Regarding: Private

Yeah, well thanks Lucy, but one still needs to pay for professional services no matter what ones personal or philanthropist excuses are.

That is not a malicious, self rightous statement, that is economic fact.

Try getting your car serviced with only issues and excuses and tell us what your response is.

has nothing to do with car service or hiring folks to mow your lawn and not paying them.

the math is simple, nobody is being “hired” to do anything. if you need a monetary return on your pics then move on to something else.

This whole attack on Lightstalkers that has been aimed at nonprofitable and non paying high end photography publications of late is incredibly short sighted and self destructive.

Photography is a medium that requires space and context to develop it to its fullest, and those are in serious short supply in many of the major publications that are giving out assignments. The publications that Lucy names offer a space where photographers can engage in discourses and conversations with a caring audience and present work with the room and the editorial freedom that simply doesn’t exist elsewhere.

The media landscape would be impoverished without them.

Not that I’d ever consider giving my work away, I have to say (with my usual saggitarian/australian bluntness), that I think there’s a huge amount of wank factor at work with people who want the prestige and glory of publishing these zines. Particularly, when you factor that the content that ulimately gives them the cred/glory/prestige/tickets-to-openings-of-envelopes/free-champagne/minions-kissing-feet are ulimately gotten for free. If these so called publishers really aren’t in it for the money, why in the hell aren’t they giving their zines away instead of charging for them???

because then they couldn’t afford to publish them.
which is exactly the same situation photographers are in if they don’t get paid.i.e can’t afford to take the photos.

joseph heller would be proud.

......... as one who is mainly involved in the fine arts doing stuff for nothing is much the norm, most of us get another job so we can finance our artwork, costs in sculptures can be steep and you have to pay for the materials upfront before you start, even to experiment, grants are very few. I’ll be exhibiting a couple years’ work in September, after costs and if I sold everything there may be something in it for me. other proffessions are in this boat…....

“photographers are in if they don’t get paid.i.e can’t afford to take the photos”........ not true supplement the income with something else… as Ed said no one is holding a gun to your head to participate,.................. I have been invited to exhibit in Sculpture by thr Sea, turned it down because my finances were committed elsewhere. ............................in the end I do stuff for money, stuff for free, stuff that I hope to sell, stuff that I will never sell, stuff I wish I sold, stuff I wish I never did, stuff for free ,stuff because I want to, do stuff ,,,,,,,,, stuff for stuff’s sake..............etc..the stuff on my sites are free to look at ..

Imants,

Big difference between fine art and exhibiting your work, and a wanna be publisher crowdsoucing his content. Sorry, but I just can’t get past the idea of “let’s do a cool magazine daaarling, and I’m sure if we praise the photographers on what arteests they are, they’ll let us use their work for free.”

Someone stop me before I get really cynical ;-)

Galleries do it all the time, they have been using artists to promote themselves for yonks, work pretty much the same as some of the magazines out there…......... plus the other caper with your work once you sold it the owner can do as they please with it, copywrite hardly ever remains with the artist, you sell it all lock stop and barrel….............. then some are asking up to 60% commission plus you bear the gallery costs…....... in the end it is one’s choice if they take up an offer whether it be good or bad…..........one thing the mags are not charging you to be there galleries do!!!

Lucy:

For the record, I have not only held a few copies of Private in my hands, but I have also been a follower and supporter of the magazine since discovering it a number of years ago. Moreover, I have considered submitting work to Private as some of my personal friends were published by Private (in the Metropolitan edition, the Russian edition, The Iran edition and a few others). So, my approach to Tim’s thread (and now to your post) was not one of cynicsm, irony, belligerence or disinformatin. Quite the contrary: it’s a issue I have, along with my wife, thought about for a long time, as a family of artists trying to bare the burden of all these considerations. Since I am both a writer and a photographer and I know Private supports and includes both art forms (literary as well as photographic), I’m approaching Private not from the sole position of a photographer.

Regardless of the myriad and divergent discussions and issues that surfaced on Tim’s post, my single concern was related to the discussion of “expectation” and renumeration for content. Most of us who are non-photojournalists, but spend our lives as “working” photographers do so with considerable difficulty: the same is true, of course, for all occupations and most of us have to juggle innumerable things as well to pay bills, raise children and accomplish the work of being writers and photographers, just as the publishers of Private, to support and sustain our families and our life’s work: some of this is related to photography (teaching, commercial work, print sales, commissions, etc) some of this is not. That Private exists and is a source of extraordinary work and inspiration is incontestable. That the magazine fosters relationships with its photographers, I take your forthright word for that, I applaud this working relationship (though it wasn’t exactly the same situation with some of the Russian photographers on the Russian volume). As I stated on that post, the photography community exists only through the dint of its support of one another, the embracing and the communal dialoque, sponsorship (emotionally, i’m speaking of) and embrace of the varying realities that comprise the sustainability of the practice and the art. My only question to you would be the same one I had raised earlier:

As someone who has also worked on a photography magazine (on line) that showcased and promoted photography/photographers, I find the idea that “photography” is larger than the “photographers” a pretty solipsistic one and accordingly part of the conversation that should and must take place is the role of payment to allow for the sustainability of both the magazine and the photographers who provide the content. Our LS member, Magnum member John Vink eloquently about this as well, went he had tried to create a magazine which payed the photographers (his mantra) though the magazine folded prematurely and at a great personal loss. It is, in fact, a dilemma. Though Private is born of the love of photography and is mantain at great personal expense of the publishers, please try to remember that many many photographers as well make their SOLE livelihood from their photographs and the distribution of that. It is for that reason that many of the members found the idea of a magazine asking for work without renumeration an odious one.

