.
  Lightstalkers
* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

getty grant 2

hi all — looks like the deadine for second series of Getty Grants is coming up:

There are two opportunities for photographers to submit proposals each year. Applications for the first two grants, to be awarded in February 2005, must be postmarked by December 1, 2004. Applications for the three additional grants, to be announced in September 2005, must be postmarked by June 15, 2005.

by teru kuwayama at 2005-05-23 06:01:50 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) dushanbe , Tajikistan | Bookmark | | Report spam→

15 Jun 2005 00:06
more details — just recieved.

Greetings,

Getty Images invites you to apply for round II of the Getty Images Grants for Editorial Photography program.

Getty Images is committed to empowering photojournalists from around the world to produce compelling documentary features. In 2005, Getty Images will award a total of five grants of $20,000 each to photojournalists to fund personal projects of journalistic significance.

The deadline for round II of the grant program is fast approaching. Applications must be submitted or postmarked by June 15, 2005 for consideration in round II of the 2005 grant cycle.

Three grants of $20,000 each will be announced at this years Visa Pour LImage Festival in Perpignan, France.

For more information, submission guidelines and an application, please visit www.gettyimages.com/contributors.

Good Luck!

Nicole Shea

Senior Photo Editor, Features

Getty Images

75 Varick Street, 5th Floor

New York NY 10013

tel: 646-613-4452




by teru kuwayama | 23 May 2005 22:05 | dushanbe, Tajikistan | | Report spam→
Hey Teru, since the Getty grant involves Getty repping the work for a year, how would that sync with being with another agency? I guess everybody would have to be cool with it, and thats it. You have thoughts on this? Do you imagine that the jury process would tend toward stories they thought they could make money with? I doubt it, especially as I saw the jurors are independent of Getty as far as I can tell. What, me paranoid? stephen

by [former member] | 05 Jun 2005 21:06 | bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
Hi Stephen -
photographers would have to check the paperwork on their contracts with their repspective agencies -
in many cases, (in most cases, probably, with “represented” photographers), a photographer’s agency has the exclusive right to rep/syndicate their work, or at least, a right of first refusal on the photographer’s work. For photographers with non-exclusive contracts, no problem.

So the Getty grant is an interesting case in that it’s basically only accessible by non-exclusively repped photographers, or photographers willing and able to break their existing contracts.

My take on it is this — individual photographers need to decide if they are good with syndicating through Getty for a year. If they’re ok with it, then their respective agencies need to think about what “representing” their photographers really means. If other agencies don’t want their photographers accepting funding from Getty, the simplest solution is to provide the funding themselves.

Several months ago, Corbis executives were shocked at the idea that many of the Corbis rep’d photographers were applying for the first Getty grant — the irony being that this same grant was originally proposed by Corbis staff members. Corbis passed on the idea, and the grant, along with a lot of the Corbis staff, ended up at Getty.

The judging on the grant is supposed to be completely independent. No connection between winning and “marketability”.

ps. yes, you are paranoid, but that doesn’t mean they’re not following you.

by teru kuwayama | 06 Jun 2005 08:06 (ed. Jun 6 2005) | brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Hey Teru, thanks for your thoughtful thoughts. Seems you have been in the thick of it. It is provocative on Getty’s part to include the repping by them, but then again I can hear them thinking that why should we fund a kick-ass piece which’ll then be repprd by Corbis, Redux, magnum, whomever. Oh well, as always, we live in a real world, not the alternative one we wish for.

a luta continua, stephen

by [former member] | 06 Jun 2005 09:06 | bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
heya, Stephen — like I said, an interesting side effect of Getty’s syndication catch, is that it effectively blocks most of the major players from the game. So you have an unusual case of a 20G grant, that’s not really open to the usual suspects at “Corbis,Redux,magnum, whomever”. Whatever Getty’s motivations are, and whether they intended to or not, they’ve given the “under represented” an advantage in this case.

by teru kuwayama | 07 Jun 2005 06:06 | brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Fair enough. sf

by [former member] | 07 Jun 2005 09:06 | bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
I think it wise to read the grant agreement form. It seems that they will attain full editorial license and even ad and promotion rights without approval or compensation. Am I the only one wary of the dark side here? I sure could use 20G.

by [former member] | 07 Jun 2005 09:06 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
I was under the impression that the syndication was a normal split. (normal meaning the usual ridiculous agency standards of 50%,70% etc.). perhaps someone should get the magnifying glass out and check on all this. I’ll have a word with the LS consigliere.

alternatively to actually applying for grants, an LS posse could just load nines and go jack the beast.

