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.
Further information which has been given to me since I wrote this post makes it clear that when Freedom Press gave the go-ahead for publication they knew that at least some of the pictures concerned were by Hoffman and that they did not have permission to publish them. The copyright issue was apparently raised before publication but they appear to have decided to deliberately ignore it rather than to have made a “stupid mistake”.
It also appears that some of the pictures used were stolen, probably from Searchlight Magazine, and that at least two of the prints used were clearly labelled as by Hoffman. No credits were given to him in the book, and apparently when the matter of copyright was raised their response was to simply deny for around 3 months that the pictures were his or that he had any copyright in them. Finally they had to accept the pictures were by him and agreed to add a note to all remaining copies of the book naming Hoffman as the photographer; 6 months later they had failed to do so.
The settlement finally reached was for an agreement by Hoffman to waive his rights to take legal action over the copyright infringements and flagrancy in a case where he would have reasonably expected to be awarded exemplary damages and considerable legal costs – which would have been well in excess of the £4000.
Freedom got off lightly – if the pictures had been by a Getty photographer they would have faced a bill for perhaps £20,000. Under the legal agreement they also have to add a note stating Hoffman’s copyright in his images to all unsold copies. Freedom were given 7 days to agree and did so around the end of May, paying up the money. Although the magazine loses money, Freedom is actually a rather wealthy organisation, making use of those good capitalist dodges to hide its wealth in a holding company.
When the offence was first pointed out they could have settled for a few hundred pounds, but despite repeated communications by Hoffman and advice to settle from neutral parties they refused to do so.
Hoffman isn’t the only photographer whose work was used without permission in the book, and there could be other claims against them if others who were photographing at the time get to read it.
Unfortunately I suspect your sole source is Hoffman himself, as certainly no-one but him has ever suggested that Freedom is rich, or indeed that we had not asked about the ownership of the photos. We asked when they were passed to us, and were told that (far from being stolen) the shots in question had been freely given for reuse as AFA saw fit. Given that AFA has been using those photos for 20 years without once being sued for it, we had no particular reason to think otherwise. So yes it was an honest mistake.
Sadly you’ve been fed an awful lot of misinformation here, If you are interested, most of it is refuted in some detail (along with a lot of other linked stuff which David apparently didn’t see fit to pass on to you) via comments on a libcom thread here:
http://libcom.org/blog/freedom-must-be-saved-19072012
The libcom thread was actually what prompted me to write the piece, because I knew much of it was misinformation or nonsense, though of course I went and looked at several other sources while writing. I didn’t mention or link to it in my post because I thought all it added was bile, confusion and deliberate misinformation.
I thought that David might not want me to write about the matter so I did not ask him for any information. I’d joked very briefly with him about his new found wealth as we were both covering the CON march, but hadn’t otherwise discussed it with him.
But of course I told him and other photographers after I had written it and it was only then that I only got any real information from David. David was only one of several people who emailed me with further information and attempted clarification of what happened.
I’ve not seen the accounts of Freedom’s holding company or the valuation they are alleged to have had made of their property, perhaps you would like to send them to me! Otherwise neither of us knows what we are talking about, though we both know it owns a pretty valuable property.
I understand what you say you were told by AFA, but David denies this and says that some of the pictures were never given to AFA but that the prints were taken without permission from Searchlight, and as a photographer and knowing him I think he is more likely to be correct.
If David had been aware of their use he would have asked for payment. If he reads this comment and finds out, they may well find themselves getting a letter from his solicitor!
It certainly does not seem to me to have been a mistake. Nor does it seem to have been honest. I think it looks more like politically motivated incompetent gambling from the information I’ve got from several parties.
There’s some bile in there (of course there is, Hoffman damn near bankrupted one of the anarchist movement’s most well-known and best-loved institutions) but also a lot of stuff which is accurate, and paints a rather different picture than is in this blog.
One thing I think should be borne in mind here is that if the pictures were stolen from Searchlight, why did they not complain at the time, or highlight it, or indeed at any point sue over their “misuse” in other publications at any point over the next 20 years? And again on the matter or principle, why did he get Trading Standards to demand that we break rule 7 in the NUJ Code of Conduct and officially name confidential sources as a condition of a lower settlement (I have that, if needed)? It’s all very well saying Hoffman’s a trustworthy figure, but none of this makes any logical sense if he’s telling the truth.
The Friends of Freedom have only one asset, which is the building, and afaik don’t keep accounts as no trade goes through them.
The bills for the building are supposed to be paid by a combination of rent on some of the rooms (amounting to approx £5,000 a year) and annual profits from the Press (approx £4,700 from the last account) – however outgoings amount to about £12,000 a year including insurance and rates, meaning that historically the Press runs at a loss and has relied on donations to survive.
The building site was valued at approximately £400,000 by an estate agent when we last got one round, this was in 2007 afair so it’s probably less now. Having said so (as I state in the libcom thread) the Press Collective has no ability let alone right to risk that as an asset, as the building houses not just us, but Corporate Watch, SolFed, Rebel Press, the Advisory Service for Squatters and London Coalition Against Poverty and it’s unlikely the building collective would put that at risk by taking out a mortgage they can’t pay back.
David may deny AFA told us this, I guess it’s up to you to decide whether your friend is telling the truth or we are. But you might want to consider that professed ignorance has never been a barrier to Hoffman suing before (indeed I believe he has a legal precedent to his name from when he went after that charity) – so what would the benefit to us have been in lying about it?
I’ve tried to shed some light on what was happening, and to give a reasonable account of what happened. Obviously views on this are very polarised and whatever I say is going to be argued over.
