Conde Nast - A Quick Chuckle
A colleague forwarded me a note about Si Newhouse, and Conde Nast, that appeared in the New York Times - Can Si Newhouse Keep Condé Nast’s Gloss Going? (7/20/08) that gave me a laugh - except that it was a laugh of "you've got to be kidding". Previously, I've analyzied both Conde Nast's contracts (Conde Nast/CondeNet Contract: Introduction, 4/26/08) as well as earlier this week (Conde Nast, Encyclopedia Britannica - Selling "Their" Images, 8/5/08). So, when the New York Times wrote about Mr. Newhouse:
You might know some of his children: Vogue, The New Yorker, Architectural Digest, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Gourmet, GQ, and Condé Nast Traveler. These titles are a polite way of saying that Condé spends money like no one else in the industry — more on salaries, paper stock, writers, photographers, travel, clothes, parties and just about any other line item imaginable.I thought - PHOTOGRAPHERS? You've got to be kidding! They pay their photographers a "day rate" (an antiquated term to be sure) of under $500. They may pay more on "photo shoots", but not more on photographer's fees!
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
6 comments:
Hee hee hee.
Incidentally, I posted a link to your prior article about Washington Life, et al, using their assignment photography as stock and FA, including the comments about the VF archives, as well as a link to a blog entry of my own on a related topic, on the PhotoShelter forum.
Well, a contributor who claims to work for the Archives very indignantly claimed that VF/CN was paying all the photographers, and had even worked out the terms ahead of time with them or their estates, and accusing them of copyright infringement was "BS."
I pointed out that what you were saying was that under the contracts they use NOW, they wouldn't have to pay a dime. If they were paying on old shots and/or old contracts, it was probably because they didn't have the current buyout-without-the-buying-part agreement in place then, so they HAD to. Neither of us was accusing anybody of copyright infringement.
Oddly enough, she had no reply. Go figure.
M
Annie Leibovitz gets more than $1million salary from Conde Nast, Irving Penn still has an office entirely paid by Conde Nast.
Maybe its just the medium average photographers that do not get paid ?
Talent is always rewarded.
JB
jason:
Talent and luck will elevate some to a position where they can dictate terms to Condé Nast. Are you saying that either you're Annie Leibovitz or you're a drone who should be grateful for whatever crumbs they let fall from their table?
I'm no Annie Leibovitz, but I'm not going to sell valuable copyrights, forever, in exchange for an assignment fee. If a person's work's not worthy of a little respect, what'd they want it for anyway?
M
To be fair, the New York Times probably meant "in aggregate", and didn't make a statement about photograhers' fees per se.
I think that if you are a common photographer with medium talent you should be ready to accept any contract clause that is thrown at you if you want to make a living.
I think that talented photographers do not ever count on luck to make a career. Annie Leibovitz is lucky ? what a poor assessment of her skills.
It is your choice to refuse any contract but then do not complain if you cannot pay your bills. Others will accept them for you
jason B
I hope that I see you at Starbucks making my tall coffee in between your busy photo schedule.
Post a Comment