| 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
Who has the rights?....shuttle image article
Steve Violette, Photographer
 |
Gulf Breeze | FL | USA | Posted: 9:53 AM on 05.24.11 |
->> A discussion on rights for the image made on the shuttle launch from an airplane with the iphone camera and image tweeted.......
http://tinyurl.com/42h8fcs |
|
Thomas Derr, Photographer
|
Madison | WI | US | Posted: 10:13 AM on 05.24.11 |
| ->> thanks for the link, interesting read. If it's on the internet, it will be stolen (or given away like via TwitPic) |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:31 AM on 05.24.11 |
| ->> I read a debate on this last week. I have to say I don't feel sorry for her. Before anyone gets all up in arms let's just look at the facts. She posted the photo to a site which clearly states in their TOS that they (TwitPic) do not OWN the photo but they have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with it....which in this case was to supply the photo to anyone who asked as long as THEY received credit. This happened to the guy who shot the plane crash in the Hudson River also. Now she's whining about it when she was the one who didn't know the TOS.....there's no cure for ignorance. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 10:54 AM on 05.24.11 |
->> Chuck, to be sure, I don't think she was "whining" about anything:
“To me, it's just a picture. I tweeted and put my phone away. ... I had four hours of sleep and wasn't thinking. I was trying to spend time with my dad. I've never been a person who feels like I need to make money off of everything. I just put it out there for people to see."
However, Janis Krum (Hudson River photo), definitely sounds like he's whining. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 10:55 AM on 05.24.11 |
| ->> I don't like how it happened or that it happened. But now that she's mad, I hope she's motivated to do something about it. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 11:07 AM on 05.24.11 |
->> Darren - Where in the article do you get the impression that she's mad? Just like I found nothing to indicate she was "whining."
To me, it sounds like she doesn't really give a flying fart about getting paid — "Many other outlets asked for her permission to republish, which she granted without charging a fee."
This is more of a lesson for the rest of us, who expect to get paid for our work. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:20 AM on 05.24.11 |
| ->> The article I read last week did have somewhat of a "whine" tone to it. and yes, maybe that is a little harsh. but I do get pretty tired of people who don't read the TOS then open their mouth's when it bites them on the ass. I still stick by my "there's no cure for ignorance" statement. and actually a lot of this is media driven....which in itself is quite comical. |
|
Luke Johnson, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
St.Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 11:26 AM on 05.24.11 |
->> "She posted the photo to a site which clearly states in their TOS that they (TwitPic) do not OWN the photo but they have the RIGHT to do whatever they want with it."
And this is exactly why I don't upload any pictures that could be of any value on Facebook, twitter, ETC. |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 12:17 PM on 05.24.11 |
->> TwitPic is now the Huffington Post of photography. Uploaders are going to have their images licensed by an agency in a newly announced deal whereupon they may not receive a penny in compensation or have any say in the matter over their use. They give up those rights as soon as they click the "upload" button.
http://pdnpulse.com/2011/05/time-to-quit-using-twitpic.html
It used to be that uploaded photos could theoritically be used and marketed by anybody, such as AFP and Getty who are being sued by Daniel Morel over his Haiti photos last year. Now under this licensing/representation deal between TwitPic and WENN, any commercial uses must go through the new agency. With this deal, Morel's ownership of marketing stance becomes moot if deals are struck with WENN.
This will be interesting to watch because newspapers and magazines could be categorized as editorial since they are end users, while agencies like AFP, Getty, AP, Reuters, etc. could be viewed as commercial since they don't publish but distribute to editorial clients for a fee. The deal with WENN essentially cuts out the middle-man wire competition.
It can also be highly profitable for TwitPic and WENN should an uploaded image be used commercially with or without permission -- with the photographer getting zippo. For example, the woman's cloud photo of the shuttle has high commercial appeal: t-shirts, posters, coffee mugs, etc. If someone wants to produce any of these, they can do so by paying WENN/TwitPic a licensing fee. And if somebody produces these without permission from WENN, the agency and TwitPic could sue for infringement(s) and share the court judgments. In both instances, the photographer is completely out of the loop in the revenue sharing.
