Tag Archive: rights
Well, I’ll admit to a mistake when I’m wrong. Thanks to Colin M. Lenton for writing in to let us know that AOL’s StudioNow looks ok for photographers. The contract for video work is a Work For Hire arrangement, but the photo contributor contract allows for 3 levels of rights transfer for photography: buyout, limited exclusive license, and non-exclusive license. Read the relevant bit here:
“For each engagement, StudioNow shall acquire: (a) ownership rights; (b) an exclusive license; or (c) a non-exclusive license to all work performed under the applicable engagement. The type of rights granted or assigned by Filmmaker shall be designated by StudioNow and such designation shall appear in the engagement packet or assignment as applicable.” -StudioNow photo contract, accessed on 16 December 2011
The standard wariness for approaching a job still applies. If the contract calls for a buyout, make sure you’re getting compensated for giving up your copyright. Fees should be quite high for such an arrangement, but copyright, like everything, can have a price. For limited exclusivity or non-exclusivity, fees should be less. Be aware of your copyright.
As it looks now, StudioNow might well be a good opportunity for photographers looking to get into corporate and advertising work.
Skip to about 1:45 in the video above to see police obstructing New York Times freelancer Robert Stolarik from taking pictures. It’s the latest demonstration of the NYPD’s general strategy of impeding the freedom of the press to cover Occupy Wall Street as it unfolds. We’ve written about states making it illegal to photograph or take video of police previously. But what we’ve seen in New York recently is a concerted effort to prevent the press from taking pictures or video of the protests and police conduct. Journalists have been arrested on a few occasions; here’s a personal account from Vanity Fair photographer Justin Bishop about his arrest. After the Stolarik incident above, which happened earlier this week, New York Times lawyer George Freeman sent a stern email to Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Brown, expressing the paper’s “disappointment” with the way Stolarik was treated. Here’s the full text of an earlier, similar letter, signed by a coalition of media honchos. In a discussion with Capital New York, Freeman described the email to the NYPD:
“We are disappointed that the result and first step of our recent meeting with Com. Kelly, the directive he issued reiterating that the police are not supposed to be interfering with the media’s doing their jobs and covering newsworthy events, has apparently not been followed or implemented on the ground. The World Financial Center video indisputably shows an officer bobbing and weaving for no other purpose than to block a Times freelancer’s ability to photograph police actions.” -NYT lawyer George Freeman, speaking with Capital New York
This isn’t the first volley between media and the NYPD and Bloomberg administration. Letters have been sent to the authorities before; various organizations have helped pressure the NYPD and other authorities, as well. Though this is not without some effect&em;in late November, NY Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly issued a memo for all police instructing them not to interfere with the media&em;the Stolarik video shows that police continue to obstruct the press with impunity.
The NYPD have also said that the best way for reporters to avoid arrest is to carry a press card issued by the NYPD (though later recanted that statement). Wired’s Threat Level blog dug into the process of getting a press card and found something straight from Orwell. “We aren’t issuing press credentials to reporters covering Occupy Wall Street,” Detective Gina Sarubbi, NYPD’s Deputy Commissioner of Public Information, told Wired. And NYPD spokesman Stu Loeser admitted that arresting credentialed journalists covering Occupy Wall Street was justified. Photographer CS Muncy says that wearing an NYPD press card is akin to wearing an “arrest me” sign at the Occupy demonstrations. The Village Voice has more general coverage of the issue.
The limitations placed on photographers are limited to Occupy Wall Street, New York City, or even the US. The Committee to Protect Journalists chronicles journalists killed and detained each year around the globe. Here’s the list of journalists killed so far in 2011.
The ACLU recently sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in a federal suit, “alleging that the Sheriff’s Department and deputies ‘have repeatedly’ subjected photographers ‘to detention, search and interrogation simply because they took pictures’ from public streets of places such as Metro turnstiles, oil refineries or near a Long Beach courthouse.” American Journalism Review has further coverage of “the rising tension between news photographers and law enforcement officials” around the US.
