From   Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:54:29 -0800 remote from
fanciful.org
Received: by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP Router v5.6.450.61)
          for photo{at}fanciful.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:54:29 -0800
Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181]) HELO=saf.tzo.com
          by fanciful.org (Wildcat! SMTP v5.6.450.61) with SMTP
          id 14110296; Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:54:22 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.61 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003032114565068715 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Fri, 21 Mar 2003 19:56:50 GMT
Received: (qmail 5978 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2003 19:54:09 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO BananaNose) (64.42.74.53)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 21 Mar 2003 19:54:09 -0000
Message-ID: 
From: "Carl Cook" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Copyright INFRINGEMENT
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:54:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C2EFA0.90674CD0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C2EFA0.90674CD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Interesting to see a view from your end of the building :)

In the case of the paper I was shooting for, the ME said the Internet =
issue was the big concern for them, and I recall saying that I =
personally didn't mind that my images might appear on the web version of =
their paper. It didn't make any difference as far as the paper was =
concerned. They were under orders from Gannet to have freelancers sign =
the agreement as is or take a hike.

At the top of my concerns was the rights/ownership grab, especially of =
work that came from my stock and not shot on assignment, and the fact, =
that unlike your paper, this one said they would absolutely not pay any =
more money for Internet use -- or any other use of freelance work. I =
will add that the rate the paper was paying per assignment and for stock =
work was -- minimal (to be kind). I believe the word that describes what =
they were not paying is, "Jack."

I was told, "There are plenty of shooters waiting in line to work for =
us, so if you don't sign, we won;t be seeing you again. " I think I =
mentioned in the original post that out of three freelancers the paper =
used on a regular basis, two of us walked.  This was in November, 1999, =
the day before WTO in Seattle. Since then, the paper has been through a =
small group of student level photographers, and the one experienced =
shooter that stayed has moved to the east coast.=20

At a recent anti-war protest I was shooting -- http://www. =
clcookphoto.com/feb15.htm -- a staffer from the paper said they now have =
no freelance shooters, and that the ME wanted to try and find a way to =
modify the agreement in order to get me to come back. I would love to =
shoot for them again, but as I said when we went around and around over =
the contract (six months worth), that I am always willing to bend - I =
just won't bend over.

clcook{at}olywa.net
http://www.clcookphoto.com
----- Original Message -----=20


> I have been reading the thread on copyright issues and I want to offer
> another view. Before I retired last summer I was in upper management =
of a
> major US newspaper. I personally issued and signed all freelance =
contracts
> for the newspaper. The issue of asking for entire rights for a =
photograph
> was caused by the proliferation of the internet. A group of =
freelancers on
> the east coast sued the New York Times about 10 years ago because the
> freelancers wanted additional pay when the paper put their photos on =
the
> internet. They said that when they sold their freelance work to NYT it =
was
> for use only in the paper. The freelancers eventually won their case =
after
> a 5- to 6-year count battle that ended up in the US Supreme Court.
>=20
> Since we could see this coming down the pike about eight years ago we
> rewrote our freelance contract to state that were were buying the =
complete
> rights to a photo. The contract also gave the photographer the right =
to
> continue to sell the photograph to others. At the same time we =
increased
> what we paid the freelancers for their photos. The prospect of trying =
to
> keep track of a photo that we put on the internet was mind boggling. =
We
> would put a freelance photo on our newspaper web. It also might be =
picked
> up by the AP. The photo also might be picked up by some of the large
> outfits that webcrawl internet sites for info and photos. There is no =
way
> to tell (or track) how many ways and times and places that a freelance
> photo might appear somewhere on the internet after it hit our web =
site.
> Would the freelancer want a payment from us (the newspaper) every time =
it
> appeared in a new place? How could that be administered? We were left =
with
> no choice but to buy complete rights to photos.
>=20
> There is two sides to every story. We had some freelancers who refused =
to
> sign the new contract and we no longer were able use them. But for =
every
> photographer that didn't sign we had 10 that did sign.
>=20
> Regards, Terrence.
>=20
>  =20
> 
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C2EFA0.90674CD0
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Interesting to see a view from
your end =
of the=20
building :)
 
In the case of the paper I was
shooting =
for, the ME=20
said the Internet issue was the big concern for them, and I recall =
saying that I=20
personally didn't mind that my images might appear on the web version of =
their=20
paper. It didn't make any difference as far as the paper was concerned. =
They=20
were under orders from Gannet to have freelancers sign the agreement as =
is or=20
take a hike.
 
