Received: from saf.tzo.com ([140.239.225.181])
 by fanciful.org (wcSMTP v5.6.450.3)
 with SMTP id 199410750; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:10:40 -0800
Received: from 216.174.194.60 by saf.tzo.com
 id 2003021110120064005 for photo{at}fanciful.org;
 Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:12:00 GMT
Received: (qmail 26935 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2003 15:10:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO BananaNose) (64.42.61.190)
  by e4500a.atgi.net with SMTP; 11 Feb 2003 15:10:22 -0000
Message-ID: 
From: "Carl Cook" 
To: 
References: 
Subject: Re: Copyright INFRINGEMENT
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:07:57 -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

From the photographer's personal collection. Even if the photographer is an
employee of a publication, the employer has no special "rights" to personal
work unless it was a part of a prior agreement for employment. I knew a
staffer that would sometimes shoot an assignment twice -- on one camera for
the paper, the other for himself. This was probably of dubious legally as he
was shooting on company time :), but I was speaking of work done on a
photographer's own time -- their personal work.

Mainly, I was thinking of freelancers who "sell" a pictures to
publications.
The rights given to the buyer are whatever the photographer decides to grant
at the time of the sale. In my own case, the contract I mentioned was
presented to me by the local daily paper ( mandated by their corporate
owner, Gannet ), said that the paper would be granted all rights to photos
published (that they pay for), whether such works were as a result of an
assignment or otherwise -- with the photographer retaining copyright
"ownership."

The contract goes on to say, that the photographer can ask permission to use
such works elsewhere. As an example, (before the Gannet contract), the paper
came to me and asked if they could use a photo of mine for the cover of an
special annual publication of theirs. They paid their usual amount. I sold
the picture to them with one-time-use rights, a common agreement in such
matters. If I had sold them the photo under the contract, the paper would
have had the right to do whatever they wanted with the photo beyond the
original usage, including web rights, republishing rights, the selling of
prints -- whatever, and they would have this right inperpetuity (forever). I
would not only receive no additional compensation. but (here's the kicker),
I would have to ask permission to ever use the photo again for any reason!

The Gannet agreement is among the most odious of those offered by various
publications and news services -- AP's is among the worse. On the Editorial
Photographer's website is a section with many of these types of documents.
Some are downright scary, but the publications know that there are a lot of
hungry shooters out there that are willing give up their rights for a shot
at being published and for future "glory" -- or just because they have to
make a living.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Young" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Copyright INFRINGEMENT


> When you say "from the photograpers own stock(!)", I assume
it precludes
the
> stock prior to employment? Otherwise it is unconstitutional...
>
> Cheers, good to hear from you!    :)
>
> -Wayne
> wayne_b_young{at}hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Carl Cook" 
> >Reply-To: 
> >To: photo{at}fanciful.org
> >Subject: Re: Copyright INFRINGEMENT
> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 21:59:44 -0800
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >     -------------------------------------------------------
> >       FidoNet PHOTO ConferenceInterNet EMail List
> >       To subscribe to the list, send an EMail message to:
> >                         wclistserve{at}fanciful.org
> >       With the words:   SUBSCRIBE PHOTO
> >       To Unsubscribe:   UNSUBSCRIBE PHOTO
> >       To post a message to the list, send plain text E-Mail to:
> >                         photo{at}fanciful.org
> >     -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
>     -------------------------------------------------------
>       FidoNet PHOTO ConferenceInterNet EMail List
>       To subscribe to the list, send an EMail message to:
>                         wclistserve{at}fanciful.org
>       With the words:   SUBSCRIBE PHOTO
>       To Unsubscribe:   UNSUBSCRIBE PHOTO
>       To post a message to the list, send plain text E-Mail to:
>                         photo{at}fanciful.org
>     -------------------------------------------------------
>
>

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