But however it happened, Freedom got it very wrong and unfortunately for them kept on digging so the hole got a lot larger than necessary by the time they had to pay. Whatever David’s faults he was entitled to a decent payment for the use of his work. Freedom ended up paying him more because they wouldn’t acknowledge this and act sensibly, despite independent advice to pay up.
Surely its time for Freedom and its friends to stop whingeing and arguing about who did/said what when and start planning positively. I hope the meeting they are holding won’t rehash the kind of views on the Libcom thread but get down to thinking about the future.
£4000 isn’t a huge lot of money for an organisation and a few benefits and appeals should be able to solve that, but they will be left with the problem of finding a way to match income and expenditure in the future, either on the current site on or at some less expensive new location. As Freedom say in their article, the payment is roughly a year’s loss on the magazine – so “we have had to reconsider the future far sooner than we thought.” A whole year sooner.
I’m sorry you think of this as whinging, and would point out that other than the original statement on the Freedom website, the collective has made no further comment and does not intend to so do.
I’m acting as an individual because I’d rather not see the collective misrepresented, and have as part of this been taking the time to put right some of the inaccuracies you’ve been fed – I haven’t btw, suggested that you’ve been trying to do anything other than be reasonable (though actually, you’ve been repeatedly rather insulting without afaik having contacted us before you blogged to ask our side direct).
As for practical positive measures, perhaps before complaining that none are being taken you could try checking that this is in fact the case? There’s a meeting on the 12th to solicit volunteers for just that, currently on the front page of the Freedom website, a general drive to increase subscriptions which has been of moderate success and just because we aren’t shouting about soliciting other donations direct doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
As for moving, have you tried finding London premises suitable for a half-dozen different groups, with a shop front, storage, meeting space, reasonable travel connections (as most of our income is vsitors from outside London) and sufficient security to fend off a fascist attack for £400k? If you do, tell us all about it.
Finally, yes, we made a mistake in trusting to the word of AFA that the photos were theirs. However the way in which we were expected to act to guarantee a lower settlement would have involved ratting out confidential sources. Refusing to do so is not “digging a hole,” it’s basic journalistic ethics.
I mentioned your meeting in my previous comment “I hope the meeting they are holding….” Perhaps you could try reading before you accuse me of not checking – the whole point was that I hoped your meeting on the 12th would be a positive one.
Also in my original post I suggested that people who cared about the future of ‘Freedom’ should donate and become supporting subscribers and posted a link for them to do so.
Many posts on libcom are anonymous, and so I can’t know whether or not they come from members of the collective, but there and elsewhere there has been an awful lot of whinging.
I made use of and linked to the Freedom piece – which I assumed represented the views of the collective – because I felt it was more reasonable in most ways than the rest.
Your final paragraph simply contradicts what others have told me, which is that at the start of the matter you could have settled for simply paying at normal rates for having used the pictures. Hoffman spent 3 months trying to get a cheap and amicable settlement. Two independent friends of Freedom told you to pay. If you’d paid in November it would have been a few hundred rather than the £4000 in May, six months later when Hoffman finally forced the issue by threatening to take you to court.
And no, I’ve not been insulting. Just casting a little reason and light on the situation. I’m sorry to have to keep on repeating to do so.
Yes you have been insulting. Regarding the Press collective you’ve managed so far in this conversation to accuse us of being:
– Criminally irresponsible
– Thieves
– Politically motivated incompetent gamblers
– Whingers
All without actually soliciting the views or story of any of our members, and automatically assuming me to be a liar when I attempted to correct you. Frankly, in terms of “reasonable” behaviour you’ve done badly here.
Contradictory or not, what I have outlined was in fact the case. I can PM you the Trading Standards letter demanding the names, if you wish, but the key line from it is:
“In order for me to further my investigation into this matter it would now seem necessary that I speak to the authors or those representing them [ie. Red Action]. I am therefore formally requesting from you the names and contact details for the authors or their representatives.”
This demand was put in because we’d been unable to hand over the original prints (we’d given them back to the authors, who maintain the prints are theirs legitimately).
Hoffman’s price rose to £4,000 directly after we refused the request. What would you have done in similar circumstances, I wonder?
I’ve accused you of not reading what I wrote – which every comment you make proves. You’re also reading some things I haven’t quite said into what I actually have written. I’m not aware of assuming you to be a liar, though I have said that what you say does not agree with what others have told me, including of course David, though I only got his comments in private after I wrote the original post.
I understand that David first requested payment for use of the images ain Oct 2011, and that the final demand for £4000 was made on 22 May 2012, seven months later, after various unsuccessful attempts had been made to get you to pay. According to that May demand, in October Freedom agreed to put a correction in all unsold copies crediting his work, but it still had apparently not been done by May – hardly surprising that David was upset, and that’s only one of around 15 points in his letter, 2 of which are about “Sean Birchall” – who I think I know under another name.
I repeat that I read the views expressed in Freedom, and by contributors to several forums, including libcom, some of which reflected the views of your members (and I am fairly sure some were by them under other names) before writing the piece.
I’ve tried to be reasonable, but frankly it isn’t easy.
You ask me what I would have done?
I would not have dreamed of publishing without checking I had copyright – and that I had it in writing. It’s something that was drummed into me when I worked for US companies – Primedia and NYT Group – in the US you would probably have found yourself being sued for $4million or even more. If I did find I’d made a mistake, I would have been profusely apologetic and settled with the person concerned within days if not hours, bargaining jsut a little to try to keep the costs as low as possible. (It’s actually how most of those I’ve found using my work without permission have reacted.) As I think I said in my original piece, even photographers are reasonable when honest mistakes are made, and David would certainly have settled for the few hundred pounds it would have cost to use his pictures legitimately. Frankly none of us would want the kind of hassle that this thing has involved, dragging on for so long.
