LicenseStream - Evaporating Into Thin Air?

For several days recently, the LicenseStream website has been down. ImageSpan (Which changed it's name to LicenseStream in January of 2011), was the company behind LicenseStream, and billed the site as "the market-leading licensing and royalty payment automation platform for all media types and businesses." Yet, we have never really seen a functioning business model that we thought would work.

More than one LicenseStream employee was on-site at PhotoPlus Expo back in October in New York City looking for a new place of employment, stating that the company only had enough money to last through the end of December, as they spoke to prospective employers. Oddly, as Digital Railroad ( the formal online portal for image archiving, marketing, and sales, as well as a client delivery platform) went down in flames several years ago, they shopped their company around and then, with no buyers, shuttered operations with little warning to clients. LicenseStream has, according to sources, not been doing so - at least not amongst prospective buyers that would make sense to take over operations that we checked with. Whispers of friendly staff telling image owners they had relationships with to backup their images & data have not been substantiated, however, with enough chatter on the subject, and the risks if the data isn't redundant, we strongly encourage you to have all your LicenseStream content archived, either way.

LicenseStream secured Series A funding back in February 2007 (here) and another $11,000,000 in June of 2008 as a part of a second round of funding (here). In April of 2010, a new CEO was brought in, and another round of financing, billed as "growth financing", with an unreported amount of additional funds (here).

In preparing for this posting, we checked one last time and found that the website, at least as of this publishing, was back up. Perhaps it was just a multi-day site crash over the holidays, or perhaps it was a harbinger of things to come.

(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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Workflow Hardware Upgrade: Wiebetech Solution

As technology changes, so do our needs as a photographer. This December, we've upgraded our boxes we use to store our images.

Here's our system:


When considering other solutions, we particularly do not like the Drobo boxes for several reasons, and want to caution you strongly before considering them. Problems abound, as reported all over the internet, however, I am sure that some people will sing their praises. Below are several problems - each in-and-of themselves would be a reason not to use the boxes. Together, they make a compelling argument to avoid Drobo. If you're not going to choose the system we're reviewing and reporting on today, then consider other solutions.

Here are some of the Drobo issues:

1. Proprietary file format. Thus, if you need to pull a drive from their box, you cannot plug it into a Mac or PC and browse/access the files. Further, unless you re-insert the drives with the exact same configuration as when the files were written, you have no access to the files.
2. The drives/boxes tend to be far too slow for drive-access intensive needs like opening, saving, and other file-releated needs.
3. A mirrored drive array is not a backup, just reliability protection. You'd need to run two Drobos to do have two backups, as whatever you do (or is erroneously affected on one drive) is immediately replicated on the second. So, you're protected from "drive failure", but not an accidental deletion, or file corruption which then corrupts the file on the mirrored drive. A backup would not only protect you from drive failure, but also those accidental deletions, accidental "save" when you meant "save as" file changes, and other unwanted file changes. Further, the Drobo isn't a true "mirror", it's an odd-flavor RAID 5.
4. An electrical fault that fries one drive likely will fry the other. You do truly need a dual drive system, with redundancy offline (and preferably off-site) in order to be properly protected. When we have both drives mounted (as explained in the video) it is for manual mirroring, then the backup copy of the primary drive goes offline (and, in a perfect world, off-site.) We try very hard to keep drives seperate to protect them, and thus, our images.
5. The Drobo does not check the integrity of the data. This is a problem from a data-integrity standpoint.

Upgrading and evolving your workflow - and the hardware solutions that you use to care for your images - is a critical component of your business.

(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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Colbert's MeReporters Underscores Absurdity of Working for Free

Steven Colbert brings his satirical comedy to bear on the notion of "free reporters" who get paid nothing, like CNN's iReport, in the wake of the layoffs of 50 CNN photojournalists and other staff.

Colbert notes CNN also launched an "Assignment Desk" where you an actually go out and report on things that CNN wants, and then goes further, saying "iReporters do not get paid, they get something even better, badges, which, I assume, are redeemable for food and rent."

(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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Groom Sues Photographer, Demands Re-Shoot

It should be pretty clear by now that you can be sued for anything. Enter grudge-holding groom Todd Remis, who has decided to sue his wedding photographer 8 years after the wedding, and 3 years after the couple divorced, her whereabouts unknown. The New York Times reports on the whole fiasco here, where the ex-groom wants over $50k, which includes his money back plus the cost to fly his 40 or so guests back to recreate the wedding.

This would be where, if you were a wedding photographer, you should be calling your insurance company, and telling them "deal with this distraction, I have a business to run", and thaIt should be pretty clear by now that you can be sued for anything. Enter grudge-holding groom Todd Remis, who has decided to sue his wedding photographer 8 years after the wedding, and 3 years after the couple divorced, her whereabouts unknown. The New York Times reports on the whole fiasco here, where the ex-groom wants over $50k, which includes his money back plus the cost to fly his 40 or so guests back to recreate the wedding.

This would be where, if you were a wedding photographer, you should be calling your insurance company, and telling them "deal with this distraction, I have a business to run", and that's what they would do. What policy type would cover this? According to Renee Green (email), of the Hays Group, who handles insurance for many NPPA members, this would likely have been covered by either a general liability clause, or an errors & ommissions clause, depending upon the exact nature of the claim, and, of course, provided that the claim was made while the insurance was in effect. If, however, you had a claim made against you for work done years ago, and only got insurance this year, you wouldn't be covered. All the more reason to have insurance always, and ongoing.

Further, the Professional Photographers of America has sample wedding contracts (login required, here) that include a limitation of liability clause:

If the Studio/Photographer cannot perform this Contract due to fire or other casualty, strike, act of God, or other cause beyond the control of the parties, or due to Photographer’s illness or emergency, then the Photographer shall return the deposit to the Client but shall have no further liability with respect to the Contract. This limitation on liability shall also apply in the event that photographic materials are damaged in processing, lost through camera or other media malfunction, lost in the mail, or otherwise lost or damaged without fault on the part of the Photographer. In the event the Studio/Photographer fails to perform for any other reason, the Studio/Photographer shall not be liable for any amount in excess of all monies paid.

I'm sure that some variation of that clause existed in the defendant's contract.

It's business people, and when the paperwork gets in the way of the creative stuff, you'd better make sure your paperwork is in order, and you're protected. Otherwise, you'll spend all sorts of time dealing with the unpleasantries, and it could even cost your your house.

(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's what they would do. Further, the Professional Photographers of America has sample wedding contracts (login required, here) that include a limitation of liability clause:

If the Studio/Photographer cannot perform this Contract due to fire or other casualty, strike, act of God, or other cause beyond the control of the parties, or due to Photographer’s illness or emergency, then the Photographer shall return the deposit to the Client but shall have no further liability with respect to the Contract. This limitation on liability shall also apply in the event that photographic materials are damaged in processing, lost through camera or other media malfunction, lost in the mail, or otherwise lost or damaged without fault on the part of the Photographer. In the event the Studio/Photographer fails to perform for any other reason, the Studio/Photographer shall not be liable for any amount in excess of all monies paid.

I'm sure that some variation of that clause existed in the defendant's contract.

It's business people, and when the paperwork gets in the way of the creative stuff, you'd better make sure your paperwork is in order, and you're protected. Otherwise, you'll spend all sorts of time dealing with the unpleasantries, and it could even cost your your house.

