icon Sqweegee's Blog
Blognum Rising, Black Star Bombing, Alamy Blogorrhoea

Having watched bloggers kick photographers around the internet last summer it seems that picture agencies are finally waking up to blogging’s potential. No less than three major agencies have ventured out into the blogosphere within the last month, all in very different ways, and with varying degrees of success.

The newest is from one of the oldest and most respected agencies. The Magnum blog launched just last week, although it has been running in secret since before Christmas. It’s everything one might expect and more: classy, largely monochromatic, and deeply…concerned. Martin Parr is on the beach again and discovers photographers are having a hard time in Chile. Paolo Pellegrin is at another Central American beach called Guantanamo Bay and is angst ridden at being unable to communicate with the locals.

But by far the scariest stuff comes from Jonas Bendiksen’s ruminations on his excessive air travel and resulting CO2 emissions. Jonas produces lots of figures to show that his single Indonesian jaunt has done more damage than a fleet of Hummers. Remember that big lump of ice that broke off from the Arctic a while back? That was Jonas’ doing. Frankly, the man’s a menace: the world needs to do something about the Bendiksen Effect, and quick.

However, Jonas does suggest a solution, of sorts: travelling photographers should purchase carbon emission offsets, and add the sum to their assignment invoice.

Now, here at EPUK Towers we’re as keen on climate change as anyone else. In fact, wind turbines now solely power the fleet of office Trabants, and staff are under strict instructions to only use the onboard computers, microwaves and refrigerated refreshment systems when the vehicles are in motion.

Nevertheless, Jonas’ proposal is one of the most alarming we’ve heard in a long while. He admits he’s having trouble getting it past editors, and let’s hope that continues: imagine the first time it gets noticed by a company bean counter. ‘So, let’s see, we’re paying this Bendiksen guy to go for a month to a place where other people pay to go on holiday, AND he admits he’s fucking up the planet en route? Screw that. No more foreign assignments. Hire a native at local rates, the company saves a packet, and we get to brag about how we’re doing our bit to save the planet.’

But at least the Magnum blog is written by the company’s own staff and photographers. Black Star, an agency as long standing as Magnum, and with a similarly illustrious history, unveiled their blog in January: and farmed the job out to a couple of spin-doctors. Black Star Rising lists six contributors, but of those only three are directly associated with the agency. A fourth, Jim Pickerell, is essentially providing summaries of longer pieces from his own site. The vast majority of material on Black Star Rising is written by Scott Baradell and Andrea Weckerle: the former is actually the blog editor. We are told that Baradell is an ‘accomplished corporate brand strategist’, and that Weckerle runs a ‘boutique’ public relations consultancy; she’s also ‘a passionate amateur photographer.’ [Isn’t everyone these days?]

Now sorry, but this just isn’t right. The whole point of a blog is to directly engage with your public. Even Reuters understands that: Editor In Chief David Schlesinger used his blog to announce recent changes in that agency’s editing procedures after last year’s Hajj fiasco, exactly the kind of job that in the past would have been delegated to a PR team. And just this week Reuters has launched yet another blog, again produced entirely in-house.

Hiring a pair of spin-doctors to write your blog sends out entirely the wrong message. For one thing, nobody actually believes anything PR people say. They know that. We know that. Reuters management does too: that’s exactly why they used Schlesinger’s blog rather than take the traditional PR route. So hasn’t anyone told Black Star? And here’s something else: Black Star boasts a network of photographers in over 100 countries. Surely a few of them can string some words together in the correct order? How be it can hard?

Well at least if this is a professional PR team they must be producing reams of elegant, well-informed copy, right? Well, no: the original content of one blog consists of not much more than a single four-letter word. Still, presumably that at least means Black Star’s PR grunts aren’t being paid by the word.

Ok, so it’s not Shakespeare, or even Spillane, but at least they know what they’re talking about? Ahem…

Black Star Rising’s biggest faux pas is an interview with one Thomas Hawk, described as the ‘reigning blog guru of digital photography’. Hawk, whose day job is as an investment consultant, is actually the CEO of a company with a groundbreaking new concept called photo sharing. It’s called Flickr, er, sorry, Zooomr. In a wide-ranging interview Baradell seeks Hawk’s advice on many things, but in particular the issue of photographic rights online.

