
I've heard for years to stay away from Getty because they're only out to f*** everyone over and make money. I even ripped them a new poop chute from time to time here on SS. Well, not being one who comfortably follows the flock (I'm a freelancer after all), floored by their figures and being one to do most of my business in person with a handshake, I decided to open a dialogue with the guys at the top of the food chain there and went in to see how this all worked. I had to know how a company that was selling photos so cheap was pulling in $560 and $625 million. I wanted answers and did just what JD said... I went in...
Know what I found out? Their sales task force is outrageously aggressive. They aren't selling so many (editorial) photos because they are selling them at rock bottom prices, they're selling so many photos because they practically hand deliver the images to clients and take all the leg work out of it for the editors looking for photos. If you were on deadline, would you rather buy an exceptional image that was sitting in your lap, or would you want to spend a half hour online trying to find one you needed? These guys know how to market images, plain and simple.
Yes they made some egregious moves in the past with the NBA and possibly tried with the NFL (though one will never fully know what their intentions were going to be) and followed up with this little gem from Mr. Bennett but that is not Al Bello's, Jed Jacobson's, Justin Sullivan's or any other staffers fault. That's the guys at the top's fault. This is why you'll always here the Getty staffers on here getting pissed and defensive.
We preach on here to be educated and not screw the industry over and just stay away from Getty. The problem is I'm coming to realize that maybe the material we're using to educate each other isn't 100% correct. After meeting with them, trading several emails and phone calls and doing a lot of research in to them on NASDAQ and such I came to realize that I'd be a buffoon not to market my stock images through them. If you combine the annual sales figures of all the agencies I submit stock to, Getty beats them by 2145%. That's a 21 fold disparity. I keep my copyrights so I can sell these images later, if they are selling images that much better, I want in on that action. So I've begun submitting stock to them because like a good little photographer I want my images to work for me.
Well guess what. Almost immediately after that I had people telling me I was a sell out. It wasn't more than two weeks before I just stopped bringing it up because people automatically assumed I was working on a WFH contract and in a way snubbed me. I even had one guy quote a message board post where the author suggested they get in our faces about it and call us out (or something to that degree). I looked at him like he was a cracked out monkey because he was insulting me on the assumption that I was on a WFH.
SO - in closing and to finally tie this whole diatribe together, THAT is why the Getty staffers and contributors get so angry and defensive. Misguided assumptions and accusations based on one type of freelancers contract... Well and of course the NHL memo, the NBA Entertainment issue and the almost NFL thing, but that's a different sermon for a different day. |
|
Rick Rowell, Photographer
 |
Canoga Park | CA | Usa | Posted: 2:52 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> "What does it profit a man if he gains all the riches of the world, but looses his soul."
If indeed that memo came from Bruce's own hand, then it is truly disgraceful and a black mark on this industry. We all according to our own practices dictate what we earn as photographers, or at least we used too. now the ball game has changed and the writing was on the wall many years ago for all to see if they only took the time to look. Bruce did what he thought he had to do in order to profit and stay in the game. But in my humble opinion he has given up his soul in this industry. Yes, he's a great photographer, but that's not all their is to life. To thrive in this or any other industry a person must have the respect of their peers. Without that it's a lonely job. I don't know Bruce, I've never met him. Although I think I know all I need to know now. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 4:19 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> Thomas, good post again.
Just one question though. I've never seen a "cracked out monkey" and wonder if it's like a "rat on acid", which is a term we hear in rodeos often. |
|
Nicholas Duncan, Photographer
|
Carpinteria | CA | United States | Posted: 4:51 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> Thomas, thanks.. I have a pretty good idea of the various types of contracts, that's why I thought it important for people to make the distinction when involved in this discussion. I agree that most staffers feel the need to fiercely defend themselves based on misconceptions. What I didn't understand about Jonathan's post were a few of the comments he made to seemingly defend himself and Getty Images. Comments such as, "For the shooters, it's about the work." Before I commented on this type of remark I wanted to be sure that I understood exactly what he meant by it.