At the top of my concerns was the =
rights/ownership=20
grab, especially of work that came from my stock and not shot on =
assignment, and=20
the fact, that unlike your paper, this one said they would absolutely =
not pay=20
any more money for Internet use -- or any other use of freelance work. I =
will=20
add that the rate the paper was paying per assignment and for stock work =
was --=20
minimal (to be kind). I believe the word that describes what they were=20
not paying is, "Jack."
 
I was told, "There are plenty of =
shooters waiting=20
in line to work for us, so if you don't sign, we won;t be seeing you=20
again. " I think I mentioned in the original post that out of three =

freelancers the paper used on a regular basis, two of us walked.  =
This was=20
in November, 1999, the day before WTO in Seattle. Since then, the paper =
has been=20
through a small group of student level photographers, and the one =
experienced=20
shooter that stayed has moved to the east coast. 
 
At a recent anti-war protest I was =
shooting --=20
">http://www"> face=3DArial =
size=3D2>http://www
face=3DArial size=3D2>. clcookphoto.com/feb15.htm -- a staffer from the =
paper said=20
they now have no freelance shooters, and that the ME wanted to try and =
find a=20
way to modify the agreement in order to get me to come back. I would =
love to=20
shoot for them again, but as I said when we went around and around over =
the=20
contract (six months worth), that I am always willing to bend - I just =
won't=20
bend over.
 
clcook{at}olywa.net">http://www.clcookphoto.com">
face=3DArial
size=3D2>http://www.clcookphoto.com;
----- Original Message ----- =

 
 
> I have been reading
the thread on =
copyright=20
issues and I want to offer> another view. Before I retired last =
summer I=20
was in upper management of a> major US newspaper. I personally =
issued and=20
signed all freelance contracts> for the newspaper. The issue of =
asking=20
for entire rights for a photograph> was caused by the =
proliferation of=20
the internet. A group of freelancers on> the east coast sued the =
New York=20
Times about 10 years ago because the> freelancers wanted =
additional pay=20
when the paper put their photos on the> internet. They said that =
when=20
they sold their freelance work to NYT it was> for use only in the =
paper.=20
The freelancers eventually won their case after> a 5- to 6-year =
count=20
battle that ended up in the US Supreme Court.>
> Since we =
could=20
see this coming down the pike about eight years ago we> rewrote =
our=20
freelance contract to state that were were buying the complete> =
rights to=20
a photo. The contract also gave the photographer the right to> =
continue=20
to sell the photograph to others. At the same time we increased> =
what we=20
paid the freelancers for their photos. The prospect of trying to> =
keep=20
track of a photo that we put on the internet was mind boggling. =
We> would=20
put a freelance photo on our newspaper web. It also might be =
picked> up=20
by the AP. The photo also might be picked up by some of the =
large>=20
outfits that webcrawl internet sites for info and photos. There is no=20
way> to tell (or track) how many ways and times and places that a =

freelance> photo might appear somewhere on the internet after it =
hit our=20
web site.> Would the freelancer want a payment from us (the =
newspaper)=20
every time it> appeared in a new place? How could that be =
administered?=20
We were left with> no choice but to buy complete rights to=20
photos.> > There is two sides to every
story. We had some=20
freelancers who refused to> sign the new contract and we no =
longer were=20
able use them. But for every> photographer that didn't sign we =
had 10=20
that did sign.> > Regards,
Terrence.> > =
 =20
> 

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C2EFA0.90674CD0--

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