Never ascribe to incompetence what can be explained by sheer stupidity

Earlier today, a contact of mine pointed me towards a web page offering advice to people looking to start a career in photography - it can be found at Smarta.com - How to become a freelance photographer

I've been freelancing with modest success for just over ten years now, so I'm qualified by experience to know whether the advice that Smarta are offering up is sound and, surprisingly, most of it is - there's mention of the need to be organised, the essentials of marketing and working within budgetary constraints... but then the whole thing comes crashing down with the following nugget

"Work for free

Everyone loves free stuff. They especially love it if it’s something they need. When you’re starting out, offer examples of what you can shoot to show off what you’re doing. If you hear about a job you think you could never land, ask to do it for free. You’ll be amazed at the doors it opens."

Ordinarily I'd just roll my eyes and move on - except, in this instance, Smarta.com is one of the delivery partners for the Start Up Loans Company, who are "a government funded scheme to provide advice, business loans and mentoring to startup businesses" (blurb taken from the SULC website)

Worse still, Smarta.com is owned by Shaa Wasmund, who was recently given an MBE for Services to Business and Entrepreneurship in the 2015 New Years Honours List.

Let's allow those two facts to sink in for a second.

A company that administers government backed loans to small businesses, owned by an MBE, is advocating that startups in the creative industries (photography, in this instance) should work for free.

Setting aside the obvious question of "how the hell is a photography start-up going to pay back their taxpayer funded loan if they're advised to not charge clients for work done?", let's look at how the concept of working for free - or ridiculously cheap - is plainly absurd and insulting when applied to any other business, thanks to this video by production company Scofield Editorial

Author Harlan Ellison has a more acerbic and biting take on why "free" should not be a choice for creatives of any type (contains language not safe for work - you've been warned)

Finally, to remove any last vestiges of doubt, illustrator Jessica Hische has compiled a flowchart that starts with the question "Should I Work for Free?" which allows you to find your own way to the relevant answer (hint: it's usually No)

On that note, I think it would be safe to say that no-one at Smarta.com or the Start-Up Loans Company is working for free; I'm pretty sure that Shaa Wasmund asks for more than a byline credit whenever she's asked to put in a few hours for a client.... and I think every UK taxpayer knows that no-one in the Department for Business Innovation & Skills goes more than a month without drawing down a healthy salary funded via the public purse.

So, why the disrespect for creative professionals?

That's what it comes down to in the end. When we're not fighting against instances of our work being stolen - sometimes by those in government / politics - then those very same people are advising us (directly or otherwise) that we should consider working for free.

Frankly, it's beyond insulting. I can't find words adequate enough to convey my sheer disappointment that such irresponsible and offensive advice is being peddled to those who are considering a career in any creative art - which is all the more confusing since, just over a year ago, the UK government published statistics to show that creative industries were responsible for £8 Million per hour to the economy - or £71.4 Billion per year.

Perhaps the businesses that contributed all those pennies need to rethink and follow the advice pushed by Smarta.com et al instead; I'm sure it would be for the best, right?

The upside-down Politics of a Copyright Infringement

Copyrights, intellectual property and their place in the "digital age" are always a hot-button topic for businesses, the public and - when it holds the potential to influence the electorate - politicians too.

Whether you're of the opinion that the laws in place wherever you live are too lax, overly strong or simply not up-to-date, you can be sure that there are echoes of your sentiments somewhere within the annals of power,

Copyright, trademark and patent laws exist on the books of almost all nations or states, and there are also over-arching treaties governed by organisations like WIPO - such as the Berne Convention - which mean the rights of an author / creator on one side of the world are equally applicable - and enforceable - in some far distant land.

Thus it is with a little surprise, and a considerable amount of disappointment, that I happened to discover that one of my photographs had recently been appropriated and used by the Liberal Party of Australia, as part of material for their campaign in the run-up to state elections in Victoria in late November of 2014.

I was first alerted to this matter when a friend living on the outskirts of Melbourne thought she had spotted one of my pictures on television. Knowing full well that I hadn't had any requests to use any of my work in Australia for quite some time, I asked her if it would be possible to keep an eye out for the same advert again and, if she could, grab a picture on her phone.

This is what she managed to send to me.

Without a shadow of a doubt, it was clear that it was one of my own photographs - a rather infamous one of mixed martial arts athlete Joe "Daddy" Stevenson, following his loss to BJ Penn after their lightweight title fight at UFC 80 inside Metro Radio Arena in Newcastle, England on January 19 of 2008. Here's the full frame that I shot on that evening.

Joe Stevenson (c) Martin McNeil, All Rights Reserved

The first thing you'll notice is that Stevenson is facing the opposite direction in image per the television screen grab, but it's unquestionably the same shot which has merely been mirrored (flipped) during the editing process. Mirroring my own shot and then placing both pictures side-by-side using Photoshop shows that they are one and the same - no other photographer had my vantage point or captured a remotely similar picture on that evening.

My frame (top) and a close-up of the screen capture (bottom)

At this juncture, I didn't know the full extent or nature of the use, but one thing was quite clear; no-one from the Liberal Party of Australia, much less anyone claiming to be acting on their behalf, had contacted me to seek even the most basic permission to use the shot.

