Newspaper rights waiver

[mgadell]

The newspaper that has routinely run my photos in the past has now asked me (and all their other stringers) to sign this agreement. I've never had anything in writing from them concerning rights or payments; it's all been done on a handshake basis, and every month they have been quick to pay from the invoice I send them. I should mention that the money we're talking about here is not much -- never more than $20 per photo -- but I also occasionally contribute written pieces to them for publication.

My question is: has anybody else been asked to sign anything like this, and did you sign it?

Here's the full thing, with the name of the company x'd out:

"In exchange for a monetary payment to you for each original work that XXX Newspaper accepts from you, you grant to XXX Newspaper and its affiliates (collectively, "The Newspaper") a non-exclusive, fully-paid up, worldwide license to use the accepted work. This non-exclusive license lasts for the entire term of copyright in any accepted work. In addition, for no additional fee paid to you, you grant to The Newspaper a non-exclusive, fully-paid up worldwide license to use all of the works that The Newspaper has previously accepted from you, if any.

You expressly agree that The Newspaper has a non-exclusive license to use all of the accepted works in any manner that it sees fit, including using them in any medium or format (now known or later developed) for no additional fee paid to you. You agree to take all actions The Newspaper reasonably requests to confirm The Newspaper's non-exclusive license in the accepted works. Unless covered by a separate written agreement that expressly supersedes this one, this Agreement represents the entire understanding between you and The Newspaper as to all works that you submit or have previously submitted to The Newspaper."

Then signatures, dates, etc.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

I wouldn't sign it, just on the basis of giving up rights to "all previous works" and also their ability to use the photo in any manner that they want. They can ASK anything they want too, doesn't mean that photographers have to give it to them. Also don't like the basically unlimited ability for them to sell the works to other "newspapers/wireservices/whoever they want" and you not getting anything from it.

[Craig]

I agree with Paul. They are basically taking your copyright from you for $20. I work with a local paper and they wanted me sign something similar and I refused. Their take on it is, "If we pay for it, we own it." I refused and they backed down. I still work with them, just on a payment for printed photos only. They do put some on their website along with the story from the paper which is fine by me. Hold your ground. Even if they say you must sign it to continue working with them, at $20 (tops) for your photos, you not losing your retirement.

[mgadell]

It seems that all the other stringers have signed the thing, and I'm the only holdout. When I balked, the publisher told me it was required by their insurance because they're starting a web site and they need to be covered, etc., etc. I rewrote the agreement so that it provided them one-time newspaper publication rights plus website rights for one year, and I would retain all other rights. I offered to sign my version of it, but so far he's not budging and neither am I. Thanks for your input -- it feels good to have my decision reinforced.

Mike

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

That insurance thing is a crock, unless he is worried about liability from someone in a photo or who owns something in a photo that is printed which should have zero impact on who owns the copyright. I bet he is also pulling your string on "all the other stringers have signed it". If you know of anyone else who has done stringer work for them ask them if they have signed or if they were fed the same line.

Now it would be completely different if you were on "staff" and sent on assignments to cover and pulling down a salary. If he refuses to budge tell him that you will sign the waiver but you require a salary of "$4,000+ a month plus expense account."

Also why in the hell would they need releases for ALL WORKS SHOT BEFORE? I just think that they have some projects on the backburner to make cash-maybe sell rights to a stock agency of all the photos in their morgue?- and they want rights to all of those photos so don't expect him to budge.

At least it wasn't a bread on the table gig, ie required cash flow to keep food on the table.

[zepp]

RUN, don't walk, I repeat RUN from this rights grabbing unfair poor excuse of an agreement. If you can run faster without shoes, take them off.

You being a freelancer, you should license the images according to their usage and receive payment for that additional usage. I don't see them giving one thing in return for what they are asking.

Sometimes you just have to say no. I think this is as good a time as any to do just that.

[LSCSN.com]

I say run as well, however, this is becoming more of the norm rather than the exception with publications. And as you have experienced there are people that are willing to do this. So the question is do you sign that and continue working or do you find another avenue. I say find another avenue.

We are always looking for sports photographers and we don't take your copyrights :) I know shamless plug, but we are looking :).

[Collins]

The main reason pubs are doing this is so they can buy images once and then not have to worry about licensing issues further on down the line.

This is understandable, but the problem is the compensation they are offering is absolutely absurd. With so many people trying to crack into the field and willing to sign anything, unfortunately this type of um..."stuff" is becoming all to common.

I'd tell them to go kick rocks...

[RobyMD]

Is there any room for negotiation? Or if they want to use it elsewhere you have to be first notified?

I agree with the above it seems rather broad especially saying anything photos from the past falling under the same agreement.

[zepp]

Why do they need Worldwide rights for a local newspaper? This agreement is like giving a creative stock agency all your images for a minimal one time fee and saying have at it, use the images however you feel fit and never pay me another dime.

Do you think because you've rented cars from a car rental agency in the past they would agree to let you use the cars again at no additional charge ever?

Ask the newspaper if when they have reprints printed if the printer does not charge the newspaper for the reprints since the printer printed it originally? I don't think so.

It's a shame that so many people sign onto deals like these without giving it a second thought.


<edit - grammar>

[STP Images]

.

[zepp]

Originally Posted by Paraquat

I think that some may be misreading this document..

I'm sure not reading it wrong and I stand behind my previous two post.

[STP Images]

.

[zepp]

Originally Posted by Paraquat

Zepp - never suggested that you read it wrong. I said 'some', not 'zepp'.

One or two responses above mine indicated that 'giving up all your rights' to an image is wrong (I agree, obviously). I was pointing out the fact that non-exclusive means that they were not asking for exclusive rights.

I also went on to say the deal still sucks for trying to chisel the image owner out of future compensation forever, but that it's not a copyright grab.

My apologies that you took offense, my intention was not to pucker you up.

No need to apologize Todd. I didn't take it as if you were speaking to me alone. After reading your post about people possibly misreading this as a Copyright grab, I took the time to reread my first two post to make sure I hadn't used any terms in them to that effect. I then simply stated that I understood the original posters statement and stood behind my post and thoughts on this topic.

No harm taken, no harm done.

[mgadell]

Update: I just emailed the publisher offering once again to sign my revised version of the agreement, which offers one year's web use for no additional fee, but that I retain all other rights. I told him I thought that was a generous offer, but that generosity has its limits. I argued that "any medium or format (now known or later developed) for no additional fee paid to you" was WAY too broad, and that the retroactive nature of the agreement was also unfair, since the previously-submitted work was accepted under a totally different, pre-existing agreement.

Paul: I do know several other active stringers (for writing and photography) at this paper, and they've all signed it without complaint. One of them even told me, "Is that what that was about? I didn't even bother to read it."

Jason: I appreciate your shameless plug, but the geography is such that I doubt we could do business. Thanks anyway!

We'll see. I'm thinking he's gonna tell me "sign it or else," and I'm gonna "or else." I'll update this thread when something else happens.

Mike