That stipulated, there are critical times when photographers and magazines and communities should and need to support one another, for both short and long term reasons, without constituent demands or financial reimbursement. This is a choice, and ethic really, that each photographer makes and that I personally cannot nor have the right to insist upon a judgment for them. That, however, it increasingly becomes the norm (a problem with ubiquity and market value and means of reproduction and distribution) that the expectation is that publication is the renumeration, period. That is, in fact, to me the most bankrupt of thinking, and that’s not because of money.

In the end, i’ll simply iterate what i wrote at the other post: the magazine has extraordinary content and I am happy that such a magazine exists and that, issue after issue, remains a treasure chest of remarkable work. That, again, the magazine thrives but the photographers, many, who’ve published there continue to have difficulty finding outlet and reimbursement for their work is still an exhaustingly frustrating reality, a tenusous existential reality for all folks out there and a market environment which Private was not responsible creating for but I would hope that after so many issues would consider its own role with relationship to this important discussion. Photographers must (though many do not) critique and understand their responsibility and role in photographing people (they earn money off their subjects) so to the magazines. I make the same critique of myself (to wrestle with the personal benefit i may receive from images and how this relates to people I’ve photograph) that I’ve tried to offer Private and in my responses to Jon L and others.

Incidentally, publication in a magazine, as beautiful as Private, does not mean, a priori, a tumbling of calls from editors/magazines/galleries/investors, etc. It is what it is, no more, no less: publication in a strong magazine.

My hope for Private it that it continues to produce remarkable issues and outlives most others (what’s the half-life of a good magazine, 24 months?? ;) ) and that it also finds a way to pay for its content and for its contributors without bankrupting itself or losing sight of its mandate.

sincerely,
bob

p.s. i just returned from watching Pedro Costa’s 3 hour poem “Vanda’s Room”, so my facility and desire for words is pretty low….so, forgive the typos and the ineloquence ….im not really up for rereading/retyping it…im pooped….to bed….

The idea that photographers earn from other people’s misery, did not come high on the agenda in these arguments is a puzzle, considering all the hooha about ethics…................then we should realise finger pointing is just that….finger pointing

imants: indeed…

that’s a major and important discussion point, one i mentioned in my post, and i was going to do an entire riff on that too, but then i thought, bloody hell, everyone is going to hate me on all sides….;))))))....

finger pointing, indeed, is good for only 1 thing and that
s for: s#*#!$fp -083m fa dpur23 840237 # %#$ #$.....(edited, in case my son takes a peek) ;)))))...

cheers,
b

Hi Lucy,

I haven’t heard from you in a while, I think the last time was when we hung out in Paris in 2003, as I was on my way out of Iraq and back to New York.

Regarding your letter, my post about Private is an alert and a warning to other LS members. If you interpret it as “malicious,” you certainly have a right to your opinion. However, my post was not written as such. My post is not dissimilar to ones warning about unfair contracts, questionable business dealings involving rights-grabs, magazines which pay too slowly or never pay photographers after a job is shot and the photos are published.

One of the purposes of forums like lightstalkers, editorialphotographers.com, sportsshooter, etc is to spread the word about questionable arrangements.

Here’s a few recent examples: A few years back, The New York Times issued a new contract that included rights-sharing and resale sharing, with only a marginal increase in the day rate. Before that, Corbis tried but failed to share the copyright of the photographers. Sometime in 2002 or later, Getty, AP, The Boston Globe and others either tried to establish or did establish new arrangements which were essentially work-for-hire agreements. People brought these issues to the attention of online photo communities. Discussions, often very heated, ensued.

I don’t recall seeing you participating in the above topics and calling these posts “malicious.”

I have seen the printed magazine as well as the online version. The printed magazine has advertising. Maybe not a lot, but it does. It costs 9 Euros. I am familiar with the costs of book and magazine publishing and I can tell you that you can cover the printing costs just on the 9 Euro cover price alone. So where does the advertising revenue go?

It’s important to have artistically-inclined photojournalism reach the public. But what I can’t understand is why they don’t figure in a profit component at some point, which can be passed on to the photographers – to respect and pay for this hard work. Instead, the general attitude is that it’s an honor to have the work selected and published, and that should be sufficient. Actually, the attitude is that it’s ok for photographers to lose money as well. Well, sorry, that’s not good enough. Photographers need to be paid.

We haven’t even addressed the fact that the stories that grace the pages of such magazines cost the photographers a lot of money to produce. Flights, cars, hotels, fixers, film, etc aren’t free and they come out of the pockets of photographers, in the case of stories not shot while on assignment.

I would suggest: hire an advertising sales person to more actively solicit potential clients, maybe art galleries, for example, to place ads. Raise the cover price from 9 Euros to 12 and give the extra to the photographers. Sure, they’ll sell fewer magazines, but probably not much fewer and the printing costs will go down.

You’re a well respected, very capable and professional editor, no doubt. I respect your opinion, however, I think that the thrust of your letter comes from somewhere very personal. I could be wrong, but you respond as if you are an insider. As you stated, you are of the same nationality as the publishers, you have been a contributing editor, and you are their friend. You have a personal connection to Private on many levels—so you are very close to them, and that might color your strong defense of Private.

Yes it’s a fine magazine, thick paper, quality printing and laminated cover. I’m sure the people who publish it are lovely people who love photography. Still, I have a choice whether I give away my photographs for free, and in this case, I decline. I still think that Private has a questionable arrangement, so I posted an alert, and there was debate. If someone else decides otherwise to have their work published like that, that’s their prerogative and none of my business. However, I retain the right to post a warning, then people can decide for themselves.

Sincerely,

Tim