As you know, I have been actively campaigning against a photo-documentary project called America 24/7 on the EP listserv as well as on other listservs frequented by photographers who have accepted the non-negotiable contractual demands of 24/7.
It is my understanding that this photography project is quite an interesting one with a focus on America over a seven-day period. It was organized by two well-respected producers of photography projects, David Cohen and Rick Smolan. They are recognized as the creators of the very popular A Day in the Life book series.
This is a similar type of project and 1,000 professional photographers, many of them working on staff for newspapers, have been contracted to shoot for it. While there are many more staff photographers who have signed on, there are several well-respected professional freelance photographers who have also accepted to work on it.
Your name is on the list of professional freelance photographers who are working on the project and I'm assuming you signed the contract administered by 24/7.
This project has issued a contract that is unprecedented in its scope.
It is unprecedented, because never before has a project like this asked so many professional photographers to work for so little. Needless to say, I believe it lays the groundwork for future contracts throughout the industry that require similar unreasonable and non-negotiable conditions.
For instance, the 24/7 contract requires photographers to grant a non-exclusive license to use of the photographers' work broadly, in perpetuity and without additional compensation granted to the photographer for any uses.
In past Day in the Life projects, work has been used as advertisements for camera equipment companies. I assume that the work made for this project could also include advertising and promotional material for those companies.
This use is obviously outside the official scope of the project, but nevertheless it fits inside the broad scope of the contract. Further, there is an embargo of photographers' work. I believe the contract forbids photographers to sell/publish any of the work made for the project for at least 2 years.
I know your reputation for your strong stance on the issue of copyright and on the issue of responsible business practices. I know you have heavily influenced the photography market, especially the freelance photography market. I've heard you speak about your work and your beliefs.
I respect greatly your word and your efforts to move photographers away from bad working agreements primarily through your tireless efforts to educate.
One of your strong stances concerns copyright registration. You conclude your piece on copyright registration on the EP web site this way:
'As I have stated in the previous parts of this series copyright registration is fundamental in the protection of our own work and the education of society as a whole. We as a profession need to show that we value the work we create so that others in society will learn to value just as much. We create our own destiny and it must be worked on at every level, including protecting our livelihoods. If we fail, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.'
So my question Mr. Grecco is this:
In what way do you see a project like 24/7 as being beneficial to the editorial photography market and how do you explain your participation in such a project, given the fact that you have allowed a for-profit venture such as 24/7 the unlimited right to use your work in perpetuity?
Also, how will clients and even professional photographers ever understand the true value of the work we provide the world given the fact that professional photographers, like yourself, have shown no hesitancy in participating in a project that hamstrings the editorial market and potentially dramatically affects all of our livelihoods?
Respectfully,
Sean Cayton
Cayton Photography
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