The only hope for the woman and others to profit is for them to strike their own commercial licensing deals independently or through another agency/representative. The problem in finding an agent to do this is the deal won't be exclusive what with the photo's market value/pricing being in competition with WENN/TwitPic. |
|
Jamie Roper, Photographer
|
Kansas City area | KS | United States | Posted: 5:38 PM on 05.24.11 |
| ->> How awful, she missed out on the $15 AP used to pay working photogs. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:34 PM on 05.24.11 |
| ->> Jamie, actually she didn't miss out... from what I read last week the AP paid her $500/photo, I think there were four...so that's two grand and she gets royalties....of course since she was an idiot and uploaded it to twitpix who will give it away for free for a credit line the AP might not sell many of those photos. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 9:57 PM on 05.24.11 |
->> Jamie,
What are you talking about? |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 11:01 PM on 05.24.11 |
->> Jamie, I know exactly what you're talking about. Here in Wyoming our work was only worth $10 a photo. Now it's worth zilch.
Chuck, I wouldn't call her an idiot. She just made more than 2 grand off a photo she took with a $200 phone, and that's 2 grand more than she was interested in making in the first place. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:00 AM on 05.25.11 |
| ->> @ Bradley...true...I guess I was channeling how much that photo COULD have been sold for...8) |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 1:54 AM on 05.25.11 |
->> Bradly and Jamie,
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You guys are mad at the AP because they stopped GIVING you money for sending them pictures that you don't own the rights to in the first place since you're an employee and are already being paid to send to the AP by your newspaper which your newspaper agreed to do by contract. Is this correct? Why aren't you railing against your newspaper for agreeing to do this instead of the AP?
What's bothering me about your comments is that you are leading people to believe that the AP is ripping you off as if they're your pictures. They're not your pictures unless you've made some really unusual agreement with your employer.
Also it's worth noting that the AP posted a $14.7 million net loss for fiscal year 2010 and over the past two years newspaper and broadcaster rates have been reduced by $80 million. I have to imagine that the $80 million giveback is helping to keep newspapers solvent and in turn help photographers keep their jobs.
But let not let the facts get in the way of some good AP bashing. |
|
Gary Gardiner, Photographer
|
Westerville | OH | USA | Posted: 7:06 AM on 05.25.11 |
->> Mark T - -
Amen! |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:00 AM on 05.25.11 |
->> There is a good reason why I don't post any photos to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, etc. Even if rights are well established, the "common man" doesn't realize that and may find a way to grab and send around. Then you are left chasing payment after the fact rather than up front.
And, as Mark says, for any of my work photos I don't own the rights anyway, it belongs to my employer, so I really can't be risking someone ripping off an image I don't own. For personal stuff, well, it's personal and I don't want photos of my kid being bounced around and possibly used without permission.
And before anyone gets feelings hurt over Mark's comments remember: AP is a co-op of the member newspapers. By contract and being a member of the co-op, a newspaper has agreed to share content with the AP.
At one time AP paid a small gratuity to the photographers who submitted content from their papers. This was at a time when to send to AP a photographer had to make a print using the proper easels, type a caption and paste it on the image, then spend at least 10 minutes (for a B&W image) to upload it to AP. This small payment was a "thanks for taking the time." Now I believe to share an image with AP, or anyone else, it can take less than 10 seconds to drag to an automated send folder. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 11:03 AM on 05.25.11 |
->> @Mark - No, you do not understand it correctly.
They are my pictures because, yes, I do have a really unusual agreement with my employer in that we share copyright. My employer gets first print and unlimited reprint rights, however I am allowed to market and sell my images to other outlets so long as those outlets do not directly compete with my employer.
I realize this is a rare circumstance, and I'm really lucky to have it, but I also think it's a fair one given the size and uniqueness of our market.
I also realize the my newspaper has a contract with AP, and I've always sent images they've asked for, and those are plenty. I can't speak for the AP's business model or it's practices and why they posted a loss. I do think it's a bit of a chafe that they expect to be paid tens of thousands of dollars a year for their service AND expect to be provided content for free. I get the impression that their use of the term "co-op" is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy when we send them photos, like we're contributing to some sort of greater good.
