As GCI gravitates to more low-cost content, the contract offers another window into the financial impact on photographers and others.
Related: photogs discuss the contract on the Sports Shooter forum.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Here's the new GCI-owned US Presswire contract
As GCI gravitates to more low-cost content, the contract offers another window into the financial impact on photographers and others.
Related: photogs discuss the contract on the Sports Shooter forum.
10 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Smart idea. Winning!
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't read the breakout on the USPW/Gannett contract for freelancers you owe it to yourself to do so. It's a frightening glimpse into what the future hold for all of us.
ReplyDeleteLowlights: $100 per day (going to $125 in 2012). Photographing two or three assignments? $100. Oh, and when you're done, or within the next 10 days, turn in your outtakes for the company to use for stock sales.
Make sure you obtain all necessary releases so photos can be used for non editorial reasons (this is something newspaper photographers NEVER do now).
Or this part:
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
HARRINGTON'S 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.
This part is clearly unenforceable and is just a power game by USPW/Gannett because if you sign this you are, by definition, a freelancer and can't be held to the same standards as employees. However, you are a freelancer and they can simply stop calling you with assignments.
From the Harrington's commentary:
ReplyDeleten. 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.
-------------
Isn't that a violation of one's First Amendment rights?
You know when a contract says something like that that it's best to run in the other direction.
Imagine if Gannett employees had the same "no disparaging words" in their contracts?
Sad, but true. The "new" news economic model works this way. Everything is piecemeal for low wages and you sign your creative/professional, rights away. Looks like the "Moms Like Me" clauses in which the Big G owns every contributed image and word. Hah - maybe we'll see the image of someone's cute infant on some useless vertical.
ReplyDeleteBe careful out there everyone. Low ages and not benefits or rights are increasingly the present and certainly the future of most news organizations.
I used to defend this company. Not anymore. I now tell it like it is. The interesting thing is that most people already know and are wondering why it has taken me so long to catch on. It's a sad year for Gannett.
ReplyDeleteEasy solution. Don't sign up. What's the big deal?
ReplyDelete@11:28, The big deal is this: It means Gannett is now truly a bottom feeder, the lowest of the low in content. It is shameful that this company intends to exploit the labor of people who make photographs and provide content for the publications that bring in the revenue that allows the top executives (and the toady-filled board of directors) to rake in tens of millions of dollars. It is a disgrace. Soon, with the additional cuts that seem inevitable, GCI will have so devalued its products that there is no reason for anyone to bother buying a paper or visiting a website.
ReplyDelete2:20 I will say it again, don't sign up. End of problem. If the company can't find interested photogs they will pay more. So why all the wringing of hands.
ReplyDelete6:57am:
ReplyDeleteWhile your solution is honorable, it is totally unrealistic. Presswire will always be able to find someone in every market who wants to hang out on the sidelines with the real pros (if any are left) for a pittance of a fee and a bad box lunch.
The problem is that content users, by and large, have never developed standards for their photography. IOW, any old shot is "good enough."
Websites don't care if they get the shot of the winning touchdown, or the star of the game. They just wanting any old photo that works with the blog post or story.
Remember Sue Clark Johnson's "better done than good"? Now that cancer has spread to photojournalism.
I do a lot of sports photography for a high school yearbook company in New Jersey. For this particular outfit the going rate for freelance is $25 per hour and they pay from the time you leave your home until the time you are done editing the assignment. A typical high school soccer game will pay $100. I wouldn't bother with Presswire when I can make the same or better money with far less headache. Food for thought.
ReplyDelete