And of course you are wasting time and energy that could be better spent – and wasting mine. Basically I’m a photographer and think that photographers deserve to be recompensed when their work is used, and the minor details that worry you so much are unimportant. I don’t really think is worth continuing, do you?
Saying you believed Hoffman’s account and raising mine as “contradictory” is calling me a liar whether you actually say so outright or not. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
I note that you still haven’t dealt with the point about naming Birchall, or the 20-year gap in him taking any action on any republishing, and insist on dealing only with the length of time taken over finding a settlement and that his copyright details were on the photos, which frankly is a rather irrelevant point given that we thought they had been given to AFA in good faith. Until you do, I agree this conversation is going nowhere.
You think in black and white (or perhaps black and red) while I see the world in shades of grey. Perhaps the difference between an anarchist and a photographer!
Naming Birchall only came up because you were refusing to pay – Hoffman would have been happy so long as he got the money; since you weren’t coming up with it he wanted to go after him as well. The time taking the settlement is why you paid 10 times more than necessary. You don’t appear to realise the difference between ownership of the print (which might be debatable) and ownership of the copyright which I think wasn’t, and so on and so on….
If you had felt you had a case you could have told Hoffman to go to court. But that would have cost you even more when you lost – as you would have.
I think the problem is that you still don’t really understand what the problem was and why Hoffman was taking action – and you jump far to readily to misunderstand both motives and simple English.
But at least we agree this conversation is going nowhere. I hope Freedom can put this behind them and get on with their work. And that my little appeal on the end of my post brings in the odd little bit to help you. END.
Rob R (why are Freedoms supporters always anonymous?) writes at length but I see only two points:
“We asked when they were passed to us, and were told that (far from being stolen) the shots in question had been freely given for reuse as AFA saw fit. Given that AFA has been using those photos for 20 years without once being sued for it, we had no particular reason to think otherwise. So yes it was an honest mistake.”
There have been repeated claims of this 20 year use. Nobody has produced one. Ive not seen a single instance and would certainly have followed one up if I had. Either these publications dont exist or theyre hopelessly invisible.
AFA had no right to use them why else did they steal them? If they really thought that I was giving them free use of these very old pics then how come they never asked me for a single new photo in those 20 years? How come they never told me of even one of these publications or sent me a single copy? Either they knew that Id better not find out or they dont exist. In any case Freedom wrote to me during this dispute saying that they accepted that even if AFA DID have permission that still didnt give Freedom a right to use the photos.
Rob R: “However the way in which we were expected to act to guarantee a lower settlement would have involved ratting out confidential sources. Refusing to do so is not digging a hole, its basic journalistic ethics.”
This is deliberately misleading The author names are widely known. Ive had them since very early on and have no desire to make them public. Pretending this is about ethics or protecting sources is whitewash. Its about theft. My interest has been (still is) in tracking down my stolen property which remains in their possession. I dont need to meet the authors or have their names confirmed. I arranged a meeting at Freedom with an anonymous intermediary following Freedoms promise to arrange the return of all the prints. They cheated, keeping many back. Thats what wrecked the chances of a cheap, friendly deal.
I won’t comment on who you might think they are, David, but you know perfectly well getting us to name authors in an official document from a government body such as Trading Standards would open them to formal prosecution.
And quite why you think we as a collective would deliberately hold pictures back is baffling to me – what on earth would we have to gain from doing so? We’ve accepted you have the legal right to claim them, it’s not like we can (or would) ever use them again.
If you have ongoing complaints on that score it’s with AFA, not us – but however many thousands of inaccurate accusations you level about our apparent desire to “cheat you” out of photos we can’t use you’re not going to force us to help you pursue whatever agenda it is that you’re following.
Oh, and as for the 20 years thing – sorry, doesn’t wash. You’re a litigious man by your own admission and you’ve accused them of outright theft. If you or Searchlight had had a problem when they were first “stolen” why did you not go after them then? Why would you not have deliberately tracked subsequent AFA publications? Why would they have stolen photos with your copyright notice on in the first place, given that this would open any anti-fascist organisation that subsequently used them to exactly the problems we’ve had now?
See, I’m an adherent of Occam’s Razor. The most simple explanation is usually the correct one. For your story to be true, it would require an astonishing level of ignorance and ineptitude on both your and their parts over the course of more than two decades. For mine to be true, it requires simply that a photographer looking for some easy money spots and takes advantage of a group which wasn’t thorough enough in its investigation on copyright, and tries to push it further by leveraging the situation to out the authors as well.
(NB// quick clarification – I actually have no idea where any of the remaining photos might be, they could be stuffed in a pothole in Moscow for all I know, all I do know is they ain’t with us).
Id be more inclined to think that Rob R genuinely believed what he writes if he had the courage to put his name to it.
I wont comment on who you might think they are, David, but you know perfectly well getting us to name authors in an official document from a government body such as Trading Standards would open them to formal prosecution.
The first I heard about the TS letter was its mention here, I didnt ask them to send it. I involved TS as I was getting nowhere with the collective and didnt want to issue a summons while there was still a softer option. I asked them first to ensure that those trading as Freedom Press (not the authors) made their names and trading address public as the law requires. Second to mediate at a resolution meeting. If they have asked for the author names then thats their decision alone.
And quite why you think we as a collective would deliberately hold pictures back is baffling to me – what on earth would we have to gain from doing so? Weve accepted you have the legal right to claim them, its not like we can (or would) ever use them again.
