Only 15% of news photographers are women: World Press Photo/Reuters Institute survey of photojournalists

Only 15% of news photographers are women. source: World Press Photo and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
Only 15% of news photographers are women. source: World Press Photo and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism

Last year, World Press Photo and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism published the results of an online survey of 1556 photographers who entered the 2015 World Press Photo annual competition, and the results are fascinating. The report, entitled The State of News Photography: The Lives andLivelihoods of Photojournalists in the Digital Age (← pdf), looks at the demographics of photographers, how for whom they work, how much they are paid, how the ethics of journalism and manipulation figure into their work, and other topics. The whole report is worth a look.

Particularly interesting in the report are the breakdowns of photojournalists by gender. Of the respondents, only 15% were women. Self-employment is much higher among women; 79.2% of women who responded to the survey are self-employed, while only 55.9% of men are. There is a higher percentage of female photographers than men in the lowest income bracket, earning between $0 and $29,999 from photography, and likewise proportionally fewer women than men in the highest income bracket reported in the study.

Of course, this is not a new problem, nor, frankly, is it surprising. I wrote about the issue in 2013, when a tumblr post by Daniel Shea, called On Sexism in Editorial Photography, went viral. Shea’s post has disappeared, but it’s preserved on the dvafoto tumblr, and it’s worth revisiting. Likewise, some of the links in my post about Shea’s piece have been lost to history, but many still exist and still deserve consideration. Looking at the WPP/Reuters Institute survey, it seems like things haven’t changed much since 2013.

Despite the disappointing results of this survey, it’s worth celebrating the tremendous work done by women photographers around the world. ViewFind recently published a great collection of what they call The Mighty 15%. The New York Times’ Women in the World earlier this month asked, “What’s at stake when so few of [stories from around the world] are told by women.” The Photo Brigade held a panel discussion in February about women in photojournalism. Last year, BuzzFeed posted about 12 Kick-Ass Women Photojournalists To Follow On Instagram. Ruth Fremson wrote an honest and thought-provoking piece on the subject in July of last year. And organizations such as Firecracker, the Inge Morath Foundation, and Women Photojournalists of Washington, provide vital support to women in photography.

There is one possibly positive note on the gender disparity in photojournalism in the WPP/Reuters Institute report. 49.6% of women who responded said that they “mostly” have control over the editing and production of their work. Only 37.9% of men said the same. The report attributes this to the self-employed/employee results in the survey, but it’s nice to see that 88.7% of women report “sometimes” or “mostly” having authority over their own work.

2016 Guggenheim photography fellows announced

The 2016 Guggenheim Fellowships were just announced and, as usual, the photography fellows are a fascinating and diverse bunch. There are some photographers I’ve admired for years, and others that are new to me. I haven’t seen links to their work collected anywhere, so I figured I’d do that here. I’ve also included links to their Guggenheim page, some of which include bios or information about the work awarded:

  • Dru DonovanGuggenheim page
  • Hasan ElahiGuggenheim page
  • McNair EvansGuggenheim page
  • Lyle Ashton HarrisGuggenheim page
  • Matthew JensenGuggenheim page
  • Alex MajoliGuggenheim page (check out his recent work on migration in China for MSNBC if you haven’t already.)
  • Eileen NeffGuggenheim page
  • Louie PaluGuggenheim page
  • Robin SchwartzGuggenheim page
  • Lida SuchyGuggenheim page
  • Yvonne Venegas (her personal website is currently broken, but here’s an interview with her from 2014)
  • Additionally, photographer and filmmaker Carlos Javier Ortiz (Guggenheim page) was awarded a fellowship for Film and Video.

    (via PDN Pulse)

    Time Inc. foists awful new contract on photographers

    New Time Inc., contract is an awful rights grab
    New Time Inc., contract is an awful rights grab

    It’s an awful part of the job, but photographers need to be able read and understand contracts. The new Time Inc. contract, which will be sent to photographers working for all Time Inc. publications, including Time magazine, Travel + Leisure, People, Sports Illustrated, etc., is an awful rights grab that results in lower fees paid to photographers. John Harrington has published a great deep read of the new contract. PhotoShelter has a nice overview of the issues.

    Here’s the new contract below, along with an introduction from Time Inc. Chief Content Officer Norm Pearlstine. Pearlstine was also editor of Time magazine from 1994-2005. His introduction starts, “Since the 1920s and ’30s, when Time and Life magazines first appeared on the scene, Time Inc. and its brands have been known for the beauty and power of iconic photograph. While our commitment to original photography is as true today as ever, we are revising how we commission and use photographs.” Ironically, the contract that follows is an affront to the very livelihood of photographers. I couldn’t continue working as a photographer without decent fees, payment for reuse, and the ability to relicense photos taken on assignment.

    Writing on PhotoShelter’s blog, Allen Murabayashi notes that the contract eliminates the notion of a space rate through a perpetual right to republish photos without compensation, makes all video shot for Time Inc. work made for hire, makes it impossible for photographers to relicense work used on magazine covers, takes away photographers’ recourse in case Time Inc. violates the contract, and allows payment for work done only in case an editor deems it “acceptable.”

    I strongly advise all photographers to do what I do when confronted with contracts like this: refuse to sign until rights-grabbing language is changed. This is the only way for photographers to maintain their livelihoods.

    In my 10 years of freelancing, I’ve given up the copyright to a photo (a single photo!) exactly once. In that case, I was paid five figures. There is, after all, a price for everything. In every other case in which an editor or art buyer has asked me to sign a rights grab or offered a pittance for my work, I politely refuse and offer some alternative ideas for contractual language that allows me to keep my copyright and the ability to license the work in the future. If the publication refuses to budge, I turn down the assignment or licensing agreement. Often, the publication will find a way to go ahead with the assignment or licensing on my terms, but not always. In a recent deal with Time Inc., in fact, I was able to get around the rights-grabbing contract and get a higher fee than their standard space rates by standing firm on my terms(but always remaining cordial and friendly). I’ve done the same with other major news and publishing organizations, including CNN, National Geographic, The Verge, and others. It can be done.

    The only way to get rid of these awful contracts is to quit signing them. If you’re presented with a bad contract, strike the bad language and politely explain why you can’t and won’t sign the contract as it’s first offered. If they are open to negotiation, that’s wonderful. The client will likely view you as a professional. If not, stand firm and decline the work. There is no other way.