Anyway, my beef with AP lies more in their freelancer contract than with them not paying for individual photo submissions. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 3:26 PM on 05.25.11 |
->> Bradly,
Since the AP is a not-for-profit and owned and run by newspapers, you should probably level your complaint at your own publishers since they make the rules. Here is a list of the AP board of directors. http://www.ap.org/pages/about/board.html
You may not like the idea of a co-op, but that's exactly what it is. Those member pictures aren't being shared with the AP as much as they're being shared with other newspapers. If other news photographers take the same attitude that you have, then that leaves your paper with less content. In the end, that's bound to hurt you. |
|
Brad Mangin, Photographer
 |
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 05.25.11 |
->> This makes me want to cry:
William Dean Singleton – Chairman |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 5:25 PM on 05.25.11 |
->> Bradley said, Mark - No, you do not understand it correctly.
It sure sounds like I do. Your agreement with your paper still doesn't give you the right to withhold images from the AP. By your own admission you give the AP your images when they're asked for. If they were really YOUR images, you wouldn't be sharing them with the AP at all. It's still part of your job. Your quote "Here in Wyoming our work was only worth $10 a photo. Now it's worth zilch." makes it sound like the AP is ripping you off and that just isn't the case. Again, it's not YOUR work. It's the newspaper's work and what THEY agreed to do with it, so why aren't you bitching at them on this message board?
I totally understand that people are bummed that they're not getting those gratuities anymore, but if Nikon or Canon had been giving you a penny every time you took a picture for the last ten years and then suddenly stopped, would you rail against them and stop taking pictures or would you say "Well that was nice while it lasted." and continue to do the job that you were originally hired to do?
Unfortunately there were some that took advantage of the AP's payments by sending 60 pictures a day and expecting $15 each for them. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 6:53 PM on 05.25.11 |
->> Mark, first off, I think you need to take a chill pill here. Second, I find it hilarious you're telling me what my job entails and how to do it.
Also, I don't think I ever said that I "withhold" images from the AP. I just hardly send them anything unless they specifically ask for it. However, as a weekly newspaper, if I take a breaking news photo on Monday and the AP asks for it, but we aren't going to run it until our Wednesday weekly edition, you're damn right I'm going to withhold it from them. If you think we're going to dish out a photo to the AP only to have it appear in our competitor's newspaper a day before we run it, you have another thing coming. This is rare but it has happened, and the AP has waited, because they also won't let us "out" our direct competition.
While sending four or five photos to the AP per month used to help pay my electric bill, I certainly didn't rely on it and don't really miss it. I don't think it's "screwing" us that they don't pay anymore, but it is a chafe and has given me little incentive to share anything they don't ask for.
I do, however, miss freelancing for the AP (haven't for years), because even though they paid OK I won't accept the rights-grabbing contract that they have refused to negotiate. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:01 AM on 05.26.11 |
->> mark, I have to agree with bradly on this. I wasn't going to get in this pissing match but you kinda went out there and threw down the gauntlet. The AP now is NOT the AP I submitted photos to and strung for years ago. Not for profit? That is a friggin load of horse manure. I have to tell you it is really irritating to cover events with AP shooters (who btw are some of my best friends) and listen to them gleefully spout off about how much overtime they're getting and the expense account money they're spending. then during the day to day business of the news they aren't to be seen. because WE do all the heavy lifting for the AP in north carolina. cover the legislature? no way! let the N&O do it! why hire a stringer (like they did in the old days). hell, here's a recent (today) example. the acc baseball tournament. Six of the teams are in the top 20 in the national (AP poll). UVA is number 1. where is the A&P? well it's ME. and tomorrow? me. friday...yup...me...saturday...you guessed it...me.