(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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

PhotoPlus Re-cap: Seminars & Tech

PhotoPlus Expo was enlightening this year, for a number of reasons. Among them, a big hit at the show when it comes to continuous-light sources, but more on that in a minute. American Photographic Artists (Yes, that's the new name for what used to be referred to as Advertising Photographers of America, or APA) brought myself and Michael Grecco in for a rousing discussion about the value in licensing, and how to generate revenue over the life of your image's viable (and valuable) time. PDNPulse did a very nice write-up on it here -
PhotoPlus Panel: Why Licensing Matters (10/31/11) so I won't recap their piece except to encourage you to read the review and learn a few of the tidbits that you missed if you weren't in attendance.) PhotoPlus Panel: Why Licensing Matters, summarizing the presentation by saying "making extra money on photographs you’ve already taken, that’s just a smarter way to do business."

On the technology side, several companies caught our attention.

(Continued after the Jump)

First up, is the company ikan, which has an amazing array of CLS lighting. Just when you thought you had every strobe you needed, all of a sudden you're now "shooting just a little bit of video" for that still client (or branching into multimedia all-together) and realize that strobes just don't do it for your video needs. Enter CLS, and ikan, with amazingly reasonable prices on their lighting products with blindingly bright LED units that are small and mount on camera, to 1' x 1' units that seem like they could burn out your retinas. Sure, they also sell camera cradles, bags, and countless other production tools (all with a craftsman's approach to quality), but the lighting, that's worth a long look, because you'll never have to suffer under "hot lights" again if you go this route, not to mention these LED's are battery-powered and highly efficient, so that means no blown circuits with a few hot lights plugged in! Our go-to source for these units is Mac Business Solutions, which is a top-end boutique for all things mac (from computers to still gear to video, to, yes, even high end printers). Be sure to ask for Sonny, the owner, when you call.

Next was GoalZero which has some amazing portable battery power. We picked up a set of these packs, and have used them to power dying laptops, and hope to use them to power our ikan lights when they arrive! Not only can they provide a wide range of power, but they also have portable, small, and efficient solar panels to recharge your kit. No more looking for a shack with a bunch of car batteries when you're in the middle of nowhere to charge your gear. These babies do the trick.

Our last tech company that peaked our interest that we're featuring (trust us, there were many), is onOne Software. They launched Perfect Suite 6 on October 25, right before the show, and Brian Kraft, VP of Sales talked about how advanced this new version is, and we're a believer. The resizing, focal point features, and the portrait retouching capabilities make this thing a dream for those looking to save time. Further, there are plug-ins for both Lightroom and Aperture, so check the specs to see how these can integrate into working where you do, or, if you prefer, as a standalone application (or module of all of them combined.)





A worthwhile presentation was the always enlightening Sam Abell, who spoke at the Canon booth. If you missed (or didn't want to pay for the 3 hour seminar (which you should have if you'd have had the option), Sam Spoke for a brief period of time at the Canon stage, and if you couldn't make it to NYC, Canon was saavy enough to live-stream it. Suffice to say, I'm biased when it comes to Sam, but his stories are always so engaging and inspiring. Rumor has it he's in the Amazon working on a book project, so stay tuned.

All in all, I was impressed with the integration of the WPPI portion of the show, following the merger (or aquisition?) of WPPI by Neilsen/PDN, which was announced at the 2010 show. Well done, integrators. The show was, as always, not to be missed. If you did, don't miss it next year.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Contract Analysis: Gannett/US Presswire

Photo Business News has written extensively about the acquisition of US Presswire by Gannett. Recently, Photo Business News was provided this contract that outlines the proposed new contract between US Presswire and their contract photographers. Below is a review and analysis of the contract, as someone who is very familiar with contract language for photographers. As the laws in every state are different, and more importantly, as I am not a lawyer, the analysis and commentary below should not be construed as legal advice, and you should seek competent legal counsel should you need such to consider this contract before signing it.

(Commentary and analysis after the Jump)

This Active Photographer Agreement (“Agreement”) is made effective as of September 1, 2011, by and between US PRESSWIRE, LLC, having offices at 1230 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 (on behalf of itself and its affiliates, “Agency”), and {Photographer Name}, a photographer having an address of "{photographer’s address} (“Photographer”).

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a standard clause, which sets forth who is actually entering into the contract.

---

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, Agency is in the business of creating, distributing, delivering and licensing the use of photographic images and video images or footage, primarily through its website, www.uspresswire.com, and through various other internet or electronic means;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: While this is a common term, there are several points worth addressing in this clause. The first is that this is not a typical “agency” relationship. They are not “representing” you as much as they are themselves. They are using “Agency” because it has entered into the common parlance as they, and Getty have. However, they are not looking out for your own interests first and benefiting at a percentage, they are looking out for themselves first, with your images (and video) as the value, and you get a percentage. That brings up the next point – they are allowing for the distribution of your video as well, which is new. I would suspect that an organization that is now in the business of licensing video will raise a few eyebrows with the TV rights-holders. Further, they say “through various other internet or electronic means”, which likely refers to a Gannett branded service, or their own proprietary network not accessible to the general public.

---

WHEREAS, Photographer is in the business of creating photographic images and/or video images or footage; and

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Actually, We are in the business of licensing, not creating. We create in order to license. That said, while this too is a standard clause, again, it includes video. It will only take a few photographers to post video clips from the sidelines of a major league sporting event before the networks take issue. Further, this contract now will preclude you from doing anything with video outside of this contract that might compete with USPW.

---

WHEREAS, Photographer desires to engage Agency to represent Photographer with respect to certain photographic images owned by Photographer, and Photographer desires to photograph certain events for Agency, all in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: “represent Photographer” here seems to be a perversion of the concept. The Agency is the sole arbiter, and you (and your images) are along for the ride.

---

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This clause, while standard, essentially causes you to acknowledge that the rates that USPW/Gannett are paying are “good and valuable”, and they meet a “sufficiency” test, neither of which are, in reality and fairness, true. However, this clause will preclude you down the line from bringing a suit with much likeliness of success, with the claim of unreasonable compensation.

---

1) Grant of Authority. Photographer hereby grants to Agency the exclusive worldwide right to use, copy, perform, display, market, distribute, license, sub-license and negotiate the production rights of all photographic images, digital files, video images or footage and all other photographic materials that are delivered to Agency by Photographer (including Stock Images (as defined below), collectively the “Images”), in any and all media, now known or hereafter developed, whether such Images are created by Photographer while working under credentials issued from or through Agency or otherwise. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Photographer shall retain the copyright to the Images and Photographer shall have a limited right to license the Images to Photographer’s own editorial clients provided that:

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: In this clause there seems to be a problem, because you are granting “the exclusive worldwide right”, which means that everything they get from you can’t be used anywhere else in the world, except for where they permit you to do so. Further, this clause forces you to accept whatever fees they deem appropriate, from free, to, frankly, a situation where you pay to have your work placed somewhere. In other words, if they deem that it’s worthwhile to USPW to pay $100 to have your photo used somewhere, then they could legitimately debit your account that amount, and you would have no recourse. Further, this clause encumbers all of your “stock images” too under this same agreement. They acknowledge the obvious, telling you that you retain copyright, however, they then begin to set forth a very narrow window that you can service only “editorial” clients. So, if you are on the sidelines, and decide to make an image of the goal line marker because it could be used as a nice stock image for advertisers, despite the fact that there are no NFL markers or other branding on it, you can’t do anything with it. A photo of a fan that gets your card and wants to order a print from you? Nope – that’s not editorial, so you can’t do that either.