And for a moment of levity, watch first half of the following Stephen Colbert clip in which is berates the Wisconsin state government for allowing guns in the state capitol building, but not cameras:
The Colbert Report – Stephen Colbert reminds us that while guns are now allowed in the Wisconsin capitol building, cameras are not
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
“Thank God! Cameras are dangerous. With no waiting period or background check any wack-job could just stroll into a Wal-Mart and walk out with a semi-automatic [camera]. Now for years I’ve been pressing for stricter regulations on cameras, especially around our elected officials. To many political lives have been cut short by some crazed [photo] shooter.” -Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report
Colbert’s funny, but the issues are real. We’ve linked to Carlos Miller’s Photography is Not a Crime blog in the past, but it’s worth looking at again. Here are some recent posts: Virginia Man Arrested For Recording Cops Plans Lawsuit, Blogger Must Act Like Journalist To Be Treated Like One, Man Arrested After Photographing Executive Office Building In D.C., Nashville Police Arrest Journalist Covering Protest, Former WV Senator Ordered To Delete Photos In Pittsburgh Mall, Iowa Man Convicted In Videotaping Case Needs To File Appeal, Occupy Cincinnati Activist Arrested After Photographing “Covert” Cop Car, Occupy Calgary Activist Threatens To Sue Videographer For Recording Him, and Chicago Police Delete Journalism Professor’s Video Footage Of Arrest. Sadly, Miller’s blog is never left wanting for new content.
And in the UK, there’s a particularly laughable sign that’s been erected outside the Aldwych tube station (part of the London Underground system), banning DSLR cameras. Tim Allen found the sign and posted it to a twitter picture service. The sign reads “Due to their combination of high-quality sensor and high resolution, digital SLR cameras are unfortunately not permitted inside the station.” Amateur Photographer has a bit more information, and a follow-up as officials try to justify the ban. The British Journal of Photography has continued pressure on Transport for London, including a Freedom of Information request to get all government information relating to the ban.
Still in the UK, if you haven’t seen it before, Stand Your Ground is worth a watch. A group of photographers set out on the streets of London to exercise their right to photograph that which is in public view. They were interrupted in a variety of ways by representatives of private property, but received support from London police. It’s a great video.
As always, know your rights as a photographer. There are two good online summaries for US photographers, one by Bert P. Krages, an attorney who works on photo-related issues, and another by the ACLU. If anyone knows of similar resources for photographers from other countries, please send them along or post them in the comments below.
“[S]ome organisations don’t want to pay you for rights to use your work and take steps to obtain them from you for nothing. How is is this done? Simply by running a competition, or an appeal. Firstly they ask you to send your creative works, such as photographs, to the competition.” -from the introduction to the photo competition Bill of Rights
You’ve probably seen our contest deadline calendar. There are a lot of contests and calls for entry that we do not include because they are bad deals for photographers. Maybe the terms and conditions (it’s always deep in the fine print) grant the organization worldwide perpetual use of all photos entered, or maybe the rules preclude future sales of the image, or maybe they force an unreasonable embargo on usage of the image. These rights grabs are a dime a dozen. I’ve sent plenty of emails out to contest organizers trying to get rules clarifications, and some respond well.
Now, Pro-Imaging has taken up the initiative to standardize photo contest terms and conditions in a way that is both useful to the competition organizer and favorable to photographers who enter the competition. Their Bill of Rights is welcome addition to the contest scene, and I hope more more contest organizers integrate the Bill of Rights in their calls for entry.
For you photographers out there, before you enter a contest, be sure to read the terms and conditions and compare them against this Bill of Rights.
(via the Click)
This has been making the rounds, but if you haven’t seen it, you need to. Carlos Miller spotted a new US Transportation Security Administration poster that depicts a photographer as a terrorist watchman alongside a warning: “Don’t let our planes get into the wrong hands.” It’s laughable, but it will make it even more difficult for photographers to exercise their rights in taking pictures of public places, things, and people. APhotoEditor has a good roundup of basic readings on the law regarding photography in the US, and you should also be familiar with and have a copy of attorney Bert P. Krage’s handout, The Photographer’s Right.