but here's the sad thing.....we're only covering local teams....so UVA didn't get covered...did the AP hire a stringer? nope....didn't wanna spend the money....as I was told...."we'll rely on the local papers to cover it until the finals". I hate to say this but here is why their (your) model is going to fall short. Newspapers will grow tired of the AP only covering big events or sporting events they can make sales on and which, btw EVERY other news organization covers. as much as people rag on US PRESSWIRE they covered EVERY game at the ACC tourney today. down the road this is going to be the demise of the AP. mark, I don't want to come off sounding antagonistic but you really should realize there are a LOT of shooters out here in the REAL world who just don't give a crap about the AP. People like me who cut their teeth working with and around AP shooters. The AP has become another corporate chainsaw that gets rich off the backs of chumps like me who have NO control over where our content goes. and yes, I agree with you completely that we should take this up with our publisher's and I have done that and WILL continue to ask WHY are we paying the AP this huge amount of money? we aren't giving our content away for free.....we are PAYING to give away our content. I'm so glad all you AP guys are represented by a union and have benefits we mere mortals will never have....but please...please...don't try and sell that "non-profit" crap. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:09 AM on 05.26.11 |
| ->> crap...that was one long winded response. my apologies.... |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:47 AM on 05.26.11 |
| ->> well crap. I tried to give myself an "off topic" since this thread got hijacked but it wouldn't let me..... |
|
Mark Sutton, Photographer
 |
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 4:43 AM on 05.26.11 |
| ->> WOW!! Talk about hi-jacking a thread... But, very interesting reads... |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 5:23 AM on 05.26.11 |
->> Bradly said, "Second, I find it hilarious you're telling me what my job entails and how to do it. "
Really!? Where did I do that? You mean the part where I say that sharing images with the AP is "part of your job?" If I'm wrong and it's not part of your job and you own your images then why do you send them to the AP?
Chuck,
That was quite a tangent, but (like a lot of what Bradly has said) has little or nothing to do with my original point which is this wild perception some newspaper photographers have that their images belong to them and they should be paid for sharing them with the AP even though that's what their newspapers, who actually own the images, agreed to do.
I agree that the AP isn't what it used to be and neither are newspapers. The entire industry has changed and what happens to newspapers has an effect on the AP. It's all interconnected. If the revenue of newspapers drops (obviously it has big time) then so does the AP's. As I understand it, the AP cut 400 jobs and cut what they charge newspapers by $80 million over the last two years. As a result they're not able to cover as much just like newspapers. If it makes you feel any better, we all (including management) just had our pensions frozen.
I also totally agree that we're wildly off topic here and I apologize for that.
I realize that it sounds like I'm some sort of shill for the AP, but I'm not. No one has asked me to speak for them. I'm simply trying to clear up some misconceptions about how the AP works. |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 1:36 PM on 05.26.11 |
->> Not wanting to beleaguer the off-topic direction, let me give an in-between view. I’m a former 30-year AP staffer who not only shot alongside newspaper staffers, but paid stipends for contributions too for the multiple states I was in charge of.
Way back long ago when I was with a paper, the pay was $7.50 per transmission and it went to the lab person who did transmitting -– not the photographer. When I paid for transmissions, the money initially went to the photographers. But I stopped that and paid the transmitter. Why? Because the photographer didn’t service AP, the person preparing the image and clicking the send button did. When I did this, the number of photos making it onto the wire rose dramatically. The stipend acted as an incentive for the person to recaption the image into AP style and transmit it during a break or lunch versus waiting until the end of the day when it was too late. Photos sent after the fact didn’t earn the money. This also encouraged the photographers to send their own photos ASAP versus having the desk person do it later. The result was faster images on the wire. A $10 stipend doesn’t sound like much, but if it takes 10 minutes of your time that’s equal to $60 per hour; and if you’re good at it and it takes you just 5 minutes, that’s $120 per hour. Think about it.
One year AP management wanted to hold a monthly contest where the best photo won a photographer $100 in hopes of getting better pictures on the wire (instead of the per picture stipend). The caveat was that the photo had to be transmitted on cycle versus after publication. It worked the first month. For the second month a terrific image was transmitted right off. Upon that, the number of submissions plummeted because there was no point in sending/entering since there was no chance of winning. I then went back to paying the person who transmitted, but also awarded really good images based on merit and/or really proactive sharing as a performance bonus.