---

a. such editorial clients do not compete with the Agency or its customers;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: There are essentially no editorial clients that don’t compete with USPW/Gannett, because both are in the business of licensing stock images, so this essentially kills all editorial clients

---

b. the Images do not violate the issuer’s credential language or policies or infringe upon the intellectual property rights of any third party;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a reasonable clause, but since your credential was issued to USPW/Gannett, any use by you likely would violate credential language.

---

c. the Images shall not be distributed on any website, including but not limited to competitors, agencies, photoshelter (where any image can be made for sale) or any other photo service website worldwide;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: With almost all images being displayed on websites, this makes your use of the internet unacceptable to USPW. It’s interesting that they particularly single out Photoshelter. Of specific curiosity is the fact that the business “Photoshelter” (with a capital “P”) is identified as “photoshelter” (with a lower case “p”) and that is either a typographical error, or there was an intention to do so for legal reasons.

---

d. Photographer has secured all intellectual property rights and clearances to the Images; and

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a necessary clause to protect USPW, however, it is fraught with hurdles that make it all but never likely you’ll get past them.

---

e. Photographer notifies Agency in writing of any intent to license the Images to Photographer’s own editorial clients.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is untenable on it’s face that they are asking for this. This means you’ll notify them of EVERY potential licensing opportunity, which makes it easy for them to object to every sale, and then contact them with the same image and sell it themselves, take their cut, and then give you the fraction you are owed.

---

2) Images Created Under Agency Credentials. Photographer hereby covenants, acknowledges and agrees that with respect to all Images that are created by Photographer while working under credentials issued from or through Agency and while on assignment for Agency, including Images that are taken but not delivered to Agency by Photographer (“Outtakes”):

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This clause closes a loophole that Photo Business News pointed out when analyzing the last USPW contract, whereby even outtakes are encumbered by USPW. In the past contract, anything not delivered to USPW wasn’t governed by the contract.

---

a. Photographer shall be prohibited from using such Images and Outtakes for any non-editorial and/or commercial purpose, exhibition, reproduction, display, performance, adaptation or publication of any kind (including, without limitation, advertising, sales, marketing, merchandising or resale purposes);

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This means, among other things, that you can’t have a gallery showing, sell your work as art, and, really, as written, it’s confusing if you can even do an editorial sale at all. This clause essentially prohibits you from doing anything with your images not approved by USPW/Gannett.

---

b. Photographer shall be prohibited from selling or licensing such Images and Outtakes on any website; provided, however, Photographer may use such Images and Outtakes in accordance with the issuer's credential language or policies for self-promotion on Photographer’s personal website;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This reinforces you can’t do anything with the images, except self-promotion on a personal website. This differentiates from a “professional website”, which would be for your business, which might compete with theirs, and as such, wouldn’t be allowed.

---

c. Photographer shall not place any such Images and Outtakes on any social media network including, but not limited to Facebook, My Space, Twitter, Linked-In, etc.; provided, however, Photographer is permitted to post a link to the Images and Outtakes to the US PRESSWIRE.com website and/or Photographer’s personal website or blog and will be permitted to place the Images and Outtakes on Sportsshooter.com; provided further that Agency credit accompanies Photographer’s name; and

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This clause will be a problem for many of the hobbyists who shoot for USPW for bragging rights amongst their friends. Again, it’s interesting to see that they’ve identified SportsShooter.com as a venue they want to place some restrictions on.

---

d. Photographer shall ensure all such Images and Outtakes shall be co-credited to Photographer and Agency when placed in any and all self-promotion campaign including, websites, blogs, print, brochures, galleries, photo contests, etc.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This clause really makes clear that they’re not your “agent”, and that whatever marketing or promotion you do for yourself (obviously at your expense) is also marketing for USPW/Gannett.

---

3) Representations of Photographer. Photographer hereby represents, warrants, covenants, acknowledges and agrees that:

a. Photographer is and shall at all times be the sole and exclusive owner of the Images, or if Photographer is not the owner of any Images, Photographer has the right to provide such Images to Agency, and Photographer will acquire the copyright owner's permission for Agency to use the Images;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: While this is standard, it could create some problems. If you set up a remote, for example, and have an assistant trigger the camera, that’s could be a problem depending upon your contractual arrangement with the assistant. Further, as Photographer is warranting they are the sole and exclusive owner, and further, that this contract is an exclusive contract, whomever photographer gets the copyright owner’s permission from also is covered by all the restrictions of this contract.

---

b. The Images are original;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a normal clause.

---

c. The Images do not and will not infringe upon any copyright, trademark, right of privacy, right of publicity, proprietary right, intellectual property right or any other right of any third party anywhere in the world;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a wholly unworkable clause, as the infringing they are detailing often takes place in the final use of the photo. So, a photograph taken of an athlete wearing an NFL Jersey and a Nike swoosh could be used editorially and fit into this clause, however, if the image was used commercially, it could be a violation of this clause, and the photographer could be at fault for not securing those rights. Further, anyone in a photo could sue for any reason. Photographer's liability should be limited to providing model releases, and where they are absent, the agency takes the sole risk, and the photographer does not warrant anything.

---

d. Agency reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to refuse to accept any Images;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is, to a certain degree fair, however, if you have a body of work you wanted to submit, and an editor objected, you couldn’t submit it, and further, if you covered a game/event, and USPW/Gannett didn’t take the images, you couldn’t submit them to anyone else.

---

e. Photographer has the right to enter in this Agreement with Agency and to perform the obligations set forth herein;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause which sets forth that you aren’t encumbered by a contract with someone else

---

f. Photographer has the exclusive right, power and authority to make the grant of rights to Agency in this Agreement;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause which sets forth that you aren’t encumbered by a contract with someone else

---

g. Photographer shall obtain any and all releases necessary to allow Agency to license the Images;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a potentially huge problem – you’ll be required to get model releases – and as such compensate the persons you get releases from. This is because you are granting agency the right to license commercially, exclusively, and the way this clause is written it could be you that would be liable if an image of an athlete was licensed by USPW/Gannett for commercial purposes – the would merely point out that you were required to get the releases, and did not. If it said “….for any non-editorial uses…” but even still, you’re now the one required to chase down every recognizable subject, and every trademark holder, as this clause is written.

---

h. Images created by Photographer while working under credentials issued from or through Agency shall not be used by Photographer for any commercial purposes whatsoever anywhere in the world;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: As such, even if a player saw an image you took and wanted to use the image on his sports drink line, you couldn’t do it. It is understandable that most credentials preclude commercial use, however, it could be argued that an Agency license is a commercial use, and it could also be argued that having a photo on a blog alongside ads is a commercial use.

---

i. While on assignment and working under credentials issued to Photographer by or through Agency, Photographer will conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times in accordance with the highest industry standards and code of ethics, within the rules set forth at any venue, league, team, sport, or any person or organization having authority and Photographer shall not violate the terms of the issuer's credential language or policies;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: While it would seem obvious to some, this clause is important so that it is clear that photographers don’t, for example, decide it’s appropriate to clap/cheer and/or participate in the jubilation. The contents of this clause should go without saying, yet it’s being stipulated.

