Daniella Zalcman writes for Columbia Journalism Review about how The Wall Street Journal has angered freelance photographers due to changes in its contractor agreement.
Zalcman writes, “But last November, the Journal told its freelance photojournalists about a new version of the standard contractor agreement. Two elements caused widespread alarm among current and former contributors, including me: a change in the ownership terms for images produced on assignment, and language that allowed the Journal to sublicense images with no restrictions—and no exclusion for companies developing AI technologies. For the first time in twenty years, I thought: Oh, shit. We’re going to lose our jobs.
“Soon after, a group called Your Visual Colleagues sprang up, run by four regular Journal freelancers who anonymously detailed their fears about the contract and asked the Journal to reconsider. In the six months since they started their campaign, six hundred and fifty freelance photographers who work with the Journal have signed on—myself included. It is perhaps the most unified and the most angry I have ever seen the photojournalism community—and may be a bellwether for the visual-media industry.
“A Journal spokesperson told me that the adjustments to the contract were ‘essential for protecting the integrity of the Wall Street Journal’s online archive and ensuring the historical permanence of these important photos that we commissioned.’ But photographers have bristled at this argument, saying that the changes present a blow to their business model. At almost every major newspaper and magazine in the United States, photographs produced by freelancers remain the sole intellectual property of their creator. The new contract would assign the Journal primary authorship of all photographs produced on assignment through what’s known as a Work for Hire clause, giving the Journal unprecedented control.”
Read more here.
