L&L defends pic editor over cover kerfuffle
Despite admitting it was “a bit unfortunate”, NZ Life and Leisure editor Kate Coughlan stands by the “impeccable” reputation of Fairfax pictures editor, Sybille Hetet.
“We went through the right channels and presumed this was cleared. We have strict processes for use of photos.”
L&L was pilloried by ACP’s Paul Dykzeul for running the same image on this month’s L&L as was on the February 2008 cover of KiaOra, Air New Zealand’s magazine, produced under contract by ACP.
Ms Hetet, who sourced the image in question from Photo New Zealand, is on holiday in Germany for a month.
Director of Photo NZ, Rob Lile, is keeping mum, after he posted two heated comments on StopPress. Lile holds up his company’s reputation, also saying it follows “strict” procedures. Lile says an investigation is taking place between Photo NZ and Fairfax, but until Hetet gets back from her European break, the discussion is officially out of the public arena.
Coughlan remains unruffled but perhaps slightly regretful that “it was the first time ever we had not done our own cover.”
L&L chose the shot by Becky Nunes because it encapsulated the feeling and colours they wanted to portray on their cover. Nunes is a regular contributor to the magazine in any case. To commission another photographer to create a similar shot was not compatible with budget and time restraints. And even though Coughlan sees every issue of KiaOra, the penny didn’t drop.
Coughlan is more intrigued about the reproduction of the image. “When you put it on 300gsm quality – you’ve got something,” she says, referring to KiaOra’s thinner cover stock. And no, it wasn’t manipulated (as ACP’s Dykzeul suggested). “My readers are the only ones that matter and they will react to the image as part of L&L. It is an entirely appropriate image for us.”
She agrees there needs to be more controls in the industry on the “provenance of photos and the use of them”.
If Hetet runs into the Black Forest, we don’t blame her. Our post on the cover confusion induced a tidal wave of comments – some hilarious and some outright catty.
As magazine publishers ourselves we feel Fairfax’s pain. Lord knows it can happen to the best of us – and Kate is the best, for sure.
Adrian Clapperton
September 3, 2009
Pictures editor? How do I go about getting one of those? Vince?
David Wall
September 4, 2009
Even with millions of images on line, it’s amazing how often identical images are used by competitors – here’s just a few
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116467838729434053-j1YX6tWZ7hTQ_MqzLcRfX2utcSE_20071127.html?mod=rss_free
http://www.gadgetell.com/tech/comment/asus-msi-caught-advertising-with-already-used-stock-images/
http://www.engadget.com/2004/07/28/what-stock-footage-dell-and-gateway-send-same-girl-back-to/
And then there was Labour’s fake Kiwi Family
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10515612
And in an earlier election I think ACT used a cheap royalty free image of New Zealand scenery – taken in Canada.
Emma Williams
September 4, 2009
This issue more commonly occurs when a royalty free or microstock image is used as there is no way for clients to work out if a competitor is using the same image. Editorial clients here usually rely on the library to alert them to any potential conflicts. But obviously, even with rights managed images mistakes happen. This is a probably a very good opportunity for our industry to collectively review our processes and learn from this I think.
Becky Nunes
September 4, 2009
As the author of the work in question, and after reading with interest (and some dismay!) the posts on this site, I’d like to make the following comment:
We live in a visual age, where images are the key compelling factor in any communication to the public. It remains a sad truth that publishers across all media remain unwilling to value said images sufficiently highly.
If an image is deemed strong enough to represent the publication’s masthead and editorial direction then the purchase of an exclusive license to use it would surely be money well spent.
David Wall
September 4, 2009
I think Kate Coughlan hits on an important issue – that there needs to be more control of the use of images within the industry.
Full control has always been available with exclusive licences, but the trend has been away from this, towards cheaper licencing models, many of which are a free-for-all, with zero control.
With royalty free licences, you not only risk someone accidentally copying your publication or ad by mistake – they can do it deliberately.
WIth traditional rights-managed, you can get an exclusive or intdustry exclusive licence, or at least check out if there are any previous conflicting uses.
Someone said it earlier – you get what you pay for. This not only applies to types of licences, but also the quality of images.
Never before have there been so many top quality images available.
Never before have publications used so many low quality ones.
Steven Braun
September 6, 2009
I couldn’t agree more David. You’ve summed it up perfectly. Not only did L&L at Fairfax get what they paid for, they got what their competitor had already paid for a year or so earlier. The ultimate irony is that the somewhat reactive (as we have witnessed) Mr Lile from Photo New Zealand has for the past few years been raving on very publicly about the virtues of Photo New Zealand’s so called “rights managed” images and systems while at the same time slagging off his competitors. It is now apparent that this was mere hollow rhetoric and that Photo NZ has a major credibility problem on its hands. Hopefully they will have a good “wrongs” management department to help them get it all sorted.
David Wall
September 7, 2009
I don’t know what the story is on the L & L cover Steven, so I was speaking generally rather than about that specific case.
Our clients range from those wanting fully exclusive use, to those who deliberately choose an image that has already been published a lot, because it has become iconic.
The point is that Rights Managed images can provide a whole range of licences (and image history)to suit a clients needs, while the alternatives are an uncontrolled free-for-all.
habadashry
September 8, 2009
So the question still remains -how much did the kid get paid?
Vincent Heeringa
September 8, 2009
I know this is sounding harsh but who cares? The child would have been thrilled to be in the photo. She has a terrific shot in her portfolio (well done Becky by the way) and everyone is happy.
Talent only starts to get greedy about an image after it gets sold. The photographer and library have worn most of the cost and the risk.
David Wall
September 9, 2009
It’s pretty difficult to photograph kids these days without full model releases, payment etc, unless you photograph your own.
In which case the payment deal for free everything for 18 years totals about $200,000
habadashry
September 9, 2009
I care Vincent, because I think it still brings up an interesting debate that I mentioned before, about child rights in this country. How will the girl feel when she is old enough to know she was on the front cover of KiaOra and Life and Lesiure (to name a few) and actually doesn’t like the fact. This is not a dig at PhotoNZ or the Publishers. It’s a question for parents.Thanks David for your info,
Robert Catto
September 15, 2009
Re: the girl on the cover / habadashry’s question – realistically, the girl’s issue would be with her parents who agreed to it, signed the release and spent (or invested, for her education!) any money received.
But why wouldn’t she necessarily like the fact? Any number of successful actors / models, and even photographers got their starts in just this way…she might just cherish the memory of the shoot and the resulting covers, and be able to show her own kids one day! (Not to mention her agent…)