---

j. Photographer shall use all reasonable means to become familiar with the rules set forth by any organization, governing body, venue, sport, team, league, security personnel, etc., while on location working an event or assignment;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Reasonable given that there is a continually revolving door of photographers that are new to the profession and likely unaware of the rules and nuances of covering important sports events. This clause allows for USPW/Gannett to, for example, discontinue their relationship with a photographer that forgets (or never new) that they can’t click a shutter when a pro golfer is about to (or is in mid-) swing.

---

k. When Photographer accepts an event or assignment from Agency, Photographer shall photograph the event or assignment and transmit the Images either during or immediately after the event or assignment as specified by Agency in accordance with the policies in the stylebook guidelines or specified by Agency editors, managers or personnel. Images shall be fully captioned with Photographer's name in the caption field as set forth in Agency's guidelines for captioning and transmitting in the Agency stylebook;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This would be standard for any professional accepting an assignment. New photographers may not understand the timely nature of the news business, and may not recognize the importance of delivering images in a timely manner.

---

l. Photographer shall not cancel any accepted event or assignment within 72 hours (3 days) before the start time of the event or assignment provided such cancellation is not a medical, family, or other unforeseen emergency acceptable to Agency;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Interesting that the Agency deems itself the sole arbiter of the nature of an emergency, and not the person with the emergency.

---

m. Because Agency is a news organization, Photographer shall not crop, modify, alter or manipulate the Images in a manner that alters the fundamental nature of the Images;

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Sadly, this clause is necessary as there may be some photographers who did not formally study photography and may not realize the ethical considerations that go into delivering images that are not manipulated into something that didn’t happen, or is re-created because the moment was missed.

---

n. Photographer shall use Photographer’s best efforts to promote Agency's name and good reputation throughout the world at all times, and Photographer shall not make any disparaging remarks about Agency or its affiliates; and

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This means that when USPW/Gannett is late to pay, or a USPW photographer gets criticized at a sporting event, you’ll defend USPW/Gannett. Further, if someone criticizes USPW/Gannett in an online forum – even if it’s a justified criticism, you not only can’t say “I see your point”, you must use your “best efforts” to promote USPW/Gannett, which means posting a positive comment.

---

o. Photographer shall use its best efforts to submit a second edit of Images while working under a credential and on assignment by Agency (“Stock Images”) within ten (10) days following the event or assignment in accordance with the policy guidelines set forth in the Agency stylebook.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This means that not only are you doing the $100 assignment for 4-6 hours, and spending 2-4 hours doing your first edit, but you also are doing another 4 or so hours on a second edit – not to earn you much more money, but rather, to expand the library of images.

---

4) Indemnification. Photographer hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Agency, its affiliates, successors and assigns, and their respective officers, directors, employees, representatives and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, settlements, damages and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly from: (i) the breach or alleged breach by Photographer of any representations, warranties, covenants or agreements made by Photographer hereunder; (ii) any erroneous or inaccurate information supplied to Agency regarding the Images; and (iii) personal injury (including death) or property damage caused by Photographer while working under credentials issued from or through Agency and while on assignment for Agency.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is indemnification without parity. You are not indemnified if Agency does something wrong. However, if you mis-credit an image, have a football player crash into your 400mm 2.8 and crush it, or the Agency gets sued for your actions, you’re on the hook for everything. Further, clause "(i)" may be okay provided that the other terms that require photographer to warrant that no 3rd party rights have been violated, be revised.

---

5) Use of Images. Agency and its affiliates, successors and assigns shall have the right, in their sole and absolute discretion, to: (i) determine how the Images will be marketed, displayed and distributed to Agency's customers; (ii) edit, crop or modify the Images, including the captions and metadata that accompanies the Images; (iii) establish the terms and conditions, including the fees, for the license of the Images to Agency's customers; and (iv) perform its services without Photographer's further approval. Photographer agrees that any Image or Stock Image given to Agency for distribution shall remain available for distribution by Agency for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of receipt by Agency.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is where USPW/Gannett licenses all the photos under a subscription where you earn nothing, or next to nothing. You have no say whatsoever in anything having to do with your image and how it gets used.

---

6) Compensation.

a. Assignment Fees

i. Agency will pay to Photographer an assignment fee in the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day per assignment for the remainder of the 2011 calendar year. Commencing January 1, 2012, Agency will pay to Photographer an assignment fee in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($125.00) per day per assignment. Photographer shall receive an Agency code for each event or assignment. Assignment fees will be paid by Agency on a monthly basis based on such Agency codes. The assignment fees include basic expenses for local area assignments. For clarity, Agency will pay to Photographer one (1) assignment fee for any assignments that have multiple events in the same day, such as a baseball double header or basketball tournament.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is basically an allotment of $100 to cover your parking and mileage as well as a meal, as all of this is a part of the $100. Further, unlike most other organizations, if there is more than one sporting event you get paid extra, USPW/Gannett will not. This seems unreasonable on it’s face, but I am sure that there will always be someone who will say yes, no matter how bad the deal is.

---

ii. Photographer acknowledges and agrees that the assignment fees shall be paid to Photographer in lieu of any compensation for the use of Images or Stock Images by Agency’s editorial subscription based customers worldwide where applicable and in the Agency’s sole discretion. This does not include licensing proceeds for any commercial use or editorial a la carte sales.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This means, as it is written, that anything you have had in the USPW archives may well not generate income for you, as this “new deal” where they pay you for assignments, covers whatever you might have earned off stock licensing. Of course, for the rare commercial or a la carte sale, you still generate revenue, however those are few and far between, at best.

---

iii. In the event any additional expenses are required, reimbursement must be pre-approved in writing by assigning editor and agreed to in advance by the Photographer. The pre-approved expenses must be submitted on an Agency expense reimbursement form and submitted to the assigning editor for review and approval within 30 days after they are incurred.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a reasonable clause to have in.

---

b. Editorial and Commercial Licensing Fees.

i. Agency shall retain a commission from the fees collected from the licensing of any editorial or commercial a la carte Images and Stock Images, in accordance with the Commissions Schedule set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Agency shall deliver to Photographer the net balance of the fees collected from the Images and Stock Images in accordance with Exhibit A, along with a report listing the origin, description, and amount of sales. Agency will deliver all reports and make all payments to Photographer on a quarterly basis, during the month following the quarter and only after Agency receives the fees from its customers for the Images and Stock Images.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Aside from the ridiculous notion that a “commission” is a figure is in excess of 50%, this concept is reasonable. The challenge will be how they define “net balance”, because they can attribute all manner of expense to the marketing of an image.

---

ii. Photographer's share of any fees collected from the Images or Stock Images will not be paid until Photographer’s account equals at least One Hundred dollars ($100.00); provided, however, if there is a lesser amount in the Photographer account and Photographer makes a written request to have the lesser amount paid, Agency will pay the amount currently due Photographer. In the event that no fees have been collected from the Images or Stock Images, Agency will not deliver a report or make a payment to Photographer. In the event that Photographer is no longer submitting Images or Stock Images to Agency on a regular basis, or the Agreement is terminated for any reason, Agency will pay Photographer's share of any fees collected from the Images on an annual basis, commencing on the first anniversary of the last date that Photographer submitted any Images to Agency.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a reasonable clause.

