EU Copyright Directive to be debated in European Parliament

Tomorrow (26th March 2019) MEPs will vote on a controversial EU directive to copyright work used on the web. It sets terms and conditions for others to reuse content (posted by people like us) commercially.
The battle has been between the tech giants, whose business model is all about reusing other’s intellectual property without license or renumeration, and us ‘the creative community’.
Scares have included that ‘readers will be unable to share links’ (wrong) or ‘Wikipedia will collapse’ (nonsense). Many of us have had content stolen by others to market their photographic services from our clients’ own media sites, and now Publishers’ Right (Article II) in the directive will allow us to chase our payment, which should stop many thefts. It should allow a revenue stream that before was tricky to say the least.
As Angela Mills Wade, the director of the European Publishers Council is quoted, “a vote for the directive will be a vote for fairness, for culture, for creativity, and crucially, for the future of Europe’s professional, diverse independent press.”

Alamy – a follow-up

The UK Press Gazette quoted The BPPA’s open letter to Alamy’s CEO in their piece about his video signalling his intention to reduce the photographers percentage of royalties to 40%. This morning the UKPG asked us to provide a response to James West’s latest video where he offers to keep the 50% split for exclusive content. We provided the following text:
 
“Alamy’s move to alter their commission structure has brought a large number of other issues to the surface such as the low prices they sell pictures for, their broken promise that when they reduced the photographers cut to 50% they wouldn’t go further and their somewhat grudging acceptance that it is the commitment and buy-in from thousands of photographers that has got them to the positive position in which they now find themselves.
 
The BPPA welcomes Alamy’s decision to reconsider their reduction in the percentage paid to photographers but in making this only for exclusive content they are still going to anger many of our members. One of them has said “exclusivity is appropriate to a delicatessen, not a Walmart” and this sums up how most feel.
 
Should they push ahead with this plan the details of how they manage this will be complex. Will photographers have to make some sort of declaration for every single picture retrospectively? Will the burden for proving exclusivity rest with the photographers? Our opinion is that Alamy are still not listening and are still cutting the income of all those photographers who for very good reasons do not wish to, or cannot, surrender exclusivity.”

Members Stories: Boris goes for a run…

In the first post of what will be a regular feature of BPPA Members telling the story behind a photo, BPPA Member Peter Macdiarmid, photographer London News Pictures, talks about …. Boris goes for a run ….
It’s not often that a press photograph leads the news agenda, but it does happen now and again.
I have been working as a press photographer for 31 years starting out on local newspapers in south London then progressing to The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, Reuters and 10 years as senior news photographer at Getty Images. Currently I work at London News Pictures, covering news and politics.
For me news photography is a passion and I put a lot of time and effort into looking for different images that catch the reader’s attention and illustrate a story in a unique, and hopefully original way. Sometimes this approach can make an ordinary image really stand out.
With this in mind I went looking for former foreign secretary Boris Johnson at his Oxfordshire home during last week’s Conservative Party Conference. Thinking that Boris would leave his house and head up the M40 to Birmingham for the second day of conference I positioned myself in the road outside by his driveway. Usually Boris will give a happy wave to any reporters and photographers as he gets into his car, but today I was on my own.
A short while after the sunrise began to cut through the October chill I spotted Boris leaving for an early morning run wearing his usual flowery shorts. I managed to capture a cheery wave before he disappeared down the lane that leads to the farmland surrounding his house. Normal practice, when there is a group of press doorstepping Boris, is to wait for his return and photograph him running up the lane back home, but today I decided to make use of the golden hour sunrise.
Having not ventured out into the nearby fields previously, I had to make an educated guess as to his return route. I located a spot that would enable me to photograph him crossing a path edged with long grass between two ploughed fields before turning left towards me.
I had guessed correctly and a few minutes later Boris emerged from the woodland leading to the path. He spotted me and waved. Sometimes he waves without looking up, and on this occasion he was also half raising his other arm for balance, all of which made a rather unusual image. He then jogged past me on his way home.

