Should I let a publisher use one of my photos for free?
A publisher wants to use one of my flickr photos in an upcoming book. It's an image of a Scientology tent I saw in London a couple of years ago. The publishers emailed to ask permission to print it, and in return I'd get a free copy of the book. I've had two similar requests before, and I gave permission to both. But this time I don't know what to do.
I know there's a school of thought amongst photographers that this is taking away their livelihood. This argument generally applies to microstock websites, which have enormous image databases of every subject imaginable, and sell non-exclusive rights very cheaply. Some photographers claim microstock loses them business, as clients who would previously have commissioned specific shots can now get generic images for a fraction of the price.
But this isn't a microstock shot, and I can't imagine the publisher would have paid someone to go out and photograph a Scientology tent. Also, and I'm sorry if this sounds callous, I'm really not bothered about the death of old-and-busted business models. Times change. If someone wants a specific photo taken, they'll still need a photographer. I don't see that microstock is malicious or unfair to anybody, and there are approx. a million photographic career paths that aren't affected by microstock. So I'm happy to reject that argument.
I guess I'm confused by the economic rights and wrongs. I mean, the photo was a quick snapshot into which I put no effort or work. But they clearly see some value in it, and I'm sure some would say it's fair they pay me1 if they're going to make money off it. But thats somewhat mercenary. I can see the logic, and I don't mind anyone else taking such a position, but I don't see the moral duty to do so. I'm not going to get paid either way, and if it adds something to their book, what's the harm? Like I said, I put no work into the picture, and I don't see that it took any great learned skill to produce, so why shouldn't I let them use it? I wouldn't be losing out, as far as I can see. But maybe if I said no, they'd go pay someone else, so saying yes would be unfair on them. But that's just stupid. Argh.
Also, they say it's a book about a Scientologist of 22 years who's now left the 'religion', so it sounds like an expose of some sort. If this is the case, great - I'm happy to help the anti-Scientologist cause. But what if it's not? What if it's actually pro-Scientology? I don't want to help evil cults in the slightest.
There's also no current mention of the photo being credited to me, which was the case in the other two books. Hmmm.
Anybody have a strong opinion either way?
- which I'm sure they wouldn't, but that's irrelevant atm [↩]
Scientology on tomorrow night’s Panorama
Panorama are tomorrow night broadcasting an investigation into the 'church' of Scientology. The 'church''s response has been to post a youtube clip of the show's reporter, John Sweeney, 'losing it' during an interview. It's not pleasant to watch. He shouts at a clearly hostile representative of the 'church' in a rather undignified way. If anybody were to get the impression from this that the reporter is biased and his investigation flawed, it's a shame. I actually don't think the clip reflects all that badly upon the reporter: it's unprofessional, but he only lost his temper and shouted. That's it. He wasn't abusive or violent, and as breaches of reporter's conduct go, it's fairly minor.
Publishing such a clip is a pretty pathetic way to rebut claims you're a brainwashing cult, if you ask me. I'm hoping this week's papers will be full of articles detailing the problems surrounding Scientology, but you don't need much more than this: imagine the concept of a religion that grants knowledge on the basis of money received. It's like Christianity refusing to tell you of the resurrection until you'd paid hundreds of thousands of pounds. Most people would immediately agree that this is clearly a con. It's obvious, and was brilliantly mocked by South Park a couple of years ago. When eventually you do reach the upper tiers, you get this:
[...]75 million years ago, an evil galactic warlord named Xenu controlled seventy-six planets in this corner of the galaxy, each of which was severely overpopulated. To solve this problem, Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion beings and then flew them to Earth, where they were dumped into volcanoes around the globe and vaporized with bombs. This scattered their radioactive souls, or thetans, until they were caught in electronic traps set up around the atmosphere and "implanted" with a number of false ideas -- including the concepts of God, Christ and organized religion. Scientologists later learn that many of these entities attached themselves to human beings, where they remain to this day, creating not just the root of all of our emotional and physical problems but the root of all problems of the modern world.
Levels higher than this apparently allow the acquisition of superpowers. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. This is all from L. Ron Hubbard, a man who once said "[t]he way to make a million dollars is to start a religion".
If the interview clip encourages more people to watch the show, it's definitely worth it. Scientology is revolting, and spreading the word can only help. Having read up on the 'religion', I find it an utterly repulsive organisation. I can completely understand how a decent person could be so upset by an investigation into Scientology that they would lose perspective in this way. Rolling Stone's 2006 article on Scientology is the best piece I've read on the subject. Scientology-lies.com goes much further, appearing to back up its disturbing claims with links to court records. It is difficult to get any impression other than that Scientology is a cult engaged in despicable practices that border on abuse.