Then there was a backlash from publishers and managing editors who didn’t want their staffs to get extra pay for transmitting because it was their job to do so; they wanted the stipend money used to hire more freelancers for original photography to illustrate AP stories. This came when staffs were starting to be cut back. So the transmit payments were stopped for my states and I hired more freelancers. (One has to remember that each state is under its own AP control bureau/region. What one photographer gets in one state can be very different from what a photographer gets in another state. Some may still pay stipends while others don’t. And the same differences go with freelancer rates.) The result in this change was the number of freelancer shot stories increased very slightly because of the costs involved and the number of member contributions dropped big time which naturally resulted in more publisher complaints. The cost of one freelancer job was worth 15-20 different member contributions – a double-edged sword.
As to AP losing nearly $15 million last year, that is because it gave back far more than that in earned income/profits to the publishers. Without the newspaper owners demanding money back, there wouldn’t have been 400 layoffs, frozen wages/pensions, etc. at AP. Yes the overall industry model changed, but so did AP. (It boasted recently that last year was AP Images’ –- its commercial arm -– most profitable ever.) Decades ago member newspapers made up 90+% of AP’s revenue; today it accounts for less than $25%. Decades ago the biggest income contributor for AP was the NY Times; today it is Yahoo!. AP staff pay/benefits are dictated by owners who contribute a small fraction of the revenue stream instead of the biggest clients whose employees enjoy pay/benefits the rest of us can only fantasize about.
The point here is that change –- as does sh*t -– happens. So instead of bickering amongst ourselves we need to stand together to make our industry healthier not only for ourselves but future generations. Instead of complaining about the ails of Facebook’s and TwitPic’s terms of use (a profitable business model for themselves), we need to educate the public on what the pitfalls are if they are to change. But then, that’s not the concern of 99.999999999% of them which makes our efforts essentially moot.
There are more pressing matters to our survival, such as how the Copyright Act of 1976 will affect us. Its change of ownership terms kick in next year. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 4:51 PM on 05.26.11 |
->> Mark, I suppose I look at it a little differently.
First, I want to be clear that I do think the AP certainly has value and provides a valuable service. They also charge for that service, and when a newspaper signs up for that service they do enter into a contract. However, that contract is drawn up by AP and presented to the newspaper as Terms of Service.
You have said I should be griping at my newspaper for signing the contract, and not at the AP for not paying for photo transmissions. Are you implying that, prior to signing the contract, if my newspaper were to ask for transmission fees for photos, that the AP would actually negotiate their contract? Doubtful.
While my employer did sign the contract, it was signed because the benefit of the service to the newspaper is greater than the benefit to individual photographers. While this may be seen by some as a devaluation of the newspaper's photographer by their employer, I see it more as a business decision by the newspaper. The origination of this devaluation lies in AP's contract, which basically says, "Pay us for our services while giving us content for free."
I guess it's just different perspectives between you and I. And with that, I, too, apologize for this thread getting off topic. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 6:46 AM on 05.27.11 |
->> Bradly said, "if my newspaper were to ask for transmission fees for photos, that the AP would actually negotiate their contract?"
I think it's unlikely that they would ever do that seeing as how it is newspaper publishers that run the AP and make the rules, including the TOS. Also, according to Doug, those payments were stopped by the newspapers themselves.
The AP is really unique and unlike any other service in that it was founded by newspapers based on this sharing model 165 years ago. If you have ever shared the cost of a helicopter flight with another newspaper, this is the same thing just on a larger scale. All of the member newspapers are sharing the cost to have the AP cover events that they can't get to. They are also the middle man that calls you (like they did yesterday), picks up a picture and sends it out for other newspapers to use. You send yours out with "No Sales and Mags Out", so I don't really see where they're making money off of you or your paper. If anything, I would say that they're helping to market your pictures for you.
