Memorandum submitted by Redeye—The
Photography Network
1. INTRODUCTION
TO REDEYE
Redeye, the Photography Network, is based in
Manchester, UK, and has over 3,000 subscribers and over 10,000
regular users of its services across the North of England and
beyond. It aims to form a clear picture of the ways photographers
and photographic artists are working now, and thus give them access
to events, opportunities, advice and information that are relevant
to their work and difficult to find elsewhere. We believe Redeye
is now the fastest-growing and most successful organisation of
its kind in the UK.
2. 2006 SURVEY
In February 2006 Redeye surveyed photographers
on various issues, including the effects of new technology on
photographers' work patterns. We received 487 responses, of whom
just under half are full- or part-time working photographers.
Their work is evenly spread across editorial, commercial, social
(wedding/portrait) and fine art practice.
3. KEY FINDINGS
INCLUDED THE
FOLLOWING:
We asked those who had been working for five
years or longer to compare their work now with their work three
to five years ago, and also asked them to comment on whether or
not these changes were wholly or partly caused by new technology
(the internet, computers, digital cameras etc).
— 88% said that more non-professionals
are getting their photography used in a professional context because
of new technology
— 74% noticed more photos and images
being copied, or used on the internet, without authorisation
— 69% said that more of their clients
were taking work in-house because of new technology
— 66% said that more of the kind of
work they do is now going to non-professionals and students because
of new technology
— 64% thought they were being undercut
more often because of new technology
— 61% noticed a general reduction in
fees, 52% noticed a reduction in the amount of commissions they
had received, and of those 73% thought that was caused by new
technology
— 50% thought that the total time they
spent on a job was longer (27% disagreed)
— 50% thought their work was getting
more difficult (25% disagreed)
— 77% have diversified the kind of
work they do within photography in the last three to five years
— 46% have diversified the kind of
work they do other than photography in the last three to five
years.
Copyright:
— 33% had noticed more clients asking
for copyright than three to five years ago
— However 53% did not use licensing
with commissions, or didn't know about it.
We also asked for comments on the above issues.
The following summaries are listed in order of the number of comments
received (most popular topic first):
— A large number of respondents said
that cheap stock (library) photography, often produced by non-professionals,
was having a major impact on professional work;
— Digital manipulation allowed companies
and designers to make more of poor photography;
— It was easier for beginners to give
the illusion of competence and thus get a foot in the door;
— Many beginners wanted publication
regardless of what they were paid, and clients are taking advantage
of the flood of freelances;
— Some said that the skills of the
photographer are still important.
4. DISCUSSION
OF THE
ISSUES
4.1 Changing work patterns
These results indicate major changes in the
way photographers are working. Times are certainly harder for
photographers and new technology is a major cause of this. Overall
reduced fees and a reduction in the amount of professional work
may well be caused by the following:
— Cheap non-professional stock photography
flooding the market.
— Work being taken in-house and done
by non-professional company staff and are also connected with:
— The increase of unauthorised
use of photographs and digital images;
— The lack of knowledge of copyright
and licensing issues by photographers; and
— Exploitation of this by clients.
4.2 Copyright
Redeye notes that while the number of clients
demanding copyright is still in the minority, it is growing, and
if the current rate of growth in this practice is sustained, it
is expected to become a majority within a generation. This practice
of enforced copyright assignment contravenes the spirit of copyright
protection generally and of the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents
Act specifically, which are intended to protect the individual
creator's work. However many individual creators are finding they
cannot get work without giving up their copyright.
Redeye is particularly dismayed that the government
sets such a bad example on this. Almost all government departments
now demand copyright. The guidance issued by the OPSI on copyright
in works commissioned by the crown is worded so as to encourage
departments to seek assignment, with no note of the disadvantages
of doing so listed below. (see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/copyright-guidance/copyright-in-works-commissioned-by-the-crown.htm)
Redeye notes the following on the question of
enforced assignment of copyright:
— The future earning potential of creators
from their own material is negated, so up front charges will need
to increase significantly.
— Long-term, creators who assign copyright,
who do not increase up-front charges, and who find themselves
unable to work will have a greatly reduced earning potential.