Between our cartel chapters in brooklyn and bogota, we should be thinking about the first LS corporate takeover.

by teru kuwayama | 07 Jun 2005 09:06 (ed. Jun 7 2005) | brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
There is definitely a dark side to this “grant” and I have chewed over the pros and cons for a while. One reason I put the word in quotes is that it carries with it alot of constraints which are inconsistent with the usual grant arrangements (normally intended to free up the grantee, while this one tends toward pinning you down). But if I remember correctly, and I havent time to reread the agreement just now, the contract is limited to a year, and after that, if you decide not to renew, you and your imagery are free of further constraints. If your project is a longterm kind of thing, and you plan to get it out there in other forms (a book, exhibits, whatever) and keep working on it afterwards, the temporary linkage to Getty might not be so bad. And you might decide that you like working with Getty. We can ask David Holloway, winner of the first round of grants, what he thinks of it. Anyway, 20G can help underwrite alot more shooting and development of the story.

My understanding of the grant was precisely that it was intended to develop new talent for Getty or raid talent from other agencies. Since there is alot of dissatisfaction with agencies and alot of movement of photogs from one to another, I guess this is a fair ploy. But if I were well placed and happy with my agency, I wouldnt touch it.

As Ben points out, read the small print. Study the agreement before you sign.

by Jon Anderson | 07 Jun 2005 09:06 | Astoria Queens, United States | | Report spam→
Im down, + my boys here are way up on the latest far as jackin’ goes.

by [former member] | 07 Jun 2005 11:06 | bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
Here goes the text itself, for the curious, alert and masochistic among us:

© 2003 Getty Images, Inc. (GINS short v.1.1)
GETTY IMAGES GRANTS AGREEMENT Effective Commencement date: date of distribution PHOTOGRAPHER: ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: EMAIL: SOCIAL SECURITY/TAX ID NUMBER: Dear Photographer: The following terms and conditions represent our understanding with respect to all photographs generated by you and accepted by Getty Images (US), Inc. (Getty Images) resulting from the Getty Images Grants for Editorial Photography. You grant to Getty Images a worldwide, exclusive license, with a right to grant sublicenses, to, reproduce, distribute, publish, transmit, broadcast, display, exhibit, adapt, crop, modify, recast or enhance, any Photograph(s), alone or in combination with any other material, in any media or embodiment, now known or later developed, for any purpose. Getty Images is specifically authorized to employ the services of third party licensees throughout the world in its licensing efforts. Further, you grant Getty Images the right to use the Photographs and your credit to advertise and promote Getty Images in any and all media, without additional compensation or approval. You retain the right to use the Photographs for personal and self promotional use, such as personal web sites, portfolio use, books concerning your works, exhibitions, prints, lectures and similar non-commercial uses. Subject to the above grant of rights, you will retain copyright to the Photographs submitted to Getty Images. Your compensation under this Agreement will be (i) fifty percent (50%) of the Net License Receipts (defined below) in connection with the license of the Photographs by Getty Images or any Getty Office if Getty Images or the Getty Office is located in North America; and (ii) thirty percent (30%) of the Net License Receipts in connection with the license of the Photographs by Getty Images or any Getty Office if Getty Images or the Getty Office is not located in North America. For purposes of this Agreement, North America shall mean the United States and Canada. This compensation will be paid on or before the 25th of each month (the Payment Month) during the term of this Agreement. Getty Images will pay the amounts due to you with respect to licenses invoiced or otherwise charged by Getty Images, or reported to Getty Images by a licensee of Getty Images, during the month ended three (3) months prior to the start of the relevant Payment Month. Net License Receipts will be computed as gross license receipts less any deductions of sales, use or any other taxes (excluding taxes on net profits of Getty Images or any licensee, and except withholding taxes imposed on remittances to Getty Images from countries other than Getty Images country of incorporation), levies and duties, collection fees and expenses (but not including web affiliate fees) and client credits arising out of or resulting from any license of the Photograph(s).
© 2003 Getty Images, Inc. (GINS short v.1.1) 2
Getty images will have complete and sole discretion regarding the terms, conditions and pricing of Photographs licensed or sublicensed to third parties. Getty Images will have complete and sole discretion as to delivery methods and distribution of the Photographs. Getty Images will request that its editorial licensees include a photo credit in the following manner when publishing any Photograph: Photographers Name/Getty Images. No inadvertent failure to include credit will be considered a breach of this Agreement. Getty Images will use reasonable care in handling original photographs submitted by you. However, neither Getty Images, its shareholders, officers, directors, employees, affiliates, subsidiaries, licensees, agents or assigns will be liable to you or your heirs, executors, successors and assigns in the case of any misuse, loss or damage to any Photograph(s). You represent and warrant that (a) you have the legal right to enter into this Agreement and perform your obligations; (b) you are the sole and exclusive owner of all rights under copyright or are the authorized agent or representative of the copyright holder and owner of the Photographs transmitted by you to Getty Images; © all moral rights pertaining to the Photographs have been waived; (d) all Photographs will be transmitted to Getty Images with accurate captions and descriptions; (e) you will not, directly or through any third party, license or grant to anyone else the right to license or use the Photographs, or any Similar (defined below) to the Photographs, in any manner that conflicts with Getty Images exclusive rights; and (f) a valid release (model or property) has been obtained by you where necessary and you will provide a copy of such release to Getty Images. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless Getty Images, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, successors, assigns and licensees, from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees) arising from any breach or alleged breach of these representations and warranties or of this Agreement. Similar shall mean any Image whose principal elements are depicted in a way that, when compared side-by-side with another Image, would cause an industry professional to believe they are substantially the same. Similars also shall include a set of Images that are part of a package depicting one topic, issue or event, and generally taken at approximately the same date and location as other Images in the set. The term of this Agreement will begin on the Effective Commencement Date (defined below), will continue for an initial period of one (1) year (the Initial Term) and will automatically renew for consecutive one-year periods. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this Agreement either upon expiry of the Initial Term or upon expiry of any subsequent one-year period, by giving thirty (30) days written notice before the end of the then current term to the other party of its intention to terminate this Agreement. Termination will not affect any licenses granted by Getty Images.. Effective Commencement Date means the date all grant project images are available for distribution. You agree that you are acting as an independent contractor under this Agreement. Neither the making of this Agreement nor the performance of its provisions will be construed to constitute either party an agent, partner, joint venture, employee or legal representative of the other party. You are responsible for paying all income and other taxes incurred as a result of the compensation you receive. This Agreement, its validity and effect, will be interpreted under and governed by the laws of the State of New York, without reference to its laws relating to conflicts of law. Venue for all disputes arising under this Agreement will lie exclusively in the Supreme Court of New York County in the State of New York or the Federal District Courts of the Southern District of New York (as permitted by law) and each party agrees not to contest the personal jurisdiction of these courts.
© 2003 Getty Images, Inc. (GINS short v.1.1) 3
This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective parent, successors and permitted assigns. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between us relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and may not be modified, except in a writing signed by each party. It expressly cancels and supersedes all other agreements relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. Please acknowledge your agreement to the terms of this Agreement by signing and returning one copy to Getty Images. You should retain a second copy for your files. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, ______________________________________________ ______________________ NAME: DATE: TITLE: GETTY IMAGES (US), INC. 601 North 34th Street Seattle, Washington 98103 Phone: (206) 925.5000 Fax: (206) 925.5001 I HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT. ______________________________________ ______________________ Photographer Name DATE:

by [former member] | 07 Jun 2005 11:06 | bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
Here is the text. One point concerns me:

The term of this Agreement will begin on the Effective Commencement Date (defined below), will continue for an initial period of one (1) year (the Initial Term) and will automatically renew for consecutive one-year periods. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this Agreement either upon expiry of the Initial Term or upon expiry of any subsequent one-year period, by giving thirty (30) days written notice before the end of the then current term to the other party of its intention to terminate this Agreement. Termination will not affect any licenses granted by Getty Images.

Check it out. If I read it right, you can terminate the licensing agreement after one year with Getty, but their sub-agents (those to whom they habe granted licenses) can carry on.

In the first graf, we read: Getty Images is specifically authorized to employ the services of third party licensees throughout the world in its licensing efforts.

