WPP and The law of unintended consequences

WPP.

I’d decided to ignore it this year. Certainly I’d admire the winners, marvel at their abilities to wrestle an eloquent visual moment from the continuum of stuff that has hustled past them. But I’d resolved to ignore the annual World Press Photo-bashing and likely indignation expressed over whether some image or other was too over-manipulated.

Then I noted that 20% of the potential winners in the semi final round had been eliminated for contravening the rules, specifically Rule 12.

 

 

20% eliminated? That’s a lot. And crucially it’s not 20% of the whole broad cohort of entrants, it’s 20% of the penultimate selection, from which we may conclude that this number represents the absolute cream of the crop of photojournalists from around the globe. And we can therefore be sure it represents also a selection of their best work, images that have made significant impact in the media recently. Their photographs were deemed visually compelling and accomplished enough to make it through the WPP judging process and be selected as potential finalists, but then ‘disqualified’ when compared to the RAW file demanded for their consideration for a chance in the final awards.

Let me digress for a moment, so you can view my observations here in some context. I like photo competitions. I may not often enter them, but I like them. At a local level I act as a judge of amateur’s work at least once a year, and do so willingly and enthusiastically. I’ve done that for 20 or so years. Competitions are good fun, and the participants really enjoy them. For photographers at an amateur level they provide guidance, encouragement and status. In the realm of the ‘professional’ practitioner they serve an equally useful purpose, allowing individuals to be judged against, and by, their peers. The cash prizes that often result are valuable, and award status can be a definite career enhancer. And for consumers (the public) it’s a good way to gain a glimpse behind the headlines and learn who took what, and what it is that motivates them. It would be fair to say, that in competitions done correctly everyone is a winner.

What I dislike are competitions that in some way deceive, perhaps ask for an entry fee and award some nominal award, when all they really want is to rights-grab images and accumulate cash (this is NOT what WPP does). Or competitions that set out the rules and then ignore them, using the platform offered by judge status for courting controversy and self-glorification and the crass click-bait that ensues (this is NOT what WPP does). If you search duckrabbit you’ll find plenty of examples of competitions that have done that, and which I’ve poked a sharp stick at, that are way off the mark ethically and fiscally.

What WPP does do is celebrate the best work out there, pushing forwards the profile of photojournalism and celebrates (and rightly so) the committed women and men who bear witness on our behalf.

And this places upon WPP a significant responsibility.

So they have rules. They’re a key part of all of this. The organizers set them out, the participants contract themselves (by entering) to obey them, and be strictly bound by them.

So here’s what WPP states regarding who is eligible for entry:

So that’s the standard of entrant the competition is aimed at, a high professional standard.

And the rules are clear about what is, or is not permitted in the images submitted:

And in attracting this high standard of entrant it places upon them the obligation to abide by the Declaration of Principles of conduct as laid down by the IFJ:

 

The IFJ has 600,000 members in 134 countries. That’s a lot of people, so it would be reasonable to assume that a high proportion of entrants are IFJ members, and are morally obliged to adhere to its guidelines of professional conduct. And certainly if not currently IFJ members, entrants are contractually agreeing to adhere to these rules as a condition of WPP entry. Either way, the IFJ guidelines apply to entrants.

So what precisely are these IFJ Principles? Or more relevant to this debate, what aspect of these Principles might those disqualified 20% have transgressed? I mean, these ARE the rules, and to be disqualified it follows that an entrant must have broken them.

Well here’s the list (link) and this excerpt below, Point 8 has to be the relevant section because none of the other parts are really applicable in the context of a photo competition:

 

None of the entrants were guilty of plagiarism, nor of calumny, slander etc, nor even bribery, only (according to WPP) of having failed to submit images that were accurate representations of the scene they encountered, which only leaves ‘malicious misrepresentation’. This is clearly deemed to be a “grave professional offence”. These are WPP’s rules of engagement, so there can be no other reason, nor interpretation.

That’s a pretty serious offence. So it would appear that 20% of the cream of the crop of the world’s photojournalists who made it through to the finals of the WPP are in serious breach of their code of professional ethics as a consequence of entering, and being ‘found out’. Breaching their ‘hippocratic oath’ for want of a better description.

Wow.

Really, let me repeat that: Wow.

