Kudos to Thomas Witte->

For glowing praise of his free lance sport work in January issue of
Shutterbug.
Jay Abend did an article about pro football photographers and paid
tribute to Thomas on his free-lance work.

There is also a shot of Thomas' gear he drags along to each game.
David Attenborough doesn't pack that much equipment on an expedition
to Antarctica!

Way to go Thomas!

RP©

 

From: Rich Pos

And his wretched Bengals are winning too! What a year for Thomas!!

Bill

 

From: Rich Pos

Way to go, Thomas.
Now when are we gonna do that Titans game?

 

The article mentions how difficult it is to get photographic press
credentials to pro football games. It's even becoming complicated for
some that work on national publications.
Thomas and another free lancer were the exceptions.

It did mention that one way around this was to reserve a skybox for
the year, often stadium management will make exceptions for people
that spend $5000 per game.

Either way, it sounds iffy..... but what the hell do I know?!
Why not contact Witte through his web site. I clearly remember the
challenge / invite.

BTW, your *updated* rogue shot is hilarious.
Thanks for having the decency to show us your best side.

RP©

 

From: Rich Pos

It is amazing how crowded it is down there with all the "VIPs" lurking about.
That's one thing thing about shooting high school games. You can move around
pretty freely (outside the 25 yard lines) without tripping over people.
Usually there is only 1 or 2 photographers there competing for the same space.

 

I forgot all about that interview... Thanks for the kudos.

Brett, things are extremely tense at NFL Photos right now and I've cut
back on my out of town games quite a bit. Nashville was the first to
go because even though it's the same distance as Cleveland, Pittsburgh
and Detroit for me, it's just such a mentally draining drive and
parking there sucks. I haven't forgotten about you, but it might not
be this season as I'm in Cleveland and Cincinnati the rest of the
season.

As Rich mentioned, it's becoming a huge pain in the butt anymore
getting credentials even for myself. Even when I'm shooting for
Sports Illustrated I can't get an assistants pass anymore, but they
WILL credential a second SI photographer and allow him to carry
gear... It's a clusterf*** to say the least.

Yes the Bengals are winning and I love it, but the real success story
this year has actually been Miami (Ohio) quarterback Ben
Roethlisberger... I've gotten so many stock requests from him lately,
which is good since Maurice Clarrett is no longer at OSU.

Anyway, I digress. Thanks for the kind words and hopefully I'll see
some of you on the sidelines.

Thomas E. Witte

www.mindspring.com/~photoj
www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=42

 

From: (Thomas E. Witte)

No problem. Hey, maybe you can score me some Masters credentials instead.
I rule golf pix.

 

Thomas E. Witte said:

Thoms, how is the market for sports photography in the US? Over here the
freelancers are getting screwed like you cannot believe. I was actually
having this discussion with a friend of mine who shoots sports for AP,
Allsport, Touchline and various corporate sponsors. His passport collects
a lot of stamps, but he gets paid shit considering his massive outlay for
equipment.

I was telling him that maybe he should consider weddings instead
(naturally I am trying to shyster him out of his 400mm f/2.8L).

 

Thomas, how is the market for sports photography in the US? Over here the

[DISCLAIMER: This is tough to answer and I'll drift seemingly off
course explaining it...]

Dallas, that's the problem with Allsport/Getty actually. They pay (in
the States) $400 US per assignment and expenses, and that is it. No
royalties, no nothing. Allsport at one time was the gig to have, but
since Getty swallowed them up, things have never been the same. The
same is potentially happening with Getty buying the NFL photos library
and everyone is up in arms because it is such a despised entity.

That aside, there are still ways to make money at sports, you just
have to be smart and respect yourself. When the economy started to
get rocky a couple of years ago corporations pounced on the desperate
photographers and started forcing them to sign work for hire
agreements or other rights grabbing contracts. Many photographers, in
fear of going bankrupt, relented and are now trapped in a terminal pay
scale. Others, also desperate for work, began undercutting other
photographers and/or flat out offering to shoot for free. This took
work away from other photographers, who also had to lower their rates
or sign the contracts.... It was a vicious cycle that ruined the
market because they also are now stuck, unable to raise their rates.

On the other hand, there were a few folks that held out like myself
and several of my friends. I put my efforts in high gear to get on
contracts that still respected photographers, like Business Week,
Sports Illustrated and smaller, lesser known stock agencies like Icon
Sports Media. It was rough at the beginning because 95% of my work
was for Icon and they pay on spec... Meaning that I don't get paid at
all until a photo sells. This seems ridiculous, but I really would
have rather shot on spec than turn over my copyright. Five years
later it's a different story. I'm still getting paid royalties on
games I shot 5-10 years ago, and the Getty shooters aren't.

