Why We Need A Global Journalism Union

I'm with you but... Here in Italy we have all manipulated informations. Do you know that yesterday Italian State Tv, (RAI) had a feature from Kabul by one of the most important italian journalists. The aim of the feature was to show how Italian soldiers was spending the 1st of jennuary there to kabul. They said that the situation is under control, that they are working a lot with great results for saefty, and that about 5 milions of Afgan boys and girls are back to attend the schools. Now we know this is not true, because Afghanistan is still under the Taliban control, maybe only Kabul is free from Taliban forces. this is just one of the things happen here in Italy, we have a manipulated information, photojournalists publish photos on Italian daily paper without credits, and newspapers pay few euros for their photos. Pictures are manipulated before to be published, to let appear more youngest or full of healt or sexy politics leaders that are near to death as well as all the country. How do you think to change this status? Do you really think that a new Union full of Leader, Fighters, Warriors and Rebels will change this status? Do you really think that a country like Italy that is listed 54th for the press freedom, will change its status? Why existing International Union like IFJ, doesn't make anything to change the press freedom in the world? tell me how we can change it, and i'm the first one to stay with you. best antonino

Patrick... there will never, ever, be a White Knight, riding in on a Big White Horse, to save you (or anyone else, in This Biz). It won't happen. It's a Myth. If you feel strongly that you are being manipulated, or exploited (exploitation is MY issue), then all there really is to do is to REFUSE to be manipulated, or exploited. In my case, that meant taking all my marbles out of the Major Metro Daily newspaper that I did three-six freelance jobs per week for, and left The Daily Newspaper Biz. Was it pleasant? No. Did I and my family suffer economic pressure, while I re-invented myself? Yes. Is anyone happy about The State Of Affairs? No. But... they don't own or syndicate my work, and pay me nothing. I own and syndicate my work, and pay myself. Only the personal Character, of individual photographers, can resist your "Fascization" of the Business... and, we are not alone... Artists, and "content providers" of all kinds, are involved in the same struggle (witness the Hollywood Writers' Strike). Listen... when writers decided to strike against Disney Corporation, some years ago... the "suits" at Disney realized that not one, single member of Management or The Board Of Directors of Disney, could make a movie by themselves. They decided that THEIR economic futures were related to well-paid writers, so they made a deal. Those guys swallowed hard, before deciding to withhold services. Who knew what would happen? Would they be locked out? Would they be replaced by low-wage "scabs"? They took a courageous and principled stand against Disney, and won. Sadly... Photographers, as a group, have been unable to muster up whatever-it-takes to resist pressure from The News Biz... so they sign away their rights, and work for less money. If you want change in the status quo... then YOU must take a stand. Maybe that means that you have to find some other way to make a living, or to "make a difference"... but who, exactly, guaranteed you, me, or anyone else the RIGHT to be a News Photographer? No Revolution is painless. No Principled Stand is painless. Some people lose, in the shuffling of events. The only thing that is absolutely SURE, is that you must save yourself. There will be no White Knight. Nobody, who has work to be done, cares about you, me, or any other individual PhotoJournalist. We must save ourselves, and each other. If WE don't care enough to resist Bad Deals and Exploitation, why would anyone else? Greg

Well said Greg. A global photojournalists union is never going to happen. Near me there is a guy advertising his services as a portrait photographer for ten GP £ per portrait,(about 20 US $). His advert says he will also do commercial, PR and press work for that same sort of money. Try getting him to join a global union !

I have to agree with John and Greg. After working for nearly 20 years as a freelance editorial photographer I have yet to see any significant raising of collective conciousness amongst photographers about their economic disenfranchisement. The nadir has now been reached whereby continual widespread undercutting by insecure photographers as either a desperate slash-and-burn survival strategy, or kow-towing entry strategy, has now been rendered obsolete by User Generated Content. Employers now gravitate towards that, because its even more compliant towards exploitation and rights grabs than we are. Photographers continually lowered the bar, and it has now been kicked away. Unlike other groups of workers, photographers seem almost uniquely ignorant of, or unwilling to accept the simple economic truth which underpins the entire business - that they are not artists, masters of their own destiny, auteurs or 'independent businesses'. They are digital labourers bidding for a days pay in exactly the same way as 19th century farm workers or dock workers in the 1930's. Both were subject to exactly the same rank exploitation and desperate undercutting that we're familiar with. Both were at least partially alleviated by collective action and collective bargaining. The current economics of content on the Web is even more fucked up than economics in the real world - in that rampant theft is not only tolerated, but encouraged as a valid business model, and in many ways, this is leading to a consolidation of content by corporate interests, rather than the equitable free-for-all promised by internet evangelists. Anyone looking at the history of capitalism ought not to be surprised by that. Profiting from the consolidation of content looks like a short term strategy though (one of the reasons why Getty Images is suffering), as by definition, digital content is a 'post-scarcity' product. Its infinitely copyable and so not subject to traditional supply and demand pricing models. The Web is a perfect post-scarcity conduit, so it seems futile in the long run to attempt to stop it. Unfortunately collective bargaining relies on scarcity, or the withdrawal of labour that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Both of those elements no longer exist in the digital photo-sphere, and even if they did (as we have seen), they have been often hobbled by widespread photographer greed, fear and insecurity. In the absence of any manifestation of photographer solidarity or backbone, new methods and avenues must now be found, and as Greg says, by definition those avenues will not be found with the historical entities which have benefitted from exploiting us - apart from the obvious fact that most of them (newspapers and magazines), are themselves being economically gutted by the sharks on the ladder rung above them, so will not be predisposed to pay you much, at all.

How true and right, unfortunately.

Skeptic as I am, I don't really believe in any type of Union and nothing Global... but it is so good to see someone as young as Patrick, to have dreams, ideas and he is not shy to throw them out in the open... And, most of all, he is working hard...Without guys like that there would be no hope at all for anything better to happen in future... You all have a great year! Best,

Patrick isn't being a dreamer. He's simply recognising a fact (which Greg also alludes to) that is continually being obscured, by asking for: "people who own themselves." Because the entire history of corporate capitalism has been an exercise in removing that, from 19th century land enclosures (forcibly creating a disenfranchised labour pool for new factories), to the imposition of fiat paper currency (turning people into indebted wage-slaves), to the circumventing by theft or stealth of creative labour - Orphan Works, Creative Commons (which is a private foundation), rights grabs and work for hire.

Im with Sion and Greg....... i rest all responsibility for my and my family's livelihood square on the slightly-hunched back of myself...this means, pissing off people who would most likely be interested in the kind of photography i engage in but who refuse to pay, or refusing to involve or be involved in a situation that isn't enhancing the opportunity for me to feed my family or to promote photography or other photographers in real and practical ways...what's this means: im starving as a photographer and that's a problem but i've countered this by searching for other sources for income (teaching or writing, currently) while trying to preserve...i dont see photography as an ethic, but as a means: the ethic comes from how one lives not by the occupation they choose: theyre are rich and poor photographers who are equally ethical and unethical (characterless) and ditto the same in all walks of life...photography is not a abbatoir of enlightment, but is a means to speak upon this squandering world, and for many many it is a means by which they have harnessed their lives to live, like any exec or editor or barber or clerk, etc..... unionization won't solve the ills of this industry: it's not about solution but evolution...and branching broader than the normally myoptic perspective that haunts this profession still... i have no solutions other than to see things for what they are and not fuck over other photographers as well....i dont mind teaching (though i'd prefer to spend my waking hours shooting and writing) if it means my family's health, but i wont "sell" images that come at a larger expense... anyway... runningb b

I agree Sion, Patrick isn't being a dreamer... what I said is: he has dreams and, contrary to dreamers, he works on them...

Maybe we need to pull all work from the web entirely, I mean on a massive scale, basically turn off all our websites on one week in protest........go black, so too speak......a day of blackness, on thousands of sites......with all the links going dead, a day of mourning for content creators, musicians, photographers, writers.

Something needs to be done but I do agree that the traditional union approach is flawed, especially when it comes to photographers whom are usually very individualistic folk. LS already plays some part in keeping people together and keeping them smart, others have mentioned it but it is truly impressive what people do for one another on this site. Not to mention that when scandalous practices take place they are brought forth and discussed on here. There are ~22,000 members on LS, sure like any free website only a fraction actively participate but if a specific legal/ethics section was created without all the other crap (my lens is bigger then yours) then perhaps more people would participate. Imagine if even a quarter of LS members came to agreement on what they thought fare wagers were. It could become something to stand behind, something to share with other groups and then something to tell the papers/magazines that we won't work below. There was a lot of crap about that recent agency idea but what if a collective could be started that could rival getty but one where all members kept their copyright, could choose to host images on their own sites or other third party sites like photo shelter or digital railroads. A collective with thousands of members, one that could not be ignored due to the power of numbers. We don't need a union, or people to go bargain with the corporations. Photographers are individuals who want to act alone so why not act alone along with thousands of others to really have some force. Basically we need to stand behind LS and commit ourselves to agreements that we as LS members come to. We have the people, we have the tools we just need to do it. A slightly separate site would make a difference. A site where these issues could be clearly listed and perhaps a system for voting could be worked out. collaboration.lightstalkers.org All existing and new LS members would have the option to join the collaboration. Joining it would state that you agree to the goals that it sets out. It should be a non binding agreement based on each individuals desire to better their own conditions through working together. It sounds a bit like a pinko plot but I think it might be the only way to get people to solve the issues we face. "we the photographers..."