Probably it would be good to call the point person over there to ask about this, what you guys think?

© 2003 Getty Images, Inc. (GINS short v.1.1)
GETTY IMAGES GRANTS AGREEMENT Effective Commencement date: date of distribution PHOTOGRAPHER: ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: EMAIL: SOCIAL SECURITY/TAX ID NUMBER: Dear Photographer: The following terms and conditions represent our understanding with respect to all photographs generated by you and accepted by Getty Images (US), Inc. (Getty Images) resulting from the Getty Images Grants for Editorial Photography. You grant to Getty Images a worldwide, exclusive license, with a right to grant sublicenses, to, reproduce, distribute, publish, transmit, broadcast, display, exhibit, adapt, crop, modify, recast or enhance, any Photograph(s), alone or in combination with any other material, in any media or embodiment, now known or later developed, for any purpose. Getty Images is specifically authorized to employ the services of third party licensees throughout the world in its licensing efforts. Further, you grant Getty Images the right to use the Photographs and your credit to advertise and promote Getty Images in any and all media, without additional compensation or approval. You retain the right to use the Photographs for personal and self promotional use, such as personal web sites, portfolio use, books concerning your works, exhibitions, prints, lectures and similar non-commercial uses. Subject to the above grant of rights, you will retain copyright to the Photographs submitted to Getty Images. Your compensation under this Agreement will be (i) fifty percent (50%) of the Net License Receipts (defined below) in connection with the license of the Photographs by Getty Images or any Getty Office if Getty Images or the Getty Office is located in North America; and (ii) thirty percent (30%) of the Net License Receipts in connection with the license of the Photographs by Getty Images or any Getty Office if Getty Images or the Getty Office is not located in North America. For purposes of this Agreement, North America shall mean the United States and Canada. This compensation will be paid on or before the 25th of each month (the Payment Month) during the term of this Agreement. Getty Images will pay the amounts due to you with respect to licenses invoiced or otherwise charged by Getty Images, or reported to Getty Images by a licensee of Getty Images, during the month ended three (3) months prior to the start of the relevant Payment Month. Net License Receipts will be computed as gross license receipts less any deductions of sales, use or any other taxes (excluding taxes on net profits of Getty Images or any licensee, and except withholding taxes imposed on remittances to Getty Images from countries other than Getty Images country of incorporation), levies and duties, collection fees and expenses (but not including web affiliate fees) and client credits arising out of or resulting from any license of the Photograph(s).
© 2003 Getty Images, Inc. (GINS short v.1.1) 2
Getty images will have complete and sole discretion regarding the terms, conditions and pricing of Photographs licensed or sublicensed to third parties. Getty Images will have complete and sole discretion as to delivery methods and distribution of the Photographs. Getty Images will request that its editorial licensees include a photo credit in the following manner when publishing any Photograph: Photographers Name/Getty Images. No inadvertent failure to include credit will be considered a breach of this Agreement. Getty Images will use reasonable care in handling original photographs submitted by you. However, neither Getty Images, its shareholders, officers, directors, employees, affiliates, subsidiaries, licensees, agents or assigns will be liable to you or your heirs, executors, successors and assigns in the case of any misuse, loss or damage to any Photograph(s). You represent and warrant that (a) you have the legal right to enter into this Agreement and perform your obligations; (b) you are the sole and exclusive owner of all rights under copyright or are the authorized agent or representative of the copyright holder and owner of the Photographs transmitted by you to Getty Images; © all moral rights pertaining to the Photographs have been waived; (d) all Photographs will be transmitted to Getty Images with accurate captions and descriptions; (e) you will not, directly or through any third party, license or grant to anyone else the right to license or use the Photographs, or any Similar (defined below) to the Photographs, in any manner that conflicts with Getty Images exclusive rights; and (f) a valid release (model or property) has been obtained by you where necessary and you will provide a copy of such release to Getty Images. You agree to indemnify and hold harmless Getty Images, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, successors, assigns and licensees, from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees) arising from any breach or alleged breach of these representations and warranties or of this Agreement. Similar shall mean any Image whose principal elements are depicted in a way that, when compared side-by-side with another Image, would cause an industry professional to believe they are substantially the same. Similars also shall include a set of Images that are part of a package depicting one topic, issue or event, and generally taken at approximately the same date and location as other Images in the set. The term of this Agreement will begin on the Effective Commencement Date (defined below), will continue for an initial period of one (1) year (the Initial Term) and will automatically renew for consecutive one-year periods. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this Agreement either upon expiry of the Initial Term or upon expiry of any subsequent one-year period, by giving thirty (30) days written notice before the end of the then current term to the other party of its intention to terminate this Agreement. Termination will not affect any licenses granted by Getty Images.. Effective Commencement Date means the date all grant project images are available for distribution. You agree that you are acting as an independent contractor under this Agreement. Neither the making of this Agreement nor the performance of its provisions will be construed to constitute either party an agent, partner, joint venture, employee or legal representative of the other party. You are responsible for paying all income and other taxes incurred as a result of the compensation you receive. This Agreement, its validity and effect, will be interpreted under and governed by the laws of the State of New York, without reference to its laws relating to conflicts of law. Venue for all disputes arising under this Agreement will lie exclusively in the Supreme Court of New York County in the State of New York or the Federal District Courts of the Southern District of New York (as permitted by law) and each party agrees not to contest the personal jurisdiction of these courts.
© 2003 Getty Images, Inc. (GINS short v.1.1) 3
This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective parent, successors and permitted assigns. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between us relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and may not be modified, except in a writing signed by each party. It expressly cancels and supersedes all other agreements relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. Please acknowledge your agreement to the terms of this Agreement by signing and returning one copy to Getty Images. You should retain a second copy for your files. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, ______________________________________________ ______________________ NAME: DATE: TITLE: GETTY IMAGES (US), INC. 601 North 34th Street Seattle, Washington 98103 Phone: (206) 925.5000 Fax: (206) 925.5001 I HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT. ______________________________________ ______________________ Photographer Name DATE:

by [former member] | 07 Jun 2005 11:06 | bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
Sorry for posting the monster text twice, and for not being very clear about my concern. The phrase that jumps out is the one that says – after talking about how the grantee can terminate after one year – Termination will not affect any licenses granted by Getty Images. Hmmmm?

by [former member] | 07 Jun 2005 11:06 | bogota, Colombia | | Report spam→
© all moral rights pertaining to the Photographs have been waived;

That eases a lot of my concerns….. :)

by [former member] | 07 Jun 2005 11:06 | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Yes, me too. Especially, as I think I already signed away all my moral rights, in perpetuity, to Corbis. I’ll have to check the fine print on that contract. It may be a non-exclusive licensing arrangement, in which case, I will be uploading all my morality onto the Digital Railroad site.

by teru kuwayama | 07 Jun 2005 12:06 | brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Better watch that fine print Teru………or go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. :)

by [former member] | 07 Jun 2005 13:06 (ed. Jun 7 2005) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Well as for morality, I have none that would interest the market. But Stephen raises a very good point, and i hadnt perceived it when I read the contract initially with concern for this particular issue (i.e., length of contract). I imagine that such phrasing is used because, as we all know with syndication, the mother agency can hardly control (or bothers to control) what its affiliates are doing, and when they syndicate they are basically throwing the imagery to the winds in the hopes that some of it will take root and grow elsewhere. But it has always seemed to me a haphazard arrangement.

And frankly, these megalithic agencies/organizations always rub me the wrong way. I prefer small and light. Still, 20Gs aint bad and a year of serfdom is not the worst that could happen. On the other hand, jacking it sounds good too. I could get a posse together no problem, but you can keep your nines. Nothing like a .45 for sheer stopping power.

by Jon Anderson | 07 Jun 2005 14:06 | Astoria Queens, United States | | Report spam→
Hi Everyone,

Please feel free to contact me with any questions about the Getty Images editorial grant.

Cheers,
Nicole Shea
nicole.shea@gettyimages
work tel: 646-613-4452

by [former member] | 07 Jun 2005 15:06 | | Report spam→
How does the language “ADAPT, CROP, MODIFY, RECAST ,ENHANCE” taken from paragraph 1 line 5 apply to documentary photography? Is this a documentary campaign?