Hawk responds: ‘Personally all my stuff is licensed Creative Commons non-commercial use only. This allows me to let people enjoy my work legally, and allows me to gain broad exposure, while reserving my right to profit economically from my work in other contexts. I believe that this can be done within a less restrictive Creative Commons world than in an all rights reserved world. Some people will always steal images. But by and large I think that the Creative Commons license represents the best way for someone who wants to promote their work and still profit from it.’

Except that since the interview Hawk has found himself in an embarrassing position with regard to one of Black Star’s regular clients. A few days ago Forbes.com published The Web Celeb 25, their ‘first annual listing of the biggest stars on the internet’. Naturally they needed pictures of these stars. Some were contributed by the subjects themselves, some were licensed from picture agencies or photographers; and some were, er, y’know, just taken from wherever they could be found. As Hawk himself said in his Black Star Rising interview: ‘some people will always steal images’. But unfortunately one of the images Forbes helped themselves to is by – you guessed it – Hawk.

Of course Hawk was not best pleased by this turn of events: by his own admission he’d been ripped off. But what could he do? Nothing much, it turned out. As he admits, if it had happened to Getty – or indeed presumably Black Star – the agency would have sued ‘because that’s what they do’. The best Hawk managed to get out of Forbes was…a byline.

So Black Star, an agency with 70 years of history, that counts Forbes among its many regular clients, takes copyright advice from an amateur photographer whose grasp of copyright issues is so inadequate that his pictures get ripped off by Forbes – and all he can do is shrug his shoulders. Really, you couldn’t make it up.

Breaking Rank: Alamy contributors discuss their ranking ©Andrew Wiard

Alamy’s new blog is the oddest of the lot. Ostensibly a replacement for the agency’s monthly contributor bulletins, it resembles not so much a conventional blog – can there be such a thing already? – as yet another Alamy contributors’ forum. It’s certainly written by photographers – all of ‘em. Unfortunately Alamy forgot to provide a key for the floodgates, so anyone – anyone at all – can contribute: which means that some mornings the blog looks like the AlamyPorn list. It’s ironic that Alamy are the agency who set more store by technology than any other, yet are the only one unable to keep the spammers out.

As for the legitimate posts, it’s all very Alamy: many of the writers have as much trouble editing their thoughts as they do their pictures. But one can hardly blame Alamy photographers for drifting off topic when the only post so far from CEO James West is a Bendiksen-style confession of global warming guilt. Not surprising really: the amount of hot air produced on the Alamy blog and related lists can’t be doing any good. Two replies to West suggested that the solution was for photographers to eat less meat. Clearly the writers have never seen a pack of Her Majesty’s Paparazzi on the prowl. Do those people look like vegetarians?

Perhaps the blog should be renamed Alamy Grouch, for no matter how the agency tries to talk things up, there are always contributors with a bleaker viewpoint. Alamy announces their biggest day’s sales ever? ‘I haven’t had a sale for several months’ comes the response. Alamy informs contributors on online uploading? Either it’s too slow coming or people don’t want it anyway. Or something.

Or how about Alamy Squabble? Or Alamy Bareknuckle? When the contributors aren’t lobbing compliments at West and Co many spend time settling scores amongst themselves. It’s an equal opportunity brawl: anyone can join in, and the subject doesn’t have to be anything to do with Alamy. Even us nice folk at EPUK get used for target practice – we had to hide in the basement for a couple of hours last week. Given that the most active participants also post regularly elsewhere it’s amazing they find time to indulge in any photography: after all, many also have day jobs to attend to.

If you ask us, what the Alamy blog needs is a good PR team to sort it out. Here you go, James.


Comments on this article:

“It’s an equal opportunity brawl: anyone can join in, and the subject doesn’t have to be anything to do with Alamy.”

Brawl: as started by EPUK member Dan ( who thinks it whiter not to have a surname) who helped the blog along by suggesting that Alamy might be well described as a ‘tsunami of offal’ taking the quote from this very website.

