Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina- Please be more specific about which portions of what I said, you believe are not true. I, like you, aggressively protect my copyrights but this "fair use" somewhat-gray area of the copyright law is where newspapers, magazines, and television stations believe they have the right to publish many photograph without compensation. If a newspaper or magazine reviews a show of your photographs at a gallery, they will claim, under the Fair Use portion of the Copyright Law, that they have the right to reproduce some of the images because it is a critical review. In this example they are probably correct and well within their legal rights to do so (without compensation or permission). If they write a review of a local drummer and illustrate it with a "hand-out" publicity photo that they received from the drummer or his agent, this too is generally assumed to be free from any copyright restrictions and without any compensation due the photographer. Right or wrong this is standard practice. If Marc had placed a copyright notice and/or a restrictive publication notification on his image, then they should not have run it without his permission and/or compensation. Regards, Rob Tina Manley wrote: > Rob - > > This is not true! Almost all of my stock photographs are sold for > editorial use. They all carry my copyright notice. If the copyright > notice is not included, it states in my delivery form that I will get three > times the regular billing rate. I've never had to charge the extra because > editors know that if the copyright is not included they will either pay > extra or I will take them to court. There is an additional penalty for > anyone who removes a copyright notice from a photograph and then uses it. > > See: http://www.editorialphoto.com/Internallinks/primer1.htm > > and: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ > > The Fair Use doctrine applies to the distribution of a work, not the > copyright. Under the fair use doctrine, it is permissible to use limited > portions of a work for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news > reporting, and scholarly reports; but the copyright notice must be included > when the work is reproduced for any purpose. For example, a teacher may > make copies of a photograph to use in the classroom, but cannot remove the > copyright notice from the photograph. > > If Marc included a copyright notice on his photographs, the reproduction of > them for any purpose without the copyright notice is an infringement of the > copyright law. > > Legally, > > Tina > > At 10:28 AM 3/12/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Marc, > > > >Unfortunately for you, if your photo was used by the newspaper for > >"editorial use", then it falls under the US Copyright Law's "Fair Use" doctrine > >which allows publication of the photograph for "...purposes such as > >criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for > >classroom use), scholarship, or research". If that was how it was used, > >you have no legal standing against the newspaper's use of it. If, on the > >other hand, the drummer paid for a display advertisement in the > >magazine/newspaper, to advertise himself or his band, then that is a copyright > >infringement and you have grounds to sue the drummer, especially if you > >only granted him rights for publishing "fliers". To fully protect yourself, > >get a rubber stamp made or affix a sticker to the back of your photos > >describing the reproduction rights that have been granted or reproduction > >rights > >that are prohibited. You should also state on each image, that upon > >publication, the photo must contain a credit line which includes your > >name, date > >the image was first produced, and the copyright symbol. Even though it is > >not required by law that they appear in order to protect your copyright, > >they do go a long way in preventing further infringements by other parties > >who believe the photo is in the public domain. > > > >I once protected a famous and valuable photograph from being published by > >any media (editorial or otherwise) because publication by the media would > >have destroyed its resale value. That is another provision of the > >copyright law that is often misunderstood. In your case, publication in the > >newspaper did not harm the intrinsic value of the photograph. > > > >The magazine does not have to offer you anything, but I hope they > >will. Ask them if they can compensate you for their error in the "Mary > >Small" photo > >credit, by at least paying you their standard payment for photographers > >who submit unsolicited spot news photos. That would at least be something. > > > >Simmer thy testosterone and read up on the Copyright Law. This does not > >seem like a copyright infringement. > > > >Good Luck, > >Rob McElroy > >Buffalo, NY > > > > > >Marc James Small wrote: > > > > > I discovered on Thursday evening last that a local up-market newspaper had > > > published a picture of mine -- attributed, mind you, to one "Mary" Small -- > > > in an article of a local jazz drummer. This fellow has admitted giving the > > > magazine the picture but his comment was, "so what"? (He is a REAL > > > straight-shooter, no drugs, no alcohol, Thinks Good Thoughts and kayaks > > > down the South Slope of Mount Everest, plus he has a couple of doctrates in > > > optical science.) > > > > > > This fellow wanted me to shoot a CD cover. I shot several rolls of film of > > > him in the fall of 1998, in downtown Roanoke, with Hasselblad. He reviewed > > > the prints and wanted a second shoot, which I did, these being on the Blue > > > Ridge Parkway. These were with Leica, some with a 2.5/12.5cm Hektor, the > > > rest with a 2.8/90 "skinny" Tele-Elmarit. The final picture selected for > > > the cover was one taken with the "skinny" Tele-Elmarit. The picture > > > printed improperly by the magazine was the one in the first batch. > > > > > > Last year, an article about this fellow appeared in the local paper with > > > some of my pictures. I then fussed at him and reminded him that the B&W > > > work I did for him was for use in his fliers only. > > > > > > On Friday, I called the magazine. They must be used to this: they put me > > > through to the publisher, who was polite, took my information, and stated > > > he had to speak with the author and would be back in touch with me on > > > Monday (tomorrow, as I write these words). > > > > > > I suspect the magazine will apologize and offer a token payment. I want to > > > sue both the magazine and the drummer and take an ounce of their hides, but > > > that may just be a surplus of testosterone flocking through my blood -- as > > > a trial attorney, I recognize that most juries regard copyright suits as > > > Big Yawns. > > > > > > And, don't forget, they attributed the picture to "Mary" Small. > > > > > > Advice? > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > > > Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! > > Tina Manley, ASMP > http://www.tinamanley.com