Scientology isn't violent, nor is it an imminent threat to society. But it's a sinister, creeping organisation who've cowed the US media via litigation. It turns people against their families, and treats those who would leave as the worst kind of scum. Its pseudoscientific teachings say psychiatry is evil, and it uses massive movie stars to dupe the young. There was a Scientology tent at the Cavalcade festival of 2006, and genuinely interested people were being given 'stress tests' and flogged copies of Dianetics. I don't blame John Sweeney for losing it, especially when you hear of the kind of harassment he and his family suffered after he began his investigation. The further the word is spread the better.
Researching photographers, and 24 Hours of Flickr
I'm trying to get an overview of contemporary photographers in (hopeful - I haven't heard anything yet) preparation for the degree interview. It's slow going as I'm easily distracted by the beauty of people's online portfolios. I think I might have mentioned George Lange before, but it's worth repeating: his 2006 flipbook has had me poring over portrait photography articles all year. Then there's Dave Hill, whose stylish and immediately recognisable images twist the definition of 'photograph'. The always cool Annie Liebovitz recently photographed the Queen, and the resulting image was unveiled today. It's oddly rare to find a photo going for grandeur rather than 'the real person behind the throne'.
It's only a couple of days until 24 Hours of Flickr:
On May 5, 2007, grab your camera and whatever else you need, and chronicle your day in pictures. The group's photos will be featured at Flickr events around the world this summer and in a companion book, which will contain a selection of photographs chosen from the group
Sounds like fun! I'll be taking part. Thankfully Friday should be slightly more visually interesting than normal, as I'll be heading down to London in the evening.1. On Saturday I'll be at the Cavalcade boat show at Little Venice, which has been promoted using some photos I took at last year's event. I'm promised that this year will be completely Scientology-free, after I and apparently many others complained bitterly. They're all busy, anyway. Vultures.
Finally, Damien has some excellent link fodder and great wedding photography tips over at the always interesting Wedding Photography Blog. The 'get in close' advice is particularly relevant to me: I find myself cropping almost every photo I take, but forcing myself to close in while 'in the field' is surprisingly difficult.
- edited due to muppetry [↩]
MI:III Publicity
From a BBC News article regarding MI:III...
Paramount head of worldwide marketing and distribution Rob Moore said he did not think Cruise's private life had any impact on the film's box office performance.
"I don't think so," he said. "There's no question it concerns us if the press is writing about things other than the movie.
"If people are writing about his personal life, then by definition, they're not writing about the movie."
Does that make no sense at all, or is it just me?
A few people are refusing to see the film (even though they want to) because of Tom Cruise being a crazy man. I'm not going that far - it seems somewhat unfair to the hundreds of other people involved - although he is hard to watch without remembering his being stuck in a closet.
May Day
I've been a little down recently and wasn't particularly looking forward to the bank holiday weekend. My ex was around and I could see myself staying in for three days - again. Happily, it didn't work out that way.
First of all, Ben came up from Oxford on Saturday. Among other things, we managed to convert the washing-machine-shaped table I've had for two months into a fully plumbed-in cleaning applicance, which is excellent. In return I introduced him to the comedic wonders that are Green Wing and Team America: World Police 
Mum phoned me on Sunday morning to ask if I was going with her to the Cavalcade festival in Little Venice - the canal basins of Paddington. My initial reaction was somewhere between 'no' and 'I'm asleep', but she talked me into it. Dad was already there on our narrowboat, so we joined him at lunchtime and stayed until Monday evening.
Cavalcade's a free canal festival that's open to both boaters and the public. There are plenty of stalls set out along the towpath, with a surprising number of organised events. I ate this:
but not these:
saw a human fruit machine:
and watched the parade of illuminated boats:
I've many more photos; I'll try to put them onto Flickr tomorrow.
I've been to a fair few boat festivals, and they have a definite charm. Cavalcade was pleasant enough, but I felt it was slightly marred by some of the stalls. There was a Scientology tent offering 'free stress tests' (likely quick e-meter readings) and trying to flog as many copies of Dianetics as possible. I don't think this is ok; Scientology's actually rather unpleasant and demands large amounts of money from people it hooks in with the standard religious promises of answers/happiness/meaning. Their stall was purely for the purpose of ensnaring the unsuspecting public, and it proved surprisingly popular1. I also thought that the stalls selling magnetic therapies bordered on the offensive; 'miracle health cures' and car-engine efficiency-increasing magical magnetic doohickeys are stupid enough, but displaying scaremongering newspaper articles regarding mobile phone emissions and children's health (that are, incidentally, completely unfounded) and then trying to peddle ridiculous magnetic 'cures' is despicable, and I'd implore the organisers to take a stand against it.
