Monday, April 20, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
EXHIBITION IN SUPPORT OF THE AUSTRALIAN BUSH FIRES RELIEF
Dear STD-S Photographer,
OGGI is a new Blog for the STD-S / Oliver Gordon Gallery.
We would like to begin by asking your support and direct you to our latest post.
http://olivergordongallery.blogspot.com/
We hope you will be able to assist in the exhibition and the support of our friends in Australia.
OGGI is a new Blog for the STD-S / Oliver Gordon Gallery.
We would like to begin by asking your support and direct you to our latest post.
http://olivergordongallery.blogspot.com/
We hope you will be able to assist in the exhibition and the support of our friends in Australia.
MANY ARE CALLED, FEW ARE CHOSEN
A LETTER BY DJANKA GAJDEL
Copyright Versus Public Domain - Please See Link Below to CBC.ca/spark for Radio Interview
Here is a letter written in response to an interview with a gentleman who suggests that we might consider all created material become in the public domain.
As someone who has represented photographers for the past 25 years I think the idea of making everything public domain is fine in theory provided the creators of that material have been financially remunerated for all the potential uses that exist for that creation to appear in.
There is a perception that the public has that Photographers are some how raking in the dough and therefore their images should become public domain which is a huge misconception. The creators of editorial photographic art have not had their fees
change since after the Second World War. Protocol at that time was to commission an image and the first rights would go to the magazine for $400.00. Immediately following that it was the responsibility of the creator to generate any revenue to cover their overhead and costs. Fast forward 70 years and with the onset of technology the fees have remained the same and in some cases even lower which is anywhere from $250 - $500.00 per commission. Except this time there is a minimum embargo of 90-120 days that denies any further revenue from being generated. This is especially difficult when it's time sensitive material that you need to resell. Therefore, that income is naturally lost and the fees haven't risen in close to 70 years. Furthermore, the images are commissioned with the understanding that they are getting not only first rights for the magazines, however all the varied internet, marketing, reprint and web usages, as well as anything else they can extract from the artist.
Usages that in the late 70's and 80's commanded a few thousand dollars are now considered part and parcel of the $400.00 fee. The magazine profits off of the backs of the creators. It's a curious business model. Kind of like building a car and selling it for a profit however getting all the pieces for free. One page of ad space sells for thousands of dollars. Depending on the consumer magazine anywhere from five to thirty thousand dollars however the artwork that makes that magazine so desirable to advertise in is commissioned at only a few hundred dollars. Sure you can make the work of great living artists available to everyone to enjoy and learn from, this is the essence of a good thing, however you need to create a model where such contributions to cultural, spiritual and scientific evolution are enabled in a pragmatic sense. How do we ensure that they continue creating for the world and are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their creations? Right now currencies are those fruits. We have yet to establish a more enlightened economic model.
The contracts submitted to editorial photographers these days routinely have the word "Universe" in them to cover satellite as well as words like "technology that is not yet known or yet to be developed." All this for $400.00, there is a deal! This current group of image-makers has an incredible talent. They are archivists, historians, storytellers and skilled artists. Are we supposed to take even more from them? Any remuneration they would receive through their fees sadly doesn't even begin to cover their operating costs of which there are many from their capital expenditures like camera gear and studio to their insurance costs to cover a cornucopia of variables. Their expenses for such hard costs are not recognized. Furthermore, more often than not they cannot produce an image without the assistance of the make-up artists, stylists, assistants, set builders, caters and a host of others that they employ. No one can do that for $400.00. However if you're going to take what they make into the public domain you are taking more then you know.
A pen or a camera is nothing more then an enabler. In the same way that one might write a grocery list with a pencil another individual might craft a Rembrandt. With photography there are those that can document a sunset and those that can document that magical miniscule moment where they know their shutter must fall to make it truly an image that is worth a thousand words. Europeans understand intimately about celebrating and rewarding those that truly contribute to culture and North Americans know how to deny them of their livelihood. No profession that I know of has as many restrictions or ridiculous requests or even as many hurdles in place in order to generate a living, as does the profession of photography. I have witnessed several skilled artists declare bankruptcy and lose families because they couldn't generate the revenue to support them. These are talented people who are continually sold on the concept that in order to work they have to give more and more of their rights away until they have nothing left to give away. Others profited on what should have been theirs. Struggle seems to be intrinsic for those that have pledged an allegiance to this medium. I believe that photographers are dully entitled to generate a living. Furthermore they employ many people who contribute handsomely to the tax base.
As a 25-year member of CAPIC (Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators in Communication) and a member of ASMP (The American Society of Media Photographers), I would like to see fair and proper remuneration for all the incredible creators that exist; regardless of what medium they have chosen. Fortunately PLUS (Picture Licensing Universal System) is moving through the world and is the genesis of an American photographer who had had enough and didn't want to take it anymore. You cannot compare sites like Flicker where banal images are posted for free to Stock that Doesn't Suck where there are provocative, informative and breath taking images created by some of the worlds foremost visionaries and sold for commercial use to convey powerful messages and to stir conversation amongst the masses. At this time in our civilization this is the most powerful way of communicating - through compelling visuals. Why then shouldn't these creators generate an income off of what is their livelihood?
It is fundamentally clear what the difference is between a professional and an amateur photographer. In this time of economic turmoil I'm optimistic to believe that there is nothing left to take and in fact it is time that the pendulum swings in another direction where we as a community and a society begin to recognize those that have given so unselfishly of themselves to document for us historically what is transpiring in today's society. It will not be Flicker that are children's children will be reflecting on to catch a glimpse of who we were in history, it is the master photographers that have struggled financially to tell their tale whose images will supply them with their story. For those that believe the photographer was paid once and need not generate revenue I ask them to wear the shoes of a photographer and all encompassing aspects of it and after exercising that, then pose to them the question of surrendering their work to the Public Domain. I think they would best understand the great inequity that exists and why copyright is so fundamentally important in this area.