Very little of what the collective has done stands up to rational examination. Hanging on to my property fits the pattern of obstructing me whenever possible.
If you have ongoing complaints on that score its with AFA, not us – but however many thousands of inaccurate accusations you level about our apparent desire to cheat you out of photos we cant use youre not going to force us to help you pursue whatever agenda it is that youre following.
The book is jointly produced by Freedom & AFA. It claims JOINT copyright (including my photographs and those of others) as Freedom & Sean Birchall (a pseudonym for the AFA authors). When I first raised the issue Freedom claimed that AFA had the rights to publish and that permitted Freedom to publish. AFA & Freedom are so neatly tucked up together in bed with this book that your attempts now to pretend that AFA has nothing to do with Freedom is laughable.
Oh, and as for the 20 years thing – sorry, doesnt wash. Youre a litigious man by your own admission and youve accused them of outright theft. If you or Searchlight had had a problem when they were first stolen why did you not go after them then?
Err because I didnt know that theyd been stolen until you published. Until a year after in fact since you didnt even have the decency to tell me. If Freedom had thought they were acting honestly theyd have mentioned the book and sent me a copy. Every honest publisher does that.
Why would you not have deliberately tracked subsequent AFA publications?
You may find it hard to believe but AFA & Freedom are well below my radar. I dont even track the Mail or the BBC really big copyright thieves. I have better ways to spend my time than looking at all the publications of the hundreds of little tinpot left and right organisations. I track a few thousand images, not a few million publishers.
Why would they have stolen photos with your copyright notice on in the first place, given that this would open any anti-fascist organisation that subsequently used them to exactly the problems weve had now?
Probably because they just didnt care if the photos had my name on or not. I think its most likely just hubris. They think they can do what they like because they are such great, important Revolutionaries. But ask them, not me.
See, Im an adherent of Occams Razor. The most simple explanation is usually the correct one. For your story to be true, it would require an astonishing level of ignorance and ineptitude on both your and their parts over the course of more than two decades. For mine to be true, it requires simply that a photographer looking for some easy money spots and takes advantage of a group which wasnt thorough enough in its investigation on copyright, and tries to push it further by leveraging the situation to out the authors as well.
The Occams razor bit is fine. The scenarios you then paint are carefully constructed to mislead.
It IS simple! AFA nicked the photos for their own purposes leaflets, narcissism etc and because they could. Ineffectual as they are I never saw a single one. I rarely read the left (or any) press. I saw the book by accident, tried to straighten it out, got nowhere, was ignored and insulted. Finally, frustrated by Freedoms refusal to co-operate, I taught them an expensive lesson.
And just to clear up your sly agenda innuendo I have never worked for Searchlight. They played no part in this other than to write to refute the AFA/Freedom lie that the photographs had been freely given. The only money Ive ever had from Searchlight was a refund of my expenses for hire of a special vehicle on a secret squirrel job 20+ years ago.
I actually checked back here after I’d posted at libcom, only to find I’d already anticipated most of your follow-up:
http://libcom.org/blog/lengthy-reply-david-hoffman-11082012
@ David Hoffman
“I have never worked for Searchlight”
So you were lying when you announced at the meeting attended by trading standards that you were the exclusive reproduction agent for Searchlight?
You also lie when you say you weren’t after names/addresses for the authors, you blackmailed Brian Whelan demanding addresses (that he didn’t even have) for the authors, you also stalked a female member of the collective with late night phone calls demanding addresses for the authors. That you now step back from all this now it’s been made public and put it all on Trading Standards acting under their own steam is a somewhat cowardly and slippery approach to adopt
Finally, you also lie about photos being withheld from you
You were told at the meeting that there were two files of material that had been used to source images for the book, one of which was original pictures and negatives, the other was a collection of back issues of various magazines, press clippings etc and also some downloaded images from the internet (e.g. Griffin on an NF march etc..). You were told at the meeting you were only given sight of the folder containing the photographs and you agreed at the meeting that you were not interested in this second folder. The photos you claimed had been held back from you at the meeting had been sourced from the second folder, i.e. news clippings, sourced from the internet or scanned from old magazines (e.g. Lecomber getting nicked at weavers field) . You also claimed elsewhere that photos had been witheld from you and you know this because there were empty pockets in the file with titles on them but no photos in them. Do you seriously think if someone was going to withhold photos from you (for what reason?) they would leave a plastic pocket with a title on it in the file? The simple explanation is that you riffled through the whole file and removed all photos from all pockets, didn’t put any of them back in the original place wen finished, and then complained at the end that there were empty pockets.
So there’s three outright and blatant lies from you straight off – and that’s just from the areas that I have knowledge off
Forgot to add, you say:-
” [Searchlight] played no part in this other than to write to refute the AFA/Freedom lie that the photographs had been freely given”
You know as well as I do that the letter from Gable did not actually refute the ‘AFA/Freedom lie’ as you put it.
The letter from Gable was very carefully worded (it had to be) and did not actually deny that anyone at Searchlight handed over the photos. All it did was state that at no point did anyone at Searchlight have the authority to pass on photos. Having (or not having) the authority to do something and doing that thing are, as you know, two very different things.
The other thing that doesn’t make sense in your story is that you say were only after names & addresses of the authors so that you could ‘recover your stolen property’. If you were confident that there had indeed been a crime committed and your property had been stolen, why did you not simply report the matter to the police (either twenty years ago when the supposed crime took place or more recently) and hand over the information you had and let them do their job in investigating this supposed crime? Your actions in this case (and others) show that you have no problem with resorting to state institutions to help you resolve your supposed grievances, so you don’t appear to have any political objection to involving state institutions like the courts or the police.