When the contract eliminates the mechanism of authors’ approval it is no longer journalism, it’s stock.

by [former member] | 08 Jun 2005 10:06 (ed. Jun 9 2005) | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Hey Ben — think you’re right. That is the most questionable line in the contract. Nicole at Getty has offered to field questions, so why not talk to her and ask her what that line is about, and if it can be crossed out. Perhaps you should suggest to Getty that photographers may need to “adapt, crop, modify, enhance” their contract.

by teru kuwayama | 08 Jun 2005 10:06 | brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
btw — in seriousness, before everyone arms up and storms the castle with flaming torches, I’d like to make this point — it’s totally understandable for photographers to be cautious when dealing with Getty (or any agency or organization), but it’s also worth remembering that most of the people who work at these places are actually just that — they’re people, and most of them don’t lie awake at night thinking about how to rip you off. The grant in question here was conceived by members of Lightstalkers. The contract probably wasn’t, but you can call Nicole Shea or David Laidler with questions about it, and I have no doubt that you will get honest answers from them.

by teru kuwayama | 08 Jun 2005 19:06 | brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
I will say one other thing here to keep things in perspective. It is very rare that any organization, be it a foundation or an agency, decides to give an initiative such as this the full court press. Regardless of the fine print on the contract, which was certainly written up by the legal dept without regard for the spirit of this grant, the offer itself is very attractive. They are giving you a good sum (very few grants give more, and most give much less), a split on future earnings which is standard for this industry as well as many others, syndication (which gives you global dissemination), and a presentation at Perpignan, with the option of developing a relation with a big agency that has considerable muscle to flex. You may balk at working with a large entity like this, but if you are used to doing things on your own anyway, you may not feel lost at all and may be able to turn their power to your advantage. Plus, if any of us cares to examine the details of their own contracts with clients, magazines, agencies etc, we may find that the small print is full of legal hedges that compromise our principles. yet we go ahead and do the work.

I didnt know the grant was conceived by members of LS, but I do have faith in the people running this thing. I applied for the first round and I was disappointed by what seemed to be disorganization and utter silence on the administrative end, never heard a thing from them, but this time things are definitely hopping, they appear to be on top of things, and Nicole is actively in charge. So more power to them. And all due respect to Nicole too. This is a hard job, let us not forget.

by Jon Anderson | 08 Jun 2005 20:06 | Astoria Queens, United States | | Report spam→
Here is the definition of moral rights.

by [former member] | 08 Jun 2005 20:06 (ed. Jun 8 2005) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
If they want to take the “Moral Authority” then I can’t submit personal work. I would have to start a “Getty Grant project” I guess. This Agreement+Contract is just too heavy handed. Talk-Action=Zero: Detroit is ready to brawl. Hats off to all for this rightous forum.

by [former member] | 09 Jun 2005 16:06 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
on the notion of moral authority and grant recipients/grant dispensers, I’d defer to James Agee’s when confronted similarily….."As a whole part of “psychological education” it needs to be remembered that a neurosis can be valuable; also that “adjustment” to a sick and insane environment is of itself not “health” but sickness and insanity.."LUNPFM…..choose to breath and except the consequences, or choose to breath and defer the consequences……whatever one chooses has consequences: I intend to buy tri-x, the shelf is bare, i pick up ilford, i live with the sadness and joy that that entails…grants come with a consequence, but so does funding yourself…seems to me, there are better worries at hand: make the images, give the Getty a bottle of whiskey, let them asail what they think, it cannot determine your breath as a photographer…not compared with whiskey anyway ;))-bb

by [former member] | 09 Jun 2005 21:06 | Toronto, for now, Canada | | Report spam→
ooops (damn highland whiskey nibbling like a black westwind nip). what i meant to suggest is much simpler (fuck the ornate language): the question of “moral authority” as it applies to the application of and receipt of grants (particularly from the Getty) seems a bit, umm, high falutent. It seems to me its simply a matter of convenience/inconvenience. If one doesnt like the demands (and in my experience the demands often place by granting organizations are juevinile, but that’s to be expected: theyre dispensing the dough—but, its this unexpected?), dont bother: it’s only a grant. Seems to me the language of “moral authority” can be nibbled over concerning moments of consequence. I once heard a granting board tell a recipient: “the texture of your photographs didnt meet the mandate setforth in your application” ;)….Giacomelli’s grant: cigarette ashes piled over his negatives, shifting in the wind ;))-bb

by [former member] | 09 Jun 2005 21:06 | Toronto, for now, Canada | | Report spam→
well if they throw a good bottle of whiskey into the deal, then I’m in! Actually I would prefer rum.

