Be careful out there...

[boxofrocks]

The "Neighbors" section of the DMN called me and wants my football photos for the paper (no compensation of course). I told him that I could do so only if I retained all rights and had a byline. He said he didn't think that was a problem, and that they needed at least 300 dpi--seems large to me for newsprint.

Their website has the statement below in their terms of service. I "retain ownership", but only in the vaguest legal sense. It's actually pretty amusing that the words "You retain all of your ownership rights" can coexist with the remainder of the paragraph.

B. Your License to Us. You retain all of your ownership rights in your Submission. However, by submitting any Submissions to us or to or through the Site, you grant to us, and to our sublicensees, an unrestricted, worldwide, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable, non-exclusive, perpetual, and irrevocable right and license, without the requirement of any permission from or payment (or other consideration) to you or to any other person or entity, to use, re-use, reproduce, transmit, print, publish, modify, edit, alter, create derivative works based upon, display, exhibit, publicly perform, distribute, re-distribute, host, store, cache, archive, index, categorize, comment on, broadcast, stream, adapt, and translate the Submissions and any ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in or conveyed by the Submissions, in whole or in part, in any and all formats and channels now known or hereafter developed (including, without limitation, on other Belo Web sites, on third party Web sites, in our print publications, on our broadcast and cable networks and stations, and on our broadband and wireless platforms, products and services) for any and all purposes including, without limitation, news, advertising, promotional, marketing, publicity, trade or commercial purposes, all without further notice to you and with or without attribution services. In addition, you hereby grant us and our sublicensees the right, on an unrestricted, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual and irrevocable basis, to reproduce and use your name, likeness, image and voice (together with all trademark rights therein) on or in connection with the use of the Submission and in any and all promotion or advertising material related thereto.

[PeteQ]

But hey Tom, you DO get a byline....

And with that you can buy.....?

[boxofrocks]

Good point Pete.

Here's the reply I received--and my answer. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but...


From: xxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:04 PM
To: Tom Manchester
Subject: RE: neighborsgo

You are a clever question asker. I’ve learned new things already in the five minutes I’ve known you. Based on more extremely brief research, I do believe we reserve the right to make prints. However, that hasn’t happened with one of my pictures in the two years that I have worked for the paper. I know that’s probably not the most resounding assurance, but none of the three other editors in my office can remember that happening either.

I hope that doesn’t prevent you from submitting, but I understand your concern. You are much more experienced with these types of issues than I am and know how they can affect a photographer. But as far as I can tell in my experience with neighborsgo, the risk of having your photos resold is almost non-existent. All of our content is contributed by the members of the community, and it benefits us in no way to take advantage of that relationship. I give you my word that is not my intention.

But like I said, I understand you have legitimate concerns as a professional… Just got your latest e-mail… I’ll check and see if the policy is any different with print submissions. I probably won’t hear back on that until tomorrow, though… This is surprisingly the first time I’ve encountered the issue.

Thanks for your patience. I’m afraid compensation is probably out of the question, but I do know that neighborsgo has been a proven tool to generate recognition in the community. And in the three years we have been in operation, there hasn’t been one issue regarding re-selling submitted material that I’m aware of. So, hopefully we can work something out.

I’ll get back in touch with you tomorrow. Enjoy your evening.



Thanks for the reply, xxxx. On a lighter note, it reminded me of an article I read today reassuring photographers that it's not policy to have their camera bags ransacked by the TSA at airports. The article stated:

"There is no hard and fast requirement for cameras to be removed from bags, though we do reserve the right to ask a passenger or photographer to remove the camera to get a better look at it," said Nico Melendez, a spokesman for the Transportation Safety Administration and an SLR owner himself."

In other words, "we won't examine your camera, unless we do".

Unfortunately, in business, the contract is king. Absolutely no offense intended towards you, but I'll have to think long and hard about submitting the fruits of my labor (that others pay good money for) to a media giant that does not wish to compensate me.

Can you tell I've been burned before? I'm not bitter, just careful.

Thanks again,

Tom

[Paulo]

Niceeee! I like that response.

[PeteQ]

Yeah, with my luck it would be the picture they decide to use on the side of a building! But hey, I would have gotten a warm and fuzzy and a byline....

[JPalmer]

"You are a clever question asker."

Or basically... You're not a soccer mom with a camera we can leech off of for free.

[PeteQ]

Originally Posted by JPalmer

"You are a clever question asker."

Or basically... You're not a soccer mom with a camera we can leech off of for free.

[RandySmith]

Tom -

I had a similar situation with a local t.v. station that wanted to use my photo's. They said "everybody" gives them pictures for free ... they couldn't believe I wanted to be compensated. Finally, the editor agreed to payment ... however, that was now almost three months ago, and no check yet. I'm now going round and round with their accounting department wanting a completed W-9 .... I almost can see "why" they get pictures for "free" .. it's too complicated and time consuming, it almost doesn't seem worth it ...oh yeah, they said they would give me credit ... never happened. So lesson learned about doing this again for me .... Funny thing is, I wonder if they expect local pizza or cake business's to provide their services for "free" when they have an office party or their carpets cleaned ?

[mgadell]

This language is similar to that in an agreement I refused to sign for the semi-weekly newspaper I'd been stringing for. They had been paying me $20 per photo (mostly sports) for about a year, based on a handshake agreement. Then they sprung this contract/waiver on me. I tried negotiating -- more pay, fewer rights, etc. -- but the publisher said his insurance company was requiring this new way of doing business, and, poor guy, he cast himself in the role of victim. ("I also wish we could just do things the old-fashioned way . . . ") I also learned from another source that they had just copied some of the language from the DMN's contract.

Anyway, I eventually refused to sign it and he refused to accept any more pictures from me, and I'm happier to be done with it. Thanks for pointing out to the forum another case of overreaching on the part of a publisher.

Mike