Unsold stories, stolen ideas...

Anderson, this is the first time anyone has posted such a message here, but unfortunately this does happen, and while I myself have never experienced it, I know a couple others who have.  And you are right, they take the idea, reshoot it on the cheap, and present it to the public as though it were well thought out and considered photojournalism, which it isnt.  And you can tell.  The engagement, the "closeness" to paraphrase Capa, is just not there. 



But does the reader know this?  I hope some do. but I doubt it.  Good work takes time,money, an investment on the part of the photographer whose results simply cannot be matched by the hit and run tactics of these others who pretend to be serious about the work.  But the outsider is unaware of all this.  And the problem is that once that hit and run crap  appears under the Estado de Sao Paolo banner or any other such banner, it is anointed, it receives an imprimatur that in the reader’s eyes is enough to guarantee its quality.  They dont know any better.  But I would caution against losing hope.  I believe that quality work in the end wins out.  If we could all market our work the way that Salgado, your compatriot, does - working on long term stories, parcelling out pieces to different publications around the world - we would be in a good position with such material, because that is the sort of thing that does in fact satisfy a large and broad market.  But we are not quite in that enviable position yet.  IN the meantime, I tell you what I do: I exploit whatever medium is available to me in order to get the material out there - websites; slideshows given as a tour, with a gallery show, or wherever (like the Slideluck Potshow here on LS); distribute through NGO’s; Foundations and grants that open up other venues; Photo festivals like Noorderlicht; Perpignan; Schools (yep, schools: you want to teach people about issues, schools are the best place to do it); -- in short, whatever I can think of.  Ok, it doesnt all bring in money (though some do), but the point is you are distributing the material and creating an audience for your work.



And what happens is that you get your message out there - sometimes better than does the article in the paper - and you become known as the guy who has the goods on X, so it doesnt matter if other people are shooting the same material.  Anyway, aside from outright robbery of ideas, there is also just imitation - you have any idea how many people have come to DR to shoot the sugar plantations, and each one thinks it is an original idea and they are practically the only one doing it.  It’s a circus.  But only the truly dedicated come out with anything to show for their efforts. 



you can keep working, it really isnt as bad as all that, but if you think that the world of publishing is the be all and end all of what we do, then I can understand that you would be dismayed.  While I am constantly trying to publish in the mainstream media, that is in fact only a small part of my entire effort, and I have to say that, after having recieved OSI’s Documentary Distribution Grant, I have come to realize that magazines and papers are perhaps not so important after all, and that there are other very effective means of getting your ideas out there and helping to change things or inform people.



Good luck Anderson, dont despair.

“always look at the bright side of life”. they run their stuff, and hence generate interest in the story. you can go around to people and make some follow up calls, saying: “I wasn’t fooling around with this story, it is a major thing, this and that paper just ran a story, I’m sure you’ve seen it and I guess we can agree that it was not of highest standards, so maybe you can have a look at my pictures again…” etc. – so yeah, maybe geting idea “stolen” sucks, but the fact they produced work of inferior quality works to your advantage.

Thanks everybody by the supporting words… And stay cool, I am not thinking about suicide… or murder… My skin is thick enough and I can live with it.



But what really concerns me is not the stricto sensu, but the latu one. In a strict point of view, I was robbed, ok, but I can elaborate technics to avoid it in the future and/or explore new fields where I can show my work, being freed from the claws of the outrageous and main-streamed printed media. I can and I will do it. Although, in a broader view, if  audience is unable to stabilish a difference between good and bad journalism and/or photography, It’s all over. It is worthless trying to prospect new ways of showing images, once the same "unprepared" audience will be there, drinking their martinis and looking to the perfect-white gallery walls, comenting how "sensitive" are those images, by the simple reason that every hung image is "sensitive". Photography can’t make a difference if people who consume information couldn’t be able to notice and to understand visual language. I am inclined to agree with you, Jon, when you say that probably some will notice, but most of them will blindly absort everything that is under a major label. I ask myself if people care about images, if they even try to understand the meaning, the information beyond the "painted paper". Sometimes I ask myself why people read newspapers if they don’t even understand or care about it? They read about famine in Africa as they have their breakfasts….. That’s my point and that is really scary…

"Does the audience really see the difference between a true story and something made with the sole purpose of occupying space in the pages?"



