'NY Times' Freelance Contract Angers Photographers

Editor and Publisher [Newspaper Industry Trade Pub] ^ | March 12, 2004 11:30 AM EST | Jay DeFoore

[Criminal Number 18F]

NEW YORK The New York Times angered hundreds of freelance photographers last week when it distributed a contract some are calling "outrageous," "insulting" and just plain "sad."

The contract asks freelance photographers to assign joint copyright ownership to the Times (Click for QuikCap), giving the newspaper the absolute right to exploit the photographs for the life of the copyright and collect all licensing fees, without payment to the photographer.

The Times had no previous written agreement with freelancers. Photographers, copyright lawyers and industry trade groups have objected to the new contract, saying it puts the freelancer at a distinct disadvantage. The joint copyright ownership provision takes away the photographers' ability to market his or her material with any exclusivity, and various sources describe the contract's embargo provisions as vague.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Read the story. The Times, that fearless friend of the working man, uses its gorilla power to screw its freelance photographers out of their copyrights.

A freelancer on Times assignment to Iraq gets $250 a day.

Basically, they are demanding that the freelancer have little more right to his own work that a staff photog -- you could call it a form of outsourcing.

I wonder if this is related to a couple of recent incidents where the photographs provided by freelancers on Times assignments exposed the Times staff reporters as lying...?

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[The Radical Capitalist]

Now they know what its like to be a Hollywood screenwriter.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Round up the usual suspects!

By the way, the whole article reveals that the Boston Globe (which today went out on a limb to cover Kerry's six, on an item Kerry has already copped to... no bias there!) goes even farther to screw its photogs.

Kinda like the way Kerry and Teresa treat the help. Nobody is crummier to working people than a self-righteous Friend of Labor.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[henderson field]

What the New York Times is proposing is slavery. I thought they were against slavery. Maybe that's only for black people. I wonder if they know there are also black photographers that they would like to bond into slavery.

[sittnick]

Gee whiz! Did J. Jonah Jameson take over the New York Times?!

[henderson field]

BTW, the norm in the world of the free-lancers is payment for usage. And the free-lancer retains the copyright. That's where the idea of "First (or Second, etc.) North American Rights" comes from. No one can afford to buy professsional photographic equipment and work for $10 an hour. Of course, maybe the pictures can be taken more economically by persons in India. Actually, the quality of the New York Times has fallen so badly, that it would not hurt to have photos taken in India of random subjects accompany articles in the NYT, also of random subjects.

[spald]

It's called insourcing.

[freeangel]

Maybe I don't understand the problem. Why don't they just quit doing business with THE Slimes? Surely there are other rags looking for photos.

[TopQuark]

The Times, that fearless friend of the working man,

I was thinking the same thing, 18F. But that's what all such "friends of equality" really think: "Your house is my house and my house is my house."

Thank you, sir, for serving our great country and protecting us."

[ServesURight]

Kinda like the way Kerry and Teresa treat the help. Nobody is crummier to working people than a self-righteous Friend of Labor.

Mega dittos.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Why don't they just quit doing business with THE Slimes? Surely there are other rags looking for photos.

Of course, you're right; each individual photog has the power to tell the Times to take this contract, fold it till it's all sharp corners, and jam it (and some have done so). And he or she has the right to take the contract and sign it also (and some have done so).

The reason is rather simple: there is a large supply of photographers who seek a Times credit, and so the Times can be high-handed. Having Times credits helps a photographer seek other assignments. So mostly the guys who sign will be young guys trying to break in, and guys who have unwisely let the Times represent too much of their income. Most of the name photographers will probably tell the Times to pound sand.

The Globe photographers banded together and sued (in front of corrupt Massachusetts judges, they were wasting their time, but that's what they did). The Globe contract is unprecedented because it even gives the Globe ownership of stuff the photog shot before signing the contract.

IANAL, but I don't think that what the Times and Globe have done is in any way illegal. I think it's unethical to the max, and it's hypocritical, although typically limo-liberal, to mistreat the 'help' like this.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

Now they know what its like to be a Hollywood screenwriter.

I always wondered about that. You know the old joke. "The starlet was so dumb..."

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[JerseyHighlander]

Long term digital archival rights, and the revenue stream it can produce, looks to be the motivating factor here. The NYT print edition has many ads hawking the NYT "Photos of the Century" archives at full NYC retail price for a print.

Here's hoping the freelancers start digitally manipulating photos in an organized work action against the NYT....

[MediaMole]

This is going on all over. It really puts the screws to freelancers, since they are small businessmen, not employees.

$250/day sounds great at first -- wow -- $65,000 a year. That $250/day is subject to self-employment tax AND you get no benefits. Add in health insurance costs, the $25,000 in equipment (figure $5000 per year as an ongoing equipment expense), the reality that that $250/day isn't a guarantee and you are living on $20,000 per year.

Then, they take away your ability to make any additional money from future sales...

[an amused spectator]

Revived Media Schadenfreude ping - NYT: All Your Clicks Are Belong To Us, Freelancers

On, Off, or grab it for a Media Shenanigans/Schadenfreude ping:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~anamusedspectator/

[martin_fierro]

Schadenping.

[Criminal Number 18F]

And that's ($250) on OVERSEAS assignment. In the New York area it's $100 or $150 a day (the number's in the article).

And a lot of the overseas assignments can get a photographer killed. Reporters can (and do) sit in hotel bars and make up their stories. Photographers find it harder (although I could site some examples...)

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Liz]

(Sniffle) But don't forget how "tolerant and compassionate " the NYT is (sob).

[PGalt]

A microcosm of socialism consuming itself. Go individual photographer! Go capitalism! Go internet!

[GOPJ]

You're right. This is an outrage. First North American rights should be the limit -- shame on the New York Times.

Read the story. The Times, that fearless friend of the working man, uses its gorilla power to screw its freelance photographers out of their copyrights