Great thoughts everyone. I hear what you are saying Sascha but I think that the LS community forum you are proposing is not too far removed from what we already have on LS right now. Allow me to clarify something in particular if I may, I am not talking about a union exclusively for photojournalists. I do not think such a union would have any chance. I am talking about an all-inclusive union of all kinds of journalists. Radio journalists, print journalists, tv journalists, multimedia journalists, and photojournalists. There are a lot more print journalists than there are photojournalists, and they too are suffering. Their struggle is our struggle. LS is great but it mostly serves photographers and not all of them are journalists. I think we need a union that serves journalists who have professional degrees in journalism in particular (or at least 4-5 years of professional experience working in the industry) to protect the integrity of the industry. Let me also clarify that I am all about 'decentralization' and 'volunteer collectivism,' and I am all about independence and individualism as well, but the industry is not what it used to be because the FCC in America has just put an end to most all existing regulations on media ownership. We are in desperate times and desperate times call for desperate measures. We (in America) can no longer rely on the government to protect us from media monopolization (centralization of media ownership) so we must resort to more self-determined means of media regulation. IE union. A union of truth. This, I believe, is absolutely necessary. Second of all, there is too much us-versus-them mentality in the journalism industry. People are too fragmented over trivial bullshit ideologies. Media professionals are simply too divided. This is what the powers-that-be want, they want us to fight each other and compete over bullshit. A 'nation' (or union) divided against itself cannot stand. What we need is solidarity and unity of purpose. We need to put aside our trivial differences and focus on the longterm for our very survival and for the survival of truth and democracy. Moreover, we need better resources to provide journalists with the training they need to remain valuable in the ever-changing marketplace of journalism. IE multimedia training. The internet is great and resources like LS are great for providing these resources, but not everybody in the industry are self-directed at learning. Some people need better guidance and hands-on instruction than the internet can provide. A union with enough resources can hire people full-time just to travel and train teams of journalists in person. Some people need this. Moreover, securing residuals and royalties for work produced from media professionals will require a certain amount of power that can only be derived from a collective iron-resolute-solidarity of media professionals. We need a union with the resources that can afford a great team of international lawyers as needed who can help to deter and correct legal infringements on the part of media professionals who refuse to act in accordance with basic standards of professional decency. Lawyers like that cost money. So we need to pool our funds. Think about how much money many media professionals pour into all these fragmented journo-organizations like the NPPA or the AAJA. What if we just pulled these resources together into one big ass pot of gold? Then we could possibly make better and more efficient use of these funds. As well as hire lawyers and tutors, et cetera. Here are excerpts from two rejected proposals I wrote for the Knight News Challenge. The first one is how I think a union could help improve the payment/rights system in journalism and the second is how I think we could improve the newsroom to facilitate better and faster multimedia training. Begin.. 1) I would like to research and develop an open source automated program which tracks online ad-revenues made from news content and handles monthly royalty payments to news and media producers. With basic web-statistics like Google Analytics, online media companies can now know exactly how much revenue is made precisely on every page of their websites. The profits generated from every online story (multimedia or otherwise) can be determined with very high precision. This is unlike print, where it is not possible to calculate exactly how much ad revenue your stories have generated because that is not how print works. Given this new economic and statistical reality, it only seems fair for online media publications to share profits with their content producers. This system would effectively reward news content producers on the merit and quality of their productions because stories that get more views would make more money over time. This could perhaps give media employees more economic motivation to retrain, learn more, or perfect their job skills. Because web stories can be archived 'permanently' online, profit-sharing royalties could serve as retirement for media professionals if their stories have considerable replay value or long-term appeal. One example of an ad-revenue profit-sharing model is MetaCafe's Producer Rewards program. Metacafe is similar to Youtube, and with their producer rewards program, Metacafe shares revenues that they have made from advertising which they have placed on the same pages as content producer's uploaded videos. Some of the top producers on Metacafe have already made over $40,000 within the past year just off of the sharing of advertising profits. Imagine if at least half of the revenue generated from news and media content was given to the content producer. The automated program I would develop would make it easy and cheap for newspapers and other media outlets to pay their content producers royalties. Ideally on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. (Edited) This software could potentially 'rescue' the journalism industry. It could potentially revolutionize the economics of the entire global journalism industry. It will more effectively reward journalists and other media producers on the proven strength and merit of their work. Over time it will increase the quality of published journalism and media because it will put more money behind quality. I know many multimedia gurus who I could get on my team to help produce the open source software with the greatest precision. 2) I would like to invent a new kind of classroom (or newsroom) for all kinds of media professionals. I would like to invent a Multimedia Multiversity (or newsroom) in which there is a classroom that is circular and all the seats are arranged in a circle. In front of every seat, there exists a computer touch-screen for all the students or media professionals who are interacting in this environment. There are two monitors in front of every subject, one connected to the Internet that the subject controls, and one monitor that shows whatever is on the teacher's (or moderator's) interactive computer screen. The teacher (or editor or moderator) has a control switchboard which allows them to temporarily transfer control of the non-interactive monitors to project the interactive monitor of whomever is speaking or "has the floor" during a discussion, lecture, or debate. In addition, their is a circular dry-erase board (which spans all around the classroom) behind the seats, in which students, teachers, professionals, (or politicians alike), can get up and draw or write notes behind them. Due to the circular nature of this room, anybody in this environment can see each others notes with relative ease and transparency. This model would use a dialectic, Socratic seminar approach. The room itself would be structured in the form of a panopticon. All debates could be recorded with a camera in the middle of the room and the recorded videos could be made available freely (or for a fee) online as an educational resource to anybody in the world who wants to watch them. Ideally, these seminar rooms would be constructed to seat no more than 18-24 people, seeing as how smaller class sizes are more conducive to Socratic debate, analysis, and dialectic. Moreover, each seat would have the ability to project a video image of somebody in another location who is participating in the discussion but is unable to be there physically in person due to geographical constraints. These participants could even be reporting from "on the scene" at a news event. I think this classroom model makes sense because universities and newsrooms can’t keep up with the progress being made in multimedia journalism and communications. This model could accelerate and enrich the learning process with media as well as democratize the teaching process, since more and more college students (or subordinates in newsrooms) are surpassing their professors technically speaking in the fields of multimedia journalism and communications. It is an environment that could prove very conducive to the formation, maximization, and application of raw creative mental energy. It's purposes could be equally useful for government officials, education, journalism, politics, advertising, public relations, or even courtrooms. (Edited) Imagine a scenario in which the active participants in this experimental classroom were graduates from various fields of communication from all around the world. There is no telling how valuable the research and knowledge attained from this project could be for the journalism industry and society as a whole. This is something that could change the world by changing the way we think, learn, work, and communicate. By accelerating communication with this environment structure, we could very well accelerate our capacity as a species to solve a great deal of the world's problems. -- Patrick Yen Global Journalism Group http://www.patrickyen.com http://www.fakemustaches.org http://www.globaljournalism.org patrickyen@globaljournalism.org +1.270.535.0795

What kind of world do you want your children to grow up in?
A totalitarianism or a democracy? http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9838743-7.html?tag=newsmap The time to act is now.

I agree that the dialectic is an excellent learning tool, a superb way for a group of people to come to a better understanding of their world. Though I am uncertain about how transferable the knowledge obtained can be. The nature of such a group is that the information is relative to the people involved. Perhaps it would work with other fields in journalism but I don't know what I have or can really learn from any sort of seminar. Peer review is a useful and important process but again, I am uncertain about its transferability. Your first proposal is quite a good idea but it does have its flaws. Not to sound too snobbish but part of the problem is that the world (ie. lowest common denominator) has terrible taste. If journalists were going to be rewarded solely by the number of hits their story/photo got then those working for the tabloids would be doing far better then those doing real journalism (if they aren't already). The quality of photographs would be irrelevant and trumped by whether there was a scantily dressed women in the photo or not. All you need to do to test this theory is to look at some sort of public collection of photography. On Flickr for example the most popular photos usually involve little clothing or tacky over processed images(HDR et cetera). The quality or value of the image is usually neglected. I think both ideas are good ideas but they have their flaws... I don't know too much about what nppa or ep or others actually do but what I have gather from their websites looks somewhat disappointing. The idea of only looking out for those with a degree or several years experience is something of a double edged sword. Sure it will keep the market from being flooded by every punk that has spent $1000 for an entry level DSLR and thinks they can go and make go and make money but it will also keep out real talent that doesn't think they need to spend thousands on an education they don't think they will gain much from. And if they need to work unprotected for years before the "union" will look after them then they will turn into the low working underclass that this is trying to get rid of. Sure you need to fight fire with fire but I don't think that means paying some big shot lawyers to sit around with their lawyers and drink coffee and laugh about their respective clients. (my apologies to any of the legal advisors on here). It means getting getting individuals to stand up for themselves. A lot of the crap that takes place happens due to misinformation and plain lying. Firms telling people that they "need" your negatives, that it is the industry standard etc etc. Its your first job, you need the money and you do whatever they say as you don't really know what the standards are, hey these are professionals they must know what they are talking about. If there was an open forum, that didn't charge fees and didn't make anyone do things they might not agree with. There would be a lot more people willing to say they are with it, a lot more people would be exposed to the truth. And a lot more of these people would stop getting ripped off. I apologize that this is all a little photo centric but it is what I think about. It is easily applied to all forms of journalism. And I agree that it would be better for all the non photog types if it was separated from LS I just don't like sighing up for lots of different sites and was trying to make it easier to draw in the LS crowd. Maybe if the new site teamed up with LS and you could use your LS account to join. I think that journalists of all kinds are more thinking and questioning people then most and even just a voluntary union would draw enough people to make a difference. The lack of fees and legal commitment would encourage more people to join. I apologize for any hiccups in this post, I am off to a much needed sleep. Night.

One more thing, Its something of a different world but have you ever been to a barcamp? Its an informal and _free_ conference/seminar put on by people that want to say something and others that want to learn something. You show up at the start and pitch the idea you want to talk about, they are put on a board and people informally vote on what they want to go to so it can be decided on how many people want what and when. Then discussions begin. I went to a number of rather interesting talks at the barcamp this year in vancouver (mostly IT related stuff) and was invited to do a photography talk next year. It is similar to the things that will take place at the 360 thing but it was free. Yes, it is harder to get busy professionals out to a talk for free but one can still learn a lot from their peers. And these peer meetings can be a stepping stone to go on to other things. Just like people share their project ideas and how people discuss trends and gear on here it could be done in person where a lot more learning could take place. So how about it, "JournoCamp" ? Once every 6 months or whatever, an informal gathering of like minded people wishing to come to a better understanding of reality through their shared knowledge and experience. Taking place in cities all over the world. Coordinated and advertised through some sort of forum with thousands of willing members who want to learn and teach. By the way, have you checked out news university? Not all content is free and some is a bit "blah" but there are tidbits of information I have found on there to be useful. Ok, sleep for real.

i've yet to read this in depth... it looks toothsome... was just about to post a question about creative commons... http://creativecommons.org wondering what others thought about it... sorry needs separate thread.. "Patrick isn’t being a dreamer. He’s simply recognising a fact (which Greg also alludes to) that is continually being obscured, by asking for: “people who own themselves.” Because the entire history of corporate capitalism has been an exercise in removing that, from 19th century land enclosures (forcibly creating a disenfranchised labour pool for new factories), to the imposition of fiat paper currency (turning people into indebted wage-slaves), to the circumventing by theft or stealth of creative labour – Orphan Works, Creative Commons (which is a private foundation), rights grabs and work for hire." ..well said sion. but i also can't help thinking just because someone says it 'won't work', or 'it can't be done' doesn't mean it can't be. there are lessons to be learnt by the writers guild strike about demanding creative rights. all it would take is a shift in perspective from viewing oneself as only a cog in a machine or a sheep following the herd, to begin. who doesn't want to be a "person who own's themselves?" but secondly, why do we have to work either individually or for a common good? why must these be mutually exclusive states? is it really impossible for humans to work for the benefit of others with the consequence being the sacrifice of self? or vice versa? even if we are all cogs in the machine, doesn't mean we can't work to change it.