I am not here to bash anyone. Like I said, I think it is important for open dialogue to discuss issues that affect us all as photographers. I think we owe it to ourselves to do that - and do it in a professional manner that is open to others and their ideas. |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 4:56 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> Thomas -- now THAT was a well founded comment and response! Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully and throughly respond, and for doing what was right for you and your business - AND doing what every good business person *should* do, which is to negotiate, and never assume that contracts are set in stone -- by definitation, a "take it or leave it" contract is not a "meeting of the minds", which is part of the legal definition of a contract in the first place.
Well said!
John |
|
Darrell Miho, Photographer
 |
Temple City | CA | usa | Posted: 5:06 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> cheers to Mr. Witte.
Mr. Witte did what everyone else should be doing when they have questions or gripes...he went straight to the people that can actually give him the correct answers and/or make changes.
its important to get ALL the facts rather than make assumptions based on partial truths and/or rumors. bitching and moaning here on the message boards may be therapeutic in giving people a place to vent, but it really doesn't address the problem effectively.
i'm glad that Mr. Witte took the time to do his research and share it with everyone here on the board.
many of the things that JD was trying to explain probably didn't come across that effectively due to the "tone" as a result of his frustration. but Mr. Witte has done a great job of "translating" it into a more civil message.
educate yourself. read it. understand it. use it. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 5:55 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> I ran out of milk last night. I was thirsty for milk, so I went to the grocery store with my empty jug and asked to exchange it for a jug that had milk in it.
The customer service agent looked at me and said, "that will be $2.75 please."
I was in absolute shock. "I bought that jug last week," I replied, "and I would like to continue using it. I drank some with a cookie last night, used some to make alfredo sauce this afternoon, and tonight I just wanted to have a glass of milk and it was EMPTY! Just refill it please."
"I'm sorry, I can't do that," she answered, a bit irritated with me at this point. "This is a business, and we can not simply give milk away to people because they want to use it for various things."
I don't usualy do this, but when I heard that it was going to cost me MORE money for a SECOND use of a milk jug that I had ALREADY purchased, something in me just broke.
"YOU GUYS ARE HOLDING MILK HOSTAGE!!!!!!" I proclaimed, and was promptly tackled by two cashiers, an off-duty cop, and this old lady who hit me with her cane and said something to me that I never thought I would hear from a Grandmother.
The lesson I learned was that expecting payment for one's product is not the same thing as "holding the product hostage." I plan on pleading insanity to the disorderly conduct charge, and think that I have a good chance of beating it. |
|
Jack McCoy, Photographer
 |
Baldwin | NY | USA | Posted: 8:48 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> Michael: :)
Had the same problem the other day at 7-11 with my Big Gulp cup.
Not to sound like Switzerland but I see both sides to this post (and the other one too, related to "Judas").
That said Michael's scenario proves a point which I should have followed years ago.....and I am as of now even though it's damn difficult at times. |
|
Darren England, Photographer
 |
Brisbane | QLD | Australia | Posted: 7:37 AM on 04.07.05 |
| ->> As a former employee of Getty Images, I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard other photographer's say " F#CKING GETTY!!". I would be a very rich man!!!! |
|
Jeffrey Racette, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc. | Canada | Posted: 8:59 AM on 04.07.05 |
| ->> Here is a thought, just a little one. Some people are unsure if the infamous Bruce/Getty NHL memo came from him or not....why doesn't someone just ask him???? |
|
Nicholas Duncan, Photographer
|
Carpinteria | CA | United States | Posted: 2:52 PM on 04.07.05 |
| ->> Jeffrey, I don't think that anyone doubts that the memo came from him. There's never been any debate on that. Getty themselves issued a statement that acknowledged the fact he issued the letter and 'apologized' for its tone. The uproar is about his motive and intent. |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
 |
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 5:43 PM on 04.07.05 |
| ->> I hate PDF. Can somebody paste the memo somewhere I can read it? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 6:31 PM on 04.07.05 |
->> Here it is. You can also get the PDF at http://www.loundy.org/commoncents/2005/cc_03-05.html (In the left-hand column, under "Connections.")
Bruce Bennett
Director of Photography, Hockey Imagery
Getty Images
75 Varick Street, 5th floor
New York, NY 10013
[Contact Info Redacted]
LONG PREAMBLE
Way back in the early days of hockey, when BBS (Bruce Bennett Studios) was in
existence, I put together what we called the NHL Co-op program. We would eat
the expense of sending 6-8 photographers to the Draft, Awards or All-Star game, and would split the costs among the teams, so that the expenses were covered and the teams would receive quality photography at minimal cost.
Now comes ‘BBS on Steroids’, also known as the NHL/Getty Images Team
Partnership program. We all know what a really warm reception this received at the Draft this past year. Glad I wasn’t there.
Quite simply, our mandate and our goal, is to leverage what each team is doing on the local level, and create a central archive of hockey images which the NHL and all teams share. This allows for many positive benefits, but the key one is the consolidation and distribution of hockey still images in the same fashion as the NHL maintains control of its’ video product. Getty Images boasts the superior platform for the building and distribution of digital assets making the access of these images to you and its client base quite painless.
So here I am, no longer as BBS, but rather as an employee of Getty Images,
selling you something that I truly believe is in your best interests to get involved in. OK, call me two-faced because as a freelance photographer with 30 years of experience, freezing my butt off at your local arena, it threatened my photographic way of life.
Well, times change, we move on, and sometimes we see the light. There is a
better plan out there. Sorry if this is sounding religious. The fact is, that Getty Images has proposed a better plan. One in which, at minimal cost, you get photography from many NHL arenas. You will have usage rights to this material forever, in perpetuity, without additional fee until the cows come home…and even longer. And the photographic history of your team will be yours to keep with no reservations and no way for a photographer to hold your images hostage.
There is no arm twisting here. You are not being forced to accept a deal you are uncomfortable with, or one you don’t think is in your best interests.
I ’ll probably get fired for telling you this (well, probably not), but one of the employee mandates at Getty Images is ‘No Silos’. I look at this expression, and wonder if we could port this to NHL photography, where would we be? All teams share photographic material openly through the ease of the Getty Images web site, look out for each others needs, and work together to build an archive of photographic material that benefits the teams and the league itself.
Nahhhhhhhhhh. Can’t happen. Maybe it can. Read on.
NHL/GETTY IMAGES TEAM PARTNERSHIP OVERVIEW
In Totally Random Order
1. Live game coverage is expected for over 400 games in the first season and more each succeeding year. When the plan is fully implemented, every game will be covered with the live transmission of 8-10 photos on game night, with the remaining images following within a few days after an event. This will provide a broad base of images immediately after games and tons more will follow. This plan benefits the media, your website and the league’s website. The more teams that sign on, the more games are covered. Every home game is covered for teams that sign on, so take the NHL/Getty Images Partnership member teams, multiply by a minimum of 41, and throw in games in non-partnership arenas which will be covered on a case-by-case basis. This can save you thousands of dollars a season by not subscribing to AP or Reuters wire service for web images.
2. Teams and the NHL are granted rights to use the images IN PERTETUITY. You
can no longer be held up by a team photographer who controls the rights to
images of your club. Even if Getty Images goes poof/belly-up/bites the dust,
whatever, in the future, or no longer has a league or individual team deal with your club, these photos are yours to use FOREVER. That’s a long time. By the way, if you are having an issue of losing historic images because of a bad previous deal, contact me. Maybe I can offer some guidance.
3. Photos of all domestic NHL events are included at no additional fee. These
include All-Star, Awards and Draft (not Olympics). This alone could save you
$500-$1000 a season.
4. Clubs have editorial use of Getty Images wholly owned images on
Gettyimages.com, as well as anything produced from this point forward, for use in all team editorial and promotional vehicles.
5. Many clubs have those mom-and-pop weeklies which you may want to comp
photos to from time to time. Just let us know, and we’ll provide the images as a courtesy.
6. Your team’s corporate sponsors have the use of any images your photographer produces (assuming you wish to give them use.) Otherwise Getty Images will handle the sale of the image and offer a discounted rate to your local corporate sponsor.
7. Images can be delivered on a CD within a few days after a game. We do prefer to edit through a photographers shoot, and eliminate unusable photos as well as rotate images for your ease of you’re your CD should just contain highly usable images. However, you can receive what you want from the photographer as soon as you need it. Just let your photographer know what is needed.
8. We will staff your home games with our highly qualified professional
photographer….or yours. This is for all home games, exhibition, regular season and playoffs. We will work with you to get the best possible action photographer, and if you prefer one individual with whom you already have a relationship, we will evaluate their work and hopefully continue that relationship. Maintaining quality from arena to arena will help all teams, since you will have access to all material shot in all arenas.
9. Major press conferences (such as new coach, new arena, new GM, new owners)
are covered at no additional fee.
10. Your team shot is included.
11. The training camp head shot session is included. (As in the past, when you deliver these images via FTP to the NHL (and bill them) you will receive $500 back from the league) Getty Images is not involved in the league fee, so if this changes, don’t blame us.
12. As players are acquired during the season, Getty Images will shoot the standard headshot in your team uniform, as well stylized studio portraits (don’t worry, it will be brief), so that Getty Images, as well as your team, will have feature photography for promotion and program use.
13. When requested by the team, Getty Images will post images from PR events on their site at http://www.gettyimages.com in a section called The Publicity Channel. The access to photos in this area is free. You would simply send out your PR release, and include a link to the high-resolution photos, which can be downloaded and used free-of-charge. Maximize your PR events.
14. You have full access to images shot in all arenas. That means that if a player or your team sets a record on the road, and Getty Images covers it, those images are yours to use…forever! If you are looking for variety, you will have home and away photos, third uniforms and many varied views and angles to choose from.
15. Access to assistance from Getty Images professionals in Digital Asset
Management. This is what we do, and it’s what we do best. The Getty Images
website will manage the images for you. We can also provide solutions for you to manage these images for your teams needs or across an entire organization
including multiple teams and arenas. We will help in planning and implementing the workflow to maintain and access digital photography. It’s great to have 20,000 images a season…but if you can’t find them when you need them, it doesn’t matter how many you have. As well, we will provide assistance and guidance towards the safekeeping of analog (slide, print, and negative materials in your possession) for long-term security of your historic images.
WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED
There are no hidden agendas here.
This proposal is as straightforward as we could make it.
To this end, here are some other things clubs should think about BEFORE you agree to this deal.
1. Public relations events are not included unless they are major events. You have the option of hiring your team photographer or anyone else to cover hospital visits, check presentations etc.
2. One of the basic tenets of this deal is that the photographer we assign…or your team photographer raises the bar in covering the game. Our photographer will work with you to help supply whatever you need. We want to be your source for every photo need on game night and away from the rink as well. If there is a plethora of game night wacky photo shoots, we do suggest that an additional photographer be assigned by the club to handle these shoots. With many clubs, many of these events can be handled by ‘the web guy’ on your staff. Cost of this will undoubtedly vary from market to market. In this way, the action photographer can concentrate on coverage of the game, changing batteries and digital cards in remotes, moving positions between periods, fixing errant strobes, and similar activities. Usually our team photographers have assistants who can handle these needs, or we can suggest or provide names of shooters who can handle this type of activity.
3. Getty Images does not offer print services from images. At least, that’s not our core business. We can recommend pro photo labs in your area or refer you to labs which can make prints as needed. As well, we’re pretty sure your team photographer can handle or broker your needs, as most have contact with local printing facilities. In this day of digital photography, this usually means simply emailing images to photo labs.
4. No editorial control of images. Sorry, it can’t happen. Getty Images
photographers shoot alongside other wire services, newspaper and magazine
photographers, and must maintain a level footing to compete. This is the same
arrangement that Getty Images has with the NBA, MLB and NFL. Our editorial
integrity must be insured as we compete with all media outlets that cover games.
WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU
1. Feedback. Feedback on this plan, feedback on the working relationship with the photographer. Feedback on the images that are available to you on GettyImages.com. Feedback on turnaround time, quality from building to building. But, more importantly, feedback on what you really need!!! I know from my own experience working for four NHL teams, that every team’s needs are different. Let us help you.
2. You cannot convey photographic rights to your team photographer. They will not have ownership rights to the photography they shoot. Once they sign on with Getty Images, they relinquish rights to sell editorially or commercially. In return for signing those rights over, they will be paid a fair industry standard day rate. In the past, many photographers (although I can’t think of any offhand) charged their team’s lower rates for access and strobes, and made their money elsewhere. These avenues of income will most likely be limited in the future, so your photographer will be looking at increasing your rates to survive. Getty Images would pay all fair rates for their labor.
3. Team photographer (or team employee) transmits 8-10 images on game night.
So, we are requesting a high speed Internet connection to allow the
photographer to get back to the action immediately so nothing is missed. In some venues, and with some games, we may staff with a digital assistant to assist in transmitting images.
4. Union-free, fee-free strobe usage. Want high-quality. We need strobes. In some buildings we have them, and some we don’t. So this will be handled on an arenaby-arena basis as the policies and ownership varies.
5. Oh, I almost forgot. $15,000 USD. We’ll bill you after the All-Star break. Or tell us if you have something else in mind. Whatever. Big bills, or small bills. You pay us, and we pay the photographer.
6. If we’re missing some images you desire, or can’t find them on the site, just call or e-mail. Tell us your needs and if we don’t have them in the bag, we’ll shoot the scenes you or your marketing people need.
IN ADDITION (THE LAST PITCH)
One PR director asked the entirely fair question ‘Who does MY team
photographer work for. Is he looking out for my best interests and covering my needs.’ That team photographer is responsible for covering every scrap of
hockey that takes place in the building. That’s a tall order.
And although it is difficult to put it this in percentage form, I do have a B.S. in accounting from C.W. post College. Let’s say that your team photographer concentrates on your team 85% of the time. The other time he is shooting more of a news style image that is marketable editorially and commercially (although these would probably be good for you too) and features more of the visiting team.
All the team photographers follow the same Twenty-nine teams multiplied by
15% = 435%. Our plan gives you over 400% more imagery than you are getting
now. Math trickery. I think not.
Call each other. You PR types have been known to stick together. Call me. I’m
an approachable guy. Really. Tell me what you really need, and what your
concerns are. Let’s play ‘Let’s Make a Deal’. I firmly believe that this will be a great deal for every club regardless of what you are paying now. In reality, $15,000 is a very small price to pay in the scheme of things when you are talking about insuring the long term photographic history of your club and looking at the value of what you receive. We have estimated the real photographic value of this deal is over $75,000 when taking into consideration today’s photographers’ fees and photo usage rates.
Upon completion, this will undoubtedly bring long term benefits to the NHL and its’ clubs. We’ll bring the value of the distribution, the digital asset management, and the superior shooting skills of Getty Images photographers to the table.
Let’s help bring the whole NHL Photo thing out of the dark ages. Now, more than ever, is the best time to work together, and unite every party towards the completion of this project which has floundered in its’ many incarnations over the past 12 years. All we need is the go ahead to do what we do best. Give this a chance, and together we can build this program so all can benefit.
Call me at my office [phone numbers redacted], or just drop me a line at redacted
WHERE & HOW FAST CAN I SIGN
I do feel that we should have contracts signed, and all details in place so that photographers are on board, and all logistic matters including strobes and transmission issues are in place well before the start of the season. No, we’re not looking for cash up front, just for an agreement to proceed laying the groundwork. This will avoid bumps in the road when games begin.
Give us the go ahead, and I’ll have Carmin Romanelli, Vice President of Sports Business Development, prepare a contract. Contracts will be prorated depending on when the season starts. In addition, if you seek NHL guidance, I would suggest that you contact Patti Fallick, the Vice President of NHL Productions at [phone number and e-mail redacted]. Patti is overseeing this partnership program.
Thanks for your time,
Best wishes
BB
E-mail redacted |
|
Al Bello, Photographer
 |
Merrick | NY | USA | Posted: 8:36 PM on 04.07.05 |
->> JD,
You absolutely kill me. Your awesome.
Al |
|
Robert E. Hudson Jr, Photographer, Assistant
|
Robert E. Hudson Jr, Photographer, Assistant
|
Pasadena | CA | USA | Posted: 11:34 AM on 04.08.05 |
->> John Harrington wrote:
"Could it be that, having recently joined 'the fine staff of Getty Images/Sport' [Jonathan Daniel] wanted to 'suck up' to Bennett/et al as you note you do to others in the 'who are your Heros' post you recently made?"
Unfortunately, JD doesn't have to suck up to anybody - his work speaks for itself. And it's unfortunate that you view his praise of others as "sucking up" as opposed to what is really is: the selfless expression of admiration. |
|
Denis Rochefort, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Bowling Green | KY | USA | Posted: 2:08 PM on 04.08.05 |
->> Jonathan Daniel-
While I agree with you entirely on that fact that people should not bitch to the staffers, like yourself, and that this board is entirely too much talk and not enough action, I have to really disagree with your likening this system to the foundations of our country. If you believe that the founding fathers were the ones' who built this nation, you are wrong, and i do believe if you liken this Getty system to why we have the liberties we do in our country, you yourself are like the uninformed hypocrite that you rudely and childishly bashed in public.
The founding father's of our country provided policy that allowed early settlers to create property which in turn created capital. This policy was not some ingenious plan made up in a board room, it was demanded of them through settlers who wanted nothing to do with the state owning them and their land. These settlers moved out and settled on extralegal land until the state caught up with them again. It wasn't until our founding fathers began to realize that they cannot control these settlers so they began to adapt them into policy, now making land ownership legal. That, Mr Daniel, is the beginning of capitalism- what has made our country powerful and free.
Can you see where I am going with this? Settlers turned that physical land into legal property that gave settlers capital to grow and become the entrepreneurs that brought us through the industrial revolution and into our current state. Getty Images is trying to take advantage of photographers intellectual property, which is just as strong as physical property in this country. They are both virtual forms of capitalism, things you cannot see, hear, taste, or smell. If you think the money you get from a day rate is equal to money stored in intellectual legal property, you do not understand the system. Would you Mr. Daniel agree to put your time and effort into maintaining your home and your family, and pay for your house each month only to be told that you could not use it as collateral for a loan to start a business, or better yet that when you sell your house all the money goes to the government and you start from scratch? I think not.
That is the real world Mr Daniel, the one you tried to explain to "Mr/Ms Hot Shit."
Let people stick up for their rights because it will cause change. Rickman does not bullshit, and it is not only economics he preaches, it is law. The legal system allowed this country to prosper and the legal system must allow our industry to prosper. Getty Images oversteps its bounds and is the ugly side of capitalism that will ultimately lead to its demise. You must understand that the two industries have to work together and prosper together, yet another beauty of capitalism. It is also the beauty of our country- full of checks and balances.
This industry is way too far behind itself, and you Mr. Daniel are just like the rest of us, bitchy and uninformed. Photographers are sitting on billions of dollars of capital that is being repressed by industries like Getty which is identical to the trillions of dollars of capital that poor nations are sitting on that is being repressed by poor policy. But wait, doesn't Getty cover the plight of the poor in developing and former communist nations to help inform the world about these problems? If they understood the poor enough to document them, would they understand the freelance photographers and the business they are trying to eradicate?
-Denis Rochefort
(just a young, stupid photographer who thinks he can change the world) |
|
Terry Pancost, Photographer
 |
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 7:15 PM on 04.08.05 |
->> Thomas, Darrell, Nicholas & John,
I want to thank you for your comments. While I do not shoot sports for any of the wire services or major publications, I have followed this message thread and I appreciate your informative words. I hope all our photographers have been reading this message and have gotten as much from this, as I have.
Terry |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 12:35 PM on 04.10.05 |
->> I find it interesting that Al Bello, who's post includes the phrase "...you're awesome" does not reveal his conflict of interest -- namely, that he too is a Getty staff photographer, and has been since 1993 -- where he started with Alsport, before they were gobbled up by Getty.
Why is it that someone who considers themselves a {photo}journalist does not reveal he has a vested interest in the person he's writing about, when every newspaper/tv broadcast must not only go out of their way to tell readers/viewers of a connection, but must consider whether their contribution to the story is appropriate in the first place. A line or two with simply the goal of heaping praise on someone without revealing the conflict of interest that exists is, at the least, unethical.
For assistant/photographer Robert E Hudson, who, he says, is happy to accept "work on speculation in the southern california area" could reveal to SS as to any conflicts of interest he might have as he too heaps praise on JD/et al, and also explain why he'd drive hours to a SoCal job, shoot it, then drive hours back? Sounds like an offer to shoot for free and only accept the work if it's published -- a really bad business model. Your work speaks for itself Robert, it's good, and you shouldn't be doing spec work...I think Rick Rickman's down near you, perhaps a day with him could improve your business model, unless you're vying for a Getty staff job?
John Harrington |
|
Scott Bort, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Champaign | Il | USA | Posted: 12:44 PM on 04.10.05 |
->> JD-
A Chicago-style tounge lashing could be no better.
Next round is one me.
Scott |
|
Kelvin Ma, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Evanston | IL | USA | Posted: 3:59 PM on 04.10.05 |
->> I've watched this thread for too long. But let me play devil's advocate here.
Could it be that this industry has just reached critical mass? It seems like there's an oversaturation of the market, and maybe the market is just trying to correct itself. Supply and Demand. Basic economic theory says that when you have an abundance of supply, prices will be driven down if demand remains constant.
And let's face it, there ain't that much demand out there anymore. You guys complain about how the big guys like Getty are buying eveyone up. Well, look at their clientele. It's the big media companies like Tribune Co., NYTimes Co. Gannett, Knight-Ridder, Time Warner, CondeNast... the list goes on, but you can count them all with no more than two hands. (And you just know one of them would LOVE to buyout Getty.) Demand is low folks, and supply is high. Unless something drastic happens to the market, I don't see that changing any time soon.
I come from the print side, so I've seen what this market is like. It's already happened to writers. Why else would cub reporters be fighting tooth and nail over that $20k starting salary for the Podunk Times? You can't be a reporter these days without a college degree, so throw student loans on top of that, and you've got one hell of a lifestyle for the next 4-5 years.
So what can we do? In my opinion, I think a lot of us will get weeded out of the business (mainly, people like ME). No disrespect to those who are trying to make an honest living out of photography, but I just don't see the editorial market supporting so many people. The bottomline, we're ALL competing against each other. If you and I have comparable photos, you're damn right I want mine to run instead of yours. It just boils down to who can stomach less money. There will be those rare talents that will survive. That's why awesome writers can pull in $10k freelance assignments from the New Yorker. If you're good, you'll be noticed. We talk about knowing the value of our work. Well, the problem is there's so damn many of us that our work, that frankly is very similar, isn't worth that much. At least not to the corporate goons upstairs.
I'm not saying any of us should give up. We just need to provide a better product to justify our existence. Maybe the future's in multimedia. Maybe Al Gore has the answer with his new TV network. I don't know, but I do know it's probably not going to come from the sports market.
A man much wiser than me told me once, "The best job security is doing a good job." Great advice.
Blame capitalism. Blame deregulation. Blame digital technology for making this business so accessible. Just stop making this thread personal. (And for the record, I know JD. He's a good guy. And no, I'm NOT trying out for Getty.)
I apologize for being all over the place with this e-mail, but short of unionizing (good luck with that), the future doesn't look that bright for "Joe Average." And maybe that's for the better.
They don't call economics the dismal science for nothing. |
|
Al Bello, Photographer
|
Merrick | NY | USA | Posted: 5:47 PM on 04.10.05 |
->> John H.
Easy does it cowboy. I have no conflicts. I just think Jon Daniel is awesome. He has been a big influence in my professional life. Good heart, Good guy. Thats all.
Al |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:48 PM on 04.10.05 |
->> >>. Al Bello:
>>>>> I have no conflicts.
Quite the contrary. Whether or not you *feel* you don't have a conflict, the truth is that since you are employed by Getty, you DO have the appearance of a conflict that no one would deny, and failing to reveal that at the same time that you were praising/defending another Getty employee, one quite senior to you, will cause almost everyone to question your ethics.
According to the Getty website:(http://corporate.gettyimages.com/source/investors/index.aspx?pageID=corpGov...) which governs Getty officers "...1) Avoid conflicts of interest. Officers may not allow any situation or personal interests to interfere, or appear to interfere, with the exercise of their independent judgment or with their ability to act in the best interests of Getty Images. 2) Disclose full and accurate information. Officers are required to provide full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosures...in all press releases or other public communications."
Your posting IS a "public communication." You can be sure that the Getty also holds it's photographers to a similar disclosure policy, meaning that if you were assigned for a news story to cover a company where a family member worked, and you failed to disclose that, you could well be fired, at least disciplined.
In this case, you failed to disclose the appearance of a conflict of interest, if not an actual conflict, and therefore are in breach of Getty's policies.
>>>> I just think Jon Daniel is awesome.
That may be, yet, I've seen no evidence to support that to date. However, few can legitimately deny that he's gone off on a rant and also he's defending Mr. Bennett in what is an indefensible position AGAINST photographers best interests. If you can't seperate your admiration for him for his past influence in your professional life from his irrational posting and present unorthdox and unprofessional attacks, then you're missing a bigger issue.
Rather than make an unethical posting (by not revealing a conflict of interest) and defending someone who's gone off the deep end, you would have been better off holding your praise, or revealing your bias when making it.
John Harrington |
|
Al Bello, Photographer
|
Merrick | NY | USA | Posted: 8:35 PM on 04.11.05 |
->> John,
Speaking of rants. You are entitled to rant on as much as you have been. Your rants are all your opinion and you are entitled to them. I hope you are enjoying yourself. You make me laugh. Anyway, I need to get back on the planet Earth now and get back to work. And you need to get a life and take some pictures.
Later |
|
Mike Morones, Photographer
|
Fredericksburg | VA | USA | Posted: 11:01 AM on 04.12.05 |
| ->> I think Al makes a good point - let's all go out and make some pictures instead of wasting our time on message boards. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 6:17 PM on 04.12.05 |
->> John,
The term "officer" refers to legal officers of the corporation, like the president, chairman, etc. As far as I know, Al is not an officer of Getty Images.
--Mark |
|
Robert E. Hudson Jr, Photographer, Assistant
|
Costa Mesa (Orange County | CA | USA | Posted: 2:12 PM on 04.22.05 |
->> John, John, John. I'm not sure which is worse - the fact that you make incorrect assumptions about others or that you make them publicly in a forum of fellow professionals.
I don't care that you take a stab at my business model - your opinion of how I do business is uneducated and has no impact on me. But for you to publicly attack and call into question the ethics and business acumen of one of the more successful and respected photographers (Al Bello) here only helps to shed light on who you are and what you stand for. For someone who ostensibly wants photographers to work together, your divisive rhetoric only widens the gap between the successful (Al, JD, etc) and those who are growing in and learning the business (like myself).
It's unfortunate that you can't stick to the facts of your intial assertion - which arguably has some good points - but instead you've got to go after the individuals who have families to support and mouths to feed. Would you rather they all starve for your good cause? Unless you're going to provide an insurance policy that guarantees a decent salary and benefits to all those who don't sign on with the Getty's of the world, I suggest you stick to the facts of your argument and leave the personal attacks out of it. I guarantee that if you had - you wouldn't have taken nearly the public lashing that you have from Mr. Bello and others. You may not think it's a big deal, but others are going to read this thread knowing who the big dogs are and, upon seeing what they wrote about you, will make a judgement about you. I just hope for your sake that it's not someone who has any kind of financial influence in your professional career.
--Robert |
|
Nicholas Duncan, Photographer
|
Carpinteria | CA | United States | Posted: 2:29 PM on 04.22.05 |
| ->> The thread that just won't die. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
We BUY & TRADE you OLD Gear
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