---

iii. A la carte fees licensing fees and quarterly reports of Images or Stock Images shall be paid in addition to the assignment fees set forth above.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a reasonable clause.

---

7) Unauthorized Use of Images. In case of damage, destruction, loss or unauthorized use of any Images by any customer who lawfully obtained Images from Agency, Photographer hereby grants Agency full and complete authority to make claims or to institute proceedings in Photographer's name to prosecute such unauthorized use. In no event, however, shall Agency be liable for such unauthorized use nor shall Agency be required to take any action to prosecute such unauthorized use. Any recoveries shall be divided between Photographer and Agency 50/50, after deduction for the costs of any such actions incurred by Agency, including, without limitation, legal fees or other expenses. All settlements shall be made in Agency's sole and absolute discretion. If Agency chooses not to pursue any legal action, Photographer reserves the right to do so after notification from Agency.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: So, if a publication infringes your copyright, you are not allowed to sue – only the Agency – if they decide to, at their sole discretion. However, if they do, and win, they get half . So, all the legal fees get paid (or attributed by in house counsel at out-of-house rates) and then whatever is left over, you have to split with Agency. Only after Agency opts not to pursue a matter, can you – if you notify them. That said, you would still be required to split whatever you won, as this clause is written. What would be fair instead would be that agency has the first option to sue, and as long as they don't exercise that option within X months of the notification, you then have the right to sue and keep 100%.

---

8) Term. This Agreement shall commence as of the date first set forth herein above and shall continue for an initial term of five (5) years, unless sooner terminated by Agency, or otherwise terminated as provided herein. Upon the expiration of the initial term, this Agreement shall automatically renew for a term of five (5) years, unless written notification is given by either party to the other at least sixty (60) days prior to the termination date. Agency may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause and for any reason or for no reason at all, upon ten (10) days prior written notice to Photographer. Agency will pay Photographer's share of any fees collected from the Images or Stock Images after the termination date on an annual basis, commencing on the first anniversary of the termination date.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a lengthy term, and it should be a year, at most two.

---

9) Return of Original Images. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement, if requested by Photographer in writing, and provided the Images have been in Agency's custody for at least five (5) years, the original Images and Stock Images will be returned by Agency to Photographer, and digital formats will be removed from Agency's database within one (1) year from the date of the written request. If Photographer requests faster retrieval, Photographer agrees to pay Agency its cost of labor necessary to perform the removal, retrieval and return of analog Images or Stock Images. Agency is not obligated to return any digital formats to the photographer. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary herein, nothing in this Agreement will require any of Agency’s third-party customers that license use of the Images from Agency to remove the Images, at any time, from any archived editions of the media properties through which such customers had the right to distribute the Images pursuant to a valid license from Agency.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: The notion that you could produce 4 years of images and then have your relationship end, and then the Agency not be liable for the return of your Original Images is unreasonable, at best.

---

10) Confidentiality. The contents of this Agreement are confidential in nature and shall not to be shared, copied, distributed, discussed, either whole or in part to any third party by Photographer during the term of this Agreement or after the expiration or termination hereof. At any time any other information, proprietary technology or any company business or operational information, including but not limited to discussions with Agency management or personnel is made available to Photographer, be treated as “Confidential Information” and shall not be shared with or to any third party anywhere in the world. Furthermore it is acknowledged by the parties that any violation of this provision will do irreparable harm to Agency and its affiliates.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This type of clause has often been struck down by courts. Further, when you get some “amendment” document, the original contract, and the amendment, become confidential. As such, it will be no problem for USPW/Gannett to say “oh, we’ve made changes to the contract for the better…” and they can’t comment on it to anyone (publically or privately).

---

11) Miscellaneous.

a. Independent Contractor. This Agreement is not an employment agreement between Agency and Photographer. Photographer is acting as an independent contractor. This Agreement does not constitute a joint venture or partnership. Neither Photographer nor Agency shall hold themselves out to any third party contrary to this understanding. Photographer possesses Photographer’s own medical, life and liability insurance at all times or agrees to be self-insured.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a standard contract term, however the addition of the sentence about agreeing to be self-insured if you don’t have coverage is interesting.

---

b. Arbitration; Governing Law. Any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be determined and settled by arbitration in the Commonwealth of Virginia, pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Any award rendered will be final and conclusive upon the parties hereto and judgment thereon may be entered in any court having jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and interpreted in accordance with, the substantive laws of the State of New York, without regard to the conflicts of law principles thereof.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Submitting – and being required to submit – to arbitration – is a bad deal in most instances.

---

c. Notices. Any notice relating to this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, by registered or certified mail or overnight courier. Notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth in this Agreement. Either party may designate a new address by notice to that effect given to the other party. Notices shall be deemed given (i) if by registered or certified mail, three days after mailing, (ii) if by overnight courier, the day after delivery by such courier service to the proper address and (iii) if delivered in person, the day of delivery.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause.

---

d. Successors and Assigns. Photographer may not assign or otherwise transfer this Agreement without Agency’s prior written approval. Agency may freely assign or transfer this Agreement. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall be binding upon Agency and Photographer and their respective heirs, executives, administrators, representatives, successors and permitted assigns.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause.

---

e. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between Agency and Photographer and supersedes any prior understandings or agreements, oral or written, including, without limitation any existing photographer agreement between Agency and Photographer (“Existing Agreement”), which such Existing Agreement is hereby terminated. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Images delivered by Photographer to Agency under the Existing Agreement prior to the date hereof shall become subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; provided however:

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: While the top of this clause is standard, the clause also folds in all previous images into the subscriptions and pay models.

---

i. Prior Use. Photographer shall be compensated for any such Images licensed by Agency prior to the date hereof in accordance with the Commissions Schedule attached to the Existing Agreement; and

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This should be expected.

---

ii. Future Use. Photographer shall be compensated for any such Images licensed by Agency on and after the date hereof in accordance with the Commissions Schedule attached to this Agreement.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a problem if you had a contract you were happy with before, as now it’s governed by this one.

---

f. Exhibits and Schedules. Each Exhibit and schedule referred to herein is incorporated into this Agreement by such reference. Agency reserves the right to change, adjust or modify such Exhibits and schedules with the prior written consent of Photographer, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause.

---

g. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held illegal, invalid or unenforceable such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision will not affect any other provision hereof. This Agreement shall, in such circumstances be deemed modified to the extent necessary to render enforceable the provisions hereof.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause.

---

h. Waiver. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement will not constitute a waiver of any of its rights hereunder.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause. However, if say USPW/Gannett don’t insist on you doing, for example, a second edit, you can’t decide on your own on the next assignment to not do one.

---

i. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument duly executed by Agency and Photographer.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause.

---

j. Counterparts; Facsimiles. This Agreement may be executed in any number of original or facsimile counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which counterparts taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause.

---

k. Survival. The provisions of this Agreement that by their nature or as specified hereunder are intended to continue beyond the expiration or termination of this Agreement, shall survive the expiration or termination hereof.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause.

---

(signatures)

---------------

EXHIBIT A

COMMISSIONS SCHEDULE
This Commissions Schedule is made an addendum to that certain Active Photographer Agreement (“Agreement”) by and between US PRESSWIRE, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Agency” and {Photographer Name} (hereinafter referred to as “Photographer”.)