Let's say for example, though, that all newspapers were to stop sharing photos and stories with each other through the AP. Who do you think would be most hurt by that, the AP or newspapers? I would imagine that the AP would go on just fine and become just another wire service, but newspapers would have a lot less content to use and, with staffs as thin as they are, I can't see that being good for them.
I'm not sure what you and Chuck think the AP should charge. It sounds like you want it to be free because you share a few pictures a week. That wouldn't begin to cover the cost of covering every single NBA, NHL, MLB and NFL game as they do, not to mention all the other things they cover. No other service can say that they cover every major game, BTW. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:58 AM on 05.27.11 |
| ->> Mark, you kind of went a little wacko here and you certaoinly aren't getting the point. I could give a flying leap if the AP paid me for my contributions anymore...and I don't work for you guys anymore because of the crappy agreement the AP makes with stringers, not to mention the medieval terms....no expenses, no mileage. You can type until your fingers are blue but trying to say the AP is a "not for profit" and only does what newspaper publishers tell it to do is hogwash. The plain hard fact of the matter is the AP doesn't care about covering news the way it used to. It cares (like most other entities) about making money. And just to be clear there are a lot of other wire services out there nowadays....many newspapers are doing what you alluded to in an earlier post. they are reaching sharing agreements and ditching the AP. sorry, you are sounding like a shill for the AP. and I find it somewhat funny you consider a frozen pension as a badge of honor. the AP hasn't faced even a slight percentage of what newspaper people have. frozen pension? been there for several years....furlough? two years in a row. pay cut? three years in a row. mileage allowance? cut four years ago and never has come back. and last but surely not least...overtime? overtime? what the hell is that? it hasn't existed for three years in our company....please don't give me the whole "woe is me" AP is hurting nonsense....because that's what it is..nonsense. I would think we're all in agreement on one thing here...we disagree. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 12:26 PM on 05.27.11 |
->> You don't see where they're making money off my newspaper? Don't the thousands of dollars in annual fees my newspaper pays for AP service count for anything?
You do make some good points, Mark. But Doug also made some good observations that sums it up well:
"Then there was a backlash from publishers and managing editors who didn’t want their staffs to get extra pay for transmitting because it was their job to do so; they wanted the stipend money used to hire more freelancers for original photography to illustrate AP stories. This came when staffs were starting to be cut back. So the transmit payments were stopped for my states and I hired more freelancers ... The result in this change was the number of freelancer shot stories increased very slightly because of the costs involved and the number of member contributions dropped big time which naturally resulted in more publisher complaints. The cost of one freelancer job was worth 15-20 different member contributions – a double-edged sword."
Sounds like AP basically shot themselves in the foot. In a well-intentioned effort to hire more freelancers to create more original content for AP stories, they only alienated the thousands of shooters across the country that are the bread and butter of the service they provide. That the AP saw a drop in photo contributions when they stopped paying transmission fees should not have come as a surprise.
I'll say it again, Mark, you do make some good points, and I also think the AP is an important service that helps keep newspapers viable and solvent.
What it comes down to is this: I remember the days when I could transmit eight or 10 photos a month to AP and expect around 100 bucks a month (I never worked in a state that paid more than $10/photo). That came out to be around 1,000/year. Not a lot but, again, it did help pay the garbage bill. Boiled down, it was an incentive to send photos without being asked to do so.
You are correct that newspapers would (and probably have) suffered when people don't send photos, but the reality is that you can't explain this "big picture" to every single member newspaper photographer who's supposed to be contributing. At a time when newspaper staffs have shrunk and remaining staffers' workloads have increased, the touchy-feeley sensation they're supposed to get by contributing to the AP and, therefore, the "greater good" often isn't as much of as an incentive as a check in the mail. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:49 PM on 05.27.11 |
| ->> well said bradly. that pretty much sums it up. I never expected the AP to pay my house payment but with all the extra work we are saddled with now I could give a crap if the AP gets fed. You are correct that the AP has shot themselves in the foot, legs, hand, and head. But over the years I have realized one thing. Management at AP is NEVER wrong and they never make mistakes on their decisions. |
|
Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
|
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 1:29 PM on 05.27.11 |
->> "You don't see where they're making money off my newspaper? Don't the thousands of dollars in annual fees my newspaper pays for AP service count for anything?"