Well said Julie and Sascha. And thanks for the information Sascha, I've never heard of barcamps. I'll have to look into it. I understand the problem in the payment system with the tabloids, which is why I think we need a union to encourage integrity and separate the tabloid journalists from the mix. We need to use communication to criticize and scrutinize the hell out of these tabloids. Though, we must ultimately let them exercise their freedom of speech. We need to scrutinize the hell out of the mass media for any of its many lies and failures. Union membership must serve as a certification of sorts, it has too. It must be earned and not given. We are talking about a union of truth and a union of light, not a free lunch. "United Truth" or "Truth United," so to speak. Also people are already making money of Metacafe who aren't journalists but artists and you can't stop them. If it's going to happen, then it's usually going to happen.

Please everybody
spread the word, spread the word, spread the word! Get people at least thinking about this.
Pessimism reinforces more problems than it solves.

It's not about the money. I just want to be famous. I will do it for free just to see my name in print. I am going to set up a Trustafarian fraternity, I mean union, which everyone who doesn't need to work for a living can join.

Mikethehack, that's funny for about 1 and a half seconds. because it is precisely that attitude that motivates the Microsluts (hello sailor, i'll do it for a dollar) and then they brag to their mates about how they get royally shafted with every download. impeccable double-speak. yes its about the capitalist manipulation of labour, but its also about the narcissism that is at the core of any post-modern creative process. everybody wants to be famous. personally i could give a toss about seeing my name in print and i mostly feel like slapping anyone who refers to me an 'artist'. i'm no more an artist than your average brickie or chippie and you dont see them signing limited editions of the last house they built. like bob, i just want to be able to work and put a respectable amount of food on my table. but the extreme downward pressure on wages distorts to the point where 'respectable' becomes a luxury. then you have micros for whom the narcissistic reward is so grossly overvalued that they dont even seem to realize that they've just been paid .10c for the 'privilege' and - not unlike some sick reality tv show - the exploitation and degradation actually become something to feel proud of. sick sick sick.

No union can hold a candle to the "SPA":http://stupidphotographer.blogspot.com/2007/12/join-spa.html.

well done sp, do make sure you jump at every opp for a little self-promotion. how very refreshing. not. no narcissism at LS then, sp has it all.

Shall I assume you're applying for SPA membership?

a one-trick pony has very short legs.

Tilt. Too smart. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

'We need to create a new paradigm, and influence the media, rather than the other way around.' spot on matt.

"but i also can’t help thinking just because someone says it ‘won’t work’, or ‘it can’t be done’ doesn’t mean it can’t be." I never said it couldn't work. In fact I think in many ways its the only solution. I said that personal experience and looking at the lie of the land at present tells me its unlikely to work. I'll use personal experience as an example. I'm a member of the London Freelance Branch of the National Union of Journalists. Its a trade union and I am an unapologetic supporter of unions and the principle of collective bargaining. But any union is often sub-divided, so those different areas must collectively lobby within the union, to have their agendas heard. Thats the nature of democratic debate. The problem is that the majority of photographers I met at NUJ meetings only ever turned up once, to get their press card applications signed off, and then were largely never seen or heard from again. Another familiar refrain from photographers of that ilk was that the union 'never did anything for them' - thus completely misunderstanding the nature of collective action...in that you actually have to PARTICIPATE in the action YOURSELF with OTHERS, or by definition, nothing gets done. Consequently the London Freelance Branch is dominated by the agendas of a relatively small constituency of journalists (who can be bothered to engage and lobby within the union), and an awful lot of atomised, disenfranchised photographers continually look for someone or something to bail them out, without realising that the solution lies in their own hands. Matt has hit the nail squarely on the head, but still, at this late, late stage, an awful lot of photographers don't get it. The microstocks are not the problem. Citizen journalism is not the problem. They are changes and adaptions to outside forces - arguing about whether they're a 'good' or 'bad' adaption is irrelevant. All that can be done is to explore adaptions which benefit us. And of course, we have utterly failed to do that. We have yet to present an alternative to to the underlying reality which is burying us as a viable profession. If the train is thundering towards a cliff, and the driver intends to throw you off first, then use your dead body as a cushion for his landing? Get off the train. Read Matts last paragraph again, and again until it sinks in. But sadly, an awful lot of photographers still won't get it, and as long as they don't, it will hobble any consistent attempt to collectivise our sphere.

Speaking of unions...

i was agreeing with you... but then separately talking to those who said it could never happen. badly transitioned. matt makes good points. there are millions of images in the world, multiplying by thousands every day.. many of which are crap but gone are the days when photographers and photographs were in short suppy. in any instance, there must be a 100+ other photographers to choose from, many of them competent. a few lucky individuals got to live a dream, 'the model.. which is now dead'. though the dream which many photographers still aspire to, go off and create a body of work, built on your own sweat and blood still has a value.. amongst your peers, in gaining recognition and reputation. the rest of the world hardly gives a s%4t. doesn't mean it's not worth doing for many reasons other than money.

No literal Union. Figurative, yes, perhaps. But literal, never in the USA at least, and for very good reasons. A few years back in the US and coming out of influence from the Detroit Auto Industry (UAW) legislatively it almost happened, in a related freelance image field (would have snowballed, though, you know).... but it was stopped. Problem was, and the same with communism, you just can't pay a brain surgeon the same as a cabbie. What we need, at least in the US, (and I believe this is closer to what Patrick really is hoping for in his thread topic ) can be solved, in this one respect, with an exemption from the Antitrust laws. Then we can join together legally and ethically as both organizations and individuals to set appropriate starting rates, similar as a Union would, but independently as small businesses and according to our years of experience, training and talents. Otherwise, legally unionized, we in the US visual freelance industry as a whole, are doomed to be slaves to the likes of big labor which can be far more controlling, and in some cases far more threatening, then big business ever was. *_Patrick, see_ http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0661-IllustratorsPartnership.pdf* *2. Grant a limited, specific antitrust exemption to visual authors similar to the model proposed by Playwrights. It cannot have been the original intent of antitrust law to give media giants decisive bargaining power over independent suppliers. But where the unintended consequences of antitrust law undermine the intended consequences of copyright law, creators will continue to be deprived of their rights. We believe this conflict in the law deserves to be examined and if possible, reformed.* `````````````````` As part of the "*The Imagery Alliance*":http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00246, ASMP and NPPA along with the organizations listed below are in agreement with the above IPA suggested Antitrust Law Reform, rather than literal Unionizing, which would be the alternative but far inferior legal exemption that is now allowed, at least for us under the jurisdiction of U.S. Antitrust Laws: "*Advertising Photographers of America (APA)*":http://www.apanational.com/ "*American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA)*":http://www.aiga.org/ "*American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP)*":http://www.asmp.org/ "*American Society of Picture Professionals (ASPP)*":http://www.aspp.com/ "*Association of Photographers (AOP) (UK)*":http://www.the-aop.org/ "*Art Directors Club (ADC)*":http://www.adcglobal.org/ "*British Association of Picture Libraries & Agencies (BAPLA)*":http://www.bapla.org.uk/ "*Coordination of European Agencies Press Stock Heritage (CEPIC)*":http://www.cepic.org/english/index.php "*Editorial Photographers (EP)*":http://www.editorialphoto.com/ "*Graphic Artists Guild (GAG)*":http://www.gag.org/ "*Illustrators' Partnership of America (IPA)*":http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/ "*North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA)*":http://www.nanpa.org/ "*National Press Photographers Assoc (NPPA)*":http://www.nppa.org/ "*Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)*":http://www.pacaoffice.org/ "*Picture Licensing Universal System (PLUS)*":http://www.useplus.com/home.asp "*Professional Photographers of America (PPA)*":http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3 "*Society for Photographic Education (SPE)*":http://www.spenational.org/ "*Stock Artists Alliance (SAA)*":http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/ "*White House News Photographers Association (WHNPA)*":http://www.whnpa.org/

thank you so much for that list, gayle... i'd like to post it to my site as well. and thanks to all for an enlightening discussion.

No problem, Ted, my pleasure. Patrick always starts great dialogue.