What followed next took a bit of time and digging around on account of the way internet search engines index content - particularly photographs. It may take weeks or months before search tools such as Google, TinEye and other similar applications are able to crawl, catalogue and point towards relevant content, and this was certainly the case here.

As it turns out, the Liberal Party hadn't just used the picture in a network television broadcast; it had also been posted to the social media accounts relating to the Victoria branch as well; here are two URLs which, at the time of typing, are still quite live

https://www.facebook.com/liberalvictoria/photos/a.530431917008142.1073741825.185917314792939/839102422807755/?type=1

https://twitter.com/LiberalVictoria/status/537784144386748416

You'll notice that their use on Facebook attracted 1,489 "likes", 849 "shares" and in excess of 2,000 comments. That's a significant amount of reach and impact. Over on Twitter, the use garnered 32 "retweets" and 18 "favourites"

The last remaining question was as to the extent of use of the photograph when broadcast - which took the most digging of all. Whilst I do not know on how many stations it aired, nor how many times it was repeated, I did find out that the advert had created quite a stir in both political and sports reporting circles, which eventually led me to find a copy of the advert itself - as aired - at the following link

http://mmakanvas.ninemsn.com.au/video/773/liberal-victoria-campaigns-against-cage-fighting.html

The ElectionWatch site in Australia referenced and linked to the video (as at this page, though you may have to scroll down a bit), linking directly to the YouTube account operated by the Liberal Party though, curiously, it is no longer viewable as the permissions of it have been set to private.

Regardless of this small hurdle, my discovery of a copy of the video helped to track down the person who might be said to be most directly responsible for the issue at hand: during the closing seconds, there is a notice saying that it was "Authorised by D. Mantach, Liberal Party Victorian Division" and thus unambiguously the official product of their party political apparatus. D. Mantach turns out to be Damien Mantach, whom has been the State Director for the Liberal Party in Australia since 2011.

The Australia Copyright Act (1968) has exceptions for what is called Fair Dealing (more commonly known as Fair Use in many countries which have such exceptions); I've researched the text of the act, and the manner and means in which the Liberal Party made use of my work is not covered by the very narrow language of the exceptions therein.

So, what to do?

Well, I sent an email to several key people within the Liberal Party, laying out my claims and asking that they reply to me on or before February 28, 2015; the message was sent to

• Senator George Brandis, QC - the Attorney General for Australia, Minister for the Arts and also deputy leader of the Government in the Australian Senate... and a Liberal Party member.

• Bruce Billson MP - Minister for Small Business, Member for Dunkly (Victoria) and also a Liberal Party member.

• Damien Mantach - as referenced above, via the email address as published here (not in the least because his name is also at the very foot of that page)

• The Liberal Party of Australia - via the email address as published here

As of the time of publishing this post, I have only had an automatic response email from Bruce Billson MP, indicating that my message had been received; I've had no other word from anybody from or claiming association with the Liberal Party.

Politicians, when spouting rhetoric on matters of law and justice, are often quite fond of saying that no-one is above the law, and that we are all equal before it. Scarcely over a year ago, George Brandis QC spoke to the Australian Digital Alliance Forum about planned crack-downs on copyright infringement.

I'm still waiting on word back from Brandis - and others - as to how they will address their own party's infringement of my copyrights and, whilst I'm hoping that this situation will get resolved as quickly and cordially as possible; perhaps if this post gets shared across social media and in the press in a similar extent to the way the Liberal Party used my photograph, they might deign to actually reply to me.

Photography, copyrights and imperfect analogies

UPDATED March 2, 2013.

In the business side of photography, you occasionally run into instances where, no matter how simple you try to explain an issue, some folk put 2 + 2 together and come up with 22.

One of the most contentious issues that I often run into is copyright. I mean, let's face it - unless you work in a creative field where what you do is directly (or indirectly) related to media or works of art... well, you're not likely to know much about the legal ins and outs of it.

Of course the internet age has made copying as simple as a few clicks of a mouse - not to mention that a wealth of misinformation and opinion flies around about what you can and can't do with media that exists online, coupled with laws that may vary at national level.

Still some simple truths apply almost universally, thanks to the Berne Convention

• Copyright in a work is automatic and comes into being the moment a work is created
• Formal registration of a work is not required for it to be protected by copyright laws
• The creator of a work is almost always the copyright holder

There can be some exceptions to that last point: if you're an employee of a company and your job is to create works, your employer will hold the copyright. Also, if you're self-employed and asked to create a work for someone else, they might request to have copyright assigned to them via a contract - which the creator may or may not agree to do. The broad term for both arrangements is work for hire

Getting back on track: how do people go about using copyright works and stay within the bounds of the law?

Licensing.

It's not that alien a concept really. There are many aspects of our lives which require us to pay licenses in order to do things - such as drive a car, watch television (in the UK at least), fish in a particular river or countless other things that mean we have to pay a sum of money so as to obtain permission to do something.

