Actually, it’s worse than spec. Spec implies doing work with no guarantee of payment but, if your work gets selected, then you get paid. Wired doesn’t even mention payment at all.
Wait, let me back up. I saw a tweet from Stockland Martel this morning pointing to this new Wired “opportunity” called Assignment Wired. I’m really surprised that SMart would be promoting this as there is no real benefit for a photographer. Wired is “offering” assignments for photographers to shoot and report on and in return Wired will select, publish, and critique “several” of the submissions.
You grant them the right to publish online and in print. But then again, there are no clear terms–just that they get to publish them in the mag and online.
This is crowdsourcing at its worst because Wired has a cool cache and they spin the “opportunity” so well! It sounds so tempting, but strip away the bullshit and what you get is a publication (a Condé Nast pub!) getting free content. With the complete lack of terms for submissions (used and unused) it’s particularly dangerous for photographers to fall for this.
Why? Because the submissions will fall under the general terms of use for the site and in them you will find this:
Except as expressly provided otherwise in the Privacy Policy or in this Agreement, you agree that by posting messages, uploading text, graphics, photographs, images, video or audio files, inputting data, or engaging in any other form of communication with or through the Website, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, enhance, transmit, distribute, publicly perform, display, or sublicense any such communication (including your identity and information about you) in any medium (now in existence or hereinafter developed) and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so.
My advice? Stay away from Assignment Wired.
My friend John Robertson, a photographer in the UK, uses the term “Freetards.” I don’t know if he coined it but it’s a good word.
People seem to forget that this is a business. That new piece of equipment I just bought? It wasn’t free. I got a good deal on it, but I had to pay.
In a business deal, everyone should walk away with a smile. No smile. No deal.
Here’s who they are looking for…
“Calling all would-be photojournalists:” They know that there are enough people out there that have careers elsewhere that are interested in being published in anyway because it is fun to them. Most of them won’t ever read the small print and many more won’t even care. I don’t like it, but I think this model is here to stay.
Most people that submit will be happy to show it to there friends and never even realize they were ripped off. A few will submit hoping to get discovered. Eventually they will learn as most of the rest of us have that they were ripped off. And not only did they not get paid, it didn’t lead to any paid work. And it made it just a little harder for all of us to get paid work. The owners, publishers and editors of these mags don’t work for free.
Hi Leslie,
I’m sorry to hear that this well-intentioned attempt to engage and aid our readers has struck you as some scheming plot to crowdsource content. To me that seems analogous to accusing a police department of farming out their work to children when they ask kids to ‘solve the case of the missing library book’ in order to teach them about detective work.
Even if we sent a seasoned staff photographer and reporter to write a story about a corner store, it would likely not run on the site. The assignment is not usable content on Wired.com. It is the subject matter of a lesson in photojournalism that we are conducting on the site for the benefit of those looking to make use of our experience. The value of the project comes from our critique and advice, not from the submissions.
As for the legal permission issue, the quoted text is standard liability protection for any large publication asking for submissions from readers. If we drew up separate contracts for every submission, we would not be able to conduct projects like this. I’m not sure I see how it exploits people who voluntarily submit their work in any way.
We’re looking into making this more clear in the future.
Keith Axline
Wired.com
Keith:
You can’t say for sure that it is unusable content. It’s probable (not just possible) that someone would submit something really compelling and which would be of interest to Wired. What would be the purpose of submitting if not to try and make that connection and get published?
As for the terms, I’m sorry, but that is simply not true that they are standard. I have worked in the photo industry for well over 10 years prior to becoming a lawyer and those terms are completely overbroad. They are often the terms in a contract sent out by publishers in the hopes the photographer doesn’t read them or doesn’t object. But just about always, when a photographer says “hey, these are too broad” the next line from the Photo Editor is “whoops! I meant to send you this other contract” which then has reasonable terms.
And besides, just because others do rights-grabs doesn’t excuse your publication. Conde Nast and Wired do not need full rights forever in any and all media now or in the future, etc. In fact, you don’t need ANY rights for the submissions UNLESS you intend to exploit them (publish) in some way. If they are never going to see the light of day, then you don’t need any rights at all. You only need LIMITED rights for materials you wish to publish.
-Leslie
Fwiw, i’ll throw in my 2p.
Whilst i’m reasonably sure the article and submissions are well-intentioned, im(rarely)ho, I don’t think that excuses laziness or a lack of thought. It’s the norm, but that doesn’t make it any better. As you say Keith (and it’s good to see you take the time to respond) I think the ToS are relatively standard in so far as i’ve seen the same or similar in many places, but that doesn’t stop them being a rights grab and something that should not be used by any fair and decent, or ethical content provider. There are lots of things wrong in the world, and “everybody else does it” is rarely a viable defence.
In terms of what I see as the intent, I don’t really imagine it being a problem, but the problem as I see it, is that contrary to what Leslie says, my own maybe more limited experience is that those terms are sent as the standard, and any questioning of them results in a flat out “We aren’t interested then. We’ll find someone else who’s happy to give away their work for nothing and use them instead”. That’s if you’re lucky enough to get the courtesy of a reply.
Put another way, your intentions may be good and a reasonable case can be made that we/many people should be grateful for those intentions (since few similar opportunities exist), but the ToS are just plain exploitation and by association/usage, an affirmation that Wired agrees with that exploitation. It’s a brand thing like “ethically sourced” or “fairtrade”, etc, etc. If you’re happy to be seen in a negative light you adopt the industry standards, if you want to bring about change for the better, you do what’s right.