Peter Macdiarmid, photographer London News Pictures
© Licensed to London News Pictures. 01/10/2018. Thame, UK. Boris Johnson waves at photographers as he runs near his Oxfordshire home. The former foreign secretary is due to attend Conservative Party Conference this week. Photo credit: Peter Macdiarmid/LNP

Rather pleased that I had found a different way of photographing the MP that was the talking point of the Conservative Party Conference, I set off back to the car to edit and transmit my images.
Within a couple of hours the images started to appear online, but with a headline that was markedly different to my caption ‘Boris Johnson waves as he runs through fields near his Oxfordshire home’. The Mirror online headline was ‘Boris Johnson commits greatest trolling in world history by running through a FIELD OF WHEAT’…. referring to the Prime Minister’s confession that the ‘naughtiest thing she has ever done’ was to ‘run through a field of wheat as a child’
My images of a man out jogging in the morning sunshine began to take on a life of their own. I spent the rest of the day fielding calls from ITV, Channel 5, BBC TV, CNN International and German TV asking for the picture for news bulletins. Multiple newspaper online websites were publishing my pictures and it was being talked about on radio bulletins by lunchtime. That day’s Evening Standard ran it on page one and another inside.
Tuesday’s papers ran the image across four front pages and on inside pages too.

I have received a few phone calls asking me if it was a stunt – as you can see – it wasn’t.
Peter Macdiarmid
London News Pictures

Some 'whining' at Carnival

Pete Maclaine




Pete Maclaine has photographed the Notting Hill Carnival many times. Here he describes one particular aspect of his quest:

Winston Churchill said, “If you find a job you love, you’ll never work again.” For me, the combination of press photography and the Notting Hill Carnival bring this quote to life.

A love of photography coupled with the vibrant imagery created by the artists and performers, along with the behavior of uninhibited revellers make this a win-win situation. Whether the sun is shining or the rain is torrential, there is always a fresh new picture to be taken. Of course there are also hundreds of obligatory shots that should be sent in, and already have been many times by photographers during Carnivals past. Although this can be tiresome the press snaps them up year after year.

Originality be damned! I have always set off to cover this event with one shot in mind. It has plagued me from the first Carnival I covered in 2010: ‘Embarrassed police officer with woman/women gyrating against him.’ I have seen this picture published a few times over the years but never managed to capture it myself. So for the last five years I have followed male police officers around for hours aiming to get this clichéd shot.

Exhausted, my clothes soaked through and covered in paint. Drenched Chamois leathers and face towels draped over my cameras. Hunched over from donkeying a heavy backpack around, and in a heightened state of awareness scanning everyone that comes within a few feet of the police. It is no surprise when a suspicious copper or two asked why I was skulking around? Answering their question has caused much laughter and a few have told tales of when this had happened to them. “I didn’t know where to look,” said one Sergeant from Croydon nick. Another officer suffered recall blush as he explained, “I did not want to push her away, so kept turning around in circles until she stopped.”

By 5:30pm on Bank Holiday Monday I gave up on my quest. I was hungry, probably the munchies from passive weed smoking. My legs were sore and my back was feeling the weight of my kit. I had once again enjoyed myself but enough was enough. I’d skip the clear-up operation this year and head home for Horlicks and an early night. I made my way along Kensal Road through the throngs of people dancing alongside the remaining floats about to set off around the parade route. Eventually I found an exit that leads to a footbridge over the Grand Union Canal onto Harrow Road.

Trudging up the walkway onto the bridge I heard a commotion on the road below. The sought after photograph responsible for years of expectation fatigue was finally taking shape. I hadn’t taken a picture since my decision to leave and the light had changed. I took a burst of 9 frames on my Nikon D3S with the trusty 70-200 and hoped for the best.

A quick scroll on preview revealed that I had at least four shots in focus. By this time the laughing policeman, straight outta Tower Hamlets, was making his way up onto the footbridge and his embarrassment grew as he realized I had captured the whole thing. I was ecstatic and tried to explain how chuffed I was but he looked at me like I was nuts. I realized you had to be there, in my head, to get it and stopped talking.

I was a bit put out when my daughter and my girlfriend, both way cooler than I, informed me that the dance is actually called ‘whining’ not ‘winding’ as I had captioned it. Nobody deskside pulled me up on it or pointed out how un-street I had been. When published, the caption read ‘dancing provocatively.’