Probably not, and does it really matter in the end?  You shoot only for yourself at the end of the day.



As for stealing ideas, I can think of a half dozen photographers who have shot the Alang shipbreaking yards in India—Salgado, Nachtwey, and the guy from the Baltimore Sun who won a Pulitzer Prize for it, chief among them.  Different media have covered the enrvironmental and social issues of Alang; some have broken new ground and some haven’t.  People are still taking pictures there (which has become difficult because of the media attention), and folks on Lightstalkers occasionally ask about how to shoot there.  You will still see new pieces in the media about Alang, as if they have just discovered it.



My point is that no single story is likely to be exhausted.  There are too many media outlets, too many publics, and too many perspectives.  I agree with Luke that once a story gets some buzz, your chances of publishing it are far greater.  Editors are lazy, and they take the path of least resistance.



Shoot for yourself and do your own good work.

It was during my first year in the photography academy when i heard a friend telling me that this career i chose may be not the best chioce in life, but if i had some money put aside, maybe i could open an id and passport photo shop. don’t go working for a newspaper, it’s not worth it moneywise, and that is a low qualified job anyway, he was saying. open the shop! he was an educated guy, a lawyer. how many out there really care about the quality of the images they see and how many really take the time or are in the mood, have the time of really feeling the impact of the images? As Anderson said, most of us read the newspaper while having the breakfast … a strong image of a starving guy in africa would just make him or her turn the page over to better, happier pics. Then what is the purpose of documenting the cruel realities in the world? is there a public for it? do people really want to know about these things while sitting in their confortable armchairs in a fancy livingroom, because the ones in the huts cannot afford to buy the publications anyway. news pics it’s ok, people want to see some illustrations to the articles they read, but do they really bother to stop more than a second over them? but what happens with documentaries that involve time, energy, money from the photographer’s point of view. is it worth it? ufff, just being in a bad mood …. hope tomorrow i’ll see things in a pretier pink color. Anderson, they stole your idea. this means it’s a good one! you could see it this way. it will not help you pay the bills but it might give you the energy to go on .. maybe?

Anderson, good to see you here, my friend. That’s a tough situation you describe… Some people have talked about photographers stealing ideas (shipbreaking, etc.), but this is something far different. You should be able to go to a publication and not worry about them declining your story, and then shooting it on the cheap behind your back. That’s just an unscrupulous business practice. I’ll put that paper down on my list of publications to never do business with….



On the other hand, I wouldn’t get discouraged on the larger issue about whether people care about quality work. I think people do care, and recognize good work when they see it. Whether they’re willing to pay for it, that’s tougher to say. In the end, it’s so much navel-gazing on our part. We just have to keep making quality images and get them in front of people….not much else we can really do.

Everyone here has made significant points: Preston is absolutely right that good stories can be done and redone and not exhausted (though sometimes you just wish that others wouldnt copy so much and try to come up with an original idea!  Editors complain about this - someone quoted some editor saying "I am up to my neck in photogrphers and my ankles in ideas.")  And Luke is right to point out that you can use that as leverage to get other people interested in the more substantial treatment you give the story.  I have in fact done that myself.  And Max is right to remind us all that Estado de sao Paolo is being unscrupulous, and they should be on all our shit lists.   this  is not a pecadillo.



But let me add this too: while many people, myself included, scan the paper over their coffee, the images we make are not just fish wrap.   I know this because I have seen how my work down here has been slowly shaping peoples’ attitudes and touching them.  As Kenneth Jarecke put it here on LS, our job is to make the "viewer see their own humanity in our subjects."  And we do that if the images are the product of really engaged work.  I dont mean to toot my own trumpet here by mentioning the OSI grant, but it is a good example of what I am talking about: the initiative is all about getting the images out there in new ways so as to influence the discussions people are  having on a particular issue, to really prompt some reflection.  I learned alot from this experience and above all that it is possible to create a climate for change if you disseminate your material in a variety of ways.  We need to stop thnking that publishing in a paper or magazine is the end of our job; if we are committed we can find other ways to get the image out there and catch people standing up and paying attention instead of hazily sucking down coffee.   The exhibition, which was just one part of the entire project I am working on, had a remarkable effect on some people and I realized this as I strolled around anonymously and eavesdropped on the comments, witnessed the reaction on people’s faces - I  realized that the image is indeed a powerful thing and really can make the viewer see the humanity in our subjects.  I had people coming up to me - cops, rich people, all sorts who make it their business either to repress the sugar workers or just live as though they dont even exist -- telling me how they had never thought of it just this way, that they had no idea of the real situation, and so on.  I am not saying that this is enough, but it is a start.  And there are other phases to this thing.