On July 28, 2009, the Guardian announced new contractual terms soon to be forced upon contributing freelance photographers. In emails I’ve received about the matter, photographers liken it to the fight against the New York Times freelance agreement a few years ago. A petition has been started. Essentially, the Guardian is trying to escape usage fees for the unlimited re-use of images from commissioned assignments. Traditionally, Guardian News Media has paid for subsequent usage after initial publication. From the petition:
At a time when press photographers are suffering severe hardship as a result of the economic downturn, it comes as a further blow to be informed that [Guardian News Media] demands unlimited re-use of our photographs free of charge.”
Even if you don’t regularly shoot for the Guardian, please sign the petition in support of your fellow freelancers.
German publishing company Jahreszeitenverlag, whose publications include “Merian”, “Für Sie”, “Petra”, “Feinschmecker,” trying to pull a fast one with a new contract forced on photographers in Germany. Previously, like any other decent contract, work done for Jahreszeitenverlag was fairly compensated and embargoed for a set period after which the photographer (the copyright owner) could resell the images or use them any way he or she wanted; if Jahreszeitenverlag’s magazines wanted to reuse the photos, a new sales fee would be determined and paid according to usage.
Recently the company has foisted a new contract on contributors, and it’s horrible. According to the new contract (which retains the photographer’s usual daily royalty fee of around 350 euros), ownership of all images taken for the assignment will pass to the publisher who commissioned this assignment; the photographer will no longer receive any royalties at all from subsequent use of the image material; second sales of the images will only be possible through the publishing company’s own syndication. Sounds like a royal screw job. German photographers have rightfully rejected the contract and are organizing under FreeLens, a German freelance photographers’ organization. But it gets worse.
Now the company has been preying on international contributors, likely unfamiliar with the Jahreszeitenverlag contract controversy. They’ve been sending off assignments rejected by German photographers to international contributors, hoping they can cut off the German photographers ability to negotiate the contract. Many photographers have asked their agencies to place an embargo on any dealings with Jahreszeitenverlag titles until the conflict is acceptably resolved.
There’s a little information about the dispute at Freelens (google translate), and there’s also a petition to Jahreszeitenverlag that’s nearing 3000 signatures from concerned members of the international and German photo community.
Do your part. Refuse any work from Jahreszeitenverlag. Add your name to the petition. Spread the word.
- Freelens press release: Jahreszeitenverlag is the “gravedigger of photojournalism” (original german)
- Interview with Freelens CEO Lutz Fischmann about the dispute (original german)
Although the ACLU has just released their map of the United States’ “constitution-free zones” and although reports of photographers’ confrontations with police and security guards spread like wildfire on the internet, the United States has risen 12 spots to number 36 on Reporters Without Borders’ annual survey of international press freedom. Huffington Post has a nice summary of the report, which examines “every kind of violation directly affecting journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical attacks and threats) and news media (censorship, confiscation of newspaper issues, searches and harassment). And it includes the degree of impunity enjoyed by those responsible for these press freedom violations.”
The report explains the United States’ rise (tied with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, South Africa, Spain, and Taiwan, well below Iceland, Luxembourg, and Norway, and well above Iran, China, and North Korea) on the chart:
“The release of Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami Al-Haj after six years in the Guantanamo Bay military base contributed to this improvement. Although the absence of a federal “shield law” means the confidentiality of sources is still threatened by federal courts, the number of journalists being subpoenaed or forced to reveal their sources has declined in recent months and none has been sent to prison. But the August 2007 murder of Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey in Oakland, California, is still unpunished a year later. The way the investigation into his murder has become enmeshed in local conflicts of interest and the lack of federal judicial intervention also help to explain why the United States did not get a higher ranking. Account was also taken of the many arrests of journalists during the Democratic and Republican conventions.”