More rights grabs. Like that little battery bunny, they just keep coming and coming.
NY Times online version (at least) ran a feature story on images voluntarily submitted to it apparently without payment. The NY Times pleads for additional pix and posts with the following as submission terms:
“By submitting to us, you are promising that the content is original, doesn’t plagiarize from anyone or infringe a copyright or trademark, doesn’t violate anybody’s rights and isn’t libelous or otherwise unlawful or misleading. You are agreeing that we can use your submission in all manner and media of The New York Times and that we shall have the right to authorize third parties to do so. And you agree to the rules of our Member Agreement, found online at <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/agree.html.%22> By all means read the entirety of the NYT guidelines for yourself. If I interpret the whole thing for you, you will think I am lying.
For those of you who have any trouble understanding the above terms they mean that – the contributor is permitting the Times and anyone who the Times wants to license the image to, unrestricted use of the image without compensation to you. The Times may make whatever fees it can get by licensing the image to any third party.
Going the Times one worse, running every day on page 2 of the The New York Daily News is a plea which reads:”GOT A PHOTO? Did you capture that perfect New York moment? We want it! Send your picture to: [email protected]“ At the request of some clients who were unable to obtain or find a copy of the submission guidelines used by “New York’s Picture Newspaper”, I endeavored to locate it. Several e mails and four telephone conversations with News employees later, I can report that as of this moment I have failed.
I identified myself and clearly explained that I was phoning/writing at the request of photographer clients who needed to see the guidelines before even considering sending the News any photos. Each person at the News who spoke to me was both pleasant and clueless. It was suggested to me by a lady in “picture sales” that a contributor, “just needs to call our legal department and speak to one or our attorneys”. Incredulous I asked, “You expect each contributor to talk to a lawyer? Where in your solicitation does it say that”? I advised the News that I would not reach out to it again. That if indeed such guidelines exist, they can send them to me and I will post them for all to see.
Why anybody would voluntarily send a picture to a publication, especially a “top ten” newspaper, without any terms, conditions or compensation attached it beyond me. The mere fact that the NY Daily News (or any other publication) “wants it” doesn’t justify your giving them a present. You just can’t make this stuff up.
#1 by susan see on January 6, 2010 - 1:30 pm
hmmm….The first link you provide takes me to the regular ole’ front page of NYT and the 2nd link for the guidelines gives the dreaded “Page Not Found” page: “We’re sorry, the page you’ve requested does not exist at this address.”
(or I could confused due having had my brain & body cooked by pneumonia for the past 3 weeks. *lol*)
To answer your question about why anyone would voluntarily submit their work…well, easy enough to answer w/ 2 reasons. #1 – the general public is clueless to what it is their actions will eventually mean for those of us fighting the good fight and #2 – if said person is a college student, they too are clueless and believe that the very notion of “being published” is a wonderous thing.
I lived in NY/NJ back in the late 90’s and got “hired” for an upstart small weekly entertainment mag, similar to Time-Out but not those guys. I did an initial shoot (a CD release party for Sarah Brightman) for them for free so they could see my work, they bought the film, paid for the processing. The following day I went in to talk & sign the contract….couldn’t find a single word or phrase in the entire contract that said anything about payment. I said to the publisher fella, “well all this looks good except there’s no mention of your pay rate.” His expression didn’t change in the least bit as he said to me matter-of-factly, “You’re getting published.” I told him that’s all good and well but I’d been published in 3 different states and numerous pub’s by that point and “being published” didn’t pay for my Metro card or film costs. His expression never changed one iota. Needless to say I walked out of there and never went back.
#2 by admin on January 6, 2010 - 6:49 pm
Hope your pneumonia is better. I’ll look and see if I can fix the links in the next day.
I wonder if those clients learn “face freezing” in a school? lol
Jack
#3 by Maria Brophy on May 4, 2010 - 2:23 pm
I see a lot of horrible legal language on the web. There are “contests” where artists are invited to submit their artwork and the “winner” will have their art used for a promotional poster. Most artists don’t read the fine print, which says: By entering this contest you assign ALL RIGHTS to the artwork to us, weather we use it or not. — This means you can’t use the art for anything else, ever again, because it no longer belongs to the artist. So in these contests, you lose even if you “win”!
#4 by Dave on May 24, 2011 - 10:44 am
It’s not just photos. I do internet marketing with original content and copyrights. I have seen obvious “descendants”
of my work that have been spun to 40 or 50% original and published. I am learning not to waste the time and energy.