{"id":8529,"date":"2015-12-17T14:28:38","date_gmt":"2015-12-17T14:28:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dev.wordpress\/?p=8529"},"modified":"2015-12-17T14:28:38","modified_gmt":"2015-12-17T14:28:38","slug":"what-photographers-should-learn-from-the-controversy-behind-times-new-photo-contract","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.adorama.com\/alc\/what-photographers-should-learn-from-the-controversy-behind-times-new-photo-contract\/","title":{"rendered":"What Photographers Should Learn From The Controversy Behind Time’s New Photo Contract"},"content":{"rendered":"

Despite months of outcry, Time, Inc. appears to be pushing forward with their new photo contract<\/a> set to take effect on New Year\u2019s Day. The contract has earned the lament of many prominent photography agencies, media critics and national photography organizations for its \u201cdraconian\u201d new clauses, which lower rates, strip photographers of licensing rights and eliminate space rates in exchange for day rates. The development underscores the need for photographers at every level to heed particular caution when signing a contract authorizing the use of their work. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n

The Time Inc. Contract Basics<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\n

The new Time, Inc. contract applies to all 23 of the media company\u2019s brand, which includes Time, Fortune, Sports Illustrated and Health, just to name a few. The contract is set to be implemented on Jan. 1, 2016. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSince the 1920s and \u201830s, when Time and Life magazines first appeared on the scene, Time Inc. and its brands have been known for the beauty and power of iconic photography,\u201d Time Executive VP Norm Pearlstine wrote in a letter to Time photographers. \u201cWhile our commitment to original photography is as true as today as ever, we are revising how we commission and use photographs.\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

One of the first thing photographers may take away from the contract is the day-rate bump: from $500 to \u201cup to $650.\u201d What\u2019s there to complain about there? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

True, the $150 pay bump is undoubted increase, but compared to the $380 Time day rate of the \u201880s, the newest rate represents a continued decline after adjusting for inflation. Moreover, the fact that the rates set only maximum amounts (i.e. “up to $650”) and no minimums has struck many as troubling, signifying that the rates are more of a protection of Time\u2019s financial interests rather a promise of fair wages for their photographers. The contract also cuts fees for reuse in related publications, books and foreign editions. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

More troubling to many, though, is the fact that the contract removes space rates, completely replacing them with day rates and cover photo rates. In practical terms, this means that Time can pay a flat rate to photographers no matter how many photos they run in the assigning publication. So whether a photographer\u2019s one-day assignment results in double page spreads or just a single, small photo, the maximum a photographer can make is $650. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Video has become increasingly common for Time Inc. magazines as they continue to expand their digital audiences. In the contract, Time will now retain the copyright to all video shot on assignment, as well as to video content produced in Time studios. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, cover images cannot be licensed anywhere else, unpublished assignments may never released from their embargo period, and photographers have no injunctive relief, meaning it will be near impossible for them to stand up for themselves should Time violate the terms of the agreement. All this amounts to a huge strip of photographers\u2019 licensing rights. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

View the entire Time Inc. contract here: <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Time Inc Photographer Contract 2016<\/a><\/font><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Backlash <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Shortly after Pearlstine of Time posted the letter quoted above on LinkedIn, criticism came swiftly from a variety of photography interests. One of the most compelling and damning critiques came from photographer John Harrington<\/a>, author of \u201cBest Business Practices for Photographers.\u201d Not one to mince words, Harrington accused Time of \u201ctrampling on the rights of photographers like a \u201820s flapper stomping on the dance floor.\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Time contract has since attracted some of photography’s most powerful advocacy groups and photo agencies. . Representatives of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and the American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) wrote an open letter to Time Inc.<\/a> on behalf of several other organizations (American Photographic Artists, Digital Media Licensing Association and the Professional Photographers of America.)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe strongly object to the draconian terms and conditions you impose on those contractors in order to increase your profitability,\u201d the letter states. \u201cIndeed, we believe the agreement as written will have the opposite effect by undermining your longstanding commitment to those who have produced those iconic images for almost 100 years.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Photography Contract Red Flags<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

For better or for worse, most of us don\u2019t produce photography for Time, Inc. publications. Regardless of the client you\u2019re producing photography for, the contract that lays out how our work will be licensed and used deserves close scrutiny. Here are a few things to look out for when working with photography contracts. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n