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause.

---

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Agreement, Agency has agreed to remit certain payments to Photographer for fees collected by Agency for the licensing of Images and Stock Images (as defined Agreement) on an a la carte basis, and Agency is entitled to retain a commission for the fees collected by Agency for the Images.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause modifying original agreement.

---

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

1) Third Party Fees. Photographer agrees and understands that Agency has entered into certain agreements with third party agencies (hereinafter referred to as the “Third Parties”) pursuant to which such Third Parties have been granted the authority to distribute the Images and or Stock Images on their respective websites and via other electronic means. The Third Parties will remit commissions to Agency from sales made by the Third Parties of the Images (“Third Party Fees”), in accordance with such Third Party agreements. Thereafter, Agency will remit to Photographer fifty percent (50%) of the net Third Party Fees, and Agency will retain a commission of fifty percent (50%) of the net Third Party Fees. Agency will remit Photographer's portion of the Third Party Fees pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Agreement.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is horrible, because essentially, if USPW uses Gannett’s wire service to distribute a $50 photo, then USPW would only get 50%, and then you would only get 50%, or $12.50. Yet, Gannett would, through the revenues of it’s wire service and USPW, as two separate corporate entities under the one parent company, get 75%.

---

2) Agency Fees. Agency will remit to Photographer fifty percent (50%) of the net fees collected by Agency from editorial and commercial sales made by Agency of the Images and Stock Images (“Agency Fees”), and Agency will retain a commission of fifty percent (50%) of the net Agency Fees. Agency will remit Photographer's portion of Agency Fees pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Agreement. Agency reserves the right to change, adjust or modify Agency Fees with the prior written consent of Photographer, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: Standard clause.

---

3) Uncompensated Use. Photographer agrees and understands that Agency may, from time to time, allow Agency's customers to use certain Images and Stock Images without compensation. As a result, Photographer may not be compensated for the use and distribution of certain Images and Stock Images. This will be for, among other reasons, the purpose of revenue generating usage commitments or for promotional trials for the customer. Photographer agrees this action can be performed in Agency's sole and absolute discretion and without further compensation to or consent from Photographer.

---

COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This is a horrible deal where the photographer gets the short end of the stick while the Agency benefits. For example – a prospective client says they want their first month free, and your images are a part of that, and then on the second month, when the Agency got a check, none of your images were a part of that, and so you get nothing. Or, if some other USPW/Gannett photographer screws up, and in order to make it up to the client they say that the next assignment is a freebie, clearly they won’t use the one who screwed up, so you could end up getting the call, and there would be no compensation for the customer to use your images. Further, they have the right to use your images for barter arrangements, where they collect "in kind" compensation without collecting any money, and the photographer gets nothing. The examples of how this can be exploited to the photographer’s severe disadvantage are seemingly endless.

---

(Signatures)

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

The Legitimacy of Schools Teaching Photography

Photo District News, about a month ago, posited the question "The Art Institutes: Legitimate Photo Schools or Accessories to Fraud?", and as someone who's been a guest speaker in their business classes, and given the commencement address at their 2009 graduation in Washington DC, I was a bit surprised. I know of many schools that couldn't care less about the future success of their freelance graduates, which seems a bit self-defeating since these students therefore have a diminished capacity to pay back their student loans. Yet, in the end, the school isn't taking the loss on the unpaid loans, it's the student, or the taxpayer/lending institution. I do know that the Art Institute of Washington takes very seriously the graduated success of its' students, and I suspect that mindset carries over to their other schools as well. "Fraud" is surely not a word I would use to characterize the AI schools when it comes to teaching photography students.

In 2008, Brooks Institute resolved a multi-year issue whereby, according to the Ventura County Reporter (here) "...emerged victorious early this year over charges that prospective students were attracted to enrolling there with guarantees of gainful employment post-graduation." Yet others are continuing to make further claims, which will likely result in further losses for students. I know that Brooks turns out exceptionally talented photographers (from a creative standpoint) and that they also teach business skills. It would stand to reason that a Brooks graduate could be skilled enough to start out their career taking well-paid photography assignments, and, if managed right, could be highly successful. Yet, if creatively talented photographers don't focus on business, or don't have the business acumen to succeed, they will likely fail, despite their talent.

I can't imagine the irresponsibility of a school sending a graduate off with a diploma and degree without a skill so key as business. The bigger issue is new graduates entering the marketplace with rose-colored glasses, wholly unprepared for the reality of the photography market in the 21st century.

In the end, we find our markets dilluted with hungry idealistic photographers being churned out only to find there isn't a marketplace to bear them.

Why is that?

They're educated, regardless of social position. They're smart(er), they're more savvy, and by default, artistically talented. Yet, being a photographer - having the drive and passion to create visually stunning images, is not enough for you to survive as a photographer. There is a critical need for techical and business saavy for all photographers. Setting the camera on "Program" and hoping for the best, isn't the solution, nor is ignoring the pile of bills and thinking the elves in the middle of the night will pay them and send out your invoices.

So, what's to be done? The original school of thought of the wise photographer, was that, at some point, starry eyed students would flock to institutes of higher learning under the promise of education leading to higher dollars in our profession.

According to the US Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, (here) , "Median annual wages of salaried photographers were $29,440 in May 2008. The middle 50 percent earned between $20,620 and $43,530. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $16,920, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $62,430."

Lots of people graduate, and think things will be handed to them on a silver platter, and then get upset when succeeding as a freelancer requires....oh yeah....work! For those of us in the industry, work is just not enough. We are faced with a new dynamic. Gone are the days of a picture being worth an average of almost $1k ( the average stock license, according to a Getty report several years ago).

Where is that yellow brick road? Or, to cite a well-known book "Who Stole My Cheese?"

(Continued after the Jump)

The US Department of Labor says about photographers (here):

"Most photographers spend only a small portion of their work schedule actually taking photographs. Their most common activities are editing images on a computer—if they use a digital camera—and looking for new business—if they are self-employed."

That's right, most self-employed photographers spend most of their time looking for new business.

The DOL goes on:

"Photography courses are offered by many universities, community and junior colleges, vocational-technical institutes, and private trade and technical schools. Basic courses in photography cover equipment, processes, and techniques. Learning good business and marketing skills is important and some bachelor's degree programs offer courses focusing on them."

SOME? Seriously? Some?!?!

And the DOL goes on...

"Photographers who operate their own business, or freelance, need business skills as well as talent. These individuals must know how to prepare a business plan; submit bids; write contracts; keep financial records; market their work;"

...and on....

"Those who succeed in landing a salaried job or attracting enough work to earn a living by freelancing are likely to be adept at operating a business and to be among the most creative."

It's remarkable that only "some" schools are teaching the business side of photography, when clearly almost all of the graduates who end up being photographers will be freelance, and thus, operating their own businesses. It seems to me, that it's a dereliction of a responsible school to not teach the business skills necessary to succeed.

Is the problem education?

Those in the marketplace have done substantial damage to the value of images and assignments. This isn't the schools' problem, it's the problem of the marketplace, and, the community.

Hmmm, let's think about that. newspapers are downsizing at the same time their ad revenue is up. Why? well, it's because of an expectation of free, thanks to the internet. That genie has left that bottle.