This weeks ESPN magazine is an example. The two shots I have of
Roethlisberger on page 10 and 130 total out to $400, which is the day
rate for Getty... But the joy of it for me is the fact that these
same photos have been selling a lot lately.

So in the case of your friend, he makes more money up front than I do,
but the difference is that I'll keep getting paid years down the road
for the same game we both may have shot.

Another thing that helps make me somewhat successful is simply saying
no to contracts. If the client really wants you/me to shoot for them,
they will work with you.... Those of you in the Orlando area saw the
story of Brooke Christensen recently, who was burned severely a year
ago. When they originally called to have me shoot her at the burns
institute in Cincinnati, I refused to sign the contract because they
wanted total copyright transfer. I referred them to other shooters in
the area, but they wanted me to shoot the story, so they relented and
made the exception. I got paid, and I kept the copyright.

I'm sorry for making this winded, but I can't stress enough about how
important it is to respect yourself and your self worth. There's no
way I would have gotten to where I am now if I undercut other people
or turned over my rights. Royalty based sales make up 30% of my
annual income.

HA HA! Who needs enemies with friends like you. (kidding)

Thomas E. Witte

www.mindspring.com/~photoj
www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=42

 

From: (Thomas E. Witte)

Thanks for the great info!

 

Thomas E. Witte said:

<snipped for brevity>

Thomas, thanks a bunch for posting that. It pretty much sums up the reason
why I never got more involved in pro sports photography. Copyright is the
most important element of published work, so to sell it for the figures
these agencies are asking for is practically criminal.

Here in SA the local affiliate of Allsport is Touchline Media. They
publish the local Sports Illustrated and several other sports magazines.
They have a couple of salaried photographers who cover as much as they
can, but they sometimes commission freelancers whenever the holes in their
coverage appear. The money they were offering for rugby (which was the
only accreditation I had at the time) simply didn't make economic sense,
PLUS they retain copyright to all the images you send them. They had a
minimum requirement of 20 "good" images per game.

If you think about some of the useage that images they have copyright
over, any photographer with half a brain in his/her head would never sell
their copyright. I'm thinking of the image of Jonty Rhodes running out
Inzamam Ul Haq at the 1992 cricket world cup, plus a few other shots that
American readers would be unfamiliar with.

I gave some consideration to shooting on spec for agencies, but there
again, control over usage is out of your control and given the amount of
white collar crime we have in this country, I just wouldn't trust anybody
to sell my images on my behalf.

It still remains an aspiration of mine to shoot international sports, but
as a freelancer the cost of equipment is just too heavy to justify for me.
I'll stick to making concrete paving and shooting as an amateur!

 

This is becoming a common rate for editorial work as well. Even feature work
barely pays more than that.

Similar occurrences in graphic design, especially for publications, but also
at design and advertising firms. Some AIGA chapters even supported this
practice, since it greatly limits competition from creatives after they have
left a company.

Again, I have seen this happening in graphic design since just before I
graduated in 1998. Many students fresh out of graduation took these "work for
hire" jobs, since they either did not know better, or thought there was no
other option.

It also creates a new-to-the-job surplus, since there is less incentive to
make it a career. When efforts show little after a few years, or when one
loses a contract/job, and there is nothing to show, many go to other career
paths. Worse are those who were promised copies of work for portfolios, then
found themselves out of a job (with little besides college work in the
portfolio), or got hassled by their former employer (I have seen this a few
too many times).

I have read similar accounts at digitaljournalist.org. You have stated your
experiences well, and it would be great if your accounting of matters could
make it to a larger audience. Have you considered trying to take this post
further than this news group?

I have lost a few proposals (mostly advertising related) over issues of future
image usage. While I often use exclusive rights contracts, many companies want
it all.

I am a little curious if you have ever been handed a contract, when asked to
do work. I suppose since I ma more advertising and editorial oriented, it may
be more common to what I do. It would be interesting to me to have your
comments on this.

I will give one bad example, though I am not at liberty to give the company
name. A very large company approached me about photography of their products,
and image usage. Not only did they want all rights, and all materials used,
they wanted me to assume all liability in the event another company sued them.
While the exact wording is quite lengthy, the basic idea is that if one of the
image ideas was too similar to another companies idea, and they got sued for
it, that I would bear sole responsibility, and receive no support from them. I
counter offered with my own contract proposal, and never signed their
agreement.

Absolutely. It is a shame that little of copyright, rights transfer, and usage
issues gets discussed. Sometimes PDN reports on some issues, but you get a
feeling that fighting later on could put oneself on a blacklist. Better to
have everything settled up front. Shame that colleges do not stress these
matters more importantly.