When it comes to photography, someone wishing to use an image in print or online must obtain the permission of the copyright holder and possibly also pay a license fee to do so. Yeah, I know some photographers don't ask for payment but hey, how they pay their mortgages is their problem and frankly that would be a whole other topic of conversation.

Now we come to the tricky part: how to work out what to charge. You might as well ask how long is a piece of string, as this will vary from person to person. Luckily there are guidelines out there for people to use if they're unsure - the National Union of Journalists publishes a Freelance Fees Guide for anyone to see and use. There's also software such as FotoQuote which many of my peers swear by.

For the sake of brevity, here's a screen capture from Getty Images pricing system showing a picture that I took of Alex Reid back in 2010. Don't worry - I gave myself permission to use the picture here. (click the image for a clear, full size view)

You'll see some of the variables that are used to calculate how much to charge for this particular license.

Firstly, the person wanting to use the picture is going to use it in a commercial or promotional manner on a website. They're happy with a small size file - 300 x 250 pixels - and it's going to be used more than once on their website, so they've chosen the "repeated use" option, meaning they might have it on their homepage and also somewhere else on their site.

They reckon they'll only need to use the image for one year and, since their business is solely in the United Kingdom, that's the territory chosen. The business which they're involved in falls into the "sports, fitness & leisure" sector and they don't need the picture to be exclusive to them.

From all of that, Getty's quotation system churned out a fee of £1,120. It might surprise people that a photograph can be licensed for so much but this is the reality of the photo business. Photographs can demand far higher fees than that, depending on the nature of the image.

Of course I did say earlier that some photographer might not charge for such a use at all, or ask for a lower fee than what could be deemed to be the industry average; that's their choice - the same way that you could choose to go into your office for a day and tell your boss not to pay you for the eight hour shift you're about to do... but let's not get sidetracked.

There is one other thing I want to touch on at this point; it's all well and good for the company to want a photo of Alex Reid (per this example) to use on their website - but Mr. Reid has to agree to them using it, and also has a right to be paid by them in return for his permission. This means the company has to pay both the photographer and the subject if the use is commercial or promotional.

Contrary to this, if it were a newspaper, magazine or website wanting to use the picture as part of an editorial (news) piece about (or relating to) Alex, the only person whom would be paid is the copyright holder. 

Still with me? Good. Now we come to the extra tricky part. Remember I said that the internet has made copying as easy as a few mouse clicks? Yes, well that also means that there's a massive temptation on the part of businesses and individuals alike to simply copy a photograph and use it as they like without even thinking about whether they're allowed to do so.

And it happens. 

A lot.

Now, photographers approach this issue in several different ways. Some will be happy to see their work proliferate online and get warm fuzzy feelings every time one of their pictures is used. Others may ask that their name appear on or next to the photograph a.k.a. the notorious "photo credit" (which usually only other photographers and/or their mothers look out for). Some won't even know that their pictures have been used.

The business savvy photographer, however, will know that their copyright has been breached and will almost always take steps to ensure that they get paid by the person or business using the photograph - after all, copyright laws are universal in saying that you must obtain the permission of the rights holder before you can use their work, and that the copyright holder has a right to be compensated (paid) for such uses. They also have the right to refuse a request for their work to be used.

Whilst I can't speak to what other photographers do in such instances, here's what I do.

I do my best to find out an email address or telephone number for the website that's used my work. Hopefully this information is on their website. Sometimes I may have to use a method such as a domain name "whois" search to get contact details. I prefer emails as they offer an unambiguous record of communication.

When I've done that, I attempt to make contact in a polite manner, explaining that my rights have been breached and that, as a remedy, I'll need to be paid for their use of my work. Sometimes the negotiations are quick and painless, other times they can be more laboured. In all instances, I strive to remain professional yet firm. I was brought up to believe that if you lose your temper, you lose your argument.

[Update March 2, 2013] Regrettably, my attempts at direct communication for settlement of instances where my photographs are used have - to put it mildly - mostly been rebuffed. Attempts at being cordial are simply not worth my time and effort when they are ignored, rebuffed or subject to profanity-riddled replies. As of mid February, I adopted a zero tolerance approach to infringements and started referring all cases to my attorneys.

On occasion, no amount of attempts to get in touch personally or negotiate bear fruit. This is where copyright law comes into play and usually the services of a lawyer or attorney are required. For any photographers wondering whom to turn to, I can highly recommend Carolyn Wright's firm PhotoAttorney if your dealing with a matter in the United States. For infringements in the UK, you may be best served by filing a small claims court action which can now be done using the Money Claim Online service, as long as your claim is for £5,000 or less.

A point I'd like to bring up at this time: sometimes, when you've made contact, the person whom has used your photograph may simply offer to take it off their website and, in doing so, believe that's the end of their liability. That's a bit like borrowing someone's car without asking and, when you get caught by the police, thinking that you're off the hook if you just put it back where you found it. Perhaps it's not the best analogy but you get the picture (no pun intended)

Another issue that may crop up is where the company or entity will claim that they were given the image by someone else and had that person's permission to use it and, again, they believe this means they're off the hook. Not so. The only person that can grant permission is the copyright holder, and the liability for any uses rests with the person that used the image. It's akin to your flatmate giving one of their friends the spare keys to your car and saying "yeah, it's okay - go ahead and use it". When you report it stolen, it's the person behind the wheel that gets caught and charged. 

