'NY Times' Freelancers Vow to Continue Contract Fight

By: Jay DeFoore (Photo District News) Though their demands for a better contract seem to be falling on deaf ears, a growing group of New York Times photography freelancers are continuing to oppose what they see as a predatory contract that could have a negative impact on the industry.

The photographers' objections to the contract stem largely from its work-for-hire provision, which asks photographers to sign over their copyrights to the paper. Once the Times has joint copyright ownership, the paper can reuse and syndicate photos in perpetuity with no additional compensation to the photographers.

Last week, an ad hoc group of freelancers sent a letter to Times management requesting a meeting to negotiate better terms. The letter was signed by nearly 250 photographers, including more than 80 current Times freelance contributors, some of whom have contributed to the paper's Pulitzer Prize-winning portfolios. Organizers for the group say the signatures continue to come in.

So far, the Times has refused to meet with the group, and photographers who have not signed the contract have effectively been locked out of assignment work since April 1.

Since the paper issued the contract in early March, photographers in New York have been meeting regularly to discuss strategy. The letter was an outgrowth of those meetings.

The letter reads in part: "The paper has a distinguished history of journalistic integrity with a tradition of exposing injustice and championing civil rights. This contract is inconsistent with those ideals."

"We want to negotiate, we want a workable contract," says Brian Palmer, a spokesperson for the group of freelancers. "[With the letter] we're trying to point out respectfully that there are other models out there that give [the Times] what they want. For us to sign away our copyrights makes no sense."

In response to last week's letter, the Times issued a reply stating two concessions to its original contract. The paper now says it will increase day rates for metro assignments to $200, up from $150, making it the paper's first rates increase since the 1980s. (Rates had actually decreased because the paper rescinded its $100 digital transmission fee in 2002).

The paper also says it will eliminate the cap it pays to photographers on advertising and commercial royalties.

Times spokesman Toby Usnik calls the contract "clear, concise and fair," and notes that signed contracts are coming in. He would not say how many signed contracts the paper had received.

American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) Executive Director Eugene Mopsik has consulted with leaders of the freelance opposition. Mopsik says he is discouraged by the paper's "callous" and "arrogant" refusal to sit down and talk, and he says only a critical mass of photographers could bring the Times to the bargaining table.

"The bottom line is this group of photographers has to remain in solidarity," Mopsik says. "If they can deny the Times access to their important resources, then they stand a chance [of getting the contract altered]. But if people start signing the contract and the Times can function in its normal manner, then they have little incentive [to negotiate]."

The freelancers contend that even if the Times has enough photographers to fill its assignments, the new contract is driving away experienced, award-winning photojournalists.

"It's most definitely not over," Palmer says. "At this point, individual photographers have to decide whether these minor back-channel concessions are enough motivation to have them sign [the contract], and most of the people I've talked to are saying it's not."

For links to the freelancers' letter, the Times' response, the contract, and more visit Photo District News.