Oh ffs, now look what you’ve made me do! I sound like Obama! .. I’ll shut up there before I have to go shoot myself 😉
We are going to publish the photos, as stated in the post, so we do need rights to them. We can’t anticipate where our post will be promo’d or published so limited rights won’t work. I’d like to remind everyone that these are non-exclusive rights. You can do whatever you want with your photos.
I’m still not really sure what the crime is here. If you’re out there shooting amazing photos and doing great news stories, you should sell your work. Don’t send it to us. Submitting your work for free to our website so that we can publish them is completely up to the photographer. We’re not misleading anyone about what’s going down here.
Are photographers sometimes exploited by publishers? Yes. Is that what’s happening here? Not by a long shot. We’re completely up front about what we’re doing and why. In fact, we’re trying to provide a service to our readers. But as we all know, no good deed goes unpunished.
If Bill Gates and Steve Jobs happen to be hanging out at your corner store and get in a fist fight, I’ll be happy to pay handsomely for that photo. I guess the person who submits that one-in-a-billion photo to us and no other news site purely for this teaching project will just have to trust that we’ll do the right thing and compensate her for her work.
Perhaps we’ll advise anyone who feels they have a Pulitzer-caliber story about a corner store after this assignment should refrain from submitting and instead find the highest bidder.
Keith:
You continue to avoid the meat of the issue. The ToS of the Wired site require that anyone submitting anything grant the broadest rights possible, without exclusivity. Just to submit! If, as you say, most of those submissions will not be published, you do not need those rights. Why not change them to apply ONLY to work you choose to publish? Even that would be better (although still way the hell more rights than CN/Wired needs).
Why does CN/Wired demand a huge grant of rights for work it claims it will never use? The logic isn’t there.
-Leslie
Hello Keith,
In regards to your response a few postings up, i think its standard rule that any “well-intentions” set in place by any business are for the interests of that business first and foremost. This is what business is all about unless of course you are running a not for profit cause. By the looks of the licensing agreement form I would have to agree with the rest of the professionals here that this program is there to serve Conde Nast first and that the educational aspect is a frosting topping looking to trap people’s content like fly paper to a fly. No one can ever determine the significance and value of any ordinary photo at any given time until either history changes the world and cures that photograph into significance or in the hands of a designer creates a lush beautiful coffee table book for sale at you local bookstore for 49.95 with all profits to Wired.
I think the anger comes from this group of people because they are in a trade that values their own work. They are not only artists but crafts people that know how to manipulate the medium to their vision and work in a professional manor with clients. They have time and blood spent in working up to this point as well as thousands upon thousands in investment in gear. They have stayed at work late many many nights, sidelining family and social life, to do just one more version for their book. This sort of work ethic and dedication to the craft is what elevates magazines like Wired for without these professionals that supply great content, Wired would be a doggy looking magazine. What company is going to plunk down a few hundred grand in media buy to show case their products via advertisement if the consumer isn’t moved enough to pick it up from the new stand? Great photography grabs people as does great design and word content BUT photos first above anything else, its a proven psychological phenomenon.
Please don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that you intended to lead the masses into a albatross of deception and thievery. Maybe you are one of the creatives that are taking part in this program and like all creatives we think with heart and want to dig into fun stuff. Perhaps you are in charge of PR and were put on this blog to spin things into a positive light. But you have to understand that this situation can be taken as nothing more than looking for scabs to cross the picket line and a group of workers are upset about it. Its all there in your standard contract. Contracts are all that matters, all that soft warm and fuzzy word stuff are tools of manipulation, trust me, i have learned to dissect any clients intentions by the words they use on the initial phone call. Also i found it appalling that you mentioned in a few postings down that “they could do whatever they want to with their own photos.. gee thanks. Can i also drive my own car wherever i want to go? Actually a bank owns my car so i should call and ask them.
If Wired is really that well intentioned then have the big guys in the ivory towers draft up a new agreement that states, the content submitted will be used for educational purposes directly related to this program only and will not be resold, used or transferred in anyway without written consent of the original creator. I don’t know i am not a lawyer but you get the drift hopefully. Get em off the golf course and have a good-talking-to with them but chances are they won’t go for it because it is a scheme to get free untethered content. They are probably out there with the folks at Google. I noticed that if you use Google’s blog tool any content that you upload that is yours becomes basically their property. This is big greedy successful business at its best that we are dealing with here. This is what business is all about. Is it wrong? I can’t say that it is because its supposed to be filled with a world of sharks, its what makes capitalism. Its not the way I roll but then again I am not the greatest business man. I am a photographer first. I think with my pro-verbial camera first and it always gets me in trouble BUT i am old enough to smell a shark in the water and Wired is one mean shark and i like sharks, you guys give sharks a bad name.
Also check this out from the Man at Wired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SX2SyvLjvE
yea its a “free economy” that Wired is gearing up for to profit from and they are looking to slash their own overhead by schemes to get free content from creators. If you don’t have content you don’t have entertainment media. “Freemium” comes with a ultimate price. Suppliers with less or no income from what they submit and degraded final products that use hackery content. Bands have to sell t-shirts now to subsidize the downloading theft. Its a sad time.