Thanks for the posting Thomas. I hope you can contact Digitaljournalist.org,
PDN, or someone similar, and get the opportunity to share your words and
thoughts.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

 

This seems to be generally true of any hobby that is taken into the realm of
a profession. I often think about how it would have been had I made my
living playing the trumpet. But even as a hobby, when I play in my local
community band (for free) I have to play things that I do not like, and be
there when it's convenient for them, and not for me. As a pro, you would
have to do the same thing, and your enjoyment of taking sports pictures
would become a grind where you would have to go to events that you didn't
like, and take pictures of things that didn't interest you, and then rush
them into production at great inconvenience, and for not enough money to
make it worth while.....We are both better off for keeping our hobbies just
that.

 

On the other hand, there were a few folks that held out like myself

You know, nobody listens. They don't care. They are all led by greed
and immediate gratification, and other are self concious and don't
think they can shoot well enough to make a living selling stock. We
have conversations like this ALL THE TIME on sportsshooter.com and
there are still several hundred pros who see nothing wrong with
this... They just want their money now so they can pay their bills
live NOW, not 20-30 years down the road.

It happens quite often. Typically I get a phone call asking if I'm
available to shoot on such and such date, I say yes and 3 out of 10
will tell me that they need me to sign a contract before they tell me
the details. The other 7 will typically tell me what the story is
about and then mention that they'll need me to sign a contract before
I shoot. Regardless, almost ALWAYS do I have to sign some sort of
agreement before I ever even get to the job site.

That is just ridiculous, but sounds very much like an advertising
contract. It's insane. Earlier this year I had to shoot another gig
for Sports Illustrated where I had to stake out Morgana "the Kissing
Bandit" for their "Where are the now" issue. I was nervous because of
all the laws in place now-a-days and such and they said that no matter
what, on any assignment, I had their 100% financial and legal support
on. I ended up lucking out on the shoot. I was in a rented SUV with
tinted windows across the street when she came out of the house and
waited on the sidewalk for 5 minutes for her husband to pick her up
for lunch. She was on the public sidewalk and I was in a public
street. Win-win.

Tell me about it. I know for a fact that Getty will not hire me
simply because of the public lambasting I've given them. Editors and
lurkers read these/those forums and newsgroups. But I honestly do not
care. I do not and will not work for them. I will change careers
before I surender to their agreements.

As for why colleges don't address the subject, that's a toughy. I
think one of the biggest reasons is because the whole work for hire
and rights grabbing contract world is only about 5 years old, and most
of the professors have never had to deal with it. It's such a new
concept and most of these folks are veterans. In defense, my alma
mater; Ohio University, did bring this up, but only for about 10
minutes of one class period my sophomore year.

I'm trying. Hopefully some of the folks that have read this thread so
far gained some insight.

Thomas E. Witte

www.mindspring.com/~photoj
www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=42

 

After you had your covert shots safely in the bag you should have jumped
out, waved the camera at her and hollered, "kiss someone babe and I'll get
it published." The odds would have been in your favor... She likes
publicity...
Denny

 

Thomas E. Witte said:

Good for you, Thomas. I wish there were more photographers like you in the
media world.

 

Thomas E. Witte wrote:

I've been lurking on this thread with interest.

A couple/few years ago, I believe in Paris, the runway-fashion photogs
got quite upset at how they were treated. The venue organizers would
keep them corralled outside and then only let them in at the last minute
to get setup. At all times treating them like leper-parasites (which
may have been apropriate for all I know).

A few photogs organized and then one afternoon when the doors opened at
a major event, all the photogs who had been cleared and badged turned
around and left.

This of course got the point across to the organizers. In this case it
wasn't about money; the photogs all worked for the magazines that sent
the photogs... having a major show without the strobes from cameras
blasting and the requisite exposure in teh mags kinda puts a damper on
the event...

In the end they gained ... , but it took a gesture. (I have no idea if
the gains they made hold today...)

Some such gesture in sports photography would possibly help ... if
organized.... in the US I don't know if anyone could drum up the support
and there is a large pool of folks willing to step in...

Cheers,
Alan

 

HA HA HA, actually just like a light switch, she one day just wanted
away from it all. She had been denying interview requests and
portrait requests since she quit and denied all of them, hense the
stakeout. Try to dig up the article, it explains why she quit. It
was probably one of the most fun assignments I've ever had the joy of
shooting though in terms of planning and patience.

Thomas E. Witte

http://www.mindspring.com/~photoj
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=42

 

This has happened in some other professions as well. It is unfortunate, but it
means that few will stick with it in the longer run. When I graduated in 1998, I
remember some professionals visiting our college my senior year, and all of them
stated that less than 1/3 of us would still be in a creative profession five years
later. At the time, we all thought that was bogus, but here it is five years later
.. . . . and I look around and see that less than 1/3 of those I graduated with are
working creatively.