"Problem was, and the same with communism, you just can’t pay a brain surgeon the same as a cabbie." Why not? That statement only holds water within an economic system governed by money, which under our current system (fiat paper currency, which is relatively new) is virtually worthless anyway. Money is an incredibly inefficient means of setting value, which is a subjective term, but is better measured in terms of social utility, rather than how it's currently measured on balance-sheets...and isn't it funny how the people doing the money measuring, who are implicated in setting its bogus value, are often the best paid in our societies? Yeah, it's a total mystery to me, that one. Does that makes me a 'communist'? “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” ...Hugo Chavez? Fidel Castro? Nope. Thomas Jefferson. Ben Franklin wasn't a huge fan of fiat paper money either. Doctors put my leg back together, cabbies ferried me around when I couldn't walk. Pay 'em both top whack I say. But some hedge fund parasite? What social utility value do they create? The sum total of fuck all. But I digress... Collective bargaining needn't be about enforcing rates. It's simply about setting a minimum rate, in the same way that theres a minimum legal wage - and even that minimum rate doesnt have to be 'set'. The NUJ has 'recommended rates' which it publishes. The figures are drawn up from photographers voluntarily (and anonymously) saying what they were paid, for what kind of job, by which publisher. That way, the next photographer going in the door knows where to negotiate from. It's an entirely legal and legitimate way of countering rate atomisation and means the brain surgeon and cabbie end of the photographic spectrum are free to negotiate their own fees, while not undercutting their peers. As long as the cabbie photographer doesnt settle for rickshaw driver money, the system works and is relatively stable. The principle is that a lower rate than the recommended minimum encourages exploitation, cannot cover the individuals costs of doing business, and introduces unfair competition (fellow workers cannot compete with someone determined to go bankrupt without bankrupting themselves) and damages the industry as a whole. But again, it only works if enough people agree to join, and to abide by the rules. If that's not the case, then it doesn't make it futile, but it does make it harder for the workers collective to bargain, against the GREATER collective of people outside who choose not to play the same game. The photographic cartel/bargaining leverage system relied on the infrastructure of photographic publishing to be closed. Now it simply isn't. So any collective entity is going to have to bargain for rates, knowing damn well that the publisher can obtain similar work for less, by sourcing User Generated Content (UGC). The irony is that publishers are collectives too of a sort. They have to bargain for audience attention. The bigger the attention, the bigger sum they can charge for advertisers. Thats THEIR 'wage'. But if I as a customer can get UGC for free, why bother buying their publication? So just like photographers who undercut rates, the whole publishing industry is being ground down by short term greed and insecurity. This has all being blown open by the internet, because publishers are not only having to compete against each other, but against new entries into the info/entertainment/news market...blogs, chatrooms, forums like this one, YouTube... "the rest of the world hardly gives a s%4t. doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing for many reasons other than money." But they do give a shit. The audience for photojournalism exists, and is far bigger than the tiny gallery/book/grant/festival niche that is currently being touted as the 'only' way for photojournalism to survive. It just doesn't exist if you pursue it through the Old Skool avenues and structures, which we all know are fading.

"But they do give a shit. The audience for photojournalism exists, and is far bigger than the tiny gallery/book/grant/festival niche that is currently being touted as the ‘only’ way for photojournalism to survive." Just how could we go for publishing with minimum return photojournalism work, outside media world. Printing & Publishing on demand ?

this is an interesting article on why behemoths such as google need to keep information(thats our photographs) free. http://www.signandsight.com/features/1631.html

Looks to me, the pro photo horse is out of the barn, so gone is the money; but do close the door by creating a union. Meanwhile, a question running through my stupid head asks what the newly unionized still pros will do, when the video frame grab horse runs off with still photography.

Printing? Thats the last place I'd be looking. If you don't print anything, that's a cost saving for a start. I'd say the place to start is to consider that photojournalism is simply a genre of photography that was intrinsically linked to a particular distribution infrastructure - newspapers and magazines. The aim of photojournalism has always been mass communication, not niches. Theres nothing wrong with a niche, except by definition, its not an infrastructure which can support many photographers. Newsprint was relatively cheap to produce (or at least was profitable because of mass demand), portable, everybody could get their hands on one. Whats the mass distribution infrastructure that's replaced it? The internet. Whats relatively cheap to produce, everybody wants or has one, and most people younger than me (the future mass audience) use it and don't even know newspapers exist? Mobile phones, things like the iPod Video/Nano/ Sony PSP and other web enabled portable devices with screens. It's the new method of mass communication. Orange France announced today that they've so far, sold 70,000 iPhones, with a projected 500,000 units sold by the end of the year. In the UK, 200,000 iPhones have already been sold. Of course each unit isn't as high as newspaper sales. But each single unit can access the equivalent of tens of thousands of newspapers worth of visual stuff. The Mobile Marketing Director of Orange France, described the iPhone target group as “young, open, not technophiles…". Sounds like just the kind of folks we should be reaching. The first person to work out a viable photojournalism distribution structure for portable devices is gonna be a billionaire ;)

I'm a bit "overwritten" (having overwritten alot at another blog this week), but I wanted to say that I have really enjoyed this thread and reading all :)))... when i re-coop some strength (after that video smack-down with sion ;) ) and lyricism/insight after the weekend, I hope to add some more thoughts about all ideas above jingling in my head :)) terrific read ladies and gents :)) cheers bob

Incidentally, as a follow-up to Sion's, once again, insightful post: I have personally rejected (nearly) the "materialization" of photography: in other words, im no longer interested in Printing either...instead I focus on getting my images (at cost, reasonable cost and not for free) to people who are interested: ant that's an entire nation of folks not often considered by photogs...the web is a beginning, so are portable/downloadable books, cellphones (i've been approached by students to sell "images" to them for their webpages, cell phones, pda, etc...): we must considered newspapers/galleries/magazines/ as niche...though i still use film (that's a fetish, that's all), im completely interested in the real viability of images (to provide food on my table) and that is with people and in places unexplored...that's why i totally have no patience for mags/websites taht dont pay., cause there are still ways to survive, people still want something, they only have to be understood...have learned alot from my students and 13 year old son...I might not get paid $2000 by Life, but I know places/people who hunger for even the "knowledge" of what all that entails... ideas and immateriality are still the richest commodity around ;)) more about that next week... being an image-maker is not the apotheosis of achievement (as once believed): but is still a viable life...just think more creatively...(interactive games too :)) )... by the way: i think cabbies and surgeons should be paid the same: not 'cause im a communist (that dog dont haunt, ask my fatherinlaw in Moscow), but 'cause to me value is an arbitrary commodity based on value: shuttling someone is often life saving...believe me... running b

Hey guys, great thread... all very very good and Sion's comments about new modes of distribution (and the need for the creation of a new 'metamedium' like the newsmagazine or newspaper, that carries media content to the user) are spot on. I've just written a thesis on this topic... I'd post it up here but can't do that right now, so If anybody wants to read it pls pm or email me and i'll forward you a copy. If you're at all interested in what may be hapening to photojournalism (or at least my explanation of it) then have a gander...

For what it is worth, here is my own manifesto. I am not Karl Marx (obviously) and I am sure these ideas are not entirely new, but they will speak to why I believe that a "union" is not the answer, or at least a "union" in the sense that most Americans use the word.
We will have to live within the limitations of capitolism and accept that, or become something which poets are and poetry has become, which is an art that exists largely outside the realm of the commercial sphere and is only relevant to the small group of people that write and read it. I think photography has a brighter future than that, and that many of us have more creative "capitol" than we think. My theory is that by allying ourselves together, regardless of whether some get "more" and some "less," according to the amount of creative capitol they have, all of us can raise the value of our product and benefit both commercially, by making more money, and professionally, by getting more people to see our work.
Call it trickle down economics, and it may be, but that fact is that cooperation, as evidenced by Magnum, is a proven method of raising the value of the individual parts.
The difference between LS and Magnum of course, is that the group of people who post here have widely disparate levels of experience and much many different types of "creative" assets.
The goal in my opinion is to utilize the assets that we have in creating content that is meaningful to the public at large, and that means creating content which in the modern world means product.
For this reason the idea of a union, which really is created for workers to deal with employers, is not beneficial and in fact, most probably a waste of time, because it produces no creative capitol, really nothing of value, but is simply a reaction to everything that is wrong with the status quo. Reacting to the status quo is non-productive. Moving forward with tangible projects that create value is productive. As already stated our group of LS is already a "union" of sorts, and to institutionalize LS is probably not helpful.

Andy, You are on the positive side of the question.

I don't know if a 'union' as such is the answer, as one of the central problems in all of this is technical and not so much to do with a 'culture' around photojournalism. This technical problem is the downfall of the primary distrubution method of photojournalistic content, as Sion has mentioned above. This problem has been addressed at length in the post:

http://www.lightstalkers.org/the-death-of-radio-the-death-of-photojournalism

The post deals with creating new forms of photojournalism to replace the printed photo-essay and photo+caption setup that have been developed for the static PRINT medium - we need a new form to disseminate photojournalistic work for the dynamic NETWORK media we now deal with (iPhones, iPods, laptops, websties, podcasts etc etc). This new form is already being explored through multimeida slideshows and whatnot but it is early days. Of course, the side of this problem that needs to be dealt with from a photographer's perspective is HOW MUCH DO WE GET PAID FOR THESE NEW FORMS? A 'unionised' approach to creating a new 'rate card' for multimedia photojournalism would be very, very timely, particularly considering that there is a whole lot of extra labor in creating multimedia photo-essays (particularly at this stage, with little in the way of software that speeds up or automates the process). Perhaps the answer is in a collective of photographers getting together to help create a standardised form, production method and RATE that these new forms should work upon - so that when we all realise that we need to market our work to TIME.COM rather than TIME magazine, we'll have something to quote to that new media publication's comissioning editor rather than selling ourselves short on our work and the extra labor that goes into creating a multimedia photo-essay, for example. Just an example, in November I completed a multimedia assignment for an online news-site, where the traditional publication-photographer relationship existed but instead of preparing my work for print I produced a 4 minute (or so) multimedia photo-essay on the event for the publication's site. However, this took me pretty much a whole day's work in Final Cut Pro to get it ready to roll (including the inevitable exporting speedbumps). How much extra should I charge the client for this kind of post-production work? What kind of extra time-rates are going to be acceptable to both me and to the client? THIS is where a unionised approach needs to be taken - creating a set of standard "example" rates like the NUJ have on this site (http://media.gn.apc.org/rates/), which I know has been really helpful to me even though I'm not based in the UK... Forget PRINT.... think WEB..... and in the process remember that in the network media environment your work is radically and infinitely reproducible, that 'circulations' and 'page rates' don't count anymore, that the web environment's 'value' is currently based on the idea of how much traffic a page pulls ('clicks') and how many ads you can cram into it + how many 'clicks' they get... New age, new formula for pay...

Thank you Daniel,its hard to stay ahead of the curve. But its easy to get stuck on negative, especially when everything seems stacked against the individual. Companies are made of people, many of them are sympathetic, and even if the corporate capitolist system is not ideal, we are going to have to live with it for better or worse, for the near future. So if we can find ways to manage that, so much the better.

Patrick's posts are always thought provoking and its the voice of a new generation looking for alternatives and in the unfortunate position of seeing so many of the flaws in the media and the mechanism of reporting. We can examine the accuracy of captions in the on-line issue of the New York Times, or the exact circumstance of the documentation of an event. The recent assassination of Bhutto is a great example where we see the photographer's impressions immediately disseminated, side by side, with the images shot, and if there are differences, whether perceived or real, they are out there for everyone to see. I would say that places all of us in a extremely vulnerable place, not only are we the reporters of the news, but we are the news itself, part information, part product. I am looking at an Apple G-5, and am connected to the internet via Cox Cable, and for that I am creating content, for free, right now as I type, that Google uses to index and then makes billions off of that by advertising. What a great deal that is, and how brilliant the mind that creates this formula....but again rather than revolt against the inevitable why not try to use the intelligence to try and restructure and adapt?