Which of course begs the question, what happens to them now? It would appear they’ve been ‘caught red-handed’ in blatant breach of “the currently accepted standards in the industry” (quote from the comp rules Sec. 12 see above).

Are they reprimanded? (If so, how, and by whom?)

Are they sacked from their jobs? (On what grounds?)

Is their IFJ membership terminated? (Again, using what provision?)

Are they pilloried and shamed in the court of Twitter? (Not a subject to joke about).

Or none of the above?

The latter of course: None of the above. And why not?  Because there’s a rider tucked into the WPP rules above – the simple little line:

“The jury is the ultimate arbiter of these standards.”

What that means in effect is that although there are all these contractual obligations on everyone, entrants and organizers, the jury may as ‘arbiters’ ultimately decide what work stays in, or goes out. And it may in fact be the case that an image is rejected from WPP where it does NOT transgress the IFJ guidelines, falling (far) short of being “a grave professional offence” because WPP might consider it not to have been done with ‘malicious’ intent.  But how will anyone, either entrant or audience, know that?

The unpalatable fact is that by the letter of the rules as they currently stand, to be disqualified from WPP implies a serious breach of the IFJ’s Ethical Code.

If I was one of the 20% who were disqualified, and assuming I’d entered my work in observance of the spirit of the rules, and meeting to the best of my ability “the currently accepted standards in the industry” (I mean, my work had previously been published without query or censure after all) I’d really object to the inference cast upon me by WPP disqualification that I’d committed ‘malicious misrepresentation’.

But wait. David Campbell Secretary to the General jury of the WPP stated this yesterday:

Note this is NOT the IFJ Code, but the NPPA Code. I had a look at the NPPA Code, and it’s an interesting read. It clearly states what standards it expects:

 

That seems pretty clear. However it actually exhorts members to “…as a student of….and art…develop a unique vision and presentation. Work…..with an appetite…..for…..contemporary visual media”.

To “[…as a student of….and art]…develop a unique vision and presentation”. I might be reading that incorrectly but it seems to imply that there’s an interpretative ‘artistic’ freedom allowed within the constraints of ethical integrity (the ‘Respect the integrity of the photographic moment’ in Point 6).

Crucially this ‘freedom’ is not given equal weight in the IFJ guidelines, which seem rather more restrictive, or perhaps it’s fairer to say, ‘allow less creative freedom’. So we’ve got the IFJ code as the ‘terms of reference’ for the competition, which is pretty tight, and the NPPA code with its apparently greater artistic freedom as informing the overall standards expected within WPP.

I think it should be obvious the point I’m teasing out here – there are varying layers of ‘ethical’ expectation at work here, ‘guidelines’ which may be interpreted in a variety of ways. And at the end of the day it all comes down to the WPP jury’s final interpretation in the context of the WPP competition.

The reason for competition success should, of course, be excellence. Failure however, as defined by the ‘arbiters’ of these rules as they currently stand, has left a significant number of entrants potentially guilty of a “grave professional offence”.

It’s one thing to enter a competition with the aspiration of winning, and being lauded. But for that simple action to potentially ruin a career due to inadvertent ‘accusations’ of ethical failure is something else entirely.

WPP – I value what you do, and wholeheartedly support what you stand for.  But I do think you have to find some way to do it better, and with greater transparency. There’s a whole generation of aspiring professionals depending on you to do so. Not to mention those disqualified this year, and now subject to ill-informed speculation about their integrity as an unintended consequence.*

 

(* and for the record, maybe their disqualification was wholly justified – both Melissa Lyttle, POYI judge and Michele McNally, WPP Jury Chairwoman, use the word ‘lying’ in their comments on the situation here in the NYT . I don’t know for sure whether they did or not, and I refuse to speculate, but I’ll admit I’m not at all comfortable with naming the disqualified 20%, as I believe there is no moral nor ethical reason for doing so, as it will only confuse an already difficult situation, and provide ‘sport’ for the feckless who have nothing better to do than create mischief.

Indeed David Campbell himself is on the record as saying “the problems found are not attempts to deceive or mislead viewers”  :

Edit: I wrongly attributed WPP judge status to Melissa Lyttle. She was not, it was POYI she was judge in, article amended accordingly).