I probably sent out more images over the two days of carnival than I should have, as I struggle with the concept of ‘less is more.’ Although many of them were used, most were bog standard. There were only two that I am proud of, the embarrassed old bill with the provocative dancer being one.

With this shot finally in the bag, heaven forbid next year I have to come up with something original.

 

 

 


         
What's going on at DACS? Part 2
Sir John Tenniel
In this second part of his assessment of what is happening with DACS, Andrew Wiard explains why the current situation is not something that photographers should accept.


“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”


Insisting on ALL secondary rights – does it really matter? Is it such a big deal?

Yes it is, but first, what exactly are these secondary rights everyone is talking about? Fact is you will not find a concise legal, or any precise, definition anywhere (or if you find one, please let me know). They can be defined negatively – they are those rights which are not primary. And primary rights are? For want of a better definition, the rights we exercise directly ourselves.This is how DACS describes, not defines, but describes secondary rights: those “ it would be impractical for you to license……. on an individual basis ”. At first sight all sounds plain common sense. Our primary rights  are those we exercise individually and directly (or through our agents) and as for photocopying, well, that’s best left to DACS. That’s secondary. 

But hang on, who decides what rights it is impractical for us to license, and how? What’s secondary and what’s not? Photocopying is pretty obvious, but where is the line drawn and can we trust those who draw it?

Take the strange case of the European “Memorandum of Understanding”.  I first wrote about this for the Stop43 website.  The point here (and I’m afraid you really do have to plough through all that to get it) is that the signatories to this European memorandum were plotting to consign our *primary* rights to collecting societies (you should also read DACS’s reply). The idea behind the MoU was  to republish out-of-print works, for the benefit of humankind of course, if the authors or publishers do not do so themselves. Their rights would have to be taken into account, but then what to do with embedded works, works embedded on the printed page?

Embedded Works? – photographs, to you and me. Ah, the solution is obvious – collecting societies!

Why? Why? If any publisher, any publisher, whoever they are, wishes to produce a new edition of a book containing a photograph which I have already licensed directly once, all I have to do is – do it again. Negotiate a further licence. Directly. Any photographer who supplies books for a living will do this as a matter of course. By any definition, we are not talking secondary rights here. These are primary rights. Our rights. Not secondary rights, the rights which according to DACS, are those it is “impractical for us to license on an individual basis”. But the rights we know perfectly well how to license directly ourselves. No doubt the publishers of out-of-print works will find dealing with us tiresome. All publishers find licensing any works tiresome. But however secondary rights are defined, they are most certainly NOT those rights which publishers find it oh so inconvenient to have to license on an individual basis! And we have no idea what other rights of ours will be considered secondary in future. This is why it is so important that any secondary rights agreement spells out precisely what rights are referred to, and any additional rights to be collectively administered thereafter are specified, negotiated and agreed in advance, and agreed without the threat of money being withheld.

A gang of European collecting societies agreed to this. And our UK rep there? – yes, you guessed it, DACS. Which is why, in their reply referred to above, they are so keen to make out that the memorandum doesn’t say what it means when it says what it says – or rather, as DACS puts it, it is all subject to consultation: “ a collective management organisation for visual works (such as DACS) would be obliged to consult with rightsholders prior to any agreement being reached “. DACS would consult. But that doesn’t explain what on earth they were doing going along with all this in the first place. Consult, over our *primary* rights? And, anyone remember being consulted?

DACS, consult? Really? The way they consulted about this new agreement of theirs? It went like this. First they got a small number of important figures into a room, told them all about the forces of darkness (true) but that none of this could be publicly revealed for fear of (legal?) consequences. Utterly false. It’s all coming out now, but nothing we couldn’t have been told right at the start. These figures were then to go out and tell all photographers, without going into  details, that they must sign up. Which, BAPLA  excepted, they then did. The one thing DACS did not do was consult their contributors. They represent us individually. They were after individual signatures. They should have talked to us, individually.

Instead, a series of inducements, “prizes”, to get people to sign up before the annual deadline. I was offered a prize draw, where I “could win up to £250 in vouchers to spend on art and photography materials” . And if I were to recommend Payback to a friend, “we’ll offer you both the chance to win £150 to spend at on art or photography materials at Jackson’s Art Supplies or Metro Imaging”. Talk about desperation!

