Many media companies are often at odds with freelance writers and photographers over who owns the words and images once they have appeared in print.
What follows is an exchange of letters about a single picture. It was triggered by an e-mail from the photographer, George S. Zimbel, to Barbara Cox of Photokunst, a consulting firm for both individual photographers and archives, including The New York Times archives.
Along with the letter, I enclose an invoice for the use or uses I have discovered. I tell them that I will grant them a “retroactive license’ upon payment of the fee that they would have paid had they contacted me for a license. However, I also clearly state that they must pay the invoice within 10 days and also disclose any and all other uses of my images they may have made.
Former Art Buyers and current photography consultants Amanda Sosa Stone and Suzanne Sease have agreed to take anonymous questions from photographers and not only give their expert advice but put it out to a wide range of photographers, reps and art buyers
It is of course quite possible that two like minded people come up with a similar idea at the same time, or within a recent time frame, but surely as an informed practitioner, you have a responsibility to do your research or at least credit the inspiration in some manner. Perhaps I’m being pathetic.
Contractually speaking, companies have found a number of ways to circumnavigate having to pay photographers for additional use of their images. In the ugliest instances, they also manage benefit by reselling the photographer’s images without any further compensation to the photographer. Although there are a number of ways for this to occur, one of the most commonly recognized forms of a ‘rights grab’ happens by way of a ‘Work For Hire’ clause.
Rather than put out a laundry list of ugly contract language, I have decided that it would be most beneficial to take one clause and dissect it in plain English. If this were an anatomy class, this exercise would be similar to looking at one organ rather than an entire system. It is by no means exhaustive and doesn’t account for the entirety of the contract. However, for purposes of sticking to the broad topic of intellectual property and the photographer, it gets pretty close to helping us look for those places where a contract should address those four big things we talked about in the last post
The Gaylord case involves the United States licensing a photograph of a sculpture to use the photograph on a postage stamp. Although the photograph was properly registered as a derivative work of Gaylord’s sculpture, the U.S.P.S. neglected to license the right to use the underlying sculpture itself.
As an artist or designer, you are passionate and serious about your work. You should be just as serious about learning about copyright, because copyright allows you to protect your work, or to share it with others, if that is your preference. This site, dedicated to the creative spirit, aims to be a source of accurate information, and a corner for debate and dialogue about copyright and other important intellectual property issues
Last month, the New York-based photographer Sze Tsung Leong was on location in La Paz, Bolivia, when he received a phone message from his New York gallerist, Yossi Milo. It had come to Milo’s attention that a Canadian photographer was exhibiting a series of works in Vancouver that bore a striking similarity to an ongoing series by Leong. An image of the Canale della Giudecca in Venice? The Canadian photographer had it, and from the same perspective as Leong’s. A cracking ice floe in Iceland? An Egyptian pyramid? A Japanese shrine? He had those, too, all cropped and composed in similar fashion.
In the same proposition there is also an anti paparazzi part. A rule “that in effect will prohibit photography in public places where anyone who’s in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed.”. This law, of course, applies only to pro photographers, otherwise tourists would be prevented to take pictures, and that, my friends would not be good.
Nobody in their right mind opposes the intellectual soundness of digitizing the world’s books -– even titles gathering dust in the stacks of university libraries — and making them available online. Yet Google will encounter stiff resistance in a Manhattan
Yet Google will encounter stiff resistance in a Manhattan federal court Thursday during a marathon hearing that could grant Google the keys to free the written word from a business and intellectual model as old as paper and ink.
Copyright in photos is essentially going to cease to exist, since there is no ineradicable way of associating ownership details short of plastering your name right across the image.
I received this note from a reader: Hi Rob, I’m a photographer, regular reader and occasional commenter on your blog. One thing that I have been struggling with since starting my freelance career is legal issues. Two specific problems that have plagued me
Infringements are rampant these days, both because it’s easier for the infringers to find and copy your images and because too many people think that they have a right to use your photos when they don’t or think that they won’t be caught. Fortunately, you can take steps to combat infringement. But the steps you take may limit your ultimate remedies so be sure to first understand what are your options.
The downturn in publishing is, in and of itself, one more compelling reason for photographers to understand the inner workings of their copyright. As the methods of sale, licensing, and distribution of our images continue to change, photographers have little excuse not to understand the principles behind which their photographs are converted into income.
New York City-based photographer Alex Brown recently discovered that a pair of Glaswegian artists, Craig Little and Blake Whitehead, known as Littlewhitehead, had “appropriated” an image he made of a young boy in a Darth Vader mask sitting in a diner booth.
BASIC INFORMATION With the current US copyright laws as they are applied now, artists own all rights to their created images and sell/transfer rights to agencies and their clients. All questionable negotiations have historically defaulted in favor of the
With the current US copyright laws as they are applied now, artists own all rights to their created images and sell/transfer rights to agencies and their clients. All questionable negotiations have historically defaulted in favor of the artist. Technically, even minor modification of the art requires the artists’ permission. You are RENTING, not buying an image unless explicitly stated on the contract.
In February 2008, Seattle-based photographer Mike Hipple received a letter from the lawyers of sculptor Jack Mackie that one of his stock photographs infringed upon Mackie’s copyright. Shown above, the photograph includes a portion of Mackie’s “Dance Steps on Broadway”, a public art piece created in 1979 with public funds.
Blog readers and fans have been asking me for the latest news in my ongoing copyright infringement case with Toyota and their ad agency, Saatchi & Saatchi.
Pilfered is an online magazine where people can “submit their favorite visuals pilfered from the web to share with one another.” For example, it asks readers to choose a cover for its February 2010 issue: The cover photos include images stolen from Rodney Smith, Robert Parke Harrison and others.
