All Your Photos Are Belong to Us

I finally get you use the old Zero Wing reference.

Personally, I think it's really appropriate as the original phrase makes about as much sense as the latest move from Time, Inc. UK

The company has initiated a new contract for photography freelancers that goes into effect January 1.  Any photography working on assignment for one of the 60 niche publications owned by Time Inc. UK will have to surrender all rights to those images to the company.  (The weekly Time news magazine is not effected by the new contract terms, at least not yet.)

This is just the latest trend in big companies showing little respect for professional photographers.  Yahoo's CEO annoyed photographers with her comments, Getty engaged in blatant copyright theft as well as other actions that annoyed contributors and various media outlets have laid off part or all of their photo journalists staff.

Now, Time, Inc. UK is telling freelancers they are going to treat them like employees in regards to copyright, (as a general rule, the work product of employees belongs to the employer) but treating them as an independent contractor for all other purposes.  Meaning the photographer must take care of expenses, taxes, etc.


What professional photographer will be willing to work freelance if they have to take all the risks and except all the expenses if they then have to tuen over all rights to the images produced?

That's the worst of both worlds.


I think all this stems from the prevalence of camera phones.  With everyone taking pictures with their phones, all these CEOs have a mentality that there is nothing unique about being a professional photographer.

They're wrong.

It's the same distinction between someone that plays baseball with the boys on the weekend and someone playing for a Major League ball club.  There is a reason those weekend warriors don't get paid $20 million a year and some professional baseball players do. 


The professional brings a level of talent and a dedication to the profession that separates them from those that don't. 

The most annoying thing is that many of the companies involved are media companies that make money by producing a professional level product.  (Magazines and stock photos).  How do they expect to continue doing that if they don't treat the people that actually take those photos as professionals?