Again, it's not a perfect analogy but should give you a broad idea of whom is held to account in such an instance - especially as, in the joyriding example, your neighbour could be charged as an accessory, whilst copyright infringement liability mostly rests with the end user of a work, (though there are provisions to tackle large scale distribution of works)

Worth a mention also are social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and so on. If you find your pictures popping up on these services, the simplest route to have them removed is to file a DMCA takedown notification. For Twitter, you can do so by using their automated service here, and Facebook has a similar provision on their page here. Most social media sites, blog hosts and other services that have individual users as the core of their business have similar provisions.

Note: filing a DMCA takedown notice does not mean that you are attempting to close the Twitter or Facebook account of the person(s) whom are using your work - all that will happen is that Twitter / Facebook staff will review your request and, as long as it's valid and in order, they'll remove your material for you.

I hope this has served as a bit of an insight into the minefield that copyrights, image licensing and protecting against infringement can be. It's a complex business but it can be distilled down to this.

If you want to use a copyright work, ask permission from the rights holder first - otherwise, don't use it.

A Forza to be reckoned with

There's nothing more entertaining than an out-and-out scrap between two MMA athletes whom prefer to let their leather-clad fists do the talking inside a cage... fighters who pay little attention to the opinion of critics and, instead, seek to test themselves in one of the most physically demanding sports of our time.

Such will be the case when Strikeforce welterweight champion Nick Diaz takes on British brawler Paul Daley on Saturday. Diaz - a native of Stockton, California - may posses the hometown advantage, but Daley is out to prove more than just his striking prowess. 

With the recent acquisition of Strikeforce by Zuffa LLC - the parent company of the Ultimate Fighting Championship - the London born knockout artist is looking to use the canvas he fights on to send a message to those whom now own the promotion.

Almost one month ago, when news broke that Zuffa were purchasing Strikeforce as a going concern, Daley made a comment on his Facebook account:

"Business as usual, what if i dont wanna fight for DANA WHITE/ZUFFA?......Dana white bans me for life from the UFC, Then buys STRIKEFORCE, and thinks im still gonna be EASY and fight on one of the most anticipated fights of the year (vs Diaz)? Which will no doubt make ZUFFA/Dana White money.

Daley vs Diaz still on?.....Someone better holla at my manager real quick."

Fast forward to recent days, and Daley has an unshakable belief that, by winning the Strikeforce welterweight strap, he will be in a position of strength when it comes to future fights. The following was said in conversation with Ariel Helwani

"...when I am the Strikeforce champion, I'll have even more bargaining power, and it will be even more of a kick to the teeth of the guys that don't like me in the organization. To negotiate before the fight would show a lack of confidence in myself, and I'm very confident I'm going to beat Nick Diaz. Once a champion, I have more power to negotiate."

It remains to be seen whether Daley's predictions will come to pass. Certainly he can't overlook the fact that Nick Diaz will be seeking to put the brakes on his ability to bargain with the newly formed Forza LLC - the legal entity that now owns Strikeforce - as incorporated by the Fertitta brothers.


Diaz' intervention notwithstanding, perhaps before entering into any negotiations with Forza - Paul should consider the words penned by rock band The Who from almost forty years ago in their (appropriately titled) song "Won't Get Fooled Again"

"Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss"

BAMMA: Barely Acceptable, Mis-managed Media Access (aka The Circus Comes to Town)

BAMMA was caught and submitted to demands of Broadcast Media,
much like Marco Santi tapped out to Simeon Thoresen, above.

On Saturday, in a departure from my usual fare, I travelled to Birmingham to photograph a night of MMA fights hosted by the relatively new UK promotion called BAMMA - (British Association of Mixed Martial Arts - if you prefer the long form)

The headlining fight on the night featured Montreal based middleweight Tom "Kong" Watson taking on Alex Reid, aka "The Reidenator."

For those of you for whom don't read or get second-hand accounts of tabloid celebrity media "news", Reid is practically a daily fixture in the glossy gossip magazines that adorn the supermarket shelves. This is largely due to his relationship with one-time glamour model Katie Price - a woman whom has courted (craved?) media attention for as long as I can remember.

After a three year hiatus from the sport of MMA, Reid's newfound celebrity had many wondering if he still had the chops to compete in the sport - a factor that the aforementioned tabloid media spent many thousands of column inches opining.

Enter the aforementioned BAMMA and a proposed matchup with Montreal based Tom Watson. The fight was originally due to take place in April of this year but, owing to Reid sustaining a knee injury during training, the bout was postponed. Cue much hue and cry from columnists and British MMA fans alike.

Getting back to the point. After months of delay, the Reid / Watson fight was booked for 25 September. With UFC 119 taking place on the same night, my editors at ESPN had bigger fish to fry so I wound up getting behind the camera for the London desk of WireImage / Getty Images.

