Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/07/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jul 3, 2013, at 9:50 AM, lrzeitlin at aol.com wrote: > As an answer to George. Yes as an employee of newspapers and UPI all my > photos were considered "works for hire" and the rights were owned by my > employer. That's the way it is when you work for someone. It's a trade you > make for a regular paycheck. When I submitted freelance travel work I had > to negotiate for publication rights but most of the time you play by the > magazine's rules. Interesting the terms of service of most web sites give > the site rights to use your photos. Check the TOS of AOL as an example. > The LUG is one of the few sites in which all rights remain with the > photographer. Thanks again, Larry, for letting us get to know you and your life-long relationship to photography. Your view of "stock" becomes a bit more understandable. Yet I'd think you'd also appreciate that those of us who fought hard to maintain control of the rights to our created works would naturally seek to continue to generate income from that work. While many "news photographers" may have seen the exchange of "security" for "all rights" as a good trade - many others certainly did not - including the vast majority of those whom we laud as among the historical best. Writers, photographers, artists, filmmakers, and musicians all depend on income from one or another form of "use fees" and/or royalties. In my opinion it's the people who have screwed the creators out of those fees, rather than the creators working to get compensated for use of their work, who should be looked down upon. YMMV Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist