Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

New USA Today Freelance photography agreement
Javier Gonzalez, Photographer
Mayaguez | PR | Puerto Rico | Posted: 9:43 PM on 03.29.07
->> I just received the new version of the USA Today freelance photography agreement. I'm curious about your opinion on it.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Keith Carson, Photographer
Tampa | FL | U.S.A. | Posted: 10:08 PM on 03.29.07
->> Not that I shoot for USA Today, but out of curiosity, what is the new agreement? And what are the changes? Good or bad in your opinion?

Thanks,

Keith Carson
www.carsonphotography.com
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Pedro Diaz, Photographer
Miami Beach | FL | United States | Posted: 10:48 PM on 03.29.07
->> Javier
vaya boricua,
Can you send a link to read about it?
thanks
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Croslin, Photographer
St. Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 12:43 AM on 03.30.07
->> In a nutshell: the "day rate" has been upped $100 but Gannett can now use the commissioned images across all Gannett properties without further compensation.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gene Boyars, Photographer
Matawan | NJ | United States | Posted: 12:48 AM on 03.30.07
->> I got one.. I had to chuckle since I have done one job for them since 2000.....I wonder how that makes me a "current freelancer" for them...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Javier Gonzalez, Photographer
Mayaguez | PR | Puerto Rico | Posted: 7:42 AM on 03.30.07
->> There's no link to the document, you must receive it if you are an "active freelancer". But is like Bob says, the day rate was increased but they got unlimited use of the images for what they call the "Gannett's platform" (all publications, print, online, TV). The transmission fee was decreased.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 7:53 AM on 03.30.07
->> Wow, that's a pretty big rights grab for 100 bucks.

But that's the state of the industry right now. The CEOs of Gannett, Time-Warner, Condé Nast, etc, make 10s of millions a year, and everyone else makes peanuts.

If the Baby Boom generation is called the 'Me' generation; the start of the 21st century group of CEOs can be called the 'Greed' generation.

Wall Street only cares about profits, not whether the average person can make s living.

In the final analysis, you could always reject the contract and look for clients who want your work on better terms; or, simply accept the terms.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 8:21 AM on 03.30.07
->> I'm curious,.. Do they pay per assignment..?



JP
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Will Powers, Photographer
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:32 AM on 03.30.07
->> Javier-
Upped a hundred bucks, to what?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Colin Mulvany, Photographer
Spokane | WA | USA | Posted: 10:45 AM on 03.30.07
->> $275.00 +$100 to transmit up to five photos.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 12:07 PM on 03.30.07
->> Wow, they were paying $275 when I was a photo editor in 1984-1988.

Jeez, more than 20 years later they asked to use any picture anyway they want for an extra $100. Let's not factor in 20 years of inflation, or the cost of digital over film.

Can people pay their rents with this kind of money? I know Gannett's photo staff has nothing to do with this policy because it is handed down from "on high."

I'm sure the majority stockholders of the Gannett Corporation are making more than 100 per day.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 2:11 PM on 03.30.07
->> Walter is confusing inflation with meaning "the value of everything goes up over time". This simply isn't the case. The costs of digital over film is meaningless (to the buyer, that is). Whether you can make your rent payment or not is also meaningless to the buyer. For that matter, the salaries of CEO's and stockholders is also meaningless. It might piss you off, but it does not factor one bit into what you will get paid for a photo.

What matters is what is the supply of photos and what is the demand of photos. And reading these forums it would appear the supply is really high right now. Guess what that does to prices? This isn't rocket science people, and its not some sort of Wall Street conspiracy either.
 This post is:  Informative (5) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David M. Russell, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 2:37 PM on 03.30.07
->> William,

Maybe it's an issue of semantics - cost of living versus inflation - but you're not paying the same for a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas, so you can't live in 2007 on what you did in 1987.

If it were a desk job and you didn't get a raise in 20 years, you'd have a problem a bit larger than your morale.

-D
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 3:16 PM on 03.30.07
->> David, you're missing my point entirely. If my desk job paid the same it did 20 years ago I'd be looking for a new career. My point is completely valid however. It is meaningless what a photo was worth 20 years ago. It has nothing to do with what a photo is worth today. For that matter, whether you can pay your rent, as Walter asks, isn't going factor into any buyer's mind when they decide what they want to pay for a photo. Does it factor into your mind when you decide where to buy your next camera, your next lens? Does it factor into your mind when you decide if you shop at Wal-Mart or whether you shop somewhere who gives better benefits and wages to its employees? How many people here have complained about royalty free photography in one thread and then asked where to find RF music in another thread?
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rafael Agustin Delgado, Student/Intern, Photographer
Pasadena | Ca | USA | Posted: 3:24 PM on 03.30.07
->> William's morale is not the issue; he simply stated the reality of this market.

Photojournalism except for maybe Paparazzi s is a field one practices not for the pay. It has and will remain traditionally not great in pay. The level of difficulty will continue to rise. This makes those wishing to be a part of this field for constant learning, development and the ability to adapt to the circumstances.

If you are in it for the cash, you are in the wrong field.

There is also no point in arguing how the top makes off this much profit. Like William stated above, it is meaninglessly to argue. Focusing on obstacles and the struggles leads to no progression, when it is problem solving and solutions that are needed. This style of negative thinking is what hampers morale.

Freelance photographer must make themselves the commodity through their work, eye, style, and spirit. The service one produces is what needs to become the demand. After this is achieved, the supply in work and monetary compensation will follow.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Harvey Dunn, Photographer
Southlake (Dallas) | TX | USA | Posted: 5:21 PM on 03.30.07
->> Who has the copyrights in the commissioned images?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brian Ray, Photographer, Assistant
Steamboat Springs | CO | United States | Posted: 5:37 PM on 03.30.07
->> Harvey,

According to the contract, the copyrights remain in the sole possesion of the freelance photographer who shot them.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 7:45 PM on 03.30.07
->> Need to make one correction to an early posting.

USA Today paid $225 per assignment, plus film, shipping and mileage, not $275. My old man brain at work again. You can probably smell the smoke.

Which means from 1984 to 2006, the assignment fee went up $50.00. That's $2.08 increase per year.

Now the vast number of assignment probably will not get used by the rest of the Gannett system, so if you agree to these terms you're up $100 per shoot with no lose in reuse.

If you do get a picture that's worth being used throughout the Gannett system, then you have to ask yourself whether the reuse fees lost in the future out weighs the $100 increase today.

As I understand it, Gannett is NOT asking for the copyright. The shooter can still sell the image outside the Gannett chain.

*****

William, the buyer needs to factor in that their suppliers have to make a living if they are interested in keeping suppliers for the long term.

My point is not about bashing Gannett or other media, it is about making members of SportsShooter better business people when it comes to fees in relations to the marketplace.

I read daily how corporations are crying the blews, all the while paying their CEOs and top management (the USA Today photo staff is NOT top management) salaries and stock bonuses that 99% of Americans will never see.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Amir Gamzu, Photographer
Ann Arbor | MI | USA | Posted: 10:00 PM on 03.30.07
->> Walter, in your last post your ask 'if you get a picture that's worth being used throughout Gannett system'. I think we should advise people to not send their best work. Send the 5 images or what-not that your obligated to, keep the good shots for yourself!

But the Buyers don't need to factor in how their suppliers pay the rent. They simply factor in that they need to buy images, and those images must meet some quality level. Once Quality level is met, lowest cost becomes the next factor.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the state of the industry today, but that's how it is. I really don't see any way to change it. Most Photography schools don't offer a single business of photography class, of the two locations where I know this class was/is offered, neither make it required.

And then there is the ultimate killer, people think what we do is cool. Shooting a big time sporting event, concert or famous person lures people into what we do.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Alan Look, Photographer
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 10:04 PM on 03.30.07
->> Just wondering, is there an embargo period on the 5 Gannett gets or the rest of the images from the shoot?

I'll probalby never be in a position to care, but it seems that could be a big factor.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 10:17 PM on 03.30.07
->> Let's look at General Motors. They spun off a branch of GM to become a separate corporation that would be a supplier to GM. GM then made great demands on cost. The supplier went bankrupt. GM is now working with the banks to rescue its supplier from Chapter 11 so that GM can get the parts it needs to build cars.

There was a time when Mr. Ford raised his workers salaries so they could afford to buy Ford automobiles.

Yes corporate America does not have to factor in how their suppliers pay the rent, if corporate America only is interested in the short term.

What I'm saying is we business people need to hold our clients accountable for our long term survival. It is our responsibility to not be sheep. It is our responsibility to be as tough as the CEOs.

USA Today at $375 per day is far better than the rest of the newspaper industry, but that doesn't mean we can't speak our minds and point out that most photographers will find work elsewhere that pays a living wage.

The deal still sounds like a rights grab to me. At least it's not as back as the terrible contract Condé Nast has with its magazine photographers.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jason McKibben, Photographer
Nokomis | FL | USA | Posted: 10:33 PM on 03.30.07
->> Amir,
To be clear, the new contract stipulates that the ENTIRE TAKE be transmitted to USA Today.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Amir Gamzu, Photographer
Ann Arbor | MI | USA | Posted: 10:55 PM on 03.30.07
->> Hey,

My first comment was a smart ass comment, and I know it. But, it was the first thing to pop into my head when I read Walters comment. It was a game the system ploy that comes from my love of games/game theory. Make the best move with in the rules of the game. Jason pops the bubble, though what if you shoot a few hundred images, you have to transmit them all?

As to the state of our industry, I am simply feeling pessimistic.

As to the person who marked Huh?, sorry I wrote that while finishing off tonight’s workflow.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:07 AM on 03.31.07
->> amir, don't apologize to the...ah....huh.....there are a lot of clueless folks on this website........yeah yeah yeah, I know INAPPROPRIATE.........
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 12:21 AM on 03.31.07
->> The old transmission rate was $125 for the first six images and $10 per image thereafter. The new rate is $25 for any number of images.

This means that they are demanding more rights for zero additional compensation. If you submit more than six images per assignment, the payment is actually less.

As (relatively) photographer-friendly USA Today has been in the past, this is a clear step backward.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Catto, Photographer
Wellington | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 12:42 AM on 03.31.07
->> Hang on - let's do the math on this.

Mark says:
"The old transmission rate was $125 for the first six images and $10 per image thereafter. The new rate is $25 for any number of images."

Jason says:
"...the new contract stipulates that the ENTIRE TAKE be transmitted to USA Today."

So...what are they saying, you now have to submit any number of images - possibly in the hundreds - for 1/4 the previous fee to send 6?

Now THAT'S a step backwards...
R
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Benson, Photographer
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 12:50 AM on 03.31.07
->> "The old transmission rate was $125 for the first six images and $10 per image thereafter. The new rate is $25 for any number of images. "

Dont think this is right. I've been paid $100 to transmit images via FTP, whether it's 1 or 100. Its a one click process, FTPing images, so I'll take the $100. I know the new transmit rate has gone down though.

I've shot about 15 assignments in the past 11 months for USA Today, and only once did I get a reuse fee. So for me the contract change is negligible.

I'll take the pay raise, smile and work hard.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (2) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Darron R. Silva, Photographer
Naples | FL | USA | Posted: 1:42 AM on 03.31.07
->> If you read the first page. section 1, paragraph one, it reads something along the lines of graning USA Today the rights to use the images in any form, for any purpose, forever, in any gannett property. It does NOT specify editorial use only. The way I read this, it grants USA Today the right to use images for any editorial, commercial, or advertising use. Normally a commercial or advertising use would require a much higher licensing fee, but this contract gives Gannett those rights with NO EXTRA MONEY. This could apply to ads, reprints, posters, television commercials, etc, etc. To me, this is a much bigger issue than the transmission fee. This could really cost photographers a lot of money. This is my main concern with the contract, and I encourage all USA Today freelancers to take a close look at this issue.
Now it may be that USA Today does not intend to take these rights. Maybe they only want/require editorial usage, but this is not what the contract says. I'm hoping the contract can be reworded to specify editorial use only.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 7:39 AM on 03.31.07
->> Darron - Now you're are thinking!

A one sided contract is call a "contract of adhesion" in the legal world. We, as business people, don't have to accept a one sided contract. In the eyes of the law, the Gannett Coporation is of equal footing as your business.

As Darron pointed out, the Gannett contract worded the way their lawyers drafted it. Meaning Gannett can use your image in an Annual Report, in a national advertising campaign, or on the publisher's annual holiday card. I'm sure the photo staff has no control over how the corporate side of Gannett will use these images. May be they don't want the corporate side to use these images. Perhaps a group of USA Today shooters, if you guys are really concerned about this, can ask for a change in the contract to reflect the editorial only usage, instead of a huge rights grab.

Now as Robert Benson correctly pointed out, over 15 assignments he got only one reuse check, for probably less than $100, so for him this deal is good for his business model. This is also a great deal for Gannett since they can now cut out the administrative headache of tracking all the reuse and issuing checks. By raising the fee by $100 and saying they can use the image however, Gannett is saving much more money than the $100 per assignment. The person or people needed to track all the past reuse can now do other jobs, or be eliminated from the staff.

As Mark Loudy points out, the transmision fee cut doesn't cut the math. I understand the old fee was based on shooting color negative film, having it processed, then scanned, and transmitted. So there was a lot of expense involved in transmitting. In Gannett's thinking, it's all digital so there is less expense. Again, do the math. Is there less expense in digital, with the cost of the digital cameras, computers, software, and potential cost to unload from the field when you may be paying for a broadband connection at a commercial hot spot? These thing come into pay with your business model.

Perhaps, after doing the math, a group of USA Today freelancers could communicate that the transmission fee is either just right, or cut back too much. It's up to you to make sure you are paying the rent. Gannett needs to hear whether they are doing you a favor, or squeezing you.

I know the people in the USA Today photo staff are willing to listen. They want quality photographers. Think of this as the first round of negotiations. You might not change their minds, but you'll feel better talking about your concerns, instead of complaining on a photo forum.

****

errror alert (it's my smoking brain again):

The last sentence of my last post should have read

At least it's not as 'bad' as the terrible contract Condé Nast has with its magazine photographers.

My Bad. Ha ha ha ha
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Fredrik Naumann, Photographer
Oslo | Oslo | Norway | Posted: 8:35 AM on 03.31.07
->> Walter, i agree with this: "What I'm saying is we business people need to hold our clients accountable for our long term survival. It is our responsibility to not be sheep. It is our responsibility to be as tough as the CEOs. "

That is the sort of thinking that has promted the Danish Journalist Union to call for a freelance boycott of the Aller group of magazines in Denmark. Like Gannet, Aller simply put another contract out, stating they would get all sorts of reuseage rights, including use in Aller's other magazines in other countries. Without any further compensation. But the DJU and its' members have the balls to say Aller is being greedy, and stand together on this issue.

It is a global trend apparently, where publishers want everything for nothing.
I think individual photographers have a responsibility not to accept all these devaluations of our work. And, as I mentioned in a thread about unreasonable concert contracts, it is quite possible for a group of photographers to decline the contracts put in front of them. And thus successfully change the conditions they work under to something better.

Whatever happened to "Just say NO"?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:31 PM on 03.31.07
->> Robert,

I was referring to the actual old and new contracts -- which I have on file. The terms that I mentioned are correct.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 2:10 PM on 03.31.07
->> Old contract:

assignment fee $275

upload fee $125

mileage

reuse fees

So $400 plus mileage and potential reuse

New contract

assignment fee $375

Digital fee $25

mileage

no reuse fees

So $400 plus mileage and no future reuse fees

Robbing Peter to pay Paul?

What the right hand gives, the left hand takes away?

Do the math people. Rights grab.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Al Goldis, Photographer
East Lansing | MI | USA | Posted: 1:00 PM on 04.01.07
->> How many actually got the transmission fee? Most of my assignments were for the Life section so the deadlines weren't that tight but they never wanted me to transmit. Burn a CD (I think the fee for that was $15, maybe a bit low) and ship overnight on their dime was SOP. So the new contract definitely puts me ahead.

Is there a better newspaper contract out there?

As for non-editorial use, there's a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through to use something commercially that was shot for editorial use. I don't think this will be an issue, although it probably wouldn't hurt to clear up the language.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brian Smith, Photographer
Miami Beach | Florida | United States | Posted: 12:16 PM on 04.04.07
->> In PDN, USA Today deputy managing editor Frank Folwell says "Our new agreement reflects the multiplatform world. Newspaper companies are media companies now. We have to proceed for the future....We tried to put together an agreement as fairly as we could."

I've known Frank for 30 years and I'd agree with the first part about publishers becoming a media companies. But I'd strongly disagree about how "fairly" this contract compensates Gannett in exchange for owning rights to use the photographs for in any newspaper, magazine or television station the own...FOREVER...

While USA Today is raising their dayrate $100, they are scaling back their digital fee from $100 to $25, so essentially they are gaining unlimited use FOREVER to all the photographs (and this is not limited to editorial but could also include ADVERTISING use) for a measly twenty five bucks.

Talk about a classic lose-lose situation. They now not only gain rights to re-use of the photographs for next to nothing, but they also send a message that use of your digital equipment + digital capture + digital processing + upload is only worth $25.

Fair? Hardly...

---------------------
Brian Smith
President - Editorial Photographers
http://www.editorialphoto.com
http://www.briansmithphoto.com
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Darren Carroll, Photographer
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 2:27 PM on 04.04.07
->> I've done assignments for USA Today going on 15 years now. They gave me my first chance in this business. Heck, my son is named after a former editor there who gave me that first shot. So it's really difficult for me to say "no" to them, if not only for sentimental reasons, but also because, knowing some of the folks in the Graphics and Photo department like I do, I'm confident that this wasn't their idea. But sometimes there's no way around it--a bad deal is a bad deal, and as it stands now, this is indeed a bad deal.

Let's just hope they're amenable to discussions about it, so that we can all reach some sort of mutually beneficial agreement.

Don't get me wrong, I don't do that many assignments for them anymore--maybe five or six shoots over the past couple years--but on each of them I'm pretty sure I made more than 100.00 in re-use. To each his own, I guess, but a net increase of $25.00, coupled with the knowledge that some bean counter or legal eagle up there thinks that all uses, in perpetuity, of any of my images is worth $100 doesn't exactly make me smile.

[Warning: Tangent alert...]

By the way, did you ever stop to think what might possess an accounting person to think that a $100.00 buy-out is a fair price? Try this one on for size: Let's say, strictly hypothetically, that an agency approaches USA Today with a ridiculously low-ball offer of an "all you can eat" subscription for its pictures. Maybe a couple of thousand bucks a month, anything they want to use, as much as they want to use it. Maybe a little extra for some out-of-the-ordinary stuff, but nothing major. Or maybe a different agency offers a per-use deal for something crazy--like $25.00 per picture. These agencies can offer rock-bottom pricing because they don't pay the majority of their photographers to shoot for them, so they have relatively little to recoup in terms of costs. So one day the bean-counter tallies up photo usage, and sees that, when you divide the number of pictures they use by what they pay these agencies per month, it works out to next to nothing. In other words, in the end, the agencies' photos are worth a pittance, and so it logically follows (in the accountant's mind) that all photos, regardless of their provenance, can (and should) be had on the cheap. All you folks out there who see nothing wrong with working for free, and giving "agencies" the means to devalue our work...it's coming back to bite you (and us) in the hindquarters.

[/Tangent]

We have no one to blame but ourselves for this. The only reason someone thinks our work is worth so little is because, in one way or another, we've managed to give them that impression. But that's no reason to just "smile, and work hard." This is another chance for a dialogue with one of the heavy-hitters in our industry, the outcome of which could set a precedent (for good or ill) for lots of other media entities to follow. Let's all be smart, and professional, about this one.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Sharon P. Fibelkorn, Photographer
Corona | CA | USA | Posted: 3:25 PM on 04.04.07
->> "We have no one to blame but ourselves for this. The only reason someone thinks our work is worth so little is because, in one way or another, we've managed to give them that impression. But that's no reason to just "smile, and work hard." This is another chance for a dialogue with one of the heavy-hitters in our industry, the outcome of which could set a precedent (for good or ill) for lots of other media entities to follow. Let's all be smart, and professional, about this one."

Wow, this seems to be the theme the last few weeks in my life, and I was gonna post so now here's my chime-in.

While I don't work for USA Today or such, both large hobbyist publishers, Bowtie, Inc. and Primedia, Inc., have adjusted their contracts for complete rights grabs for a lot less money than we freelancers made previously. And I have spent a lot of time with the Bowtie folks, most of which are friends of mine, but I will not sell out. And it's insulting that they would ask me to. But I didn't want to just shut the door, so I have been in big conversations with them on what's fair to both parties. And I've even drafted up what I call a "Deal Memo" which states what I require to do the job when assigned.

After all -- they are coming to us for work. We're being treated like servants because we've allowed that to happen. We're skilled professionals who have invested time and money into our crafts -- so why do we continue to act like servants? What are we being given? And moreso, what do we want? We need to just step up, talk about it, and say what we want.

I can only hear the words of Rick Rickman echo in my head -- and I realize that there are a few of us in positions to speak our minds. Yes, I might lose all the work but I'd rather lose the work than sell my soul, and the futures of the photographers to come that want to work in a fair market. I believe there can be good agreements formed but it's going to take calm and constant discussion. Legal only has the welfare of the company at heart. It's up to us to pick our direction and move the industry toward it.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:54 AM on 04.14.07
->> I made an error in my earlier posting. The original transmission fee was $100 -- not $125. This means that the current contract adds a net of $25 in exchange for much broader rights.

I'm working on this for my next Common Cents column. I'm talking about it with sources both inside and outside USA Today. I'll have more to say about it then.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 7:58 AM on 04.14.07
->> "The original transmission fee was $100 -- not $125."

Well that changes everything!

For $25 more, yes, let Gannett use your images forever in whatever form they wish. It's a great ego builder to see a multi-billion dollar company gain profit from your work for only 25 bucks more.

Yippee, give away the farm so you can see your name in print.

You'd think in a multi-platform world, with each one of these platforms making money, could share some of that wealth?

Don't get me wrong, USA Today was invaluable to me and my career. BUT my ABSOLUTE RESPECT for the photo department does not cloud my vision of the Gannett Corporation. This contract is being ramrod down from the corporate side of the business. Their new publisher, I've been told, is a slash and do not spend businessman. His wishes must be carried out with no question, or as it is said on the aside "You can find another job."

It's kind of like the old question about war, "What if nobody showed up?"

The only thing USA Today's publisher will respect is the photography industry united together saying 'NO.' Simply put "What if nobody signed the contract?"
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 8:32 AM on 04.14.07
->> OK, let me put it another way.

Basically we're talking a $25 raise.

For simple math reasons, let's say USA Today gives out 1,000 freelance photo shoots a year. This raise costs Gannett $25,000 per year.

Sounds like a lot of money to me.

But does anyone know how much it cost Gannett to maintain a private Gulfstream jet at Dulles Airport for the publisher to use each year? Two or three flights on that jet cost Gannett more than the $25,000 raise all photographers are getting per year.

The amount of money Gannett is offering for complete access to your images is so insignificant compared to the overall operating cost of the publisher's benefits of jet, limo & driver, top quality hotels and meals on trips, junkets to wine and dine advertisers and potential advertisers, etc.

First Gannett takes your rights, then the New York Times, then magazines will want a piece of this action, so where will the rights grab stop?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Allan Campbell, Photographer, Assistant
Lake Oswego (Portland) | OR | | Posted: 11:24 AM on 04.14.07
->> >> But does anyone know how much it cost Gannett to maintain a private Gulfstream jet at Dulles Airport for the publisher to use each year? Two or three flights on that jet cost Gannett more than the $25,000 raise all photographers are getting per year.

Based on the Citation that company I work for owns and leases to others at $2400.00 per hour flight crew included..... alot :)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Joshua Prezant, Photographer
North Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 12:06 PM on 04.14.07
->> >>>
Walter,
It stops when photographers JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Martin, Photographer
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 1:01 PM on 04.14.07
->> A Gulfstream cost much more than a Citation to buy and operate; however it's completely irrelavent to what a photo is worth. If Gannett can get enough content paying this price, that's what a photo is worth. Or more accurately, that's what the images they run are worth.
They won't get top notch talent or content. The question is do they care. Or maybe, do they understand. Just because they're management don't make 'em smart.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Martin, Photographer
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 1:09 PM on 04.14.07
->> Side note. I work for the FAA so am a tad bit antimanagement right now. The head of the FAA recently took a trip to a Latin American country to present a $30,000 grant check for airport improvement. The flight down and back on your very own US Gov G4 cost much more than $30,000. (by "your very own" , I meant you, the taxpayers)
Yes, I know. Off topic, inappropriate, and amusing.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Sherrlyn Borkgren, Photographer
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 8:40 PM on 04.14.07
->> So are we all in this together?

As professional photographers we get yet one more opportunity to help decide which direction photojournalism will go. We have the ability to interrupt the momentum we see and change the direction by saying "no".

We are not amateurs. We are professionals and this is why we ask and get the prices that we do.

Sure we know cameras and photo shop but we must also know people and culture. We must know how to interact during trauma and emotional moments. We must have a reserve of knowledge as well as nerve and guts when needed. There is much more to a professional photojournalist than just taking a picture. And you ALL know this.
Each of us has a "voice". Each of our voices when heard together can make a difference. I'm glad so many are writing in on here but I do hope you copy, revise whatever you need to do and make sure you also get your opinion to the editors. I sent my decision in last week written with my reasons why I cannot sign.

Do speak up and send your concerns to the company if you received a contract (or even if you didn't you might still send them an email).
I realize the whole country is cutting these corners in every market but we will have to take a stand whether we are directly affected or not if we want to change things in our world for the better. Phew… if you got this far ---thanks for listening.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stew Milne, Photographer
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 11:35 AM on 01.10.20
->> I am resurrecting this OLD thread, as USATSI/Imagn has a new contract out.

Anyone with knowledge or thoughts, please join in the thread.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Mangin, Photographer
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 7:34 PM Today
->> I have not seen the new contract but have heard many details from many sources. If what I have heard is true then anyone who signs is not very bright and doesn't think very highly of their own work. But of course that has always been the case going back to the old USPW days, except now their hero can't save them because he sells pizzas for a living.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: New USA Today Freelance photography agreement
Thread Started By: Javier Gonzalez
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Who is the one they call Grasshopper? Find out here ::..