I tried for a while on alt.design.graphics to speak out against "work for hire" and
push getting a minimum of "non-competing usage" rights in any contract. Often my
words fell on deaf ears, or attracted business owners vehemently trying to justify
their work-for-hire practices. The newest contract type is now "all rights", which
gets around some of the IRS problems associated with work-for-hire. This stuff
really is a mess.

Thanks for sharing that. I thought it was only advertising related work, but it
seems it is much more widely used than I thought. I have been able to write on the
contracts, change some clauses, and still get work, but I am not sure that would
always allow me to keep working for a particular company.

Unfortunately, there was also a clause about not revealing the contents of the
contract. That section read more like a warning. Since this involved products not
yet released, there was a separate confidentiality agreement. Looking at both of
these, there were 22 pages of text. They wanted me to just sign it in front of
them, and tried to rush me. I stated that I wanted to read it, so I stuffed it into
my bag.

Later, I called them with some questions, and they passed me on to the legal
department. Those guys were jerks, but I guess they pay them for that. Anyway, I
ended up writing in my own changes, and blacked out tons of stuff, then I signed
the contract and the confidentiality agreement, and sent both back to them.

The kicker is that I already did two jobs for them prior to getting the contract.
After I sent back my marked up contracts, I have not had any work from them. Their
accounting department calls me at the beginning of each year to verify my tax
information, but that is it.

Good thing. Not sure who Morgana is, but better to be safe around anyone well
known.

Strange, but it sounds like it was an exciting shoot.

Corbis is not much better in the contract game. The "all rights" contracts are too
easy for the big players, though some of them will bend a bit when asked. It sucks
that asking just that type of change might result in no work. At least some smaller
organizations still respect the profession.

Sounds about right. I graduated in 1998, and I had very little about copyright
issues in any of my classes at SDSU. Funny that my first copyright challenge was in
late 1998, not long after I graduated. It ended in arbitration, and in my favour,
but the pain in the ass was almost enough to make me quit.

I know there are many amateurs and hobby photographers here, but anyone thinking
about going pro should be aware of these issues. Anyone in college should also be
concerned about these things. There are wordings that transfer rights, protect the
client, and help the photographer build a portfolio, and while they may be tougher
to implement, they benefit all players equally. Having things one sided to either
the client, or the photographer's, advantage, lacks some balance and fairness. With
a little luck, perhaps some fairness can return to photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>

 

There has been a few similar instances, some involving celebrities. One problem
is that it is tough to get photographers organized.

The idea is almost like a strike. Unfortunately, it cannot be done very often,
since income is at stake.

It is not just sports photography, or even photojournalism. There are many
articles about these issues at digitaljournalist.org, and some other locations,
but the effectiveness is limited.

After I graduated in 1998, I began in graphic design. The contracts were changing
at that time, and far too many "work for hire" agreements were appearing. After
some of those got blasted by the IRS, or the state of California, the next change
was an "all rights" contract. Since 2000, my work has shifted to be mostly
photography. The contracts are still not great, but I have slightly more control
over how the wording is done. The learning curve of the contracts has been huge,
and could easily be a college course worth of material.

In creative work, some illustrators and graphic designers have come together
under GAG (Graphic Artists Guild, www.gag.org), and become a union of sorts.
However, without certification, testing, and some government standards, this is
barely effective.

A similar situation exists with photographers. There are organizations, but there
is not really a large push for certification, or licensing. Many are against this
type of thing, though it could validate some efforts, and has the potential to
support working professionals in the future.

The biggest push has been copyright protection, but as that gets tighter, it has
the reverse effect of generating more "all rights" contracts, which allows
companies to side step most future issues. Often, that only leaves contract laws
to invalidate a bad contract. The downside of that is you might win the battle,
and then loose the war. It seems too much that winning in court might result in
no future work, or blacklisting.

There is also the Hollywood mentality happening too much. In the motion picture
business, lots of new people work on speculation, often for no pay. The makers of
films know this, and exploitation is rampant. Newspapers look to be headed in a
similar direction, with fresh new photojournalists willing to work for next to
nothing, on an open promise of future greatness. When the later rewards do not
come, they move on, and are then replaced by another starry eyed newcomer . . .
really sad.

Sorry to rant, but too many creative people are walked on by corporations. It is
not all the corporations faults, nor even the colleges, but somehow the word is
not getting to the people just starting in the business. There is some hope, and
magazines like PDN and Picture at least still have the balls to report these
issues. I just hope more people listen and learn.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>