Added note: I'm watching CNN right now, and in the last THREE stories (Iowa Caucuses, a weather story and something else I wasn't really concentrating on), they've used "iReport" still pictures - in other words, images from their audiences' mobile phones... just like the Virginia Tech shootings earlier this year.... just like the Glasgow Airport car bombings earlier this year... etc etc.... This problem isn't going away and a union won't fix it, because the producers of these works ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS.

Andy: "I am creating content, for free, right now as I type, that Google uses to index and then makes billions off of that by advertising. What a great deal that is, and how brilliant the mind that creates this formula….but again rather than revolt against the inevitable why not try to use the intelligence to try and restructure and adapt?" Exactly... that's exactly right. We need to sort out a way to use these new modes of content creation and dissemination to further photojournalism...

Ed, are you surprised? We are making money for Google right now, so is Shinji and Teru, by creating content and by creating the means to create content on the web. Some writer could point the finger at us!

FORGET WEB!!!! (ok, as an entree vehicle): but think BEYOND: WHAT IS THE WEB: A DEVICE "IT'S THE DEVICE STUPID!" :)))) (im not calling anyone stupid by the way, this as been one of the most luminous and great posts in a long time :)) ).. THINK DEVICE GUYS!!!!!....devices generate not only revenues and access but the web was the embracing of the immaterial with the material: imagine if im a photographer and you can put my pictures on your wall (as slideprojections, for example) for 1 week, buy the projection, rotate continually, etc... more ideas about devices later....have to run and meet mrs. black... (what is really the web anyway, but an immaterial skin wrapped around a device)...it's not the web that matters (but that is important now): but the extension of such: devices!!!! (didnt Gutenburg talk about his press as merely a harnessing device: are are mags/galleries/unions/phones/games/pdas/ etc.... anyone remember the old word: "template"....our pics can also be "templates"...capiche ;))...more about that after weekend: discuss :)) running b

not a big deal seccessful photographers never coming from union or associations around its a lifetime help but dont miss individual work progress to build reputation on fields............first of all

No, Andy, I'm not surprised. Like I said I've just written a thesis on all this so if anyone wants to read it PM me and i'll forward it. We're not neccessarily making money for Google right now, but when this page is indexed by Google they transform it into potential capital generating content by linking it with their keyword-based advertising system... so we're not making them money, THEY are making themsleves money through the raw immaterial labor/immaterial produce produced by the users of this and every other forum out there. They only make money when somebody clicks on a Google Ad in their search page BESIDE the Lightstalkers link... however they are transforming the raw content of this page into potential capital which becomes actual upon that 'click'. So, back to the question at hand - how to turn our raw produce-as-digital content into potential/actual capital generating content? Bob's on the right track here: it's the device, stupid! OR it's the META-FORM. Here I'll post the content from that post I linked to above which was what I was trying to show before: "...as I was saying above, it’s a hell of a lot easier to produce one or two or three or four nicely exposed and composed photographs (and keyword them and upload them to Flickr) than it is to produce a linear narrative structure in video or sound – hence the problem of photojournalism in one respect, or at least the problem of spot news photojournalism… the problem of long-form documentary photojournalism is probably more closely linked to the shifting economics of the news/magazine publication industry, which Sion mentioned above. However, we’re seeing this change too with the advent and radical popular explosion of Youtube, where one can surf video content for hours on end, and sites like Current.tv, which are ‘crowdsourcing’ through their online community 1/3 of the content that plays on the Current.tv cable channel in the USA and UK…. AND PAYING PEOPLE FOR IT! Crazy idea, but it seems to work – and there’s some great stuff on there, too. (Such as a current favorite of mine: http://www.current.tv/supernews) Then, you’ve got big, traditional TV channels beginning to source content direct from the web… it’s all underway. The most significant point for all of this is the fact that the distribution method for media content has fundamentally changed in the transfer to digital. Before, it was about atoms, material media that had to be transported, read, seen, handled physically – which means relatively limited reproducibility and relatively costly/slow transportation (for example, to my knowledge until 1992 Newsweek were sending ‘runners’ from Europe to New York on the Concorde with rolls of film in their pockets in order to make deadlines… nuts!). Now, it is about bits, and immaterial media forms can be cheaply, easily produced, radically reproduced and instantaneously transported anywhere there is access to the network infrastructure of the internet/cellular phone nets etc. That’s what lies at the bottom of all of this, so now we’re dealing with a world of image-overload in which the practices of photojournalism that were created and modified in the 20th century with the idea of the printed page in mind are looking very out of date, and visual journalism (as that’s what photojournalism is, specifically through the use of a still photo-camera) needs to keep up with the dominant forms of mediation in order to a) stay viable and b) keep its audience’s attention in order to c) stay viable. Going back to Sion’s comments: “It wasn’t Jobso who revolutionsied radio, it was radio people seizing on the opprtunity the iPod (with mobile phones, internet radio and iTunes etc) provided for a new digital distribution method.” That’s exactly right, but Jobso’s move to allow iTunes to syndicate podcasts certainly solidified and authenticated the idea of the ‘podcast’ as something other than some crazy audio produced by new media nerds spending too much time playing on their computers and uploading weird sound files to their blogs. Ideally, if something like this occured for a new meta-form of multimedia photojournalism, then there really could be a new age of photographic journalistic storytelling… and people could still make a living from it. But it would take the creation of a meta-form which could be as easily distributed and consumed as the podcast is now, and a critical mass of producers creating great content within this meta-form that someone like Jobso or the owners of the New York Times or Reuters or AP or whoever could capitalise upon… A meta-form is media form that has a set of characteristics which all could conform to for distribution, but could still accommodate variation in stylistic elements of the aesthetic and narrative type that are needed for a diverse photo-visual journalism to survive.. think of the news magazine or podcast as a type of meta-form, a kind of capsule for content… The various forms of multimedia photojournalism being practiced at Magnum in Motion and Mediastorm and so on are ideal meta-forms for this moment, but perhaps aren’t refined enough or widely-practiced enough to have exploded yet. Or maybe just not the right form… We can still tell stories, we just gotta sort out new ways of doing it… and making sure people will pay for them. Like Alexandre says, we need to be dinosaurs-becoming-birds… we need to evolve with the changing environment."

I know the camera phone issue is not the main issue but I would like to point out that it should not be an issue at all. If something happens and no photographer is around but someone gets it on a camera phone then all the power to them, its a record of an event. It is spot news. If there was a photographer there I think in most cases the papers would go with the photographers work over the camera phone. One has to assume that there were people with cameras in Pakistan at the rally but the real photographer had his work published because he was ready and trained to shoot. Another thing to note about this recent event was that it was quickly put into sequence and audio was added (if he had recorded at the event that would of been something) to make a nice little slide show. I am not crazy about photographers carrying video cameras but I think audio has a real place to strengthen the work of photojournalists. To take a page from Bobs book, I have to run, sbr.

very good point sascha,i have been thinking the same thing a lot recently. gives a whole added dimension to our medium.

Über-photo-agency is "next ":http://blog.melchersystem.com/.

"Über-photo-agency is next." I will stick to DRR for now...

So I clicked on your name, then on "your website link":http://www.agstar.ibw.com.ni/, and got an error. Since you mentioned it, I went to "DDR":http://www.digitalrailroad.net/corpsite/community/seller_directory which didn't make it easy to find you. That's when I gave up. Not my stupid idea of a working business model.

"Necessity is the mother of invention."

"Smart words butter no parsnips."

"I can has cheezeburger" http://icanhascheezburger.com/

The thread about press cards had me looking around and I stumbled across cep.ca and specifically http://www.cepmedia.ca/ Does anyone know about and/or belong to this? A freelance union. They are related to the IFJ and I assume membership gets you a press card. Sounds tempting.

I sent Patrick the following message and he asked that I post it on here: i would like to propose the idea that we are already one global human union. and that individuals in power like to convince us otherwise so that the true majority does not voice its opnion. they make us think that they control technology and media and we let them. as soon as equality is valued the cooperation of the whole to a few will no longer corupt the global union of mankind.

Nice Rush.

""Next up? Creatives paying for placement in publications.":http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/getty-images-gyi-in-decline-again.html" Didn't I say this out loud on LS, a number of times? Sure I did. Said "stupid pros" instead of "creatives" and "abuse" instead of "placement" but the rest is verbatim.

Stupid, I know, I know... I am a little down and out at the time, but if you let me join SPA things will pick up again. With this business model I definitely qualify. for now just by blog. ts

The clever photographers are the ones already paying to work when they accept crappy undercutting rates to 'get a foot in the door' or are willing to put their lifes work in vanity portfolio mags just for 'exposure' - they're paying with the fee they WOULD have got if they'd angled to get paid properly, and of course have already paid with how much its cost them to shoot the pics in the first place. So they've paid twice. How come its taken a stupid photographer to see this clearly?

Matter of stupidly paying the bottom feeder appropriation dues on the way up toward the pinnacle of best paying gigs: "re-photography":http://stupidphotographer.blogspot.com/2008/01/thought-1248000-was-lot-for-theft.html, naturally.

Well, fuck me sideways and shoot em up.

“Well, fuck me sideways and shoot em up.” by Gayle Hegland Deal, but I don’t come cheap, and you provide the stupid camera.

not on your life. stupid is always cheap.

"not on your life. stupid is always cheap." by Gayle Hegland Bummer. I was looking forward to the sideways union of mankind. And stupid often costs, to the "max":http://employees.csbsju.edu/dbeach/images/plato.jpg.

you made me laugh. ...and stupid is always stupid, my dear anonymous one. Welcome to the dysfuntional club.

"you made me laugh. ...and stupid is always stupid, my dear anonymous one. Welcome to the dysfuntional club." by Gayle Hegland I can't really speak to the always part, but I am "stupid":http://stupidphotographer.blogspot.com/, not "anonymous":http://www.anonymousphotographer.com/. Truly glad I made you laugh, and thanks for the welcome!