Creators in general tend not to have good pension provision. It
is likely that many more will be impoverished in old age.
— Assignment of copyright discourages
creators from giving the client any more than the bare minimum
required.
— Almost all of the top photographers
in this country refuse to assign copyright.
— It is highly likely for these last
two reasons that clients who demand copyright are therefore getting
second-rate work.
— It is possible for creators to use
a licence similar to that recommended by Creative Commons, which
allows certain types of free public use of material while copyright
is retained by the creator. However some creators are reluctant
to do this while the policing of unauthorised use is so lax.
Redeye also notes that the use of licensing,
while vital to any solution to these issues, is poorly understood
by both photographers and many of their clients.
Finally we note that these problems are greatly
exacerbated by the rise in so-called citizen journalism. Many
members of the public are sending phone-camera pictures to be
published without being paid for this, and realise too late that
they have lost control of their work. Publishers and broadcasters
are exploiting the lack of knowledge of the public on these matters,
and profiting substantially.
4.3 Protecting creative content from unauthorised
usage
Misuse or unauthorised use of digital images
and photographs essentially falls into one of four categories:
— Images are circulated with no identifying
mark and re-used because the end user cannot tell who the creator
was;
— The identifying mark in the image
cannot be found because of incompetence or software incompatibility;
— The identifying mark in the image
is removed;
— The identifying mark is changed to
indicate a different creator.
Redeye notes that this can be a complex matter
and that users of unauthorised material often claim ignorance.
We also note that penalties for offenders are
low—in fact they are often only identical to the charges
that would have been legitimately made.
While market traders are regularly taken to
court for breach of copyright when selling pirate videos, we hear
far fewer cases of a large publishing house being taken to court
for breaching copyright of individual creators. In most of the
latter cases, even one as high-profile as Linford vs TSPL, an
out of court settlement is reached where the creator receives
only the fees he or she ought to have been paid anyway.
There is little incentive for those breaching
the copyright of individual creators to desist. There is anecdotal
evidence that large photolibraries are treated better by clients
than individual photographers in this matter.
Notes on protecting digital images:
Traditionally prints or slides were circulated
with a stamp or sticker on and it was very easy to tell who the
creator was.
Regarding protecting digital images, there are
essentially four methods of marking an image with some information
about its creator and/or caption:
(1) The file name. This very short text area
is often limited to 32 or even eight characters. It is very easy
to read and change.
(2) Metadata. This is text, typically caption
and creator details, saved in a special area of every digital
image. It is fairly easy to read using certain software, and some
details can be changed or stripped out. It is becoming a universal
standard.
(3) Visible text in the image. Typically
this will be a strip of information at the bottom or side of the
image, or a short piece of text with a copyright symbol visibly
superimposed on the image.
(4) Invisible watermarking. Information embedded
in the image that is hard or impossible to move, and usually requires
proprietary software to apply or read. There is no universal standard
and the software concerned usually has a financial cost.
In the absence of a universal watermarking standard,
metadata is the most useful universal standard for marking images
with creator details. However Redeye notes that over 90% of the
digital images and photographs received into its offices contain
no user-assigned metadata. It is also possible to set up certain
software used by picture desks to strip metadata out of an image.
This is analogous to tearing out pages in a novel that contain
the name of the author. Although it is hard to trace instances
of this happening, we have anecdotal reports. Such practice may
well be illegal.
5. REDEYE'S
RECOMMENDATIONS
— Penalties for large scale and systematic
breach of copyright or unauthorised use of images should be increased,
and help given to individual creators in protecting their rights.
— The practice of blanket enforced
assignment of copyright should be strongly discouraged.
— The practice of licensing should
be much more widely disseminated and understood among those making
and particularly commissioning creative content.
— Consideration should be given to
supporting alternative licensing models provided they can be policed.
— Government departments should be
requested to give much stronger support to individual creators
in the matters raised above.
— Work should be done to raise the
profile of these issues at colleges and universities, not just
those teaching photography but also PR, management, publishing
and similar subjects.
— The usage and respect of metadata
should be encouraged.
— Guidance needs to be issued on the
legality of removing copyright information from digital images;
this practice should be clearly illegal, and software companies
alerted.
14 March 2006
| 
