Condé Nast Grabs More Rights With Contract Push

Condé Nast, long known for publishing magazines that pay freelancers more in prestige than actual dollars, has tightened its grip even further on photographer's rights.

The publishing giant is now telling photographers they can't work for any of its nearly 20 magazines unless they sign a contract that places broad resale restrictions on their images. The move effectively paves the way for Condé Nast to illustrate its foreign-language editions by paying only nominal fees to photographers.

Previously, photographers and their agents have been able to avoid Condé Nast's draconian terms?and profit from the resale of their images?by, as one rep termed it, "dancing around" the contract. Now photo editors have been told not to give assignments to any photographers who haven't agreed to the terms by January 1, 2005.

Issued by Condé Nast's legal department in New York, the contract serves as a blanket agreement covering all Condé Nast magazines, including GQ, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Condé Nast Traveler, Wired, Glamour, Gourmet, Lucky and Cargo, among others.

At issue are provisions that restrict resale and eliminate any future revenue photographers could get from reprints. Although the broad strokes of the contract are not likely to be revised, more than one photographer and agent who shared the contract with PDN say the company is willing to amend or strike certain provisions.

"There are certain things corporate is not willing to accept, such as crossing out the reuse provision," says one Condé Nast photo editor who asked not to be identified. "There are ways to work around it. It's all about your relationship with the [photo editor]."

If a photographer is valuable enough to a magazine, odds are the photo editor will help to facilitate changes, the photo editor said. (It is widely believed that top-tier photographers have separate agreements, with friendlier terms.)

The clause stipulating that photographers seek permission from Condé Nast before marketing their images for commercial uses appears to be negotiable. Although the original wording is all-inclusive, some photographers have won an amendment to this provision so that it pertains only to works published on magazine covers.

The exclusivity clause gives Condé Nast first publication rights that remain "in effect for all unpublished works until such time as Condé Nast publishes them." Some photographers have challenged the scope of that provision, while others have asked to include language allowing photographers rights to use their images for the purpose of self-promotion.

Condé Nast also has appeared willing to strike a provision assigning the publisher copyright interest in the works in Australia and New Zealand.

So far it's unclear how many photographers have signed the contract. One Condé Nast photo editor who spoke to PDN on condition of anonymity said of all that magazine's contributors, only ten had not signed, and of those ten, the magazine could afford to sever ties with all but three or four.

"It's not a long list," the photo editor says. "At some point, you have to realize the market is flooded [with photographers]. Where you won't sign, someone else will."

One Condé Nast contributor who has refused to sign the contract says it's a losing proposition for photographers at a time when they're being squeezed at every turn.

"I would totally lose money on this deal. It's ridiculous," says the photographer. "It's starting to cost me money to shoot for them."

A spokesperson for the publisher declined to comment, saying company policy prohibits discussion of contract matters.