Pro-Imaging

8 December 2008

Newsday, a tabloid headquartered on Long Island, just announced yet another downsizing. Perhaps "the 10th in the last 8 years" according to a story in today's NY Post – a competing publication.  The circulation of Newsday is variously estimated at anywhere between 400,000 and 528,000 placing it on most industry “Top Ten” lists (along with the NY Post).

Newsday’s Editor in Chief is quoted as saying that the paper is cutting back on travel, entertainment and supply budgets.  As you may know, many newspapers have quietly stopped sending reporters or photographers to cover news or sporting events which are broadcast on television or for which there is a "cheaper" option – i.e. a pay per view charge for a boxing match.  (We’ll leave aside for now, questions addressed to the very nature of the term “coverage”) 

Again, quoting from the Post, "Newsday would be going forward with a considerably smaller photo desk."  "One source said he expected many of the laid off photographers' work to still appear in the paper as freelancers". (sic)  The article further points out that the sports and photo departments will be particularly hard hit and that some staffers "might" be afforded the opportunity to apply for lower paid editorial positions. 

In our view, rather than merely a reflection of business "trends" in a difficult economy, the above episode illustrates yet another attack on photographers in the War on Photography, a war which while not over, was long ago won. For well over a decade, we have been pointing to handwriting already on walls and warning creatives of the futility of attempting to "partner" with their editorial clients and stock agents.  Most of those clients, publications and stock agents were openly seeking to entirely eliminate the need for independent photographers, illustrators and writers.  Alas, actions did not speak louder than words to many creatives. 

While some employees who were let go toiled at jobs unrelated to intellectual property, it is not mere coincidence many possess (or should possess) at least some intellectual property and/or copyrights.  If one or more were employees in the strictest W2 sense, it is hoped that their salaries and benefits balanced the forfeiture of any intellectual property rights to some mutually agreeable extent. Our prediction is that their creativity will be replaced by the works of others who will eagerly provide, assign, transfer and "give away" such imagery and/or reportage to Newsday, free of charge.  Those who believe photographers or reporters who toiled under traditional models will in the future stay on in "new business models" as free lance contributors  enabling them to financially support themselves, live in a town known as Hopelessly Naïve.

Newsday (like countless other publications and media corporations) will get all the "content" it wants or deems it needs, at little or no cost.  No salaries,20no benefits and almost no expenses.  That is not to say that creatives and wanna be's will literally be lining up outside Newsday's door for the privilege of submitting “free” work. No way.  Rather they will send their creative work product via the net to the web addresses already set up and designed to both receive such “free content” and simultaneously accept the assignment of the creator’s copyrights in it.  We can all rest comfortably in the knowledge that no fossil fuels will be consumed in the process.

That leaves us with two questions to all those who have championed the warm and fuzzy notions of "citizen journalism", working for free, democratization of the media, "partnering with your stock agencies" and all of the other trendy catch phrases which served as cover for the theft of creative rights:

1.  How are you going to compete against free? and

2.  How are you sleeping at night? 

The laws of inertia being what they are, we suggest that for those of you still employed in like circumstances, don’t wait to receive a pink slip or a “generous offer” to continue working at far less compensation, before exploring alternative revenue streams.  Simply waiting for the axe to fall will insure that you will be utterly unprepared when your income is cut off.

December 8, 2008

New York, NY

Edward C. Greenberg, PC

570 Lexington Ave.

New York, NY 10022

(212) 697 8777