Comment #1 posted by Ian Murray at 15 February, 07:36 PM

Comment deleted due to potentially libellous content regarding a third party - EPUK Website Editor

Comment #2 posted by Ian Murray at 16 February, 11:22 AM

I like the postmodern irony that a blog about blogwars should be turned into a blogwar. But wherever you are getting your info, this ‘EPUK spokesman’ is no such thing. We don’t have any, there are only the moderators. So someone is yanking your chain.

The facts are quite simple and unexciting. The legal position is that the mods are liable for contributors’ defamatory statements unless we act. Given that, once anyone starts talking to solicitors, we don’t have a lot of choice and aren’t interested in getting sued to defend your right to make assertions that you made no attempt to explain or substantiate. That’s why you were asked to withdraw them, and after you posted a withdrawal that was equivocal, you were asked again in sterner terms.

Please look up Demon vs. Godfrey, where Demon’s failure to act cost them £20k out of court settlement. Once they were made aware of the problematic postings against Godfrey, they had published a libel and could not claim ‘innocent dissemination’ as a defence UNLESS THEY HAD ACTED.

If you wish to deal with the legal fallout, that’s your choice, but we have a choice too. On great matters of principle we might take a stand, but not for your right to slag anyone you feel like and lumber us with the consequences.

If you had just posted facts instead of opinions masquerading as facts, there would never have been a problem.

Comment #3 posted by Tony Sleep, EPUK Moderator at 16 February, 01:03 PM

* Comment deleted due to potentially libellous content regarding a third party - EPUK Website Editor *

Comment #4 posted by Ian Murray at 16 February, 02:06 PM

English comprehension:

‘The car came as close to a crash as the brakes would allow’

Did a crash happen?

Comment #5 posted by Ian Murray at 16 February, 02:09 PM

* Comment deleted due to potentially libellous content regarding a third party - EPUK Website Editor *

Comment #6 posted by Ian Murray at 16 February, 02:15 PM

“The facts are quite simple and unexciting. The legal position is that the mods are liable for contributors’ defamatory statements unless we act”

Why not simply delete posts that your Mods consider defamatory rather than having a to and fro discussion about it. As the system is you appear not to delete, then get in a huge froth about it, and then get heavy with the person that posted. In my case I had no particular desire to be defamatory. I wanted to warn people about an ‘agency’ that I had found unsatisfactory. See the EPUK blog ‘Trouble in Tinytown’ for a message I posted before Xmas on the same topic and assume was not considered defamatory.
Ian Murray

Comment #7 posted by Ian Murray at 16 February, 07:56 PM

At the specific behest of Ian Murray and the moderators of EPUK I have been asked to put the record straight in this matter. When the posts that are being referred to were made I was in hospital, (having a hip replacement), so I only became aware of the various exchanges on my return home.

In my absence Ian made a post on EPUK, which many including the EPUK moderators were unhappy with, as it was defamatory to a third party. The situation was compounded according to posts on the list as a party/parties unknown sent the post direct to the third party.

As I understand it, the moderators asked Ian to retract his comments. For whatever reason as I understand it, he didn’t and instead resigned from the list.

I had a brief exchange of correspondence with Ian (post hospital) and advised him that in my opinion he had not acted sensibly, and had made an error of judgement. Ian Murray subsequently quoted selective parts of my private personal correspondence with him, without my permission and used it as an argument to justify his particular stance in an argument in several forums including the EPUK blog. In addition, although he didn’t name me, he described me, (the source of his selected comments), as being a spokesperson for EPUK. Ian had no justification for this statement, and I have never told him, or given him the reason to think that I was part of the EPUK structure.

Ian has subsequently apologised to me for quoting me out of turn without permission and for saying that I represented EPUK.

I firmly believe that Ian acted unwisely in making the comments on EPUK and have told him this. My knowledge of the incident that Ian Murray precipitated on EPUK comes solely from the posts he made, and the subsequent posts made on the EPUK website by the moderators and other posters. Any thoughts or comments or assumptions about the situation I have made, have come from this and my own thoughts. I have no idea exactly what happened outside of the list or what the moderators thought, were subject to, or felt that they had to do. Any speculations I had were private ones and should have not been made public in the way that they have been.

