Feel free to pass this on to the group from Mike Urban:
John Decker pretty much nailed it.
You may remember AP firing ALL of their stringers several years back. From that moment on AP only hired back photographers who signed AP's horrible "rights grab" contract. AP did this because in this new digital age, where, as someone else pointed out, images get downloaded and transferred from server to server, they could not possible keep records on and track the millions of images they handle in order to pay royalty payments, or track one-time uses, special rights arrangements, etc. Keeping the status quo would have left them terribly exposed to legal claims.
Keep in mind an AP image costs a member about $35.00 where a similar Gamma photo costs $250.00. That’s why Gamma can track their stuff better.
If AP raises it’s prices there’s a whole lot of newspapers out there that would just drop the service and AP is a member driven business model.
The Beachcomber is operating on the same principle and they have far less ability to track images. Leslie has told me it is just too much work to contact folks for new permissions to use photos the paper already has in hand. The work-for-hire argument is valid too. If the Beachcomber sends you out to shoot something and pays you the $150 bucks for it, then that work product is completely theirs unless you have a signed contract citing otherwise.
At the Seattle PI, where I worked for twenty years, our own staff photographers had to sign freelance contracts and licensing agreements EVERY TIME we shot something on our own time (eg. vacation, to and from work) and wanted to use it in the paper. Ask Dan Delong about his “Space Needle above the Clouds” photo shot from an airplane on his return from vacation. Gorgeous photo! No contract. The PI laid claim to the image once it ran in the paper, an image innocently given up by Dan to an excited gushing photo editor. He and they finally settled but it was ugly, bitter and resulted in a after-the-fact contract.
Now, all that said, there are some rights worth fighting for and retaining and some rights that are not worth the hassle. That is to say, I have shot assignments for the Beachcomber that I just don't care what they do with it. Personal choice. I make that choice by thinking about and examining the secondary market BEFORE I go shoot something for them. Turns out most of it only has relevance and value here on the Rock.
If I were shooting stunning images that have huge potential in the secondary market (posters, art, stock,) I would seriously think twice about shooting for the Beachcomber. If I did I would DEMAND a special licensing agreement be signed between the BC and myself for every image.
If I were shooting sports photos of the local school teams I would know the secondary market is fairly limited to mom, dad and grandma. I personally wouldn’t worry about the BC using the image of Johnny’s touchdown three times because at the very least I would retain rights of my own. The BC would pay once and the family again and again. I would be specific about restricting the BC from selling any image to the family, but that again brings us back to an explicit agreement.
If all the photogs who work for the Beachcomber demanded explicit contracts then I am sure Sound Publishing would get the message and I can guarantee you what they will do…they will drop every stinking one of us and let Leslie shoot all the photos unless we sign a company-biased contract just like the AP’s.
You can’t have it both ways. Newspapers are dying. (Hell, SeattlePI.com is dying. They can’t get enough people to work for them for free.) Newspapers that still print on paper have far greater overhead than any dot-com and they have proven that they just don’t give a crap about they quality of their photographs. Photo staffs were the first to go in hundreds of layoff schemes throughout the entire country.
Right about now you are thinking that you kinda like your little tiny bit of fame in the paper every other week.
Do you stand on principle or do you give a little?
Personally, I think, in this arena, you give on rights (not give up...give a little on) to photos that don’t really mean much in the end and you retain rights to those that have greater potential in the secondary markets. It’s a balancing act. It also means knowing when you have a Monica Lewinsky lurking in your archive and when you don't.
I guess the problem is getting the Beachcomber to balance with you.
On some of the technical details, YES, copyright all submitted photos. DEMAND credit. I too HATE "courtesy photo" bylines.