Welcome Bob!

by Jon Anderson | 09 Jun 2005 21:06 | Astoria Queens, United States | | Report spam→
Teru: In our home there’s both a plenty (the Rum is mine, the whiskey is (small bite of shame) my wifes ;’)…will write more later: bob

by [former member] | 09 Jun 2005 21:06 | Toronto, for now, Canada | | Report spam→
Jon: when i lived in LA i was friends with one of the assistants to the director of acqusition for photography at the Getty Museum and one evening I had been invited to a schwanky party (stiff necks, stiffer chat about art) and I tried mercilessly my damnest to get the then (this was ’98) director to drink one of my favorite concoctions “Dark and Storm”: Gossling Rum and Ginger Beer (dash of sugar)…im sad to report, there were no takers (except for myself and my friend the lowly assistant)…i might add the conversation that could have used some dark and story ;))..cheers Jon…..bob

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 03:06 | Toronto, for now, Canada | | Report spam→
Thanks for the perspective Bob. Still I would direct you attention to the hand that offers the contract and not just the paper with the words. If Mother Jones were offering this contract up we wouldn’t be having a discussion of this nature. Last years winning projects. http://corporate.gettyimages.com/marketing/m02/Grants_Edit/index.html

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 08:06 (ed. Jun 10 2005) | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Well this is the first year I think it was offered, and in the last round our own LS member David Holloway was one of two winners. Here is the link:

http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.asp?article_id=859

by Jon Anderson | 10 Jun 2005 08:06 | Astoria Queens, United States | | Report spam→
Hi Ben: in general Im with you on your contention: my comment from actually much more fundamental: those organizations who dispense (and we’ve all dealth with them) are marked by the same inadequacies which we are: some are thoughtful and some are ghastly…i found it a bit, umm, humourless or dour (maybe even a bit pretentious) to discuss “moral authority” within the context of a grant. Im not thrilled either with the language of the application, and for that, i would personally reject participating, but the burden then becomes those who initiate (ingratiate) themselves to Getty. My own sense, strictly speaking of grant funds, is that there are more reasonable places in which to find funding. I understand the frustration the applicants and authors have articulated, my contention, however, that a richer river runs through it…but i understand those who were frustrated. Turn away from th getty or accept it, the richer breathing with which we define ourselves and our work should be concerned with different questions. :)) bob

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 09:06 | Toronto, by way of the States, Canada | | Report spam→
I think the discussion is healthy and that we need to focus on the reason that moral authority is necessary, ie some control over the final use of the work.

No journalist dealing with serius issues should give up control over the final use of the material, especially out of the context of a photo essay.

You owe it to your subjects to make certain they are represented fairly. Your relationship with them does not end when you walk away with their images. That is when it really starts. If we are going to be compassionate in our photography then it most be more than lip service, it has to mean something.

What the grant givers must understand is that they are benefiing, as a second party, from the willingness of these subjects (whether they be poor uneducated, sick, whatever) participation in a photojournalistic project, and that they owe them the respect of making sure the uses of the images are appropriate. When the photographer waives moral rights Getty become in locus-parentis caretaker of fair use, and unless Getty or any other grantgiver denonstrate they understand what that means, no photographer dealing with a sensitive subject can accept this grant.

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 11:06 | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Andy: with that argument (your post above), I can concur wholeheartedly. It’s actually the point of my contention with much of the about. “Moral Authority” rests in the notion that a photographer (let us, for argument sake’s suggest a “photojournalist”) “moral” intention rests with the photograph: who is photographed, why he photographed, his choice of documentation, and his relationship with the his material. Given that, I find Getty’s condition not only unreasonable but, frankly, insidious; however, that’s my own point of view: the discussion of moral authority is an ephemeral one, and it is arguable that photojournalism, or more importantly, the banking of photojournalist to consider themselves and their work as unimpeachable, or their justifications as unassailable, to also be heroically dubious. That was my concern. The “objectivity” of moral authority in photojournalism is a paternalistic and chauvinistic notion, a priori; however, it has been my experience that most photojournalists wrestle with the inherent ambiguity of their efforts, including wrestling with their own souls with which they are engaged. If for no other reason than this, I find Getty’s requirements to be horrid, because its an exercise in “bad faith” to use Kierkegaard’s idea. As a photographer, I also wrestle tremendously with the act of photographing others and the complexity this entails and for that alone, I would be horrified by this process. However, I think its imperative to understand that if a photographer honestly believes that they wield moral authority over their work, I think they should reassess the honesty of that opinion: its a delusion. Rejecting the getty is a principled position (which i support), but i think the more important notion is the initial question: how best to serve, if that is the idea, those you are photographing. I do not think photographers should waive their moral rights, for sure, but I also realize that I’ve also seen Eugene Richard’s photos in places that would horrify him: moral authority is not always about control, but about something much more profound: the reasons invested in why you are photographing ;)…bob