Apart from the above irritation, however, I had a fun time There's a decent blog roundup here (update: updated with link to this year's festival - oops ).
Overall, the May-day bank holiday was far superior to Easter!
- see this recent Rolling Stone article for a complete debunking of L. Ron Hubbard's cult [↩]
New York Revelation
Call me twisted, but I'd been following the whole South Park / Scientology thing for a few days before I went to the US and was finding it pretty funny. Isaac Hayes, just like Tom Cruise and countless other 'nutjobs', seemed to have been brainwashed, and everybody was making fun of him - entirely deservedly, in my view. I checked out some newspapers when I arrived in New York and found surprisingly little mention of the whole thing. When I saw the Scientology building just off Times Square I couldn't resist going inside. I figured I could get some of their literature and make fun of it on the blog, or something.
Right away, I was surprised at the opulence of the building. The floor is marble and there's pink lighting that makes your hands look rather odd. I looked around for leaflets, but immediately came face to face with a woman who looked to be in her late thirties. Gill (with a G, as she pointed out straight away) welcomed me in and asked if I'd like to watch a video on 'Dianetics'. I felt kinda bad at this point. I'd come in to make fun of people like her, and, not knowing how to get out of it, I said yes. I was shown into a small theatre (just me) where I saw a fifteen minute show. At first it just seemed stupid. There were all these people talking about how scientology and dianetics had changed their lives. Then came the people who claimed it had cured them of disease. This was fascinating to me. They certainly seemed genuine enough, and honestly believed that their cancer had been cured. Obviously I was skeptical, and when the lights raised I said this to the 'greeter' who had appeared in the row behind me. Her name was Julie, and after moving to a different room she asked if I had any questions. I certainly did, but first she questioned me.
Am I happy in life? Am I living up to my potential? Where do I see myself in ten years time? I answered as best I could, and after a while realised that I was actually enjoying myself. Julie was in her late twenties and very pretty, which probably helped, but it was very easy to relax in her presence. After a while I started asking questions, and her answers were surprisingly good. The power of self-belief, it seems, when coupled with the basic theories of dianetics, has been shown to have measurable effects in curing disease. This sounded great. It makes sense from a scientific point of view, but apparently mainstream science has refused to acknowledge the results, thinking that anything associated with scientology is inherently ridiculous. I can certainly believe that's possible. All the while she was subtly suggesting that I take an introductory course.
Picking up on the sales talk meant I was a bit reluctant at first, but finally I agreed to sign up to the $100 starter kit. This included a copy of "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", by L. Ron Hubbard, as well as three CDs and two exercise books to 'work through at home'. She then gave me a hug (scared the hell out of me, to tell the truth) and took me to reception where I paid. I was very nervous on the walk back to the hotel. Had I just done something totally stupid? $100 is a lot.
Turns out that I hadn't at all. I barely slept that night for reading through the book. It's just brilliant. It's hard to explain, but if you read it you'll realise how it feels. The feelings he describes just make sense in the world, and the explanations too. First thing Sunday morning I was back, and shown into a small lecture room on the second floor (again, just me) where a small man named Eric told me all about how my life's problems could be fixed in one fell swoop. I knew this was exaggeration - the book says that it can take many 'auditing' sessions before I'm cured - but I began to get quite excited. It's just what I've been looking for. Certainly better than any other kinds of therapy!
Obviously the psychiatric profession have a high opinion of themselves, but what else would you expect? It's ridiculous to think that you can cure the ills of mankind through just talking. Just stop and think about the dianetics techniques of purifying the body through saunas - the "purif"- as well as the 'auditing' methods. Doesn't that say something to you? Doesn't that make far more sense when you actually stop and think about it? It's all explained in the book.
Some of you are probably thinking that I'm a hypocrite, and you'd be correct. I spent years thinking that the scientific community knew it all, and I was wrong. I'm happy to admit that. I know of the claims that the higher levels of Scientology introduce the topics of aliens and volcanoes and other ridiculous notions, but I'm pretty sure that's not true. It just doesn't fit with what I've seen and heard. I'm so glad I decided to go to New York, and to walk into that building.
Since that weekend my life has really changed. I won't bore you with the rest of the details, but it turns out that there's a Church of Scientology in Birmingham, and I've signed up for the 'Life Repair' course. This is just under £3000, but it'll help tremendously. Who knows, in five years time maybe I'll be an OT III, and get to find out the actual secrets of the universe! I implore you to ignore the reputation of Scientology, and to investigate with an open-mind.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