Which begs the question, what exactly were you up to in trying to find out this information? Also, why did you relish with glee the potential implications for anti-fascists whom you had been trying to expose should this case ever end up in court?, i.e. you said:-
“the action which I intend to take will bring these serious criminal acts to the attention of the authorities.”
Murkier and murkier
If the pseudonymous Ross n Rob had anything to accuse me of theyd not need to invent smears of stalking and blackmail. They duck the real problem – Freedom ripping off my photos and those of the late Mike Cohen trying to make a few extra quid.
The stalked a female member of the collective with late night phone calls was an amicable and constructive chat with the books designer at 3pm on a Monday afternoon. I tipped her off that she was the one being put at risk by the gutless behaviour of her fellow collective members. It would have been wrong to have kept that from her.
The blackmail was my charging Yahoos tame shinybum Whelan the NUJ rate for his sneaky theft of my work.
If either of these anonymous snipers had anything of substance I think wed have heard it by now.
Rob Rs long and evasive response boils down to a sad bleat of It wasnt us Sir. AFA big boys did it and ran away. The truth is that Freedom and AFA were completely in bed with each other over this book. They worked together, decided to publish together, claimed copyright together, agreed to share profits together and when I found out Freedom chose to take the rap for AFA.
Ross is off with the fairies. I dont work for Searchlight. I work for myself. I licence Searchlights copyright work to the press as part of my photo library. I do the same for a dozen other owners of copyright material. I dont work for them either.
Whelan, a minor editor scrambling up the Yahoo managerial ladder, published my copyright photographs and lied repeatedly. I already had more names and addresses than he did before I contacted him. The questions I asked were to test his truthfulness. I hit him with the (NUJ rate) fee because he lied.
Ross goes on at great length about the missing photos but only to confuse. Its really simple. The designer scanned prints for the book from AFAs photo file. She sent me copies of the scans shed made. Photos she had scanned were not in the file shown to me. They had been removed. That bit of deceit was the last straw.
The Searchlight letter (as you say) only said that there was no authority to pass pics on. Of course it didnt say they had not been passed on we knew that they had been. How else could they have ended up with AFA. Whats your point?
I only knew that the photos had been stolen late in 2011 when I saw the book and started checking. I didnt report it to the police for the same reason I didnt issue a summons, get a court order and have the book pulped. I was trying to get an amicable and positive resolution. Freedoms consistently arrogant, go fuck yourself attitude made that impossible.
I dont think Ive missed anything of substance but if I have then Im sure youll let me know.
Its worth just stepping back a pace none of this would have happened if instead of stealing my work, publishing behind my back and lying again and again about the circumstances Freedom/AFA had simply called me and asked for a cheap deal like other left publishers do. Anarchists claim to respect their fellow workers, not to rip them off. The greed and hypocrisy of the current incompetent collective has stained a previously respected organisation and its that issue that Freedoms few remaining friends really need to address.
As opposed to whining “I deserve £4,000 because they STOLE from me,” presumably, which has absolutely no evidence to back it up beyond your own imagination. And seriously, get your story straight. Either this is your cherished life’s work and your line of not even noticing they were gone is bullshit, or you didn’t give a fuck about them being missing for 20 years and reckoned you could get a sly bundle of cash, or you’re a complete incompetent and were unable to keep track of your life’s work despite knowing exactly who you’d handed them to in the first place.
I don’t think you’re an idiot, and I don’t reckon for a second you have much emotional attachment to the pictures in question. Which leaves us with…
Oh and btw, your line about offering an early deal has been utterly destroyed by that thread you so airily dismiss, using your own words to do so – it’s pathetic that you’re continuing to push it.
In light of which, your suggestion that it contains “evasions” and conflation of Ross and I (please show where I have ever accused you of either stalking or blackmail?) looks even more like a panicky attempt to divert attention from your own swiss-cheese defence, which of course is exactly what it is.
Which leaves us with the fact that David is a photographer who has acted throughout in defence of his legal and moral rights as I would expect any professional photographer to do, whatever their political position. While Freedom acknowledges it got things wrong – what it called ‘a stupid mistake’ – and then failed to take suitable action to put that mistake right until after 7 months they were threatened with legal action and had to pay up – not because as you suggest there was no evidence against them but because they had no case they could argue in court, even if it convinces a few friends on libcom.
You seem unable to understand that what Freedom did was wrong. Morally wrong and in breach of the law. Freedom was fortunate that the photographer who took most of the pictures was dead, and that there is probably no one who will take a case against them for using his pictures, which could have cost them a great deal more.
David Hoffman: “The stalked a female member of the collective with late night phone calls was an amicable and constructive chat with the books designer at 3pm on a Monday afternoon. I tipped her off that she was the one being put at risk by the gutless behaviour of her fellow collective members. It would have been wrong to have kept that from her.”
Think about this very carefully before making your next response David. Are you seriously claiming that the only contact you ever had with J was one ‘amicable and constructive chat’ at 3pm on Monday 5th December 2011? This is just more lies. I personally had three phonecalls from her, each one after a separate occasion of you phoning her, expressing concern at your behaviour towards her. Even this (initial) ‘amicable & constructive chat’ you talk of was referred to by the person you spoke with as being ‘quite threatening really’. As for what you misleadingly refer to as ‘tipping off’ – what this actually consisted off was you finding out her home address and threatening her with eviction from her housing association home if she didn’t give you contact information for Gary O’Shea. So not quite the knight in shining armour that you are trying to pain yourself as here.
David Hoffman: “Ross is off with the fairies. I dont work for Searchlight. I work for myself. I licence Searchlights copyright work to the press as part of my photo library. I do the same for a dozen other owners of copyright material. I dont work for them either.”