My pleasure. Cheers.

I have often thought about the issue of authorship. All this about getting publicity through giving stuff away for free. There are two elements for musicians and actors that photographers don't benefit from. If a musician gives their music away for free either knowingly or not (illegal downloads) the likely hood of an end user recognizing the musician is high. They have a unique voice, they might use specific instruments, their usual genre of music and the lyrics all make them identifiable. Even the filename which might include the track name and even their own names. It is rarely in the interest of the end user to remove this information because the point is that you want that artist and you want to know who they are. In this case they do benefit from piracy, due to free distribution they do gain popularity as records show greatly increased music sales since the advent of napster and the like. Another part of being a musician is putting on concerts and increased popularity will lead to increased ticket sales which is good for the artist. Actors are in films and you see their faces, you know who they are. They get recognized and get fame, simple. As for the performance portion they also get paid for doing the films. The more the films they are in are watched the more likely their popularity will increase and that they will get a role in another film. You might think the directors are getting screwed but I would argue otherwise, their names are still in big at the start of the film. Again the end user or pirates have an interest in keeping that information intact because people want a film by a certain director with certain actors. If that information was gone it is unlikely they would want to watch the film. Photographers? Stuff gets ripped off, images are cropped, water marks removed, filenames changed and then its put on some website, used as the cover of a porn movie (it has happened) and put on millions of internet sites etc without any accreditation. Because the pirate just wants that picture of whatever. They don't want to recognize you as that recognizes their theft. Even when they do put your name in small print which is rare what is the likelihood that the viewer that is doing something else in context that sees your image out of its original context is going to think they really really want to find other photos by the author. If you are out reading some blog about sheep and a photographer happened to take one shot of sheep and that picture was ripped off (but with your name), the blog viewer is unlikely to go looking for you and sheep. And when they do only to find out that you normally take photos of war zones or something they are going to be disappointed. They are probably not going to look as there is so much more information out there and that web page probably has twenty other photos of sheep by twenty other photographers. Now that I have outlined some problems I think it only fair to suggest some solutions. Develop your personal style, I know a lot of people say its dull and once your style is developed it means you are dead artistically but I have my doubts. One can imagine that some of the renaissance masters developed a certain brush stroke or the use of certain colours, a specific subject or specific materials in order to make their images more unique as their was doubtless pirating going on even then. If someone can look at one of your images and know it as yours then that seems like you have done well, you have held onto your creation even if everything else is stripped and you may be recognized for it. Another solution is to not put individual files on the net. On your website or in a slide show an individual image is inside the context of your other images or your website. Together they create your unique perspective on the world. Though if one of those images is pulled out of that context and especially if is put alongside several other images by other artists then it is just another picture of sheep. One can protect the context of their images by keeping their images in a video slide show form. Obviously people can still steal your image, if worse comes to worse they can just do a screen grab but I feel that a lot of theft is unintentional, people just right click and save without thinking about it. If it wasn't possible a lot of those people wouldn't bother. But they might embed your whole slide show if you had it as a little movie. A little movie which would have your name at the start and a sequence of images in context. The merits of a web 1.0 website have already been discussed, if web 2.0 is screwing you over as websites pull just one image put everything up in a 2.0 video and you will retain authorship. The third solution is to develop some sort of meta data system for images. Right, its called iptc data. But search engines don't know how to read it and most people upload to the web without it. If it was possible to embed that data in a way that it couldn't be removed and if search engines could crawl it. Then piracy of your images would result in you ruling over google. Forget getty and corbis, with proper tags people could just google your image which would pop up with your website/phone/email no matter where the image was stored. An image stored in multiple places would be higher ranked so theft would be beneficial to you. Your own site would have information of how to be paid. Yes there would still be theft but it would help to preserve your authorship. My apologies for the incoherence of some of this, I just woke up and am rather pissed about all this. SBR

Just remember this stupid code - XH7PC46N - and get "15% off everything at Getty":http://www.PDNPulse.com/2008/01/getty-offers-15.html, all year. Who's next?

SPA, with its vast, never seen, never will be seen archive, is WAY ahead of the curve, once again... "I have a gnawing suspicion that the wonderful technology that is offering us so many choices will in fact be the death of photography—or at least photography in one particular sense: That we make pictures so that other people can see what we have seen. It may be that in the future no one will really look at your pictures. You may be the only one who cares about what you have seen. And even you might not be that interested.":http://stateoftheart.popphoto.com/blog/2008/01/in-the-future-w.html

Talk about synchronicity.. Richard Freeman was Colbert's first guest since his return last night:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=147147&ml_collecti\ on=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origi\ n_url=%2Fmotherload%2F%3Flnk%3Dv%26ml_video%3D147147&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=\ true He talks about the importance and validity of unions. I found it on the Freakonomics blog:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/richard-freeman-on-colbert/ Freak Power!
Union Power!

http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/01/02/blog-networks-and-how-they-pay-bloggers/ The article above (dated January 2, 2008)
outlines different ways of makingitwork.

If anybody can save the journalism industry it's the AP. Here's how.. The AP sued Google over a year ago for copyright infringement via its Google News service. The lawsuit was settled.
It was never revealed what the exact terms of the settlement were.
Which is strange, seeing as how the AP is a cooperatively owned non-profit and you would think that some journalists or another would break the details or that the settlement would be a matter of public record. Rather fishy if you ask me. I have heard, which I cannot in anyway confirm or verify,
that the settlement was in the neighborhood of $900 million. If this is true, which I'm not saying it is, then the AP has the means to research and develop the automated royalty payment system I have talked about at length in the past. The old AP-paper system is devoid of integrity in that they pay dick for all rights ownership to journalist's stories, only to go on and syndicate that one story on potentially hundreds of different websites. If you write one story for the AP, and it is syndicated on 200 different websites, then it is generating ad revenue from 200 different websites at the same time. Think about it. You, as the content producer, deserve a cut of that revenue. That means you deserve to retain at least some ownership of rights to your work in the process. This is possible, this is necessary. The old socialist/communist AP system of slaving for virtually nothing only to sign away all your rights has to end TODAY. One story published on one site may not have a lot of hope for generating much ad revenue, but one story (that you own the rights to) published on 200 different websites can make a decent chunk of change, especially if it's a good story. And it may generate revenue continuously. The AP has the existing infrastructure, they just need to step up to the plate and get it together. And they need to come clean about how much money they got from Google.
Seriously, where's all that money going? Various articles: Google-AP Deal Passes One-Year Mark:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/135387/googleap_deal_passes_oneyear_mark.html Google reveals payment deal with AP:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6102109.html AP Freezes Rates, Proposes Fee Changes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050700564.html

Some say that Patrick is dreaming. But others long ago have said: 'those that dream in the day are dangerous men. I believe in dreaming ideas like this one but as far as the logistics and establishment goes - I'd hate to be the one to organize it! On the other hand, LS has a pool of potential candidates to choose from to head it, establish and run it. I cast my vote for Sion as one of 2 CEOs (the other must be female of course) and I think Gayle Hegland would be up to it. Please keep dreaming all - because if the majority believes in them, they'll direct the course of history. Cheerio, Jenny

I dreamt I'd won the lottery last night. Reality sucks :-((

Just wanted to spread the good news:
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=74041&Nid=38119&p=400095 "AP Allows Affiliates To Upload And Monetize Content"
by Gavin O'Malley, Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 8:00 AM ET The last sentence reads, "The AP is in the process of developing a system to compensate local affiliates whose content is syndicated across the AP's network of sites." First read about this on the cyberjournalist.net blog on Friday the 11th of January:
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/ap-allows-sites-to-upload-and-monetize-video/ Very good news.

The power of communication..

Patrick, Sion and others, since the topic here does involve the logistics through the establishment of an organization, as Jenny has said above (as always, thanks for your faith and vote of confidence, Jenny (-:) and as Patrick refers to above, you may be also interested in looking at this "*ARTISTS' LICENSING GROUP (ALG)*":http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/05_alg/index.html detail for template information, that "*The Illustrators’ Partnership of America (IPA), founded 2000,*":http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/ has been working towards for several years now. Make certain to "*CLICK ON*":http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/05_alg/index.html each category in the black, far _LEFT_ hand menu, in order to get the pertinent ALG details. The funding for ALG is still in the works, but also please see below another example of copyright organization (those are in portions quoted from the IPA Letter below) that was sought throughout the OW/U.S. Copyright Office petition protest as a request for a not-for-profit artists’ registry to be established using as seed money the over $100 million dollars per year in reprographic royalties that the U.S. Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) does not track and therefore does not rightfully return in royalties to U.S. artists for either domestic or international usage: *March 21, 2005 TO: Jule L. Sigall Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs U.S. Copyright Office Copyright GC/I&R P.O. Box 70400 Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024 RE: Orphan Works Study (70 FR 3739) Recommendations in Reply to Register’s Questions* "*A Solution for Tracking Orphan Works: Establish an Artists’ Registry*":http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0661-IllustratorsPartnership.pdf *We believe there’s a solution to the problem of locating the authors of works, orphaned and otherwise. An artists’ registry would afford creators copyright protection for their work, while giving potential users the means to locate and clear the rights they want for their own creative purposes. A possible means of implementing a not for profit artists’ registry would be for the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to work with artists to develop it. The CCC currently collects over $100 million dollars a year in reprographic royalties and is the largest reprographic republisher in the world. Currently, it does not track reprographic usage of visual work; therefore it does not return royalties to U.S. artists for either domestic or international usage. Several other countries do track usage of art created in the U.S. But the royalties collected by these international reprographic rights organizations are currently being dissipated, escrowed or returned to the U.S. in ways that do not include distribution to American artists. Pooling these existing international royalties and earmarking them for the specific purpose of creating a U.S. artists’ registry might provide the necessary seed money to get it off the ground. On October 4, 2004 five U.S. visual artists groups sent such a proposal to the CCC. The groups comprising this coalition include (but would not be limited to): "*The Society of Illustrators*":http://www.societyillustrators.org/index.cms, founded 1901 "*The Association of Medical Illustrators*":https://www.medical-illustrators.org/ECOMAMI/timssnet/common/tnt_frontpage.cfm, founded 1945 "*The National Cartoonists Society*":http://www.reuben.org/, founded 1946 "*The American Society of Architectural Illustrators*":http://www.asai.org/Home, founded 1986 "*The Illustrators’ Partnership of America*":http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/, founded 2000 As of this date the CCC has not responded. Yet accountability by the CCC and a timetable for results might make this market-based solution practical.....* and in the same letter below that please see: 3. *Permit an artists’ registry to evolve into a visual authors’ collective rights administration. In the likelihood that even a simple antitrust exemption is politically impossible, the development of a non-profit ASCAP-style Copyright Bank would provide individual artists with the means of protecting their rights collectively. This could be the natural outgrowth of an artists’ registry and provides yet another reason to examine the possibility of using existing reprographic royalties to strengthen copyright protection.... etc....* BRAD HOLLAND, ILLUSTRATOR C.F. PAYNE, ILLUSTRATOR BRUCE LEHMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW ELENA PAUL, ATTORNEY AT LAW DAVID LESH, ILLUSTRATOR DUGALD STERMER, ILLUSTRATOR CYNTHIA TURNER, ILLUSTRATOR http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0661-IllustratorsPartnership.pdf

Journalists of the world, unite!