Bradly,
I was talking specifically about the pictures that you share, not the AP fees. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:53 PM on 05.27.11 |
->> Chuck, Although it's not a direct connection to every newspaper in the world, the AP's financial health is a pretty good barometer for the U.S. newspaper industry. If the AP were to go belly-up, it would be because most of the U.S. newspaper industry was about to follow it.
--Mark |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:09 PM on 05.27.11 |
| ->> mark, are you pulling my leg? what do you mean "follow it"? the newspaper industry is in the tank now....and headed downhill at a dangerously fast speed. |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 5:43 PM on 05.27.11 |
| ->> mark has the order right ... before the papers all go belly up they'll drop their AP membership ... so the AP will go first ... |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 2:26 AM on 05.28.11 |
| ->> What's the AP? LOL |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:07 PM on 05.28.11 |
->> Chuck, What Sean said.
--Mark |
|
Sherrlyn Borkgren, Photographer
|
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 6:00 PM on 05.28.11 |
->> Fear based marketing to journalists prevails.
Many of you here are amazing storytellers. Tellers of the Truth. Thinkers. Creative. Investigators. Professionals. LIsteners. You can catch a moment in your camera that “Wows! many. We photojournalists in general are not passive people. We are not victims. We are the people’s people. We are activists. We carry a torch to tell truths. As Doug said we need to work together to keep human rights alive for journalists. We will not be bullied if we stick together. We can and must support those who do take a stand for principals if we want to survive as more than a common slave laborer.
Do you all really believe that large newspapers (owners) are losing money? Or do you know that they have "purposely" changed the news model? With skeleton crews, the laborer works harder and longer for less. Some of you are feeling this already.
It's an old story. Countries who have discovered that creating fear amongst laborers results in a profitable labor pool to sustain the "distinguished" class.
The multimillion dollar company executives grow fatter the laborer more fearful more passive, more victimized. Victims lose their confidence and ability to fight. Do you really believe these large news corporations are suffering this great loss of finances? Or is it just not profitable “enough”?
I lived in Guatemala for 14 years of my life and what is happening here is no different than what laborers there have experienced for generations. Being in America these last years is as if I have been swashed back in time to see how the extreme class hierarchy began.
The fat get fatter, the laborers become more and more passive and fear is always used to control the workers.
The lie has begun. "If I don't sign the contract someone else will", "if I complain they will just replace me". What? How can someone of ethics be replacing someone who takes a stand? That person who is trying to make a change should be supported by all of us. How? I do not know. What is your idea?
It is not only in the field of photojournalism but in hundreds of fields of work this fear-based marketing is in progress. We all know that the extreme wealthy have only gotten wealthier not poorer.
I agree with Doug that we have a lot of work to do. We need to unite. We cannot allow the fear of not having-- rule what we "must" do. One person alone cannot change anything. If we unite and support one another in not only our thoughts but also our actions we can make changes.
Sometimes it is worth giving up the $$ to stand for a principal. If we live more simply then we have less to lose.
love all of you and I hope we can find a common supportive ground to support each other. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 2:56 PM on 05.29.11 |
->> Mark T. said, "Since the AP is a not-for-profit and owned and run by newspapers, you should probably level your complaint at your own publishers since they make the rules. Here is a list of the AP board of directors. http://www.ap.org/pages/about/board.html"
I don't see our publisher's name on that list.
"I think it's unlikely that they would ever [negotiate their contract] seeing as how it is newspaper publishers that run the AP and make the rules, including the TOS. Also, according to Doug, those payments were stopped by the newspapers themselves."
Again, our newspaper has virtually nothing to do with how the AP is run, and because AP's contract is a "take it or leave it" proposition, we're in no position to negotiate the terms of the service they provide to us.
While the AP may not make money directly off my photos, the images I submit become part of the collective, which is the very service AP provides. So saying the AP doesn't make any money off the images I submit isn't entirely true. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|