Are we adults or kids to be tempted with sweeties?

No mention, of course, in these emails, of the new contributor agreement which had to be signed as the last stage of completing the claims form, or of its significance. Those discussions were only for the chosen few. If you doubt that, look at what happened to the NUJ’s NEC member for photographers Pete Jenkins, who dared to ask them what was really going on. DACS first offered him a meeting before the signature deadline. Then withdrew the offer, refused to meet him, saying they’d be holding a meeting for a wider group after the deadline. After the deal was done and it was all over! And, after the deal? Pete naturally asked to come along but was then told no, they were full up, and they had what they thought was a wide enough range of interested parties already.

Translation – no awkward squad, thank you.

Just before Christmas I received an email from DACS.


“ With the introduction of a new Payback membership, we are now able to formally consult with you on issues concerning your rights, and importantly, safeguard your existing and future royalties.”


What nonsense. They’ve been able to consult us, formally or not, for months. Before, not after, we had to sign. They just didn’t want to.

Let’s be clear what they did. They announced a new agreement. They said they would consult. But not, of course, the individual photographers required to sign. They then stuck to what they said in the first place. The DACS take it or leave it discussion, followed by their take it or leave it agreement.

And what if we did not sign? The payouts last Christmas were for sums collected before last year, that is before this new agreement which has only now come into force, collecting for future payouts in Christmas 2015. DACS was clearly saying, no signature, no payout. You couldn’t complete your claim for this year without it. In other words, they were applying this agreement retrospectively, to enforce compliance. Signing under duress – legal? – well, which one of us had the time, the energy, and most of all the money, to find out?

So, there you have it – consultation, DACS style.

This is serious. DACS say they will consult in future about collecting any other secondary rights. I think I now know what that means. We have given them the power not only to interpret that word as they see fit, but to collect whatever they think falls into that category, and regardless of what we think. They say we can always withdraw our signature at a future date, but so what? Because what we have signed up to now will now in all likelihood give them, under the new ECL regulations, the power to collect the “secondary” rights of all photographers, whether signed up or not. So you can unsign if you like, but you’re going nowhere as DACS will just carry on collecting.

What to do? The law is an expensive but no longer the only way to bring collecting societies to heel. Under the new ECL regulations they have to behave. So the CLA thinks it can collect for pictures but not pay photographers? Time to shop them to the Secretary of State. That’s one way.

There’s another. It will become increasingly practical for us to collect directly. Cue Paul Ellis of Stop 43: “ The solution is obvious – the Copyright Hub, which when implemented will suddenly make a load of ‘secondary’ rights ‘primary’, because it will no longer be impossible for individual photographers to manage them.” The future should indeed lie with the Copyright Hub, see here: https://www.copyrighthub.co.uk/ .

That however is still under development, that is for the future, and today we are already trapped by our signatures. And did we really have a choice?  For there’s no doubt whatsoever that the  vultures are circling. This from DACS earlier this month:


“ In DACS’ view, the CLA is trying to use its market power to reduce the existing 8% share of its revenues that go to visual artists and possibly risk the future of the Payback scheme. DACS has insisted that the existing arrangement should continue until the end of September 2017. This will help manage the transition to any new arrangements and protect our members’ incomes in the interim. To date the CLA has not accepted this.”


The latest is that DACS has now, using the authority we have given them, forced the CLA to accept this – temporary – deal. Only a temporary deal, but a deal none the less.

For this we have paid a heavy price. Let’s be clear. DACS may be on our side. But we have just given a hostage to fortune.


“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”


“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”


         
The one on the left is a snapper…
Mikael Buck
On the left we have a Snapper, it’s a type of fish, on the right we have a photographer – please learn the difference.

Would you like to demean everything I have achieved in my career with one word? Great! Then just call me a snapper – you won’t be the first or the last person to do it.

With few exceptions, the term snapper is used as a description for photographers by almost everyone we work with – from journalists, to PR professionals, picture editors and other press photographers. What began as a jokey phrase used amongst photographers has been taken from us and turned into a widely accepted description of what we do.

Often when I bring this subject up the reply I get back is something along the lines of “What’s your problem? It’s just a word. I think it’s quite fun”. Well, here’s my problem…the term implies that our sole contribution at work is to own a camera and turn up on time. In nobody’s dictionary is a snap considered to be something that took any skill or input to achieve – it is without a doubt a derogatory term when used to describe a photo.