I just think that we as journalists need to explore all manner of media in order to catch people off guard, create circumstances where they cannot sink back into their cushy chair and fold the paper.  I dont think the web is the answer; I think it has more to do with a concerted attack on a variety of levels. You want to get the images out there in front of the people, as Max says, but lets do so in as many ways as possible.

It may sound cynical, but you did a pretty good job. I don’t if anyone has said that before (lazy me), but it doesn’t look like something for a newspaper, though.  At least here Newspapers don’t run photo stories at all. In fact they use rarely more than one photo per reportage. It is definitely something for a magazine and there the readers can see the difference between a well told story and something shot in one day/one place.

Bummer that someone took your idea and did it on the cheap. I figure your consolation must be that you did a better job. I will not write more about different people doing the same stuff, but I would say that the prestige and cudos of publishing in newspapers and magazines has long been diminishing, and Jons’ point about disseminating the work through other means is a good one.

As a student one of my leturers asked how much time we spent consuming an image? Flick through a magazine while waiting for a train – what 2, 3 seconds? Less for advertising photography, a bit more for fine reportage, longer if we know how to read an image, understand the work behind it, comprehend the pacing and techniques.  We probably spend less time examining images when they appear on the internet. Photography remains the most consumed visual media, and perhaps the trick is to have it consumed in as many places as possible.

Martin Parr always springs to mind in this context – he manages to have the same images consumed again and again in books and  exhibitions. faxing whole exhibits around the world, hanging images in public toilets, selling as postcards, printing the same images in various books under various collections….i figure that he is not only one of the most prolific photographers of the day but also the most consumed.

Hang in there. Good work shines through, but unfortunately it is all too often only other photographers who recognise it. And most of them, as we all know, are flat broke



Best reagrds

simon

Thanks everybody for the lines…



I absolutely agree with the idea of prospecting new media for photography the same way I agree with the fact that magazines and newspapers represent a broad but not a taylor-made photography medium. In my opinion, space in traditional media always compromise (sometimes a lot, sometimes a little) the photographic narrative flow, and this is, for me, a point that might force us towards different manners of going public.

However, and I am sorry for being repetitive, I think to myself how people that consume photography are prepared to understand photography beyond the point where a man jumping over a puddle means a man jumping over a puddle.

But do you know one thing? The world has (a lot of) problems, and it is up to each one of us trying to resolve them the best way we can. If "image consumers are unprepared to consume images", maybe here it is one more reason to keep doing it. Changes demand time and, as Max (it’s good to see you too, my friend), Jon, Simon and many others said above, "We just have to keep making quality images and get them in front of people", in any and every way that we can imagine. Simple like that.



Thanks for the opportunity of sharing thoughts,



anderson

Anderson: What newspaper it is? I know is hard to say the name of the newspaper. Keep calm. We have act as a media watcher also. You won’t be the last guy who happens trough this.





Be strong!!!!!!

It’s absolutely not hard! It was the ESTADO DE SAO PAULO.



Don’t worry, my skin is thick. I will survive… and reloaded.

Hello Anderson,



] am sorry for what happened to you especially because your work is very good, it is full of heart and yes you can tell the difference from something that has been shot in 2 days.

I hope that another editor with some sense will publish it, it would be a shame if does not get seen.

Good luck,



Chiara

FWIW, I steal ideas whenever I can.  How is one to learn about the world without the media?.  If I see some theme, place, or person that interests me, I pursue it myself—even if other media have already done so.  What difference does it make in the end?  No one "owns" a story, and my take on it will be different from everyone else’s.  In fact, I often set out consciously to do something better (at least in my own mind) if I don’t believe the subject has been properly treated.  That said, if I see something pretty well covered that had previously interested me, I might just give it a pass and work on something else.



Ideas are supposed to exist in a free market. 

