The cuts, effective on 01 May, average 15%, but, in some cases, will represent a 50% reduction from current rates. The Guardian, similarly to other newspapers, runs a complex system of rates based on size and space.

Speaking to BJP, a spokesman for The Guardian says that "as part of our ongoing discussions with the NUJ we have proposed reductions to our current stock rates from 01 May. These are in line with cutbacks across our entire editorial department."

He adds: "The proposed new rates are more consistent and proportionate and they still remain among the best in the industry. Furthermore, because most stock images are reproduced at a small size attracting the lowest fees, the impact of the percentage change we are proposing will be minimised for individual photographers."

Organisations, such as the NUJ, have criticised the changes. "We are shocked that GNM are seeking further cuts to photography rates, especially as it is only a matter of months since their decision to stop paying repro fees for commissioned images," says John Toner, the NUJ's freelance organiser. "We do understand that the company is facing budgetary difficulties, but we do not accept that photographers should have to subsidise the company. We are consulting our members as to how to respond to this announcement."

In July 2009, Guardian News & Media's (GNM) managing editor, Chris Elliott, wrote to contributors to say that the newspaper group would cease paying reproduction fees for any image commissioned, and that the new terms would affect both freelance and contract photographers. Despite a campaign that brought together photographers from Magnum Photos as well as Don McCullin, GNM introduced the new terms on 01 September (BJP, 07 October 2009).

Once again, photographers are calling for the cuts to be rescinded. "The Guardian has dug itself into a very deep hole," says freelance photographer Andrew Wiard, who is also a co-founder of Editorial Photographers UK and Ireland. "I could go on about how immoral it is making freelances pay for [The Guardian's] financial problems, but I don't think the 'ethical' Guardian, or even the Scott Trust could care less about that. The point is that this is just re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The sums at stake here are vital to low paid photographers, but only a fraction of [The Guardian's] picture budget, and nothing in the grand scheme of Guardian catastrophes. Just look at it - it is wall to wall agency pictures, all on subscription deals at Mickey Mouse prices. They only turn to us when they have absolutely no choice. At which point we should be dictating prices, not them. Mind you this is all nonsensical, as they now appear to be making a profit despite themselves."

The NUJ's London Photographers' Branch, which launched earlier this year and represents photographers based in or working for clients in London, overwhelmingly passed a motion on Tuesday evening against the Guardian's rates slashes. It has also called for the Union's Freelance Industrial Council "not to sign any rate cutting deal with The Guardian."

The motion, in full, reads: "This Branch notes the difficult trading conditions The Guardian and we all face. We also note that the timely sale of 49.9% of TMG not only showed foresight of these difficult trading conditions and helped boosted the groups profits before tax from £97.7m (2007) to £306.4m (2008) but also that the GMG chair in the 2009 Annual report pointed to the "many other positives: we have net cash rather than net debt; we have a number of sound long-term investments; our businesses continue to be bold and innovative; our people are among the very best in the industry; and the Guardian's superb journalism is reaching an expanding global audience through the growth of its website."

It continues: "Further we note that the subsequent 2009 loss of £89.8m according to the Chair 'only gives only a partial view of our financial position and health.' the loss being made up entirely of losses on forward exchange contracts, on interest rate swaps and debt, and impairment of goodwill and intangibles. We also note that the paper has already achieved very great cost savings through the cheap subscription deals offered by some of the larger agencies e.g. Getty and Alamy.

"However, it is a misnomer to describe the pictures sourced from individual freelances and the smaller agencies and picture libraries as 'stock' in that these pictures are typically not ubiquitous generalisable commodity pictures but real, recent and relevant to the issues of the day with which the paper is concerned and are therefore precisely the diverse and original content that helps distinguish The Guardian from the competition. This content is crucial if the company is to realise its expressed aim of becoming 'the world voice of liberal public opinion'. To this end we would ask that no such cuts in reproduction or commission fees are made."

Freelance photographer Pete Jenkins comments: "It is a sad day when the so called friendly publisher unilaterally chooses to cut rates, rates which are hardly brilliant in the first place and have not even remotely kept up with inflation over the past 16 years.
I can't express how disappointed I feel."



GUARDIAN NEWS & MEDIA's LETTER TO PHOTOGRAPHERS
Robert Hahn, GNM's head of rights and content acquisition wrote to photographers and National Union of Journalists' officials to highlight the proposed changes. In his letter, he explains the reasons behind the cuts.

"Essentially, we have three problems with the current rates," Hahn writes. "Firstly, in our present trading conditions it is unaffordable after many years for us to continue paying such generous rates; secondly, the upper two rates are disproportionately high; and, thirdly, the increase between rates is inconsistent."

He adds: "We therefore are proposing that we shall apply a 15.00% reduction to all of the rates except the top two which we shall reduce by 50%. We shall also make the increase between rates a consistent 15% except the top two which we shall make 30%. The double-page Eyewitness picture would remain negotiable."

The letter contains a table of the old and new rates:
0-5 square inches: £55.64 (instead of 65.46)
5-20 square inches: £63.99 (instead of 77.46)
20-30 square inches: £73.58 (instead of 89.46)
30-50 square inches: £84.62 (instead of £116.74)
50-80 square inches: £97.31 (instead of £127.65)
80-108 square inches: £111.91 (instead of £141.83)
108-216 square inches: £145.49 (instead of £337.12)
216-432 square inches: £189.13 (instead of £561.87)

In his letter, Hahn tries to justify the cuts. "We realise that this change comes on the back of already significant alterations to photographer arrangements over the last 12 months," he writes referring to GNM ending payment of reproduction fees. "However, the rates remain generous compared to those being charged by agencies and are considerably higher than some of our competitors. In this process, we have made the rates more consistent and understandable. Most importantly, the impact of the changes is lessened for individual photographers because the rate reduction is lowest on the highest image volumes as 65% of all stock images are published under 20 sq ins."



RELATED ARTICLES
Guardian 'draws a line' under dispute (07 October 2009)
Guardian photo protest spreads (23 September 2009)
McCullin and Magnum join forces against The Guardian (16 September 2009)
NUJ tackles Guardian on repro fees (12 August 2009)
Guardian scraps repro fees (01 July 2009)