There are no magazines, newspapers, or, really, other publications that don't use photography (or illustrations.) The reality is that photography IS worth something - a lot - dare I say, a thousand words? We are so used to getting everything for free, we expect everything to be free - the content we view, CNN, etc. We are perpetuating a cycle of free that is now bleeding over to our own bottom line. You should be paying for your news, for example. A major part of the problem is that people think photos should be free, and they should not. Our images make or break most magazines, ads, and so on. A pair of jeans sells on the strength of the ad campaign. A president is elected on the strength of the photojournalism surrounding his campaign. Public opinion is formed on our wars overseas by the pictures that come out of those events. And, your wedding day was a success after the dust was settled if your wedding album is fabulous. You don't remember having the good time - you rely on the photographs to show you that you did!

Is there a responsibility for full disclosure? This is full disclosure.

• - if you continue to pay photjournalists $200 an assignment and they lose all their rights...this is not a sustainable business model.
• - Photography licensed with huge rights being granted at $1. This is horrible for the profession.
• - Magazines who make tons off advertising are not paying rates commensurate with what they paid even 10, 20, or 30 years ago, yet for almost all of them, ad rates have increased even within the past 5 years. Mark Loundy, who writes the Common Cents column for the NPPA's News Photographer magazine, reports in this month's Common Cents (here) - "If you've seen Sports Illustrated's "Leading Off" feature of full-bleed double-truck images you know how impressive they are and how important the magazine clearly considers them. Just not in the iPad version of the magazine, for which they pay a whopping $50." In that same column, Mark (who was a technical editor on my book) notes that even his optometrist never learned business skills during his time in school. Sheesh!

Now is the time for a sea-change.

It's becoming all too common for images to be free, or next to free. Pictures make things happen. The PDN article cites several examples of students who feel wronged by the recruiters, and I am sure there are more bad-apple recruiters at other schools as well - that issue isn't limited to AI recruiters (if they were at all misleading) - not by a stretch. I see nothing wrong with a recruiter citing an income level of $62,000+ as something that is possible when selling their education - it's a real figure from the US Department of Labor. I also see nothing wrong with, say, Brooks Institute surveying their graduated photographers and learning their income levels of, say, $75k (or more) and then citing that, as well as citing that their graduates earn above the top government estimates for income. Whether this has happened or not, I can't say, but it wouldn't surprise me, and would be a reasonable marketing approach.

People coming out of the doors of higher learning instutions must say no when a bad deal is offered. Good professors that I know of have saved more than one student from giving their work away, by teaching them the value of their work. In fact, I know of some professors who, when someone comes-a-callin' to a photo school for photo students to complete an assignment, will lecture the person calling about that attitude, and won't turn over unreasonable requests to their students.

Make no mistake about it, schools - all schools - need to be profitable. Just because, say, the Art Institutes, or Brooks, make a profit, or are a part of a for-profit business model, isn't evil. Profit isn't a four-letter word. Further, state-run universities, and private schools like, say, American University, all make some form of profit. If a school has a class with insufficient attendance, or a degree that's not generating enough students to make it cost-justifiable, they cancel the class, or the program.

All schools that teach photography should have a responsiblity to teach the business side - the core - you are a business and you are worth the money you are going to make. in the same way that somebody who gets a law degree charges for their time. Regardless of the countless styles of photography, the countless genres (wedding, pj, commercial, portraits, etc etc etc) the one core requirement is how to operate their business.

Does this guarnatee the pot of gold? no, but we as a community are to blame for the dwindling prosperity prospects.

There is no photographers union, and there never will be. While we have trade associations that do all they can, until we have photographers en masse who not just say no to bad deals, and not just focus on their own business skills, but also take on the roll of helping those around them be better about business. There is a critical need for a new generation of photographers - visionaries who can make a difference - whether they come to us through an institute of higher learning, or as an apprentice of an experienced photographer, they are a necessity. We as a society need to understand and recognize the worth of the photograph, and those who create it - they are a business, we are a part of an industry. We need health insurance. We take vacations. We want a retirement plan and a good standard of living.

Hard work doesn't guarantee success. There are no guarantees in life but death and taxes. If you're such a poor business person that you don't even earn enough to pay taxes, then your only guarantee in life is death, in poverty. Good luck with that.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Fearless Photographer: Portraits

From time to time a book comes out that challenges you to think differently about your portrait photography. To not just think outside the box (which is so cliche), but to really engage your subjects, and to get them to open up, be more of themselves that you're used to seeing (or they're used to showing), and really create some amazing portraiture. Fearless Photographer: Portraits - by Charlotte Richardson^* is just such a book. I've added it to my recommended reading list, and encourage you to buy it and check it out.

Charlotte rarely uses Photoshop to composite/fabricate images (and discloses completely whatever may have been done in Photoshop) throughout the book. So, for example, when she places her subjects in a heart-shaped ring of fire - they really are surrounded by fire, not dropped in in post-production. As a photographer for over 20 years, she first trained to "get it right on film", so concepts like "we'll fix it in post-production" are approaches she abhors. Wherever possible, she strives to realize a vision in-camera, not as pieces composed after the fact. The book is a fun and easy read, with practical advice and Charlotte is never afraid to tell you her mistakes as well.

The book, in the end, isn't just a how-to, but also gives you inspiration and encouragement to really engage your subjects, and, yes, be fearless.

Here's an overview of the book and one of the behind-the-scenes videos (below), and after the jump are seven more videos showing behind-the-scenes looks at several chapters of the book.

Fearless Photographer Portaits - Behind the Scenes - Hearts on Fire: Ray and Angel





Fearless Photographer Portraits - Overview

(Continued after the Jump)

Fearless Photographer Portraits: Behind the Scenes - Chloe Alyce and Lucky



Fearless Photographer Portraits: Behind the Scenes - Preteens: Olivia and the Beach



Fearless Photographer Portraits: Behind the Scenes - Soccer Stars



Fearless Photographer Portraits: Behind the Scenes - Hunter: Rock Star (and cover subject)



Fearless Photographer Portraits: Behind the Scenes - Blaine: A Man with a Message



Fearless Photographer Portraits: Behind the Scenes - Lyndi and Clyde: Beauty Tames a Ton (Literally)



Fearless Photographer Portraits: Behind the Scenes - Agent C's Hot Wheels




-----------
^* Charlotte is my better half, and I served as a humble assistant to bring her visions (and those of her subjects) to reality. She also cornered me into appearing a few times in the book.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

UPDATE: US Presswire & Gannett

Despite the deafening silence surrounding Gannett (NYSE: GCI) acquiring US Presswire officially from Gannett, other tidbits of information are coming through the grapevine, and other interesting places.

One such interesting insight comes from Photographer Thomas Shea, who's shot for USPW for some time. Shea posted this on his Facebook account:

As such, it seems that Gannett is making good on all the back debt that US Presswire photographers are owed. This is often the case when a company acquires another company - they not only get all the assets of that company, but also assume all the debt. Also what happens in many cases, is, if say, a company is valued at say $1,000,000, but the company also has $500,000 in debt, that debt is deducted from the valuation and while the purchase price/valuation is $1M, the actual payout to the company's owners is the net amount. While it is unclear if this happened in the Gannett USPW deal, it often does happen.