Preston i can only agree with you until 1 point… yes maybe there aren’t many original ideas around, maybe it is all a repetition….. but Anderson’s situation is quite different in my opinion: he went to show his work to some1 and next thing he knows this person comminssions some1else to shoot the same subject `(sure in a differet way.. no1 can take same photos as another person) so what you say? so even though we live in a ‘world of free ideas’ I think that editor showed a complete lack of respect towards Anderson who spent ages photographing a very hardcore subject matter… why did he commission some1else? maybe it was cheaper.. or he decided that he was a good story and wanted his best friend/brohter/ who ever to do it….  I dont know but i took a look at Anderson’s pics and they are good…. so why not show him the due respect and publish his work?

Anyway I dont quite like the concept of consciously steeling ideas all the time….. but thats me I guess.

I’ve had this happen to me recently. I’m not too pissed off because my piece was already published in another publication, the project’s funding worked out OK, and my work was better. An interesting contrast though – I’d shot the original story over a year and a half in black and white, the “copy” was done in colour in less than a month. Both got about 5 pages in a weekend supplement. The point that stays with me though, is that black and white is really really really hard to sell. Sad, but true.

I wasn’t defending the editor, Chiara.  Just arguing the case from the reverse—we photographers often find it useful to "steal" too.  But I am not talking about violating a business practice, like Anderson’s newspaper guy.

The situation Anderson has  described is one of the most annoying but completely unavoidable situations we photographers face. The editor at the magazine is essentially doing his job! That may sound bad but he has the magazine/newspapers proprietor breathing down his neck to place material that gets people to buy the magazine & keep within budget in the process.

I’m not defending him but he is a crafty business man. There are so many instances where a story gets replicated time after time. This is a competitive business were in and we all know  photographers nick other photographers idea’s. Many years ago when I was in a particular place during a conflict many of the photographers were very secretive about what they were doing & where they were going. I was new & naive & could not understand why so many were unfriendly. Well in the evenings you could share a beer but no one ever really discussed what they were shooting during the day. Keep your cards close to your chest & be careful who you relay your ideas too. 

As for the editor of the previously mentioned magazine put up an "alert " about that mag on here you never know everyone might refuse to sell to him but I doubt it. 



Mark

I understand your point Preston but I guess your choice of words is not exact. Stealing means dishonest appropriation, so it can’t be acceptable in any way or form. Of course we can (and must) have our own opinions and poits of view about reality and, as photographers, the obligation of seeing things by a fresh perspective. This different point of view on a same historical fact – and its role in the understanding and contextualization of a given reality – is the only thing that shoud make us leave home, wife and kids and jump into often extremely hard situations.

Why do we take pictures? To impress our family and friends about how brave and talented we are? To show the entire world that we took that picture TOO, and use them (the pictures) as medals, as proofs or our capacity? I guess not….

Photography is a language. And as a language, it is used to communicate – what instantly makes us understand that is necessary more than one person to make photography existent. For this same reason, I also disagree with the quote that "You shoot only for yourself at the end of the day" . Photography is not only about seeing, it’s much more than that, it’s about sharing what was seen. I shoot a story for people that couldn’t be there and see for themselves, I do it to show what is not being shown. When only myself is the interested part, I don’t photograph. I just pay attention, because reality my friend, is bigger that any picture ever made.

well said anderson



although i would also say that it is self expression, whatever that self may be and whateverit is it wishes to express



best regards



simon

I agree that the desire to connect with an audience is important.  But still, if you are at the mercy and whims of editors, or anyone else, you will never develop your own style, your own way of seeing. 



Imagine if someone had taken the young HCB aside and said, "You know, Henri, this ironic juxtaposition stuff you do is clever-but merely so.  Why don’t you expand your style, try something a little different?"



Or to Alex Webb, "The high-contrast, vaguely abstract, self-consciously artsy stuff is great in your Florida work, since Florida itself is as bizarre as you have suggested.  But this style just doesn’t work on the US/Mexico border."



I would agree with those assessments, but I still think the photographer who shoots for himself, all others be damned, is going to produce better work in the long run.  Your allegiance has to be to the photo itself-and not to the reaction you hope the photo generates.  You have to become your own ideal viewer.  Cheers.

