Saturday, August 9, 2008

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.
at

6 comments:

  1. MarcWPhotoAugust 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM

    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

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousAugust 9, 2008 at 5:07 PM

    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

    ReplyDelete
  3. MarcWPhotoAugust 9, 2008 at 6:03 PM

    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

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousAugust 9, 2008 at 7:11 PM

    To be fair, the New York Times probably meant "in aggregate", and didn't make a statement about photograhers' fees per se.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousAugust 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM

    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

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousAugust 11, 2008 at 10:37 AM

    jason B

    I hope that I see you at Starbucks making my tall coffee in between your busy photo schedule.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT GUIDELINES

Every month, tens of thousands of visitors come to Photo Business News, and approximately 2,000 readers get PBN via RSS feeds. As we approach three years of blogging (in one form or another) PBN has matured, and has, as one might expect, attracted some less-than-mature readers, which, in turn, turns to commenters with their own agendas.

Following are our Terms of Service (TOS) for commenting on the blog posts:
-------------------
1. Comment Spam - we have had a ton of spam from countries like Russia, Japan, China, and so on. It interferes with the discourse, and is one of the prime reasons we are moving to moderation. All one need to is look back a few months to see the blog posts I haven't had time to clean up from this type of spam to see that moderation is needed for this reason alone. In addition, if your comment is not germane to the point being discussed, it too becomes spam. It will be deleted.

2. Over time, some pretty irrational challenges and attacks have been levied against me, and that's ok if you disagree with me, just don't make it personal on me, or anyone else. Doing so means your comment won't make it out of moderation, so don't waste your time. In addition, it would be a shame for you to make a really great point that everyone would benefit from reading, and include personal attacks on me, or other commenters, because we don't edit comments, they're either in, or they're out.

3. Over at the Photo Business News Flickr forum, (here) there are almost 2,000 members and a good opportunity to get your questions answered there. If you have a suggestion for a blog topic, there's a link to make that suggestion on every page of the blog.

4. It is the policy of Photo Business News that if there is a YouTube, Vimeo, Viddler, Hulu or any other video service online, we can post it here using the embedding players for those services (which often insert ads into the playback). We can't know if what might normally be considered a copyrighted work that you would think might not be allowed on, say, YouTube, in fact has been agreed to between the copyright holder and YouTube. So, if you have a question or concern, visit those sites, and flag the content you believe is problematic. In addition, we adhere to standards for quoting and citing other content, with attribution and where possible, a link to that content.

5. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS - For several years now, we've given free reign to anonymous commenters, and a small fraction of those were beneficial to the readership. It is our opinion that anonymous commenters would best be from someone who, for example, should their identity be revealed, could pose job security or economic problems for them. So to that end, unless your comment is significantly beneficial, anonymous comments won't get moderated in. If you wish to make an anonymous comment and you want to send me an e-mail identifying yourself (which I will not reveal), that would be helpful, and will increase your chances of getting your comments posted. Oh, and don't go creating a fake Blogger ID just to get in - blank Blogger ID's are just one step removed from plain anonymous postings. The more discourse where people know who each other are, the better. David Hobby, of Strobist fame summed it up best in his TOS: "Nothing looks more weenie and pathetic than sniping, critical, anonymous comments."