importance of copy right
hiro komae
I work for a local newspaper. Sometimes, our readers buy my photos,
e.g., high school athletes in a ball game, officials at a city event,
etc...
Recently, I saw my photo of an high school athlete signing up for a
college scholarship on another local newspaper. For the attribution,
it says "courtesy of (my newspaper's name).
Honestly, I didn't care about the possesion of the photo (the athlete
signing up) so I gave a copy to her parent. I didn't know it was
going to be used on another publication.
Then, the city used on a city's publication my photo of a city
official getting an award at a city meeting. It was attributed to me
and newspaper.
A reporter had been told that the city officials wanted to use it for
its publication so we gave them a copy.
Those incidents reminded me of some discussion over the copy right on
the List and made me think for a minute.
Like I said earlier, I didn't care about the possession of those
photos. Hence, I had and have no intention to ask money for those
photos.
Am I supposed to write my name and a ) mark on the back of the prints
I sell and say, "This is for your eyes only, and you can't use it for
any other purpose without my permission" - whether that person makes
any money or not?
Is it a dangerous thought that I don't care about those particular
photos I take and don't bother to charge any fee, and don't even care
if they sell those particular photos to another publication, for the
sake of other (esp. freelance) photojournalists who make money by
selling their photos?
Am I lowering the standard of the importance of the copy right? Or a
LOCALLY tied photographer's business doesn't count?
===
Izure,
hiro
Photographer
The Grapevine Sun
http://home.earthlink.net/~tetsujin30
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
george gryzenia
At 10:45 PM -0700 5/4/99, hiro komae wrote:
>Am I supposed to write my name and a ) mark on the back of the prints
>I sell and say, "This is for your eyes only, and you can't use it for
>any other purpose without my permission" - whether that person makes
>any money or not?
I put this on the back of prints sold for personal use:
"photo/George Gryzenia©1999. Not for publication. For personal,
non-commercial use only."
I also include my area code and phone no., so that anyone wanting
additional uses can contact me, and I can make some money.
>Is it a dangerous thought that I don't care about those particular
>photos I take and don't bother to charge any fee, and don't even care
>if they sell those particular photos to another publication, for the
>sake of other (esp. freelance) photojournalists who make money by
>selling their photos?
This type of thinking CAN be dangerous to yourself as a ;photographer and
the market in general. If you _really_ didn't care, however, you would not
have even asked the question ;^)
Any photographer worth their salt should care how their photos are used,
and who uses them. If you do not care about minor uses, then where do you
draw the line? When do you start caring, and when not? I wouldn't feel good
about my work if I truly did not care who used it and how it was used.
>Am I lowering the standard of the importance of the copy right? Or a
>LOCALLY tied photographer's business doesn't count?
You should check with other local photographers on this one. It is a good
way to start a dialog with others in your community do the same thing for a
living that you are.
I do not persue every single © situation, and at times even give away work
to certain individuals, even for publication sometimes. When I do this,
however, I also let the individual know what they are getting, so that I am
not encouraging them to make the assumption that photography is free to
all. A little education can go a long ways. ~george
______________
George Gryzenia
gr...@voyager.net
Raj Chawla
>college scholarship on another local newspaper. For the attribution,
>it says "courtesy of (my newspaper's name).
It seems that your newspaper should care quite a bit about this. If they
paid YOU to take the picture for THEM, then the other paper is getting it
for FREE. Again, if you and you paper don't care, then great, but use
without permission left unchecked can set a bad precedent for the future.
>
>Am I supposed to write my name and a ) mark on the back of the prints
>I sell and say, "This is for your eyes only, and you can't use it for
>any other purpose without my permission" - whether that person makes
>any money or not?
Well, yes. Something like Copyright 1999 Hiro Komae Personal,
non-commercial use only.
>Is it a dangerous thought that I don't care about those particular
>photos I take and don't bother to charge any fee, and don't even care
>if they sell those particular photos to another publication, for the
>sake of other (esp. freelance) photojournalists who make money by
>selling their photos?
>
>Am I lowering the standard of the importance of the copy right? Or a
>LOCALLY tied photographer's business doesn't count?
We have a few photographers here that seem to work for less just to get
business. They don't care about rights, resale, first usage, exclusive
rights and all the other things most shooters rely on to make money. I DO
get old and new clients telling me that I'm charging more than photographer
X, and whats the deal with with one time rights? By not following "normal
protocol" (for lack of a better term) they make it hard for the rest of us
to make a living.
Its not wrong to choose to give your work away. Its your choice, or your
newspapers. But the people you give the photos too need to understand what
their getting, and be told tactfully what its worth. Otherwise, when you
have a photo they want and you want to charge them, they won't understand,
and you will look like the bad guy.
Raj Chawla
Staff Photographer
The Burlington (VT) Free Press
---
Raj Chawla <rajp...@earthlink.net>
Mike Tripp
I would love to hear the story behind the photograph with the following
cutline....
"A motorist tries to outrun a tornado that was racing
toward south Oklahoma City. (AP Photo/J. Pat Carter)"
How about yourself....we're you outside the car standing.......pumping
the feet, or in a car doing the same????
I'm very intrigued and curious and would love to hear about it....also
about the mother anc daughter under the over pass.
Respectfully,
--Mike Tripp
Publisher & Editor
Wolfseye Photojournalism
http://wolfseye.com
aka....."Standing Wolf"
T. Rob Brown
the tornado in the distance.
I did that photo up for our lead photo on the storms and the ME declined it
in favor of just a bland photo of the tornado. *ugh* Why make me photo
editor if I don't have final say on the photos???
T. Rob Brown
photo editor
Branson (Mo.) Tri-Lakes Daily News
Mike Tripp
To view the images of which I spoke, follow the link to the AP photo
essay on the disaster from the Wolfseye Site.
I was wondering if he took the shot of the motorist trying to out run
the storm while he himself was with someone else whom was trying to out
run it and if they stopped at that under pass to seek shelter.
--Mike Tripp
Publisher & Editor
Wolfseye Photojournalism
Lynn Troy Maniscalco wrote:
>
> I, too, wondered about the about the photo of the mother and daughter
> under the over pass. He just happened to be wandering by and saw
> them???? I didn't see his other photo you referred to. Lynn
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]