Preston, you are definitely right in this, no doubt in my mind about it at all.  Anderson with all due respect, I think you are overlooking the implication behind Preston’s statement.   He is not denying or ignoring the shared communication that the photograph inevitably embodies.  But for that shared communication to be effective, the work has to be true to your own vision first.  You shoot for yourself first because you must be your own  judge first, and if the imagery comes up to your own criteria, then it is ready to be seen by others and move them. 



Your own situation is a perfect example of this: the work you did was superior to the hack work that the paper snuck in, because you were engaged in the topic, you went all out, you covered the story fully, and you made sure that the material lived up to your standards—I mean what other standards could they have been, since this was a self assigned story?  You went out there with your own criteria in mind and made sure that the results were satisfactory.   That I think is what is meant by shooting for oneself.  Of course, you have an audience in mind, you want to communicate,you are not going to keep these photos in a closet, but your personal vision comes first, it is there to ensure that the work is not hack work, that the work is powerful, that it will in fact move people.  I dont think Preston is arguing that one should  shoot like a solipsist.  we are communicators, but to communicate well, you need to have ideas.  Those are yours.  The fact that this guy stole your idea and didnt do a good job is a perfect example of what I am talking about.  He communicated poorly because he wasnt engaged in the job, this wasnt his vision, it was stolen.  See what  I mean?



Mark is right too, btw.  This is the business.  But stealing ideas is not so worrisome when you realize that there is no way they can steal your vision.  I repeat, I have seen lots of photographers come through the cane brakes down here, and only one of them besides myself got anything worth seeing out of it.  And he has vision.  I dont mind sharing stories with other photographers who have vision.  It is the hacks I abhor.

I think you guys are misunderstanding Anderson’s point on the concept of "shooting for yourself." Preston and Jon, you guys are arguing that this relates to the method, style, vision, or whatever you want to call it that Anderson applies to his work. Anderson is talking about the end result. He has pursued this story, and others, with his own personal vision and applied his own shooting style to the process.



This quote specifically is what Anderson, and now myself, are disagreeing with: "You shoot only for yourself at the end of the day."  At the end of the day (or story), it should be for the viewing public. That’s the only way the pictures can have any real value: by informing the public about an issue, and maybe do something about it. If you’re shooting "only for yourself" and just showing the images to friends and peers….what’s the point? Could one really shoot these leprosy patients, invade their space and time, just for themelves? Could you photograph people dying after a car bombing in Iraq, just for yourself? I would hope it’s for a larger purpose, to inform the world at large. I think of myself as the eyes of the thousands who can’t be there, but will see the image and hopefully feel something of what it was like to be there.



Personal vision is what makes the public feel the image, not just see it.



I think we’re on the same page here, hopefully just a matter of semantics.

by Max Whittaker | 24 Feb 2006 10:02 | Sacramento, United States |

I’m always a little leery of the "larger purpose" argument.  At the instant of snapping the photo, I don’t think it matters how you justify it to yourself-"this will inform the world of these terrible atrocities, thereby causing a shift in public opinion about the war, which will save lives" or "the light here is really cool."  And why does taking a photo have to be justified anyway?



You have no way of knowing what the larger purpose will be.  Your Iraqi car bombing photos could just as easily turn up on a jihadist’s website as trophies.  So you are serving a different larger purpose from what you envisioned.



You have no control (beyond copyright) over how your images will be used or interpreted, despite your best intentions.  The Arizona Minutemen could mount an exhbition of Salgado’s "Migrants" and Webb’s border pictures saying, "Look at the riffraff we have to protect ourselves against."



So, really, you can only ever shoot to satisfy whatever impulse caused you to pick up a camera (there are certainly easier, more lucrative things to do with one’s time).  That impulse could be self-serving, exploitative, even monstrous; or it could be virtuous-it all just doesn’t matter if your pictures are interesting.

Right Max, I think we are in fact all on the same page, it is just a matter of semantics, and Preston’s line about "at the end of the day" is what is causing the trouble.  Let Preston weigh in on this for himself, but I didnt think he meant quite what the prepositional phrase implies.



And if Sion Touhig were present he would say the same thing you did.  Of course, one doesnt invade the privacy of others simply to make pix for oneself, in that sense.  Understood. 