(Continued after the Jump)

For photographers looking at the potential detrimental effects on their bottom line, the SportsShooter.com website (here) shows a $375/$400 range of pay for an assignment. That's an incredible rate in comparison to the $100/$125 payments that Gannett is making to USPW photographers under the new deal.

As late as Sunday September 14, USPW Holdings COO Bob Rosato, is still working for Sports Illustrated, having been on the sidelines of the Ravens game and producing an SI regional cover, here. It may be that Rosato is playing out the end of a deal with SI as the Gannett arrangement ramps up, or there may be some other arrangement in place.

Also of interest, is that apparently Getty Images and US Presswire have exclusive licensing deals with college schools, whereby here, one photographer quotes the Michigan Wolverines as saying:

"The school also does not credential photography services beyond Getty Images and US Presswire, which have licensing relationships with the school, according to Ablauf."

Lastly, it seems that US Presswire (a la Gannett) is now covering high school sports - here. In the past (4 other times) USPW has covered a high school game, it was because 1. Ashton Kutcher was a coach; 2. Joe Montana's son was QB; 3.) Matt Barkey (went to play at USC). The only other thing about this game was it featured two USA Today top-5 teams. It could be that this is a new order, "on high", from Gannett.

It looks like photographers who used to earn $375/$400 won't be needed with the $100 photographer in abundance from the ranks of the USPW folks. This is yet one more example of how what you do not only affects others, but yourself, if, say, you were shooting for Gannett when they called, and USPW in the meantime - you contributed to your own cost-slashing.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

US Presswire Confirmed Sold to Gannett, Name Change

According to the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations, US Presswire's mailing address has changed to that of Gannett (NYSE: GCI) headquarters in McLean, VA on September 7, 2011:

Mailing Address
7950 JONES BRANCH DRIVE
MCLEAN VA 22107
Changed 09/07/2011

Also changed, US Presswire is now legally known as USPW Media Holdings, LLC, according to the same filing.

What remains to be known is what was paid for US Presswire. Likely Gannett will have to disclose this figure sooner rather than later, as it is a publicly traded company.

Over on the SportsShooter.com website (here), photographer Darren Carroll makes a remarkable point about all the photographers who were working for free for US Presswire:

"IF all of those photographers had insisted on getting paid a decent rate to cover those 5,300 games, Presswire would never have been in a financial position to offer such a bargain-basement deal for its pictures."

Carroll went on to do the math and illustrate the fact that these photographers, working for free, subsidized the build-up and sale of US Presswire:

"5,300 games (U.S. Presswire's number, from its own press release). For argument's sake, let's be conservative and call a "decent" rate $500 per game (commensurate with the standard S.I. day rate). If every shooter who "worked" for U.S. Presswire would have insisted on being paid that amount, that would be a $2,650,000 hole (not counting other overhead) that US Presswire would have had to climb out of just to be profitable. And the only place the company could have made that back was by charging more for its sales and licensing. Basically, then as Allen Murabayashi alluded to in an earlier post, all of the photographers who agreed to work for free just subsidized U.S. Presswire over TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS to help conduct its operations in 2010."

I can't think of a more solid example of how working for free is detrimental to all photographers and benefits corporate owners.

(Continued after the Jump)

Here is the corporate filing data from the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations website:



You can view the listing here.

---------

Worth Reading:

US Presswire, Message Thread 1-51 on SportsShooter.com
US Presswire, Message Thread 52-103 on SportsShooter.com
US Presswire, Message Thread 104- on SportsShooter.com


Related:

Gannett Acquires US Presswire, 9/7/2011

One Gannett Photographers take on the US Presswire Acquisition, 9/12/2011

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

One Gannett Photographers take on the US Presswire Acquisition

The Gannett (NYSE: GCI) acquisition is sure to have an adverse impact on Gannett staff photographers. To be expected will be a reduction in the Gannett organization sending it's staff photographers to games when there are 2-3 photographers already there shooting the event for a fraction of the cost they previously had for a freelancer, let alone a staffer.

One well known sports photographer (non-Gannett) sent along the following figures from the Maryland State Personnel Management System for direct an indirect costs for a $49k salaried employees, which is as follows:

EMPLOYER'S COST OF BENEFITS FOR A TYPICAL STATE EMPLOYEE IN THE STATE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (Maryland Fiscal Year 2010) (see page 18, here)

Salary* $49,019

DIRECT COSTS

Social Security $3,979
Health Insurance** $8,528
Pension Retirement $4,541
Deferred Compensation Match $0
Workers Compensation $667
Unemployment Insurance $52
-SUBTOTAL DIRECT COSTS $17,767

INDIRECT COSTS

Personal Leave $1,197
Holiday $2,394
Annual Leave $2,993
Sick Leave $998
-SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $7,582

TOTAL COST OF BENEFITS $25,349

TOTAL COST OF SALARY & BENEFITS: $74,368

This assumes that a Gannett photographer earns $49k, and I believe their number to be significantly higher. Yet, let's consider this as a solid example on the low-side. This does not, of course, include the costs for transportation, photo equipment, and a laptop. You can reasonably expect that figure to add $6k a year, minimum, to the indirect cost of a staff photographer. So, with a salary of $49, added direct and indirect costs of $25k, and the estimated additional $6k gear allowance, you're looking at $80k a year to carry one staff photographer. Not to mention travel assignments where air/hotel/car rental/meals/etc are an added cost. Why pay an annualized cost when you need only pay the sports photographers on the days you need them, and they're local? As such, Gannett photographers who have spent most of their days covering sports should consider their days numbered, and they have much to be concerned about.

We heard from one photographer, who shared his concern as a comment on the original story we broke. He wrote:

(Continued after the Jump)

I'm a photographer at a Gannett paper who was instructed not to talk about the Presswire deal. We are as uncertain of the future and what this deal means as the US Presswire photographers probably are.

Does this mean Gannett will stop using AP & Getty and rely exclusively on Presswire for wire sports? And use it to renegotiate lower rates? Does it mean Gannett papers will no longer contribute sports photos to the AP wire and now market them through Presswire, competing with the Presswire photographers?

Are Gannett's motives even darker? Does it mean that Gannett papers will no longer staff NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA and the like instead relying on Presswire?

Let's face it, it's a lot cheaper to send one or two US Presswire photographers to a NFL game for a flat $100 each than two staffers who in addition to their salaries get health insurance, expenses and mileage etc. By the time you stretch the math out you could probably send three Presswire people for what one staffer would cost.

Gannett's motive could be even more nefarious. Once the Presswire deal is concluded, Gannett will have a large roster of reliable freelancers at its disposal. Will they start to use them to replace staffers. If they will take $100 to work a football game maybe they'll take $25 to do a community back to school assignment? Again, much cheaper than sending a staffer.

It's interesting that neither Gannett nor Presswire have made any announcements about this yet. Rumor has it that a number of Gannett people are traveling to Virginia next week to hear about the deal and what it means. I guess we'll have to wait till then to find out what's in store. "

This staffer has made a number of astute observations, and is rightly concerned. This will have an adverse impact on every staff photographer, including those at the other wire services. With Gannett no longer needing AP/Getty for the sports package, there will be fewer photographers assigned to those games, and Reuters/AFP will also possibly see a similar impact.

---

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.

[More: Full Post and Comments]