Of course, most people using the do not really believe we are just taking ‘snaps’. I’ve heard the term used by many colleagues and clients who I know to have a great respect for, and understanding of, what we do. But the term has slowly seeped into our collective consciousness and rarely gets questioned. Whether the person using them intends it or not, some words are loaded with meaning.

One defence of the word I’ve often heard is: “Well OK, obviously some of you guys are photographers, like those who do reportage and high end portraiture – but you can’t exactly call waiting outside court or a night club and taking a few snaps of someone leaving photography”. Yes you can. If you think having five seconds (that’s not an exaggeration) to get a sharp picture of someone running towards you in the dark isn’t a skill then I suggest you try it for yourself. Afterwards you’ll need to talk to quite a few people to make sure that you’ve identified the right person in your photo. But it’s just a snap so maybe don’t worry about that part too much, eh?

Some of my colleagues will no doubt think that I am getting carried away over an insignificant and almost endearing term. And they might compare me to a cabbie who would like to be know as an Executive Transportation Route Consultant (sorry cabbies – if that’s what you want, then that’s fine by me!). Indeed, the online forum where the majority of Britain’s working press photographers discuss their profession is called Snapperweb, so obviously not everyone feels the same way as me.

But I believe if press photography as a profession is going survive the transition to online then we need to learn to acknowledge and communicate to others the contribution we make to journalism – and the language we use is a powerful symbol to the wider world as to how we view ourselves.

Despite what some people will have you believe, press photography is alive and well – most of the space in our national newspapers and news website is given over to photographs and most of these photographs are taken by professional news photographers and not amateurs. This tells you all you need to know about the power of the still image and the skill of the people taking these pictures. Yet shift rates have remained the same for over a decade, the public view our profession with complete disdain and staff positions are almost unheard of. That tells me that as a profession we do not have the power or influence that is commensurate with the contribution we make – stopping using the term “snapper” to refer to ourselves is a small, easy step we can take towards rectify that situation.

So then, just to sum up – a snapper is a type of fish and not a press photographer. Spread the word!

I’d love to hear your thoughts, whatever side you take in this debate. Leave a comment below or tweet me and the association – @mikaelbuck and @TheBPPA

The views expressed here are solely my own and do not necessarily represent the views of The BPPA.

You can see Mikael’s gallery page here.


               
The BPPA’s second submission to the Leveson Inquiry
When the Leveson Inquiry first opened we had little or no idea that press photographers would come in for so much criticism and abuse from the witnesses. At the association’s AGM in November we formed a plan to do what we could to counter this and put our side of the story. Shortly afterwards we sent an initial submission in the form of an open letter to Lord Justice Leveson and his team to see if we could be added as a “core participant’ at The Inquiry.

We were refused that status on the grounds that we were, apparently, both adequately represented and because press photography wasn’t a specific topic for the inquiry. We had expected to be refused and so the job of drafting the second, longer, submission began. The BPPA’s Board approved it at the end of last week and it was submitted ahead of the resumption of The Inquiry on Monday 9th January. The full document is 18 pages long and almost impossible to summarise in a blog posting so here are some key parts of the INTRODUCTION, our four-part STRATEGY and the CONCLUSION in full:

OUTLINE

The association is in a position to make a unique and positive contribution to the debate by providing a more accurate, up-to-date and informed assessment than any other organisation on the specific topics where we have expertise. In this written submission The BPPA will offer The Inquiry our views on:


    

  • The culture and practices of professional press photographers
    • 

  • The market place for news pictures and how it affects those cultures and practices
    • 

  • The problems that the market for celebrity images are causing
    • 

  • Privacy laws vs public interest
    • 



As well as our proposals for


    

  • Cooperation between all parts of the media to establish clear and enforceable ethical guidelines and codes of behaviour and etiquette
    • 

  • The reduction and elimination of the problems of unethical photographers, the so-called ‘stalkerazzi’
    • 



STRATEGY




The current international and multi-platform market is, however, no place for voluntary codes to function in isolation. The BPPA’s Board is of the opinion that we need a four-pronged strategy:




    

  • Make the publishers of websites, blogs, magazines and newspapers and their editors financially and professionally responsible for any lack of due diligence in checking how, where and why pictures that they are publishing were taken. Photographs acquired from citizen journalists, CCTV systems and inexperienced photographers should have a clear and strict series of tests applied before publication to verify their provenance
    • 

  • Images purchased from holders of UK Press Cards or from reputable agencies that are members of a United Kingdom Press Card Authority member body would require a lower standard of checking and proof because the photographer holding the press card would, according to the new ethical code, already have performed tests as they were shot. Should the images turn out to have been acquired irresponsibly, that would constitute a breach of the code of ethics that they sign up to when receiving their new UK Press Card
    • 

  • Strengthening of the UK Press Card scheme with an enforceable code of conduct including the suspensions and cancellations of cards. This obviously will not stop the cowboys who don’t have genuine press cards but it will provide a framework within which to work
    • 

  • Agree a simple outline about exactly which laws apply to photographers when they are going about their legitimate business: trespass, assault, intimidation, harassment and so on. It would also be advisable to clarify where and when the various elements of the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of The Child become applicable without allowing rich and powerful vested interests to slip a de-facto privacy law in by the back door
    • 



CONCLUSION

The British Press Photographers’ Association is very keen to be a partner to The Inquiry when solutions are discussed and when recommendations are made. We believe that it is in the long-term interests of our profession to contribute to the discussion and to help to shape the future of the industry. The association has an excellent track record in negotiating, agreeing and publicising codes of conduct. The BPPA and other photographer groups got together with the Metropolitan Police and then with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to agree the guidelines by which we work alongside each other. These guidelines have been in place for several years and have been very successful.

We would recommend the four-pronged strategy outline previously because we believe that adopting it would provide the following outcomes:


    

  • To provide assurances to the general public that professional journalists exist and that our work is ethical, legal and trustworthy
    • 

  • To create clear and unambiguous rules for the conduct of media workers
    • 

  • To establish systems within all publications, whether they are print, on-line or broadcast to check where and how material was sourced
    • 

  • To use the market place and existing legislation to control the so-called ‘stalkerazzi’
    • 



Anyone with the money can buy a camera and call themselves photographers and, as things stand, all of us have to contend with the actions of the relatively small number of unethical operators out there on a daily basis. Several times in this submission we have referred to press photographers as the very visible face of the media and all of our colleagues can relate stories of being shouted at, abused and even assaulted because of a general perception that all news photographers stalk celebrities for a living. This is just not true and The BPPA wishes to make that clear.

There are a large number of genuine and well-behaved entertainment and celebrity specialists who never cross the line, break the law or act outside any new rules that we might develop whose careers could be greatly assisted if we get this process right.

The introduction of a French style privacy law would be the archetypal ‘sledgehammer to crack a walnut’ combined with a textbook case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’. We support the clarification of existing laws and the establishment of a meaningful, clear, enforceable and unambiguous ethical framework as the correct path along which to proceed.

WHAT TO DO NEXT…

We achieved significant impact with our social media campaign when we published our initial submission and we need to at least match that effort with this document IF we are going to achieve our next objective, which is to get a seat at the table if and when The Inquiry starts to make reccomendations about the future and press photography.



        
The Social Media Photo Conundrum
So, fellow professionals… answer me this… why should The BPPA be faced with a blank screen when visitors try to look at the photos on our Facebook page? 



The answer is, sadly, that there don’t seem to be any services out there who treat images with respect. If they aren’t stripping the metadata, they are selling your work. If they aren’t asking you to hand over your copyright they are making pictures far too easy to grab. Plus – once your work has been stolen/sold/borrowed we all know that getting it taken down or paid for requires a lot of effort and a not inconsiderable amount of resources.

Our work is very desirable if you are a penniless blogger or a corporate that ‘has no budget for pictures’ and a lot of our members work for agencies who have a ‘no pictures on social media’ policy. We want to show off our members’ work and we know that our pages, blogs and tweets would be far stronger with some of those superb pictures but do we want to take that risk? That is what you call a conundrum!

So what should we do? Should The BPPA remain in the mildly odd position of having to keep its Facebook page picture free or is there another way…