The initial inference was not who your formal employer was as you well know, but whether you were the useful idiot/bagman to the wider searchlight agenda.
David Hoffman: “The Searchlight letter (as you say) only said that there was no authority to pass pics on. Of course it didnt say they had not been passed on we knew that they had been. How else could they have ended up with AFA. Whats your point?
I only knew that the photos had been stolen late in 2011”
Interesting set of inconsistencies arising here in your various statements past & present David.
Let’s briefly recap the story so far
From the outset the explanation from AFA/FP for the possession and usage of the pictures in the books was this:-
1. The photos were passed on to AFA by Searchlight over 20 years ago in exchange for information passed back to Searchlight from AFA
2. The photos had been used in various AFA publications & pamphlets over the past twenty years (including front page covers of magazines which would have been distributed at various anti-fascist events/demonstrations which I am sure you would have been present at) without any complaint form either Searchlight or yourself.
3. On the basis of (1) and (2) above, these same photos were supplied to Freedom Press in good faith for use in the book. That they had been given to us by Searchlight to use as AFA saw fit and had been subsequently used in various publications over the last twenty years without complaint established the basis for their usage in this way.
This version of events has been put forward consistently and honestly by FP/AFA from the very start of this dispute. From the outset you have rejected this explanation as being all lies. Instead you had claimed that AFA had stolen these pictures from you and your stalking of J (and Brian Whelan), by your own previous admittance, was in part to establish how AFA had come into possession of these pictures
Now however, In quite an astonishing U-turn (that you have been forced into after I revealed the true content of Gerry Gable’s letter about the photos) you are now somewhat bizarrely actually supporting the version of events given by AFA, which was Searchlight passed on the pictures to AFA for use. While at the same time continuing to assert that AFA/FP are lying about sequence of events which led to the possession of these photos. So you are both simultaneously agreeing with and disagreeing with the evidence of the defence, not something that would go down well in a court of law.
Which raises a whole host of other questions:-
Why did you consider the photos stolen when you ‘found out’ they were in AFA’s possession yet above you didn’t consider them stolen when they were in Searchlight’s possession?
How did the photos come into Searchlight’s possession in the first place for them to be able to hand them on to AFA, if what you claim is true that you have never worked for them?
Why did you claim at the meeting attended by Trading Standards that Searchlight/Gerry Gable had specifically denied handing the disputed photos over to AFA, when you now claim above that this is exactly what happened. Your claim at the Trading Standards meeting (which I have on tape) is in contradiction to both the content of Gerry Gable’s letter and what you write above.
From the outset you have constantly referred to the photos as being stolen from you by AFA. This infers not only that AFA had possession of items that you claim had been stolen from you, but that AFA had actually carried out the act of stealing them from you. Yet above, and in a somewhat astounding contradiction to what you previously asserted, you now admit that you knew the photos were passed on to AFA by Searchlight. The inference from this is that either your initial claim that AFA has your stolen pictures is a lie intended to smear and spread misinformation to cloud the actual facts, or that it was actually Searchlight who stole them from you in the first place and then passed them on to AFA. In which case it would appear that the object of your attention in getting to the root of the problem should be Searchlight not AFA – given that you now admit both that they passed on the photos and that they had no authority to do so. Yet instead of directing your attention at Searchlight for their unauthorised (criminal?) use of your photos, you instead announce that you have recently been appointed their exclusive reproduction agent (although at the same time claim you don’t work for them)
So you see David, the more we scratch the surface of your version of events, the more contradictions and downright lies we find. As you well know however, if this had gone to court, while your story would have been torn apart due to the fact it is based on contradictions and lies (look how easy it crumbles under gentle prodding of it on here for example), the bigger aspect of this is the trojan horse element of this case which would have resulted in numerous long term militant anti-fascists being exposed in court and subject to criminal prosecution for their political activities.
So re your comments about ‘anonymous snipers’ – given your open and somewhat repulsive desire to see anti-fascists hauled before the criminal courts to face prosecution for their anti-fascist activities, is it any wonder that anyone on the left is extremely cautious about giving you any information about themselves, given how keen you have admitted you are to use that information in ways which would result in political persecution of those individuals
You truly are an odious, bitter and politically cowardly little man – and certainly no ally of progressive politics
David Hoffman:”Ross goes on at great length about the missing photos but only to confuse. Its really simple. The designer scanned prints for the book from AFAs photo file. She sent me copies of the scans shed made. Photos she had scanned were not in the file shown to me. They had been removed. That bit of deceit was the last straw.”
Once again – you have had this explained to you twice now so I can only assume you are playing dumb for the benefit of the audience
As has already been pointed out, FP was given two files of material to use for images for the book. One of these files was a file of original photos/negatives and the other was a file of newspaper cuttings, magazines and scans from the internet. Both of these files were used to source content for the book and material from both sources were scanned by the designer for that purpose. You were subsequently given all those scans by the designer (i.e. both the scans of the photos and the scans from other sources, press clippings/magazines/internet). You were told that you were only been given access to the file that contained original photographs as the purpose was to allow you to look through the file and retrieve the photos that we have now established that Searchlight had stolen from you.
I mean you just need to look at the images in the book that you claim have been withheld from you to see that these were not sourced form the original photo but scanned from magazines/newspapers
Page 116 – Image of Griffin in white power tshirt, this image has clearly not been scanned from the original image (it was in fact downloaded from the daily mirror website by the designer of the book – http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/jun2009/4/6/nick-griffin-image-2-996158499.jpg). So your claim that we had the original photo and held it back from you is absurd
Page 140 – Injured Police at Remembrance day – Again just by looking at the quality of this picture in the book you can tell it’s been scanned from a newspaper clipping, so once again your claim that we had the original photo and withheld it from you is absurd
Page 147 – Tony Lecomber, again by looking at the quality of this picture in the book you can tell it’s not taken from an original photo but a scan from a magazine cover.