Photography is a mistress that calls so many and chooses so few. For those that are chosen, their work demands to be properly remunerated otherwise why bother inventing.
Djanka Gajdel
Photographic Representative
Who's Who of Canadian Women - Art & Commerce
Copyright Versus Public Domain - Please See Link Below to CBC.ca/spark for Radio Interview
Here is a letter written in response to an interview with a gentleman who suggests that we might consider all created material become in the public domain.
As someone who has represented photographers for the past 25 years I think the idea of making everything public domain is fine in theory provided the creators of that material have been financially remunerated for all the potential uses that exist for that creation to appear in.
There is a perception that the public has that Photographers are some how raking in the dough and therefore their images should become public domain which is a huge misconception. The creators of editorial photographic art have not had their fees
change since after the Second World War. Protocol at that time was to commission an image and the first rights would go to the magazine for $400.00. Immediately following that it was the responsibility of the creator to generate any revenue to cover their overhead and costs. Fast forward 70 years and with the onset of technology the fees have remained the same and in some cases even lower which is anywhere from $250 - $500.00 per commission. Except this time there is a minimum embargo of 90-120 days that denies any further revenue from being generated. This is especially difficult when it's time sensitive material that you need to resell. Therefore, that income is naturally lost and the fees haven't risen in close to 70 years. Furthermore, the images are commissioned with the understanding that they are getting not only first rights for the magazines, however all the varied internet, marketing, reprint and web usages, as well as anything else they can extract from the artist.
Usages that in the late 70's and 80's commanded a few thousand dollars are now considered part and parcel of the $400.00 fee. The magazine profits off of the backs of the creators. It's a curious business model. Kind of like building a car and selling it for a profit however getting all the pieces for free. One page of ad space sells for thousands of dollars. Depending on the consumer magazine anywhere from five to thirty thousand dollars however the artwork that makes that magazine so desirable to advertise in is commissioned at only a few hundred dollars. Sure you can make the work of great living artists available to everyone to enjoy and learn from, this is the essence of a good thing, however you need to create a model where such contributions to cultural, spiritual and scientific evolution are enabled in a pragmatic sense. How do we ensure that they continue creating for the world and are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their creations? Right now currencies are those fruits. We have yet to establish a more enlightened economic model.
The contracts submitted to editorial photographers these days routinely have the word "Universe" in them to cover satellite as well as words like "technology that is not yet known or yet to be developed." All this for $400.00, there is a deal! This current group of image-makers has an incredible talent. They are archivists, historians, storytellers and skilled artists. Are we supposed to take even more from them? Any remuneration they would receive through their fees sadly doesn't even begin to cover their operating costs of which there are many from their capital expenditures like camera gear and studio to their insurance costs to cover a cornucopia of variables. Their expenses for such hard costs are not recognized. Furthermore, more often than not they cannot produce an image without the assistance of the make-up artists, stylists, assistants, set builders, caters and a host of others that they employ. No one can do that for $400.00. However if you're going to take what they make into the public domain you are taking more then you know.
A pen or a camera is nothing more then an enabler. In the same way that one might write a grocery list with a pencil another individual might craft a Rembrandt. With photography there are those that can document a sunset and those that can document that magical miniscule moment where they know their shutter must fall to make it truly an image that is worth a thousand words. Europeans understand intimately about celebrating and rewarding those that truly contribute to culture and North Americans know how to deny them of their livelihood. No profession that I know of has as many restrictions or ridiculous requests or even as many hurdles in place in order to generate a living, as does the profession of photography. I have witnessed several skilled artists declare bankruptcy and lose families because they couldn't generate the revenue to support them. These are talented people who are continually sold on the concept that in order to work they have to give more and more of their rights away until they have nothing left to give away. Others profited on what should have been theirs. Struggle seems to be intrinsic for those that have pledged an allegiance to this medium. I believe that photographers are dully entitled to generate a living. Furthermore they employ many people who contribute handsomely to the tax base.
As a 25-year member of CAPIC (Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators in Communication) and a member of ASMP (The American Society of Media Photographers), I would like to see fair and proper remuneration for all the incredible creators that exist; regardless of what medium they have chosen. Fortunately PLUS (Picture Licensing Universal System) is moving through the world and is the genesis of an American photographer who had had enough and didn't want to take it anymore. You cannot compare sites like Flicker where banal images are posted for free to Stock that Doesn't Suck where there are provocative, informative and breath taking images created by some of the worlds foremost visionaries and sold for commercial use to convey powerful messages and to stir conversation amongst the masses. At this time in our civilization this is the most powerful way of communicating - through compelling visuals. Why then shouldn't these creators generate an income off of what is their livelihood?
It is fundamentally clear what the difference is between a professional and an amateur photographer. In this time of economic turmoil I'm optimistic to believe that there is nothing left to take and in fact it is time that the pendulum swings in another direction where we as a community and a society begin to recognize those that have given so unselfishly of themselves to document for us historically what is transpiring in today's society. It will not be Flicker that are children's children will be reflecting on to catch a glimpse of who we were in history, it is the master photographers that have struggled financially to tell their tale whose images will supply them with their story. For those that believe the photographer was paid once and need not generate revenue I ask them to wear the shoes of a photographer and all encompassing aspects of it and after exercising that, then pose to them the question of surrendering their work to the Public Domain. I think they would best understand the great inequity that exists and why copyright is so fundamentally important in this area.
Photography is a mistress that calls so many and chooses so few. For those that are chosen, their work demands to be properly remunerated otherwise why bother inventing.
Djanka Gajdel
Photographic Representative
Who's Who of Canadian Women - Art & Commerce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)