I am thoroughly embarrassed by this whole affair, and in the way a colleague has misrepresented me. I offer my apologies to all I have inadvertently offended.

I really do hope that Ian, EPUK and everyone (including myself) can now put this matter behind us.

Kind regards

Pete J

Comment #8 posted by Pete Jenkins at 16 February, 08:58 PM

* Comment deleted due to potentially libellous content regarding a third party - EPUK Website Editor *

Comment #9 posted by Ian Murray at 16 February, 10:31 PM

* Comment deleted due to content taken from the confidential EPUK discussion list - EPUK Website Editor *

Comment #10 posted by Ian Murray at 16 February, 10:43 PM

I have no intention of entering a bickering contest, my boredom threshold is far to low for me to ever win one, so I really don’t want to comment further, I have said my bit. I was only concerned with my own words being used out of place, and without my permission – that has now been sorted to my satisfaction.

Personally, I would much rather we move onto something more interesting instead.

Kind regards

Pete Jenkins

Comment #11 posted by Pete Jenkins at 16 February, 10:55 PM

@Ian Murray:
“Why not simply delete posts that your Mods consider defamatory rather than having a to and fro discussion about it. “

Because neither moderators nor anyone can delete or recall emails once sent. Asking for an apology to retract the earlier mail is the ONLY way we can deal with problematic postings.

That’s why EPUK, like every other forum and list on the net, has a rule against posting abusive or defamatory messages.

Comment #12 posted by Tony Sleep, EPUK Moderator at 17 February, 02:21 AM

if you guys spent less time arguing and more time taking pics, maybe you would all make some more money!

Comment #13 posted by anon, dont want to be embroiled ,sorry at 17 February, 06:20 AM

I had too much wine last night and got carried away. I would be grateful if my after 11pm posts could be removed. They were intended for another audience.

Comment #14 posted by Ian Murray at 17 February, 08:24 AM

I agree. You are right. I got myself worked up and tipsy last night. I was so angry and a bit out of control.I therefore want to make it 100% clear that all my posts timed after 11pm were clouded by poor judgement and factual errors which I regret and aplogise for. This is not the place for my drunken rants and I have overstepped the mark ( yet again). I am extremely grateful to Tomy Sleep and Pete Jenkins for their fairness and courage. I apologise for wasting everybody’s time and stirring up so much muddy water. Its true that I had a bad experience with Fotolibra but it is completely unfair of me to blast off like this in a public forum and I retract all of my words. I was completely wrong in what I said and I regret it. This will be my last post on this or any internet list or forum for a very long time. I am feeling ashamed of myself and it is time to get out and take photos not bicker, squabble and throw mud around on the computer screen. I would also like to apologise personally to David Hoffman, Jeremey Nichol and Gwyn Hedley of Fotolibra. I hope that this complete and thorough retraction and apology for all my words after 11pm will be understood and accepted by all. Nobody has put me under any pressure to say any of this. I have requested that my posts after 11pm be removed. I’m off.

Comment #15 posted by Ian Murray at 17 February, 08:55 AM

That’s a nice thrashing. Let’s hope, in this case, that all publicity is good publicity. I think people who give Black Star Rising an occasional look — rather than a gratuitous bashing — will be rewarded. Lots of content from a growing list of contributors, including a growing number of the photographers of which you speak. All in their own voices. There’s no agenda to “spin” here, I’m afraid. In time, we hope you might come around to notice this.

Comment #16 posted by scott at 18 February, 09:52 PM

Add your comments here:
(Your email will not appear on your comment, but we cannot accept your comment without one. We won't give your email address to anyone else)
(You don't need to enter your website address, but if you do, your post will link to it)

EPUK reserves the right to edit or delete posts which the moderators feel are irrelevant, offensive, libelous, untrue or just plain nutty; and in extreme cases, to ban those who make them.


sqweegee byline