Heritage Canada called out for not using Canadian art on website

Imagine a world where a website committed to promoting Canadian arts and culture was outsourcing the job to foreign professionals, and then open your eyes and log onto the Heritage Canada website.

The Ottawa Citizen’s Glen McGregor noted on Tuesday that the department’s website is filled with stock photography purchased from foreign artists and used to promote “Canada’s cultural industries.”

“A search of images appearing on the department’s site turned up numerous examples of pictures purchased online, without any apparent regard for using work created by Canadian photographers or artists,” he writes.

Here is a shortened list of some of the indiscretions noted in the article:

• A German photograph of a cheering concert audience found on the Canada Music Fund site

• A Russian photo of moviegoers watching a 3D film on the Film and Video site

• A photo of a group of young, smiling white people posted to the Youth Exchanges site coming from an artist in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Sure enough, MacGregor’s work checks out.

It becomes somewhat ironic to read the government’s film and video page when you know it is posted under a stock photograph bought from a Russian photographer: “The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring Canadian artistic expressions and cultural content….”

A Canadian Heritage spokesperson told the Citizen that they commission photographs from Canadian artists whenever possible, but there are some cases when they don’t have an appropriate image in their photobank.

In those cases, the department turns to iStock.com – a once-Canadian online stock company owned by Getty Images for more than a decade.

So, fair enough. It’s somewhat embarrassing for a Canadian ministry committed to supporting local artists (like, say photographers) to be buying foreign alternatives on the cheap.

But can we really expect them to pay top dollar for intentionally-generic pictures just because they are Canadian?

Buying stock photography is a pittance compared to what original content would cost; iStock.com charges $36 per download, with reduced rates for larger orders and a subscription price of $166 per month.

Pegging the cost of commissioning original art is a moving target. Wedding photographers can charge thousands for a day of work, for example. One Canadian photographer suggests professional freelancers aiming for an annual salary of $50,000 should aim to charge an average of $400 for a day of work.

Where would the government’s budget be if they paid going rates for Canadian photography for their website? Surely it’s worth shirking local professionals to save some taxpayer dollars, right?

After all, no one would be offended if a province suddenly started producing their flags in China at a lower price. Wait, apparently they will be.

It should be noted that Heritage Canada has been at the centre of a separate arts spending controversy relating to a contest in which graphic design students were asked to submit logos for the country’s upcoming 150th anniversary celebration.

The Graphic Designers of Canada group has called for a boycott of the ongoing contest, claiming it was a government attempt to elicit free labour from struggling artists.

The winner of the contest is set to receive $5,000, while the hundreds or thousands of other applicants will have nothing to show for their work.

"It is a common misconception that graphic designers embrace and enjoy these types of contests. To a graphic designer, these contests represent requests to perform unpaid work," reads a press release calling for a petition against Heritage Canada.

"These contests propagate the misconception that graphic designers should willingly supply designs and intellectual property on demand without expectation of compensation. It would be equivalent to asking a restaurant to make you 5 meals and only paying for the one you liked."

It isn’t as if Heritage Canada doesn’t know how to spend money – they’ve been accused of doing too much of that in their efforts to promote the country’s 150th anniversary, which is still two years away.

So it’s really a question of where they spend it, and on what. Is it really worth being offended over some foreign-shot stock photographs filling empty space on a government website?

In a vacuum, maybe not. But the sites in question are supposed to be offering support for Canadian arts and media professionals, not undermining it.