Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 43425625; Sat, 08 Feb 2003 22:00:04 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.56 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003020901012529607 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Sun, 09 Feb 2003 06:01:25 GMT
Received: (qmail 17043 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2003 05:59:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO BananaNose) (64.42.71.9)
  by queue2.atgi.net with SMTP; 9 Feb 2003 05:59:48 -0000
Message-ID: 
From: "Carl Cook" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Copyright INFRINGEMENT
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:59:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000



Always good to get that kind of stuff in writing - who owns the negatives,
etc. Don't know about Canada, but down here :) even if a paper paid is
supplying  the film and so on, the photographer (assuming it's a freelance
type job, and not work done as a staffer), owns the images unless there is a
prior arrangement, which legally must be in writing.

There has been a huge upheaval in the freelance community the past couple of
years, with newspapers/magazines grabbing up as many rights as they can by
making photographers (and writers) sign work-for hire agreements that go way
beyond what is fair to the creator of the work. For example, I left the
local daily here three years ago because their new freelancers contract,
mandated by their parent corporation, Gannet, called for not only all the
rights "inperpetuity" of anything shot for the paper, but all rights to any
images from the photographers own stock (!) -- also inperpetuity! Forget it!
After a long protracted battle in attempts to work something out, myself and
another photographer ended up walking out. For me, that was after nine years
of service with them, averaging 6-10 stories a week.

Part of the fallout to these kinds of rights grabbing policies, a group of
freelancers formed Editorial Photographers -- now numbering in the thousands
of members worldwide. Check their website out for what they are doing and
have done on behalf of freelancers.  http://www.editorialphoto.com


It is quite possible that you own the images in question. Have you asked the
paper for the negs? If anything, they might let you "borrow" them in order
to make prints for your portfolio.

And of course, the next time you shoot something for them, try to work all
these icky little details out in advance.

> All that threw me for a second.  Then I thought back to the pictures I
> recently mentioned that I took for the newspaper.  It was their film, and
> they own the pictures, even if my name did land on some of them.
> Basically, I don't like that situation as I have had some pretty decent
> photos published that I can't share with you as I have no copies, other
> than the dotty things right out of the newspaper. I can't make reprints.
> If anyone wanted a copy, the paper made money selling the pictures.
> Bummer.
>
> Karen
> >

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5