Those of you who know me well will be very aware that I take MMA photography very seriously. I'm an ardent fan of the sport and am extremely passionate about my job, pushing myself to make each shoot better than the last. I have the utmost respect for all the athletes whom don those four ounce gloves and do battle, whether in cage or ring, no matter which promotion.

Unfortunately, it appears that professionalism and respect for MMA as a sport is in short supply in some circles. Allow me to explain.

The first hint of trouble came during the media check-in process. A generic PR man in a mid grey suit hastily explained to me the following key points.

• Photographers were allowed cageside for the first 9 fights only
• No cageside access for anyone during the main event
• Main event photography would be from elevated positions
• There were no pre-assigned photo positions
• Up to 26 photographers would be cageside
• There was only one side of the cage from which photography was allowed

None of the above was communicated to anyone in advance; media check-in was the first that anybody got to hear about these restrictions. Mr Gray Suit tried to soothe the ruffled feathers of my fellow photographers by claiming that he instructed a colleague to send out emails detailing these restrictions to all and sundry three days prior.

Out of the dozen or so photographers that I spoke to that night, no one had received any email to this effect. A call to Getty's London desk early on Monday morning also turned up no evidence of this email. Pretty much no-one (including myself) arrived with any lenses longer than 200mm... a highly impractical proposition for shooting from an elevated position.

A *very* tight crop of the action from the Watson / Reid fight...

In over five years working as a media photographer, event PR have always communicated in advance to me when photo access will be limited to the point of requiring a long telephoto lens (between 400 ~ 600mm) to get usable images.

Given sufficient notice, you can borrow or rent such a lens if you don't own one; at a starting price of around £6000 for a 400mm f/2.8 lens, you tend not to have such a lens in your kit line-up unless you need one every week.

Now here's where it gets weird and very unprofessional: Upon being pressed about said changes, Mr Gray Suit claimed that BAMMA's hands were tied on the matter as these changes had been forced on them by media partners.

Wait... what???

To the best of my knowledge, BAMMA booked the arena, selected fighters for the bouts, crafted the match-ups, sold the tickets (via an agent) and put the whole shooting match together. With the exception of the live broadcast, BAMMA should have been the ones in total control.

It's abundantly clear that, in a desperate bid for a quick infusion of cash, BAMMA rolled over and lubed up to meet every whim of the broadcast media circus that is the Katie & Alex show.

Try to imagine for a second what would happen if the PR or media rep for Fighter X made similar demands to Dana White. Can you imagine the sheer volume of f-bombs that would be dropped at the mere suggestion?

My incredulity at Mr Gray Suit's explanation was further stretched when a good friend of mine showed up to shoot the fights. Now, my friend works for one of BAMMA's media partners; his company's logo was on the canvas floor of the cage and many other highly visible locations - ergo, his bosses were paying BAMMA to be a partner sponsor of the event.

Even he - a photographer for one of their sponsors - was told that he would be denied cageside access to the Watson / Reid fight. Luckily for my friend a higher power intervened in the shape of one of his bosses being on site. He never got to be cageside but was eventually granted the concession of being allowed inside the cage at the end of the scrap to get a few frames.

It's bad enough when you screw over members of the media at short notice, but screwing over a sponsor partner? Never mind the cake - that takes the whole damn bakery.

In another surprising development, I spotted celebrity snapper Dave Bennet cageside. He alternately stood or crouched on the cage apron behind Watson's corner and his interactions with Katie & co. fast made it evident that he was more interested in her than the fight that was about to happen. Out of the 64 photographs that Bennet filed, only five of them were of the fight... the rest were of Jordan and her entourage.

Nice move, BAMMA. Deny professional sports / MMA photographers the opportunity to cover your main event to the best of their ability in lieu of a someone whom is disinterested in the fight that you're promoting.

As for the rest of the show: with a total of ten fights on the card, it kicked off at 5:30pm. The live broadcast of the Watson / Reid fight was set to kick off at 10:00pm - factor in for taped intro segments and wannabe Goldberg / Rogan analysis and the bout wasn't going to start until 10:20 at the earliest.

Unfortunately for BAMMA, most of those nine other fights ended within minutes of their opening rounds. Fight #9 concluded just shy of 9pm, leaving almost 80 minutes of dead time in the arena until the main event kicked off. I concede that in the sport of MMA, anything can happen - but having the bulk of your fights finish so quickly without having a plan in place to fill the dead time is a bit of a poor show.

When Reid finally made his entrance to the arena there was no doubt left as to whom was running the show. In an entrance that would have made "Mayhem" Miller or Akihiro Gono blush, Reid was preceded by a mock circus troupe, coming out to the strains of a version of the Police hit "Roxanne", as lifted from the soundtrack to the film "Moulin Rouge"

Sidenote: Alex was outed as a crossdresser last year, with his alter-ego's name being "Roxanne". No doubt Reid, Price or one of their PR thought the choice of music was appropriately subtle.

As Reid stood cageside in his glittering black fight robe, a blast of confetti littered the cage floor. I thought it was bad enough that the "EA Sports MMA" graphic on the centre of the canvas was ill-applied - peeling at the edges and unevenly rippled in places. Sponsor logos that present trip/slip hazards to fighters are nothing new. Fortunately cageside attendants seemed to sweep up the all shredded paper debris post-haste.