I think it's about time for the truth and knowledge to take control over the evil forces of darkness, ignorance, and greed. What about you?

And, in case anybody's wondering, I am most definitely not a communist. To clarify, I am most definitely a capitalist. I'm all about markets, free-markets, and I study lots of economics. For those of you familiar with abundance economics, however, then you probably already know that too much abundance in a market sector will lead to economic collapse in that sector because abundance isn't very compatible with the "price system" which is based upon scarcity. Scarcity (traditional) economics. Guess what, the internet has made media super abundant. Certainly more abundant that any products or goods that are physically tangible..

Here's a nice little Wikipedia article that describes some of the basics of post-scarcity economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity Scarcity economics are arguably more competitively-oriented whereas post-scarcity economics are arguably more cooperatively-oriented. Journalists/photographers are just too competitive right now. It's just not working anymore. The system is beyond broken. It's too cut-throat, competitive for hardly anybody to really be happy or make a living anymore. Journalists/photographers need to cooperate together more then to truly maximize and actualize each other's mutually-beneficial well-being, which, of course, would be in accordance with most all journalists' natural, rational self-interest. We just have to work together and say fuck all the bullshit, once-and-for-all. Some of the stronger arguments against unions is that they tend to raise prices and disrupt the free-market process, or even slow, stagnate, (or stabilize) economic growth, often to the detriment of society. National (regional) state economies that have unions, and higher prices due to higher minimum-wage laws, et cetera tend to operate at a disadvantage in global, transnational markets because higher prices result in less selling-power resulting in slower, weaker economic growth and circulation. However, a multinational-global union with a free-market meritocratic business/payment system might be able to bypass these typical shortcomings of unions due to an agreed-upon, global, and structurally-functional reportage/business methodology which is transcendentally transnational. Think, similar to the interstate-business commerce clause in the US Constitution which helps unify business practices with consistent agreed-upon methodology, but on a global-scale with just one market sector - the media, but without the corrupt hand of governments or other questionable power-structures mediating or controlling our mutually-beneficial, ethical, and universally agreed-upon business/economic and social/political practices.

Thanks Gregory =) Here's another thought: Tomorrow's truth is yesterday's heresy. Interesting how that works. You just wait and see, Bubba, you just wait and see..

Also, just so everybody knows, I am not completely alone in my thoughts: Super: Saving Journalism So It Can Save The World

Google...... The Detroit newspaper strike. As long as you have coworkers who will cross your picket line with there head hung down like a broke dick dog, forget it save your money you are going to need it to eat on.

Remember the old mantra "think global, act local"? Patrick have you got all the photographers in Louisville unionized yet? Kinda like herding cats, isn't it? :-)

I haven't but others have, kind of: http://www.louisvillephoto.org Almost anything is possible with good enough communication.

Patrick, are you a member at louisvillephoto.org ?

Not currently. As for this union, my ideas are far from being complete. I'm not an expert about economics. I'm only 24. However, it's clear a solution is needed. By far. Many of my ideas are off, so please people, help me refine them into something that works. I am only one person.

I agree with all that`s been said here, especially with the youthful hopes for Utopian freelancing of Patrick and the sage and sensible cynicism of Sion. (how`s that for alliteration). I work at the edges of this business and I want to do it more full-time but as everyone, EVERYONE keeps pointing out it is now impossible to make a living from this business. And yet others also says, and I agree, that the market for images has never been greater and it is just the way we sell them that has changed, is changing and will change in ways we cannot even fore-see yet. So I am not giving up anytime soon. Unless of course everyone tells me I am really shit. No even then! I like the idea of some globally recognized rate for an image to take Sion`s idea and expand on it. If not a union as such, a national law (particular to each country perhaps), like a minimum wage, that says to buy this picture you must pay the professional photographer a realistic amount or go without. If all journalism unions could lobby their governments to agree to that as they have agreed to certain press freedoms and protections all is well and good yes? Well no because their is one big problem, and I am sure some of you have read the earlier paragraph of this post and thought, "Fucking wannabe has no idea what he`s talking about." Well I am a wannabe true, a mildly successful one sometimes and one that tries always to act professionally even when I cannot yet (and probably never if the dome-sayers are right) ever call myself a professional photographer. I do not sell pictures too cheaply or give them away: I have turned down jobs that were insultingly meagre in their compensation; I check copyright details and keep it always and I never not deliver on a promise. Yes I have taken some shitty jobs that many of you may have turned down but I am unknown and I`ll do them until I don`t have to anymore. I am constantly learning from pros I know the right ways to take and sell pictures, bargain with clients and treat the market. And I work hard at it which is why I am seldom here on LS. And of course because I follow these rules, or pro-ethics as it were I cannot make enough money to give up the day job yet or a great enough percentage to join any union and thus protect myself from being exploited further. Shame for me but of course who wants the great unwashed sullying the hallowed halls of professionalism. A global union is a nice idea Patrick but only if everyone in the world with a camera is allowed to join. Which isn`t going to happen. Yet if you exclude citizen journalists and those people selling images now for much less than the recommended rate they will always continue to do so because a, they don`t know better or b, they don`t care about money and protecting professional photographers careers. I mean why would they? I care because I do not believe photojournalism is dead just yet. If I did and was still doing this would I qualify for SPA memebership? After all " I just want to be part of some agency, please!!!!" But if we could change the laws of the countries to protect nott only us (including me) but also them (also including me), we do stand a chance of getting pictures back their proper value. Just getting a bigger but still exclusive club of complainers is not going to stop the buyers exploiting photographers. I hope that doesn`t annoy too many people. Damon

Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations (Event Video/Audio): http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2008/02/shirky Clay Shirky discussed his new book, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. Produced 28 Feb 2008 by Mike Deehan

Please excuse the cross-posting, but I feel that it is relevant. Here is an excerpt from an LS post I wrote on October 29, 2007.. The Plight Of Right-Brained Thinkers: http://www.lightstalkers.org/the-plight-of-right-brained-thinkers "In summation, communication has changed and continues to change relatively quickly. We can no longer deny or ignore this. Journalism and educational professionals in particular can no longer deny this. It can be argued that human consciousness is also changing as well, particularly for the younger, ‘ultramodern’, ‘postindustrial’, or even ‘poststructural’ generations. In many developed nations, it is not uncommon or unusual for children to have hours of daily ample exposure to , and stimulation from, a plethora of media including (but not limited to) the Internet, video games, television, music, movies, and other interactive media. This modern phenomena has fundamentally altered the way that many people (but not all, of course) think, communicate, learn, interact, relate, and socialize. This acceleration of communication (and perhaps human consciousness) has the potential to better allow greater numbers of people to more fully live up to their unique individual potentials. With, perhaps, increasingly less regards to their geography or socioeconomic status. Moreover, it can be argued by many that ‘war’ is the opposite or in opposition to ‘language’, with war generally being action-oriented and language generally being more thought-oriented. By accelerating language and communications (as well as people’s capacity for language and communication), you may effectively reduce the prevalence, brutality, or ‘need’ for warfare. For journalism and education to effectively adapt to an ever-changing world and the ever-changing needs of people, they must more actively work in doing so. Highly traditional and authoritarian bureaucratic structures are inherently disadvantaged when it comes to being able to more quickly and dynamically adapt to change. As change accelerates, slow-moving organizations may find it increasingly difficult to sustain themselves as well as legitimately meet the changing needs of the people they serve. If they cannot adequately adapt, they cannot maintain their legitimacy or the respect of the people they serve. To affectively adapt, journalism and educational institutions must develop a greater tolerance and respect for different, new, and alternative ways of thinking. Thinking perhaps more typically associated with right-brained thinkers. That means rewarding creativity as well as rewarding debate and rewarding disagreement. It also means acknowledging and rewarding individuals on the proven and demonstrated strength and merit of their original contributions to others, as opposed to punishing these people on the basis of trivial, petty, or personal office politics. By arrogantly punishing or ignoring (rather than actively rewarding and acknowledging) these different types of thinking and perspectives, many of these institutions are only harming themselves as well as their perceived legitimacy. This holds to be even more true if these institutions are frequently being surpassed on various levels by the people who they refuse to adequately acknowledge or legitimize. A discussion somewhat demonstrating this reality can be read here: “Do you find that most reporting awards overlook serious investigative reporting done by alternative press and new media journalists and bloggers?” http://www.linkedin.com/answers/career-education/ethics/CAR_PET/92171-9017318?browseIdx=3&sik=1189635351728&goback=.ama Because people generally have a tendency to hate what they do not understand, concepts and ways of thinking which are difficult for the majority of people to immediately understand are often met with fierce retaliation and opposition. To eliminate our hatred, it is imperative that we further our understanding. For many journalism professionals, this could mean better acquainting ourselves with the reality of alternative thought processes (ways of thinking) prevalent in some people, as well as actively working to develop a better tolerance, understanding, and appreciation for those with different thought processes, perspectives, and approaches. While the minority perspective is always subject to ridicule in any given society, a truly democratic society is supposed to be one of the few kinds of society which actively welcomes and encourages the free and open expression of minority perspectives, especially as a means to better facilitate a truly free marketplace of ideas. If you want people to be honest, you must reward honesty. If you want people to be transparent, you must reward transparency. If you want people to both acknowledge and solve problems, you must reward them for doing so. If you want people to be genuine and upfront, you must also reward these behaviors as well. Sadly, many journalism institutions and people have yet to understand the importance and value of encouraging such attributes in people. Often it appears as though many journalism professionals are instead rewarded for their capacities to do as they are told, to hide who they really are or what they really think, to never question authority, and to both live and think fatalistically or nihilistically. Any journalism institution that is opposed to or punishes the expression, communication, and exposition of different, new, and alternative perspectives is inherently undemocratic or less democratic. Just because many journalists supposedly offer exposition to different perspectives, that does not mean that the range of perspectives isn’t severely limited or that many important perspectives are not frequently marginalized, censored, or grossly under-reported. As time has consistently demonstrated to me, many minority perspectives which are initially marginalized or ridiculed have a very funny way of eventually becoming both normal and accepted over time. Or, as some may say, prophecies can have a way of fulfilling themselves."

