I don’t often start posts by declaring an interest. Of course if I wasn’t interested in something I wouldn’t bother to write, one of the joys of editing your own publication. But not just that kind of interest.
I’m going to write about a controversy that involves a photographer, David Hoffman, who I know. We bump into each other regularly photographing events and often have a good chat. We belong to the same NUJ branch, and share many views, though of course I don’t always agree with him, and he may well not agree with some of what I say in this post and might prefer me not to write about it. Secondly, both he and I are photographers and share a basic understanding of the problems of people trying to make a living through photography.
Hoffman has for many years been photographing fascist and anti-fascist activity on the streets of the UK. Like me when doing so he has regularly been threatened by fascists, threatened with arrest by the police and also sometimes threatened by anti-fascists. Also like me, at times he has been protected by police, and probably like me, occasionally by anti-fascists and even sometimes by right-wing stewards.
Working on the streets as a photographer you are not always welcome, although I think that I am always working in the public interest. But at times people are breaking the law or intending to and don’t wish to be photographed as photographs could provide evidence – though little enough if you mask up and don’t wear easily identifiable clothing.
[I heard on Saturday that a picture stolen from my web site by police was being used in court to try to identify someone who had taken part in a particular action from the clothes he was wearing. It was being used without my knowledge or permission – I would have refused to supply it without a court order – and without me to back it up should be evidentially worthless.]
On several occasions I’ve had requests from anarchists and others charged with offences at protests to supply pictures of the events concerned for use in their defence in court. I’ve always done so if I have them – without any charge. I suspect Hoffman has a similar policy, though I’ve not talked to him about it. I also often allow various unfunded groups I’m in sympathy with to use pictures in fliers and leaflets for free. But if people are selling publications or paying staff to work on them, then I’ll expect to get paid too. I’ve been an active trade unionist all my working life, and expect to get a fair payment for my work.
Making a living as a photographer isn’t easy, certainly not if your subject matter is the kind of things that Hoffman and I are interested in – the list on his web site is: “social issues … covering more than 30 years. Drug use, policing, disorder, racism, riots, youth, prostitution, protest, homelessness, housing, environmental demonstrations & events, waste disposal, alternative energy & pollution.” I think neither of us do what we do for the money, though of course we do need money to do it and to live, but because we see it as the most effective way that we personally can act politically. Were we interested in money we’d be chasing celebrities or taking weddings or working in advertising or fashion; given the current preoccupations of the media, the kind of work we do is now more like a vow of poverty.
That ‘more than 30 years’ on his statement is important. Many days I cover events that I know will not get sales, at least not until perhaps I get a museum interested in them in twenty years time, or someone wants to use them in a book. The stock built up over the years is the nearest thing most photographers have to a pension plan.
Twenty years ago when you wanted your work to be used in a publication you sent a press print. Typically it was an 8×10 glossy or semi-gloss black and white. Most photographers wrote or stamped their name on the back, usually with a copyright message and a caption. Often too you put on labels or stamps such as “No Use without Payment” and insisting on return of the print after use (though they seldom came back.)
Hoffman supplied quite a few pictures to a group called Anti-Fascist Action, allowing them to publish these in their news sheets. AFA kept hold of the prints, but the photographer retained the copyright – and it lasts until 70 years after his death, as in all ‘artistic works.’
Freedom Press decided to publish a book, Beating the Fascists: the untold story of Anti-Fascist Action, covering their activities from 1985. It’s been described as an important part of working class history, and it isn’t being given away, but is selling for £15 a copy.
Unfortunately, in what they describe in Freedom as “a stupid mistake by us” they used a number of pictures by Hoffman to tell that working class history without bothering to ask his permission. It’s perhaps a measure of the lack of respect for photography in general that anyone would think of publishing any photograph in a book without at least asking the photographer for permission, any more than you would quote a large chunk from another book or a pop song. It’s not just a legal matter, it’s also a moral one.
It’s really rather more than ‘a stupid mistake’ for a publisher, perhaps criminal irresponsibility would be nearer the mark, something that in a commercial company would result in summary dismissal. Freedom say the authors supplied the images as if that was an excuse, but of course it was up the the publisher to check that they had the rights needed to print them. Unsurprisingly, finding his work included in a publication on sale, Hoffman put in a request for payment for the use of his work.
[Without knowing the print run, the number and size of pictures used I am unable to comment on the amount Freedom eventually agreed to pay of £4000. The NUJ Freelance Fees Guide suggests a fee for pictures used in books published in the UK only varying from £60 for a small image to £130 for a full page, with £260 for a cover image, and it is normal practice to double charges for unauthorised usage. Hoffman may well have taken union advice on the matter, and they would certainly have encouraged him to make a claim. UK law restricts such claims to reasonable levels of charges, unlike the US where damages can be punitive.]
Of course if they had thought it would be cheaper they could have gone to court to argue the amount, and there are several different stories about negotiations between Hoffman and Freedom over the sum. In my experience photographers react reasonably if publications admit a mistake and quickly promise to pay but will hold out for more if publishers try to evade payment or argue about responsibility. Unfortunately cases of unauthorised use of photographs by the press etc are not uncommon, although this one involves more images than most.
Freedom first published a magazine in 1866, though it has stopped and restarted at least a couple of time since then. I bought a few copies many years ago, but soon gave up and it now only has around 300 subscribers, not enough to keep a print publication running, even though it gets printed free by Aldgate Press.
Freedom has been running at a loss for years, only kept going by a “significant donation in 2005” which has enabled them to put off what must surely be a decision to convert entirely to on-line publication. Because of this payment the money has now run out perhaps a year or two earlier than expected. Hoffman is now coming under at times vitriolic attack in anarchist blogs and web sites for asking for his due, with many suggesting that he should have waived the fee. Some are posting hate articles just like those the EDL and other fascist groups have previously posted against photographers, myself and Hoffman included.
The EDL do this because reporting that throws light on their activities damages their cause, while these attacks from anarchists are because he caught Freedom using his work without payment. Hoffman has behaved professionally throughout, sensibly and lawfully. It wasn’t him but the publishers who messed up, and so it should be up to them and their supporters to meet the costs of their mistakes.
Perhaps those people who write condemning him should ask themselves if they themselves would be willing to donate £4000 to the public appeal that Freedom has now launched – as they are expecting Hoffman, who so far as I know is not a supporter of the organisation – to do. If so, everyone who does will keep Freedom going in print for another year. So please do put your money where your mouths are. You can find details of how to donate on the Subscribe page, and if £4000 is too much for you, a supporter subscription (the only level that pays its way) starts at £48 a year.