Watson, by contrast, entered in his trademark gorilla mask - a novelty that seemed plain in comparison to the earlier theatrics. I was somewhat nonplussed by his choice of the Ultravox hit song "Vienna" as walk-out music until the refrain of the chorus rang out: "This means nothing to me...." Watson had wasted no time in deriding Reid as an opponent in the run-up to the fight. His entrance song was a final, subtle stab at the fighter-cum-celebrity.

By the time it finished, I was left unimpressed and underwhelmed by the main event - at least when the fighters were compared to the talent that is featured in the UFC, Strikeforce or many other promotions.

As was to be expected, BAMMA had touted Watson as "probably the best middleweight MMA fighter in the UK" - a heavy favourite with the bookmakers. Last time I checked before the fight, he had -700 odds at most betting agents.

The fight that unfurled could best be described as medium-level kickboxing. Reid's technique was sometimes sloppy or overly flash. Watson was predictable in his attempts at engaging Reid. Both fighters seemed to have ran out of gas come the middle of the third round with action becoming sporadic, yet occasionally showing hints of explosiveness. At the start of the fourth, Watson showed greater effectiveness, better conditioning and began to gain the edge over Reid in the exchanges.

Having gone the full distance we had to wait for the judges to render a decision. If memory serves, I heard two scores of 49-46 and one of 49-47, marking one round as a draw - which meant Watson retained the title and Reid escaped with his reputation as a fighter seemingly intact (or renewed, depending on your point of view)

Of course the real casualties of the attendant broadcast media circus were the other fights of the night. Of particular note were John Phillip's demolition of James Zikic, Simeon Thoresen's deep and tight RNC on Marco Santi, AJ Wenn's dogged determination to get Tim Newman in a triangle choke, Harvey Harra's manhandling of David Round... I could go on, but suffice to say that every fight had a definitive finish, even if a few felt a little one-sided from the off. (Photos at the bottom of this post)

With the event concluded, I was more than a little surprised to hear a good portion of the c. 6,000 crowd shouting "Rematch! Rematch!" - their appetite for spectacle as sport seemingly unabated. I will concede that Reid showed no signs of 'ring rust' and that he managed to leave many a mark on Watson's face, although by no means did he escape unscathed himself.

With the next BAMMA card set to be headlined by ageing journeyman Bob Sapp versus Stav Economu, the promotion will likely suffer a dearth of publicity in the wake of the broadcast media circus that was the Watson / Reid fight. I can only guess that they'll somehow try to shoehorn a rematch onto the card at the Metro Radio Arena in Newcastle, but I'll likely be staying at home - unless BAMMA institute the following.

• Professional MMA photographers are allowed full access to the totality of their events
• Adoption of UFC style photo positions: two sides of the cage, maximum eight photographers per side
• In the event overhead photo spots being needed to meet demand, media are informed well in advance so they can bring/borrow/rent 400mm+ lenses as necessary

A post-fight press conference also wouldn't go amiss so reporters could elicit more than soundbite responses from the fighters following their wins and losses.

So that wraps up my opinions on the event that was BAMMA 4: Watson vs. Reid. Time to stop typing and let some of my photographs do the talking. Next up: UFC 120 fight week in London!!

Robert Devanne catches Colin Lewis in a standing guillotine choke

Shah Hussein got trapped by an RNC from Tom Breese

Charlie Leary pounds on Sam Elsdon, getting a TKO stoppage

Havery Harra rains blows down on a grounded David Round

Stuart Davies (facing) traps Scott Jansen with an armbar 

Tim Newman winces as AJ Wenn's kick finds a home

Gunnar Nelson tries to take down Eugene Fadiora

John Phillips buckles the kness of James Zikic with a left hook

A shoutout from Stitch

Jacob "Stitch" Duran on MMAJunkie.com radio; hear Jacob talk about his upcoming book and, at the 25:04 mark, he gives me a shout-out on doing the cover for it.

(Don't) send in the Clones

It's funny how event the thorniest issue, when transposed to the personal level, can become crystal clear....

Malice in Wonderland

Yesterday, my "office space" for Saturday night was still undergoing some finishing touches; a little over fourteen hours from the time as I'm typing this, I'll be cageside (Side A, position 4) for the landmark event that is UFC 112 in Abu Dhabi.

My time here so far has been an adventure that has been mind-blowing; not knowing what to expect of Abu Dhabi and Dubai, my senses have been overloaded and this has only been surpassed by the incredibly genuine warmth and hospitality that has been extended to me by my hosts here - so much so that my experience warrants a post all of it's own... one which will come once I've had time to digest and properly find the words to express what I have experienced so far.

As it stands, I should be resting up and getting ready for what I expect to be the most interesting and visually stunning UFC show that I'll ever had the good fortune to witness. If the fights themselves have a fraction of the raw energy that is enveloping this city right now, then prepare to be blown away.