Now you clearly know your stuff when it comes to photography and digital imagery so I don’t believe for one minute that you genuinely thought these images above had actually been scanned from the original photo. It’s quite clear that they weren’t. So this just adds another example of your devious and underhand motives to spread misinformation and lies about this whole affair. You just can’t stop lying can you?
Peter Marshall on 1st August 2012:”It also appears that some of the pictures used were stolen, probably from Searchlight Magazine”
David Hoffman on 18th August 2012: “The Searchlight letter (as you say) only said that there was no authority to pass pics on. Of course it didnt say they had not been passed on we knew that they had been”
So Peter, it appears that the information you were given, presumably from David Hoffman, to write your first comment on this thread has now been contradicted on this very thread, from erm… David Hoffman
The question I am most intrigued by now, is whether David Hoffman lied at the meeting attended by Trading Standards when he said that Searchlight had specifically denied passing the pictures on (is lying to Trading Standards a criminal offence?), or whether he was lying above in this thread when he said ‘we’ (we being him & searchlight) knew that Searchlight had passed them on. Either way both of these statements cannot be true and given that both of these statements have come from David Hoffman, a reasonably person can only conclude that he is lying in at least part of what he has said in relation to this case. Which leaves us wondering what else in his version of events is also a lie…..
You claim as facts things that are fantasy. You claim that I have made statements that I have not. You then draw untenable conclusions from the poisonous broth you stew up and present them as contradictions. There is nothing in any of the twisted, self-serving irrationality of your three posts that stands up. You clearly have more time to waste on blowing smoke to hide the facts Freedom/AFA’s petty moneygrubbing copyright theft than I do. No amount of reality can possibly penetrate your carefully constructed dishonest sophistry so I’ll waste no more time on you. Still happy to respond to those less determined to deny their own wrongdoing.
What statement have I claimed you made that you have not made?
Funny how you always go on about how willing you are to talk about it, yet when a light is shined on what you actually talk about, you clam up and take your ball home, refusing to answer to or explain your increasingly contradictory story
If you’ve nothing to hide, tell me what statement have I claimed you made that you have not made?
I will happily upload recordings of the relevant parts of the Trading Standards meeting if that will help jog your memory about your statement to the Trading Standards officer that Searchlight had denied passing pictures on to AFA (something which you have now contradicted on this very thread when saying that you now knew they passed them on)
So you either lied to Trading Standards about Searchlight’s role in the ‘stolen’ pictures or you lied on this thread when you claimed you have known all along that Searchlight did actually pass the pictures on.
Whichever is the lie and whichever is the truth is somewhat irrelevant now however – your dishonesty is here for all to see and make of it what they will
Ross, I have wasted far too much time on you already. My statements are perfectly consistent, you simply want to twist them into something that will keep the discussion away from Freedoms theft of my work and that of my colleagues.
I have given Searchlight prints to use in the magazine for many years. The prints belong to me but I let them stay at the mag so they can use them without asking every time. The deal is that they cannot pass them to anyone else or use them other than in their own publications. When there is a publication with and paid for by an external organisation (such as ones with The Mirror or the trade union backed anti BNP local newspapers) Searchlight ask my permission and I charge NUJ rates.
Searchlight as an organisation do not pass my work on, thats what I said. Thats what their letter said. AFA, by some underhand method or other, got a vulnerable worker at Searchlight to give them my prints in breach of our agreement. That worker is no longer with Searchlight but would certainly have been in trouble had this come to light while employed there.
I only knew that the pics had been passed on (or stolen to be accurate) after I saw the BTF book. I have known all along since first seeing the book in October 2011.
No contradictions, no lies.
You go on in confusing detail about three pics in the book but these are not relevant and only one is mine. The designer got (via you I believe) the file of photos from AFA. She scanned the ones that she wanted to use (another breach of copyright).
She sent me all the scans she had made. Among them were these three images used in the book:
Police group p29
BNP at John Scurr p180
Lecomber Weavers Fields p184
According to the designer these three images had been scanned from the AFA file. The repro in the book matches the scans that she sent me. At the meeting I photographed all the prints in the file. Those three images were not there. They must have been there previously when they were scanned and removed before I was shown the file.
Clear enough?
This has taken 20 minutes. To respond in detail to your other 6 or 8 deceptive distortions would take a couple of hours and youd only come up with another load of nonsense so Ill pass on that and leave you a couple of questions.
For 7 months people respected by Freedom tried to get you to produce the prints and do a deal. Why did you refuse?
Just recently a very respected figure tried to set up a meeting between us. I jumped at the chance. Freedom refused. Why?
Its time to look at your own stubborn refusal to recognize the hole you have dug yourself into and to think about rebuilding Freedoms role in left political activism. It has become stagnant, inward looking, lazy and impotent. An invisible, unwelcoming bookshop in the wrong place staffed by tea drinking unhelpful demotivated underpaid workers. A bookshop that cant even sell books. A bit of a joke. That didnt use to be the case. Time to wake up and look around, theres a lot needs doing.
No David, the Searchlight letter was perfectly clear (or perfectly muddled depending on which side you’re coming from)
They said at no point did they have authority to pass on the photos
They did not deny passing on the photos
You claimed in the meeting with trading standards that Searchlight had denied (in a letter) that they passed them on. This is the first lie, as their letter stated no such thing, as you both know and have admitted on this very thread. Gable isn’t daft enough to put in writing a claim that he knows is false. That is why the Searchlight letter only went so far as to talk about the authority to do or not do stuff, not what they actually done.