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 12:06 | Toronto, by way of the States, Canada | | Report spam→
Yeah, you write.

And many, many photographers have gone out of their way to be concerned with the welfare of their subjects, in emotional and material ways, well after the shutter has taken its final curtain call, except in the case of digital, where I suppose, the mirror would make its last fall?

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 12:06 (ed. Jun 10 2005) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Richards is one of my (our?) heros, and I have never questioned his moral authority just because some of images have ended up in places/ways he could not control (to wit: the dragon-throated internet): moral authority (to me) comes from the intial act and reason behind why you are photographing (act), : the rest, is piroueting rings ;)..I frankly, find grants with restrictions usury (the same way asking a friend to pay internest on money given) but I also hate the idea of grants to beging with: we’ve become spoiled and pricky. I refer again to Agee’s quote from Let Us Now Praise….now, off for some wine :)) bob

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 12:06 | Toronto, by way of the States, Canada | | Report spam→
Richards is one of my (our?) heros, and I have never questioned his moral authority just because some of images have ended up in places/ways he could not control (to wit: the dragon-throated internet): moral authority (to me) comes from the intial act and reason behind why you are photographing (act), : the rest, is piroueting rings ;)..I frankly, find grants with restrictions usury (the same way asking a friend to pay internest on money given) but I also hate the idea of grants to beging with: we’ve become spoiled and pricky. I refer again to Agee’s quote from Let Us Now Praise….now, off for some wine :)) bob

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 12:06 | Toronto, by way of the States, Canada | | Report spam→
It was sadly ironic that the end result of Richard’s “Crack Addict” piece in the NYTimes was its called out by Al Sharpton as an example of racial stereotyping.

Yet the main problem I had with the book on crack, was almost entirely limited to the poorer, and perhaps more ignorant, crack addicts who were willing to be photographed, while other drug addicts, the upper Middle Class or rich who might snort coke, would never permit themselves to be photographed in that way. The public perception that all cocaine addicts are black, which is as far as the truth as one can get.

And the poor, who can’t afford drugs, are more likely to commit other crimes to support their habits. How much of the pain and suffering of these people would be eased if drugs were decriminalized? How many fewer women would need to sell their bodies in Hunts Point, and engage in behavior that might lead to HIV transmission?

How does a photographer show this in a picture, and how can we morally do a story on drug addicts if we know that the end result will be sensationalized anyway, and not placed in the proper context?
I certainly don’t blame Eugene because I have a world of respect for his work, its just a dilemma that we all have to deal with.

My om conclusion is that I would rather do positive stories—yet even then here in New Orleans, which is a small town, these issues and others still come up, again and again.

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 13:06 (ed. Jun 10 2005) | new orleans, United States | | Report spam→
Agreed all around. I wish these mid level grants were more common. I want to know how getty has utilized the previous winners images beyond the Getty site.

My most vital concern is that the audience should be able to view an image and form their own opinion and feelings. That is what separates documentary from editorial(a distinction that is blurred in their summary). Perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree.

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 13:06 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
trees were always went to be barked up (or pissed upon), even its the wrong one! :))))))) bob ….p.s. cheers to everyone here for such a thoughtful and argumentative community: I really love this place (link sent to me from a friend, photojournalist, from, of all places, Moscow)..Drinks are on me, if I get that grant from Ontario Arts Council ;))

by [former member] | 10 Jun 2005 15:06 | Toronto, by way of the States, Canada | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Recommended
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→

Participants

teru kuwayama, I/O teru kuwayama
I/O
New York , United States
Jon Anderson, Photographer & Writer Jon Anderson
Photographer & Writer
Ocala Florida , United States


Keywords

Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2014 November Eleven