The Business of Photography

Since the events of yesterday will have brought dozens of fresh eyes to this blog and my twitter feed, I'd like to say a few quick words about the business of photography

Professional photography can be a very expensive venture. Since I'm best known for shooting UFC events, here's a run-down of what I cart around to each event on average

• Two Nikon D3 digitial SLR's
• One Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens
• One Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 lens
• Three Nikon SB-800 flashguns
• Two Nikon SD-8a battery packs
• One Lastolite EzyBox Hotshoe 24" softbox
• One Lastolite tri-flector Mk II
• Three Calumet lightstands
• Two Sandisk 16Gb CF cards
• Six Sandisk 4Gb CF cards
• One Pelican 1510 case
• One Dell Precision M4300 laptop
• Miscellaneous accessories for the above

Add all that together and you'd be looking at about £14,000 at today's prices; I've not factored for the cost of maintaining an ever-growing image library and keeping up-to-date with software, applications, insurance - not to mention incidental costs such as meals, travel and accommodation when I go to shoot these events.

All these costs add up and it is therefore essential that my photography is treated as a business. I license my images to editorial and commercial clients in an effort to recoup the expenses I incur and hopefully also eventually turn a profit - all in an effort to support my spouse, children and dog,


I enjoy what I do. I get great pleasure from it - an immense personal satisfaction from knowing that I've done a job well; that I'm one of the few people out there who shoots the sport of MMA at the upper levels, fortunate enough to call folk like Daniel Herbertson, Esther Lin, Ed Mulholland, Paul Thatcher, Lee Whitehead and Tracy Lee both friends and my peers. (Sorry, Lee - couldn't find your website details!)

For all that, simply enjoying what I do doesn't pay the rent, nor feed or clothe my family. The 21st century society in which I live dictates that I have to earn money; I choose to do this via my skill as a photographer.

To do this, good business sense is required to overcome the all too common challenges, hurdles and sometimes outright seemingly nonsensical requests that are faced by creative content producers when dealing with potential clients. I could try to explain these issues but these following two videos do a far better job of it than I ever could

The Vendor Client Relationship by Scofield Editorial - a wry take on common client requests

Harlan Ellison on Getting Paid - warning.. not wholly SFW in terms of language!

So: work at what you love and do it well, but ensure that you're being fairly and adequately compensated when you do so. There are still many great clients out there who understand the value of creativity but it always pays to be prepared and approach all opportunities in a businesslike manner.

Taking on the "Mafia"

As every creative individual out there knows, be they painter, sculptor, writer, photographer and so on, one of the unfortunate challenges that we face is where less than scrupulous individuals or companies seek to use our works without permission or due payment.. especially in instances where such use of our works generate some form of revenue for them

Some months ago I read (via Twitter) that MMA fighter Nate Quarry was engaged in a back-and-forth tussle with apparel company The Fight Mafia; the core of the exchange was that Nate was owed nearly $8000 in sponsorship revenue for wearing one of their shirt designs at his fight against Tim Credeur.

In reading this exchange, never did I once think that I'd find myself up against Noel Brooks' company, trying to get payment from them for their use of a photograph I took after UFC 105.

What I'm trying to sort out is this:



Yep, that's one of my photographs of Dan Hardy that they used to advertise the branded bandanas that they were selling.

It was ripped off my from my Facebook page as here. Upon finding out that they'd used and modified my photograph - without consent or appropriately licensing it from me - I went straight to emailing them. Here's what I said

March 14, 22:49 GMT

"It has came to my attention that the website danhardybandana.com, which is cited as 'owned and operated by Dan Hardy MMA Brand & The Fight Mafia', is using a photograph that I took of Dan Hardy after UFC 105 without my prior knowledge or consent - an unmodified example of which is attached to this email.

I am the sole copyright owner of this photograph and would like to know how you intend to resolve the breach of my copyright"

A few days later, I got this response

March 17, 01:20 GMT

"Hello, we were unaware that the photo had been copyrighted.  The photo was taken from Dan's facebook page were it was cited as a tagged photo of Dan.  There were no copyright symbols or information on the photo.  We can do two things.  (1)  Take down the image.  (2)  Ask for your consent to use the photo and credit you as the one responsible for the photograph.  We just loved how it turned out.  Let us know how to proceed"

Wow! They're offering a photo credit byline - lucky me! Oh, wait - I suddenly remembered the five years and many thousands of pounds that I'd invested in my photography equipment... that, and the fact my local supermarket has stopped accepting photo credits as payment for groceries. 


I guess I have to feed my kids thin air and clothe them in a mix of nitrogen, oxygen and other atmospheric gasses... 


Wait, that doesn't work. Oh well, best send a message back to them.

March 17, 09:07 GMT

"Thanks for your response. Your offer of simple removal of the photograph or merely "crediting" it's use is unacceptable as you already appropriated it for commercial use.

Specifically, your claim that "There were no copyright symbols or information on the photo" is blatantly false. Whilst it is true that the photograph exists on Facebook and, being metatagged with the name "Dan Hardy" makes it visible on his profile page, the attached screen capture (file owner_info.jpg) shows how the image would be displayed when viewed using a Facebook account other than my own.