You then claimed that you knew that Searchlight had passed them on
As to your continued desire to avoid the points I made about the three photos which you claimed had been held back from you (even though it’s clear they weren’t even scanned from photos in the first place) – humour us for a minute? why do you think these three photos would have been witheld from you? The photos in the book have already been retrospectively credited to you (to save your desire to unmask anti-fascists in a court of law and link them to ‘criminal’ charges for their anti-fascist work). So what possible reason would three random photos be selected to be withheld from you for? Clearly they could not be used elsewhere as copyright has already been ‘formally’ established through your settlement. So what possible reason would this be done for?
You already made false claims (in the TS meeting) about the three other photos that I referred to, being held back from you, and I took the time to trail back to their source and see if your story made sense. It didn’t. You now mention three other photos now that you got caught out trying to pull a quick one on the first three. I can look into the those other three however to see if there is a similar, more sensible, explanation for them
I note however you have declined to respond to the other points in my various posts above. If they are such deceptive distortions I wouldn’t have thought it would take you a ‘couple of hours’ to rebut them. Telling the truth doesn’t take up that much time as you don’t have to invent a back story for it, it tells itself. So that you claim you need a couple of hours to rebut my points, speaks plenty I would say
As for Freedom I have nothing to do with Freedom so save your sermon for someone who cares (what do you have against people who drink tea by the way?)
Every point you make has been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted. I’m sorry about your cognitive problems. I’ve tried to take you seriously but enough is enough, I have no more time for your trolling.
David, in your last post before that one you claimed that to respond to my other (6 to 8) points would take up too much time so you were not going to do so, yet now you claim they have already been responded to
You don’t seem to be able to stop contradicting yourself at the moment.
And you then talk to me about cognitive problems!
I can understand however why you would not want to delve too deeply into anything else on here, given how easily your story falls apart when subject to the most gentle of prodding
Just out of interest though do you still stand by what you told the Trading Standards officer at the FP meeting that Searchlight had said (in their letter) that they did not hand the photos over? Why did you lie to Trading Standards about this David?
obviously the cool smiley there was not intentional and was meant to be “6 to 8” in brackets
David has said he is not going to reply, and there really seems to be no point in continuing this exchange. Freedom decided (or rather perhaps were strongly advised) they couldn’t defend their position in court, so I’m not sure there is much to be said for trying to argue it here – where you can be sure it won’t save the money. Surely far better to spend the time working for the future than scratching the scar.
I think those of us who try to make a living from photography are likely to feel that we would have reacted in a similar way to David in similar circumstances. But people can read what has been said here and make up their own minds.
Fair enough Peter
Although you did make a blog post about it and at the time it was clear you did not have all the information relevant to the complete story
My contribution to this thread has been to supply some of that missing information so that people who were not involved in this case could have a more rounded view of what actually happened, and not the black & white, open & shut case that David presents it as
If David does not want to engage on these points and prefers to keep to the ‘official’ and convenient version of events then fair enough, as you say people can make up their own minds
The reason Freedom settled without going to court however was not to do with the narrow case of alleged copyright infringement. It was instead a political decision to avoid the wider issue of David seeking to expose, in court, militant anti-fascists who authored the book, who would then likely be subject to criminal investigation and potentially jail for their anti-fascist activities over the last three decades.
Sorry to open up this discussion again, but i’ve had a look through the archive of photos that was made available for Hoffman to look through
David said earlier “The designer got (via you I believe) the file of photos from AFA. She scanned the ones that she wanted to use (another breach of copyright).
She sent me all the scans she had made. Among them were these three images used in the book:
Police group p29
BNP at John Scurr p180
Lecomber Weavers Fields p184
According to the designer these three images had been scanned from the AFA file. The repro in the book matches the scans that she sent me. At the meeting I photographed all the prints in the file. Those three images were not there. They must have been there previously when they were scanned and removed before I was shown the file.”
I’ve just looked through the file and the pictures used for page 180 and page 184 are in the file (can’t find the one on page 29 however)
They were in the file, are in the file and always have been in the file. You either overlooked these at the time or are once again just lying
I do not believe you took these photos though David, they don’t look like your type of picture, so i’m curious as to your motivations for this wild goose chase.
I’ve also just noticed another lie in your post above, you say you photographed every photo in the file. This is a lie, you did not photograph every photo in the file, you photographed certain ones that you were interested in, but not every single one. You know this is the case, so again why do you feel the need to lie at every turn? (and obviously if you had photographed every single photo in the file you would have photos of the photos on page 180 & 184 which you claim you dont’ have. So once again you make two contradictory statements and at separate times claim both are true)
par·a·site
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
_______________
Pretty much sums up photographers who leech off the movement.
Frankly the idea that any photographers leech off the movement is totally ridiculous. Those of us who largely support “the movement” and do our best to get it seen by the public do so at considerable personal cost, both in time and in loss of earnings – the market for such pictures is minimal and generally miserably paid – when it is paid.
Photographers have also often been threatened by both people in “the movement” on various occasions, and some physically assaulted- that’s what you describe as hospitality. David has also spent a lot of time documenting the activities of right wing organisations including the NF, BNP and EDL – he took some fine pictures at Walthamstow on Saturday – often at considerable personal risk. Like me he often goes home and showers to wash the spit off.
Your comment is frankly totally ludicrous. He’s a guy who has done more and sacrificed more for “the movement” than most. I suspect infinitely more than you.
Peter