Just a couple more reasons why we need a Global Journalism Union.. "ABC News Reporter Arrested in Denver" 8/28/08: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5670682 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1 "NYT Journalist Singled Out and Sprayed" 8/26/08: http://drunkatdnc.blogspot.com/2008/08/nyt-journalist-singled-out-and-sprayed.html

Did anybody catch Obama's acceptance speech btw?

"Yes, we can." -More- "Aid for Fallen Journalists?" Journalism can be a very dangerous profession. Many journalists risk death or injury everyday just to keep the public informed. Many journalists have given their lives while in the pursuit of truth. Perhaps it would be ideal if somebody or some organization could setup some kind of fund specifically for the families and children of these fallen journalists? Perhaps a foundation that could provide financial aid to the families of journalists in the event they meet death or injury while doing their jobs? Perhaps this hypothetical foundation might even be able to provide legal assistance to families who are seeking justice from the parties, institutions, or individuals who are responsible for any acts of atrocity committed against journalists while in the line of duty? Maybe some kind of Global Journalism Union even? If there was some kind of union that members were paying into, then perhaps a certain percentage of all dues paid could go directly towards this memorial/justice fund for these fallen or injured journalists? Perhaps this foundation could even provide some kind of insurance plan for journalists who are risking their lives to keep people informed? -September 22, 2008- The following is a much-watch, half-hour speech by RFK Jr.. From RFK Jr., Mike Papantonio: "Is Your Vote Safe?" by Truthout.org, circa September 22, 2008.

you will have to admit that christian does look some what suspect. i was a little concerned about the "ha" at the end of that article "New York Times freelance photojournalist Christian Hansen after being sprayed by pepper spray while photographing a confrontation between an Anarchist group and the Denver Police on August 25, 2008. He was supposedly confused for a well known Anarchist protest organizer. ha." does the author think amusing that a member of the press and thus "the institution" was attacked instead of on of the anarchist leaders.

“Police Union Shirt Pokes Fun At DNC Protesters, Denver Officers Given T-Shirt To Commemorate Event” http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17563487/detail.html "DENVER — The Denver police union is selling T-shirts that poke fun at protesters at last month’s Democratic National Convention, but the main target isn’t laughing. The back of the shirts reads, “We get up early to beat the crowds” and “2008 DNC,” and has a caricature of a police officer holding a baton." Interesting, cops have unions, so why can't journalists? Oh yeah, we're supposed to be controlled.

On World Day for Decent Work, IFJ Calls for Action to Improve Quality of Media Jobs By International Federation of Journalists. As the global financial crisis has thrown companies into turmoil, it is workers who are bearing the heaviest burden of instability and recession, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) said today as it marked the World Day for Decent Work. Tens of thousands of workers in the financial services sector and millions more across the global economy face unemployment and a bleak future and in journalism and media the story is equally chilling. In journalism employment conditions have been in decline for years as media owners have cut deep into labour rights and security of employment in order to protect high profit margins in a changing market. Thousands of journalists around the world have been thrust into forced freelance work as jobs in journalism have become increasingly precarious, says the IFJ. “Even before the financial market collapse, the global media industry was in trouble and we have seen again and again a lowering of workplace standards in media causing insecurity and collapsing standards of journalism, said IFJ General Secretary Aidan White. “The threat to journalists’ jobs is not just about personal circumstances for workers and their families; it is also about protecting the quality of democracy we enjoy which is why we are supporting the World Day for Decent Work.” The World Day for Decent Work, October 7, is a day of action supported by the worldwide Global Union movement and involves unions in more than 100 countries around the globe from Fiji to Alaska. Unions are demanding urgent changes in the world economy. The IFJ fears the world financial crisis will only lead to more forced freelances and job cuts at newsrooms as a focus on the bottom line and shareholder value has replaced the tradition public service values of media companies. “We believe that the answers to these problems are not a wholesale race to the bottom on working conditions but in just the opposite,” White said. “By improving working conditions for journalists, media companies can improve their products and use that to drive revenue growth. Only by working with journalists and treating them fairly will the owners climb out of the hole in which the industry finds itself.” (The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 120 countries worldwide)

At this point we should at least attempt an American Media Union, perhaps by consolidating the AP with the Newspaper Guild, among other media companies. Under strong centralized leadership with enough money invested in R & D, this American Union might be able to pull through and create a workable business model. Let me stress the strong centralized leadership and the large amount of capital that will be necessary for effective R & D.

We will need younger people and visionaries like Rob Curley to lead this union. The old farts aren’t cutting it. To be realistic, cultural sensitivity would probably prevent any hope of the formation of a Global Journalism Union, it would probably be more realistic if each country formed their own domestic union. Once any of the domestic unions decide to consolidate, then bam, they consolidate. We could probably contract qualified members of Mensa to act as consultants to this union, or even hire Google engineers for Research & Development. They seem to know what they’re doing.

From The market and the internet don’t care if you make money by Scott Karp, November 10th, 2008.. “So here’s the secret. Legacy media companies can’t create a new business model for news and journalism by themselves. They have to work TOGETHER, to build a network — a giant network of much smaller pieces, loosely joined. I’ve said this before. And I’ll surely say it again. But most of the media company executives who read this blog will shrug and go back to trying to figure how to prop up their monopolies. And those monopolies will continue to crumble faster every day.”

Angry Journalist #7292 (not me): I’m angry that the people in charge of this business are not doing anything to fix it. I guess I should not think that the people who drove newspapers into the ground are going to be the ones to rehab it, but COME ON PEOPLE! There is something fundamentally wrong with newspapers that has not be addressed. We are so like spoiled little kids crying, “It’s the web, the web is killing us, people don’t read, it’s not our fault.” We cannot wait around hoping that someone “discovers” the way out of this mess. I’ve got news for you: — cutting staff is not going to help – redesigning the fish wrap (again) is not going to help – putting all of content on line (for free) is not going to help – posting photos, a couple of graphics and maybe a poll and calling it “interactive” is not going to help – blogging/Twittering is not going to help FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEM AND FIX IT!!

From Letting Go: It’s time to rethink journalistic competition by the editors of the Columbia Journalism Review: "More broadly, imagine what is possible if journalism itself could swallow a bit of pride on the collaborative front. As newsroom resources continue to contract—foreign bureaus close, staffs shrink, travel budgets evaporate—producing a broad, deep, and authoritative news report day in and day out may in some cases require that news operations join forces. Foreign coverage, especially, which is dangerously thin in the U.S., is a place where formal cooperation, both at home and abroad, could strengthen all the operations involved." CJR is catching on, we need a collaborative/cooperative business model to rebuild professional journalism. "Knock knock.." "Who's there?" "Union."

A) "Politico and Reuters Forge a News Distribution Alliance" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/business/media/15politico.html?_r=2 "Politico is pitching its network to newspapers as an important new revenue stream, but it remains to be seen how well it can deliver on that promise. A paper can agree to use up to five Politico articles a week, and receive 50 percent of the ad revenue that Politico sells on those Web pages; or up to 10 articles a week, and receive 40 percent; or up to 15 articles, and receive 30 percent. Newspapers fare best when they can sell their online ad space themselves, but they typically sell less than half that space. They turn the rest over to ad networks, which pay the papers a small fraction — often less than 5 percent — of what papers earn on their own. Roy L. Schwartz, Politico’s vice president for business development and marketing, said it could get much higher rates than the networks by offering a specific, generally upscale audience, rather than the scattershot approach of the networks. Where a large paper might get $20 for every thousand readers for an ad, he said, “we’re targeting $10,” he said, with up to half that amount going to the paper. By comparison, the same paper might get $1 or less from an ad network." B) "Innovation: How one labor union has become its own news organization" http://www.nextnewsroom.com/profiles/blogs/innovation-how-one-labor-union (hint hint)

[WIKILEAKS] Secret call reveals heads of industry strategising to keep unions down under Obama

WIKILEAKS NOTABLE AUDIO RELEASE
Thu Jan 28 22:31:05 GMT 2009

"US heads of industry strategise to keep unions down under Obama"

Wikileaks has released a secret hour long telephone recording between US heads of industry discussing efforts to prevent the emancipation of unions under an Obama administration. Yesterday the Huffington Post ran a story by Sam Stein titled "Bailout Recipients Hosted Call To Defeat Key Labor Bill". The story inclded around five minutes of an hour long recording between federal bailout funds recipiets. Wikileaks has released the full hour long recording. The call shows the firms to be involved in lobbying, effectively with public money.

The summary below is excerpted from Mr. Stein's story:

Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community's top legislative priority.

Participants on the October 17 call -- including at least one representative from another bailout recipient, AIG -- were urged to persuade their clients to send "large contributions" to groups working against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), as well as to vulnerable Senate Republicans, who could help block passage of the bill.

Bernie Marcus, the charismatic co-founder of Home Depot, led the call along with Rick Berman, an aggressive EFCA opponent and founder of the Center for Union Facts. Over the course of an hour, the two framed the legislation as an existential threat to American capitalism, or worse.

"This is the demise of a civilization," said Marcus. "This is how a civilization disappears. I am sitting here as an elder statesman and I'm watching this happen and I don't believe it."

Donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars were needed, it was argued, to prevent America from turning "into France."

For more information, see:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Anti-union_call_between_Bank_of_America%2C_Bernie_Marcus%2C_et_al._and_Rick_Berman%2C_17_Oct_2008

Bailout Recipients Hosted Call To Defeat Key Labor Bill
January 27, 2009 01:10 PM