For your benefit I have highlighted the portion of the image that shows information on who owns the photo; clicking on my name would have enabled you to send me a message via the Facebook network where you could have communicated to me your request to use license the photograph for use on danhardybandana.com

Furthermore, specifically on the lack of a copyright symbol, I would like to draw your attention to the following webpage www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/copyright_myths - in particular, sections four, five, six and eight.

In closing, the options that are open to you are twofold

1. Pay an appropriate license fee for the commercial use of my photograph, or

2. Pay an unauthorised usage fee and remove the photograph from danhardybandana.com

As a UK based photographer, non-client usage rates are based on the NUJ's Freelance Fees Guide; the license fee would fall under the section "Commercial and Business" and, as the photograph has been used at 981x786 pixels, the fees for 800x600 pixel (attached file usage_size.jpg) would apply as follows, with $US values taken from current rates as provided by XE.com

• 1 months use: £225  ($342.63)
• 3 months use: £450  ($685.26)
• 6 months use: £675  ($1027.88)
• 12 months use: £850 ($1294.37)

Please advise how you would prefer to proceed; once you have done so, I can prepare an electronic invoice and payment can be made via direct bank wire transfer"

Hrm, seems that Noel has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Being ignorant of copyright law is not a valid defense, and I'd also busted their claim of not knowing it was me who took the shot. 


At this point I'm thinking that common sense will prevail; unfortunately, common sense isn't as common as I thought...

March 18, 00:16 GMT

"Our apologies.  We have no knowledge or I guess are oblivious on the proper steps in regards to use of copyrighted materials.  We have no interest in purchasing the rights to this photo or any other photo for that matter.  The site was launched fairly recently and we just liked the photo.  We will take it down immediately!  After talking with Dan, we will have to figure out how to proceed compensating you for past use if nessassary in regards to copyright laws.  We of course at that time must see proper documentation that you are the actual propietary owner of that photo.  If you don't mind we can have further correspondance after Dan's fight as distracting him with this matter at this time is not appropriate.  I assume you are a MMA fan and hopefully understand.  Dan also might have a fee if images of him are being sold for licensing purposes.  Thanks."

Wow, there's an eye opener: The Fight Mafia - who produce clothing designs that would be covered by copyright - are "oblivious on the proper steps in regards to use of copyrighted materials" 

Ssssh! Don't let all those other MMA clothing companies know this. They might start using your designs and just give you byline credits for doing so. Or maybe they'd just stop doing it if you asked them nicely. No way would you ever expect to be paid because, hey, you're an MMA fan and created those designs because you just love the sport....

Their wording also made it clear that they're not in the habit of paying for photography. Just like they weren't in the habit of compensating Nate Quarry for wearing one of their shirts.... of course I know that'll all cleared up now but still.

The icing on the cake in this exchange is the following nugget.

"Dan also might have a fee if images of him are being sold for licensing purposes"

The mental gymnastics displayed here are astounding - truly world class. Allow me to put it into clear terms that show how ridiculous this concept is.

1. The Coca-Cola Company hires David Beckham to promote their drinks
2. The Coca-Cola Company hires Annie Leibovitz to photograph David Beckham for their ad campaign
3. The Coca-Cola Company pays David Beckahm a fee for appearing in said adverts
4. The Coca-Cola Company also pays Leibovitz a fee for her to shoot the campaign photos
5. More people buy Coca-Cola products based on the campaign = Coke makes $$$$

Using "Fight Mafia" logic, David Beckham would be due a cut of Anne Leibovitz's fee - because she took the photographs of him for the Coca-Cola company.

Wait.... what??

The analogy for what has went on here is fairly accurate...- except Fight Mafia never hired me to shoot Dan Hardy; instead, they used one of my photographs without permission or payment to advertise a product that they sell - one which Dan no doubt gets a cut of the profits.

Can you imagine what would happen if Coke ripped off a Leibovitz shot of David Beckham and used it in an ad campaign??

Luckily for me I have the original RAW file of this photograph which handily has the date, time and serial number of my camera embedded into it - thus proving beyond all doubt that it's my photograph. Not to mention that there were a ton of UFC fighters, staff, friends and other people all milling around the lobby of the Hilton Hotel at the time who would also be able to verify I took that shot.

The neat little email exchange also proves that the Fight Mafia knowingly used this photograph without my consent and, upon my request to be compensated for doing so, they've employed stalling tactics and are seemingly unwilling to pay - despite them clearly breaching my copyrights.

Photography is the only thing I do. It's my sole source of income. I've been doing it for five years now, earning what I can and largely re-investing those earnings in gear - very expensive gear - so that I can stay at the cutting edge of my profession and deliver the results that editors, readers and fans of my photography are accustomed to.

Fight Mafia could have done the decent thing and either licensed the image from me or, better yet, employed me to take some shots of Dan wearing their new bandana design that they could have used for their website. I'd have turned in some top-notch shots and everyone would have been happy.

So what next? I'd given Fight Mafia until 31st March to respond and as of today (April 3rd) there's been no reply. It took Nate Quarry several months to get the nearly $8000 dollars he was owed from Fight Mafia; I'm asking for far less than that but I'm not going to hold my breath. Still, like Nate, I'm not going to let this go without a fight.

Who's in my corner on this one?