One thing I might add, though, and this is sort of a separate topic, when I think about what I am doing as a whole down here, not all of it is done with the idea of making a change.  And yet, I still consider it photojournalism of a sort.  Sometimes we are there to witness an event, or document an issue, or make a story that is not really about the need to redress an abuse, or argue for change.  I think that what most of us do is something broader, or shall we say has many purposes.  I wouldnt want to limit myself too much.  I dont think everything can or should be changed. Sometimes I photograph something because I know that it will change and I will miss it!



the example i have given in the past is cockfighting.  many people see this as a barbaric abuse of animals.   I do not, and I would hate to see it change.  But as a cultural practice  I feel compelled to document it, learn about it, teach others, etc.



Well, I am getting away from the original topic.  I trust that Anderson and you too Max understood that I am not endorsing photography as a solipsistic pleasure.  Course not.

Preston, a photo does not always have to be justified, sometimes it’s just a pretty picture. However….well I’ll just use Jon’s quote ‘cause it’s perfect: "Of course, one doesnt invade the privacy of others simply to make pix for oneself, in that sense."



You’re absolutely right, I have no control over how the viewer will interpret a photo. That’s the beauty of photography, and why I love it so much. Two different people can view an image and walk away with exactly different responses. I think that’s awesome.



Your final point, Preston, while a bit nihilistic for me, is true: "...it all just doesn’t matter if your pictures are interesting."



Jon, you’re right, it doesn’t have to all be about effecting change, although I do view that as a good goal. Sometimes it is just about conveying some basic information, human emotion, or as historical documents.



At any rate, it’s a Friday, and I wish we were discussing this over some drinks somewhere. Cheers.

Amen to that!

Hey, one day we will discuss this and other matters over drinks.   it is frustrating to think that some of the people I meet here in cyberspace i may never get to know in the flesh, so I keep hoping that our propensity to travel a lot will serve to cross our paths.



and changing things is a damn fine goal.  I have been thinking about that lately, more than usual, partly because of what I was talking about above.



You all have a fine weekend.  ours is a long one, I am heading to the campo.



Luego

I think it sucks…but thats just life sometimes… This industry has made my skin thicken aswell, and it has thought me not to belive anything before I see my stuff published, and can count the money in the bank….....but still I just love it….crazy…

Anderson, the following story cannot compare to the time and effort you put into your project, but is another example of the way some newspapers behave. I was in downtown Dubai a while back in a photo lab (I was still shooting film) and heard an almighty crash. Went outside to find a balcony had collapsed onto the pavement restaurant next door. Fortunately no-one hurt as the lunch tables had emptied, but the restaurant was trashed. I hung around until the rescue services arrived (there were still people inside) and got some cool pics of a rescuer coming out of thru a hole in the rubble from the dark restaurant – yellow helmet, onlookers etc. Went straight back to the lab and ran the film thru the developer and had a few prints made. Headed off down to the main daily (Gulf News) and tried phoning them on the way there. No luck getting thru to anyone, so called the other daily – 7 Days, and spoke to the newsdesk, who put me on to a reporter. Now I was standing in the foyer of Gulf News, with the prints, and no-one would come out and see them. The 7 Days reporter said he would take them, and I must wait until he returned from getting his story at the restaurant. After several calls arranging a meeting place he ultimately turned off his phone. Both papers ran the story next day highlighting the conditions under which the Indian and Pakistani workers live and the dilapidated buildings that they inhabit, and both supporting pictures were appalling – taken about 2 hours later from over the road, you could not see a thing. Were they just being cheap and saving a few Dirhams, or did they not want an ‘outsider’s’ pictures in their paper?

Now do you remember some time back  when a wall collapsed at Dubai airport, killing some workers beneath iron reinforcing? I was standing right there (I work in the airport – my day job) – sadly I had no camera with me because of security, but suppose I’d got the pictures of what I was watching – police sniffer dogs looking for workers beneath the rubble – do you think I would have gone to Gulf News or 7 Days after the way they treated me? Not a chance. The whole world was awash with rumours of a terrorist attack in the airport and airport authorities did their best to ensure a complete cover-up.

(Incidently I always carry a camera these days – Sony W800i – which I can get in anywhere.)

I think newspapers just ultimately screw themselves by doing things like that.

ok I’ve written enough!