Camera Craniums

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jonathan on August 04, 2010, 04:30:42 PM

Title: RPS (snigger)
Post by: Jonathan on August 04, 2010, 04:30:42 PM
I first saw this last night, by the time I had a minute to get outraged about it it was already over.  But seriously what were the RPS thinking?

Here's the story....

The South West Tourist board have come up with a rather cunning wheeze.  Instead of paying professionals to take pictures for them they thought they would ask amateurs if they had any to spare.  They were quite upfront that they had absolutely no intention of paying for them but they thought it would be rather thrilling if people saw their own pictures on billboards at motor way service areas, in in flight magazines, at railway stations and splashed all over their website.  They wanted absolutely top quality images and stressed that there was no closing date - and no reward of any kind.  Basically they had simply decided to stop paying money for pictures forever.  They even suggested setting up special access for unpaid photographers if they were good enough.

As you'd imagine the RPS ran a robust article on their website abut this hideous, nasty, "another nail in the coffin of photography as a profession" rights grab not even competition.  Except they weren't up in arms about it.  Quite the opposite.  You had to pay to be a member of the RPS to submit images.  Not only did they back screwing professional photographers over, they way they talked it was their idea.

Not surprisingly an angry mob was rapidly formed and they caved very suddenly.  So suddenly that the top story on their website is that they have caved in because of "comments from members".  http://www.rps.org/group/Visual-Journalism/SW-Tourism-Project  They are reviewing the terms and conditions - possibly removing the word "no" in front of "money".

And in case you think I'm laying this on a bit strong, here's (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8kFBW8VD4-EJ:www.rps.org/resources/group_downloads/SWT-launch.pdf+rps+south+west+tourism&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=safari) a copy of the PDF they tried to remove from the internet.....  (some of the formatting has gone but that's what happens when you try to rewrite history.
Title: Re: RPS (snigger)
Post by: Graham on August 04, 2010, 05:15:51 PM
       It does kind of make you despair at what I can only describe as the bare faced cheek of it all. >:(

       On a similar note, It has long been one of my ambitions to get one of my gigpics into "Q" magazine,  however Bauer (Q publishers.) now demand full copyright assignment on all contributions, they do leave all legal liabilities for the photographer to deal with though!
      I'm afraid I would'nt submit pictures on those terms as a matter of principle, and since I don't derive a major part of my income from photography, principles are somthing I can easily afford. >:( >:(
                                             Graham.

  Did I say >:(
Title: Re: RPS (snigger)
Post by: picsfor on August 04, 2010, 05:51:03 PM
Noted the e-mail in my inbox this morning but hadn't got round to reading it.

Not there best ever piece of work. Oh well, maybe i'll add the PDf to my files for something to laugh at another day.
Did you mention the part where the SW Tourism lot also demanded the right to give your images to any 3rd party they deemed useful in achieving their objectives?
Define a 3rd party!
Title: Re: RPS (snigger)
Post by: Graham on August 04, 2010, 06:38:23 PM
   Andrew. When you say "Give", you do of course mean "Sell"!


  Oh, and    3rd party = Anyone prepared to pay.
                   
                               Graham.
Title: Re: RPS (snigger)
Post by: Jonathan on August 04, 2010, 06:46:33 PM
Did you mention the part where the SW Tourism lot also demanded the right to give your images to any 3rd party they deemed useful in achieving their objectives?
Define a 3rd party!

Even better, define "their objectives".  Making money perhaps? Annexing Wales?  Destroying the UK photography industry?
Title: Re: RPS (snigger)
Post by: ABERS on August 04, 2010, 06:49:04 PM
One of those 'Seemed like a good idea at the time' scenarios, without thinking of all the possible repercussions. Without any idea of the makeup of the VJ group, I would have thought by the very nature of its name and its aims,  there would be a goodly sprinkling of professionals within its ranks, still who knows? The group only seems to have sprung to life in the past 8 months being resuscitated last October, so perhaps they were eager to pump even more life into it?

Recently talking to a bloke who is organising a forthcoming RPS event, it seems that the Council needs every T crossed and every I dotted before agreement to anything that the Society lends its name to is undertaken, especially where copyright is concerned.
Title: Re: RPS (snigger)
Post by: Jonathan on August 04, 2010, 07:49:45 PM
One of those 'Seemed like a good idea at the time' scenarios, without thinking of all the possible repercussions.

Seriously?

I honestly can't understand how anybody at the RPS can have looked at this for even one second and thought "yeah that looks good".  The PDF was actually pretty offensive in the way it patronised people even disregarding the whole screwing over of professional photographers (members or not).

"Your contribution is not just about giving, because in return there is the opportunity to develop new skills in capturing images of genres you may never have considered."

Which is kind of like telling somebody you want them to dig your garden for free "but don't worry because you'll get a free workout".

And even if they were too dumb to spot that they only have to cast their collective minds back to the English Heritage fiasco.  When they tried pretty much the same thing.  Who knows what they were smoking at the meeting where they hatched this ridiculous plan.
Title: Re: RPS (snigger)
Post by: ABERS on August 04, 2010, 10:33:11 PM


Seriously?

I honestly can't understand how anybody at the RPS can have looked at this for even one second and thought "yeah that looks good".  The PDF was actually pretty offensive in the way it patronised people even disregarding the whole screwing over of professional photographers (members or not).


Yes seriously. As I said someone sold this idea to others who seem to have accepted it without thinking of the consequences and who now have had the errors of their ways pointed out to them.

However if someone had wanted to submit their pictures for consideration fully aware of the non payment issue, who's to stop them doing so. They have a choice whether to or not.

Not too sure about 'the screwing over of professional photographers', I thought the closed shop had been abolished by Thatcher.