SubscribeIn one evening, Paul removed issues 1-6 from the JPG website, removed Heather from the About page, and deleted the “Letter from the Editors” that had lived on the site since day one. Paul informed me that we were inventing a new story about how JPG came to be that was all about 8020. He told me not to speak of that walk in Buena Vista, my wife, or anything that came before 8020.I see Paul has also removed Trotsky from the About page.
First, thanks to my 8020 cofounder and good friend Paul Cloutier. If you submitted a photo to issues 2 - 6, you used his upload tool. He and I built the plan for the new JPG together over the last six months, and I couldn't have wished for a better business partner.Damn.
It became increasingly evident that long-standing, significant differences of opinion regarding the direction of 8020 Publishing were preventing us from moving forward.Dang, between that blog post and the earlier one in the Flickr thread -- that dude has a serious talent for PR-variety double-nonspeak.
The JPG magazine that Derek and Heather created will always be an inspiration to us and we are committed to the principles that they set out.This cinched it for me. I signed up for the JPG magazine that Derek and Heather created and it won't be that anymore. I signed up because it was a Powazek/Champ creation.
To be clear, this was never about ego for me. It has always been about respecting the community. Erasing issues 1-6 and pretending that the "new" JPG was somehow not the same magazine was what I could not agree to, and was what's made the community so justifiably angry.I also want to make sure everyone knows that the other employees at 8020 had no hand in this. That's why I named Paul in my post. If I'd said "the people at 8020" it would have been untrue. They had no idea this was going on. I'm really sorry this has been so hard on them. It sucks, no doubt about it.I'll tell you honestly, watching all the JPG account removals makes me sick. JPG was my life's work for three years. I hate watching it suffer. But I understand that a trust with the community has been broken, and there's always a price to pay for that.
"Many companies have hard-and-fast rules regarding references for former employees that result in handing out little more than name, rank, and serial number. The rash of defamation lawsuits brought by employees and former employees has made many employers uncomfortable about sharing any substantive information about their former workers."*The fact that company officers, directors et al are not speaking publicly about Derek's departure stems from this.
"I would have loved to handle this privately....Maybe it was a mistake for me to tell this story. I don't think it makes me look good. It probably will hurt me financially. And it's certainly embarrassing."Derek ackowledges that "stories are all subjective, and everyone has their take." Whether he now or at sometime in the future will regret the public airing of his departure is to be determined by him and him alone. He's wrapped up in so much emotion (understandably so) and as he puts it, "subjectivity."
"1. A large camera company will sponsor a contest for the best flower/kids/pet/something pleasing to a mass audience. The winning photo will be on the cover of JPG Magazine, the winning photographer will be paid $100 and the camera company will own the rights to all submitted photos to use in advertising at their will.This market-shift is evident in other media. A hardcore, passionate fan-base often brings to light an indie musician or band. When "discovered" and signed by a major label, issues of revenue, profit, visibility become paramount. The "early adopters" are often forsaken (i.e. the band "sold out") for the appeal of a larger audience and greater profit. It's capitalism at play.
2. Photographers who submit to JPG will have the option of their photographs being sold in a microstock capacity. This option will be turned on by default. Users will have to actively opt out if they don't want to sell their work for pennies.
3. Photography submitted to JPG will be used in other magazines published by 8020. Pay for these images will be better than microstock wages but still far less than standard magazine photography rates. 8020 magazines will not have staff photographers or use freelance photographers on anything resembling a regular basis. They won't have to."
We never intended them to be erased from the history of JPG and everyone that contributed to them has a right to be angry about that. The plan was to find a way to include the old issues on the site but to more clearly show that they came before 8020 and to talk about how they were different from what we are doing now.I don't understand why that couldn't have been accomplished by adding some explanatory text to the Issues page, or moving the pre-8020 issues to a different page. If the intent wasn't to erase them from the history of JPG, then why were they deleted? (And they aren't listed on the Issues page now.)
Laura from JPG/8020: "Paul received funding for a publishing company based on community submissions. He brought Derek on as his partner, and later chose to re-publish JPG as the first project. Derek and Heather were paid by 8020 for the rights."*So, it appears as if Paul was the one who founded/structured the publishing company and arranged for the equity financing of the firm. He brought Derek on as a co-founding partner of 8020 -- and paid Derek and Heather for the rights of JPG. JPG was bought out, becoming an asset of the publishing company and subject to future business decisions made by 8020's management team (and Board).
Derek: "I still own a percentage of the company, so I hope to see JPG continue to grow and prosper."*Some might ask:
Derek: "...I’ll tell you honestly, watching the JPG backlash makes me sick.*
"Derek Powazek's history of JPG Magazine -- from inspiration during a walk in the park with his wife, Flickr's Heather Champ, to his acrimonious departure -- is a classic tale of entrepreneurial naivete. When Paul Cloutier, the designer's partner, jumped at the chief executive role, Powazek thought that meant they were still equal partners in the photography mag; and he felt he still 'owned' the magazine even though he'd sold it, in exchange for a minority stake, to 8020 Publishing, a vehicle backed by CNET's Halsey Minor. Please.
In the interest of honesty with JPG's readers, Powazek draws six lessons from the experience, most of which are passive-aggressive rebukes to his former partner, who is portrayed as uncommunicative, incompetent, and dishonest. There's one lesson he didn't list. Creative talent and collegiality rarely go together. Stars like Powazek -- half of one of the web's celebrity couples -- make uncomfortable business partners. And their departures, as Powazek demonstrated yesterday, are rarely quiet."
« Older FlightMemory.com... | Underwater Tigers. Best one.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Dave Faris at 8:51 PM on May 14, 2007