Published with no Credit

[davyjo]

I am an amateur photographer and the technical director of our school drama

program and took photos during a recent trip with our students to the New

England Drama Festival. I sent a group picture to two local papers and both

published them. One credited me with the photos and the other published the

photo with no credit. <p>

I was mildly perturbed by this and am wondering what are the legalities of

publishing in this manner are. I did send the photo to the reporter with

permission to use it. I was just expecting a citation such as "Photo courtesy of

XXXX.

<P>

I suppose that my chagrin is mostly academic as there was no money involved. I

was just looking forward to seeing my name associated with a published picture (

a nice one I might add). <P>

Should there have been a citation?

[bobatkins]

Unless you specified a credit as a condition of use, they don't have to give you one.

[rcox2]

If you sent them unsolicitedly and did not request a credit I'm not surprised they didn't give one.

[www.philwinterphotography.]

Contact the offending paper and politely request credit for the photograph. They may publish a "correction" in the next issue. Worth a try.

 

I'll offer this from personal experience: When you give your images away, you lose control over them. I once gave a whole role of film to someone who promised me credit in a national publication. You can guess what (didn't) happen.

 

Phil

[joshschutz]

what did the caption say? special to ..... from.... did it give credit to anybody or anything. it had to have said something underneath.

[jgalyon]

sorry for your bad experience! i recently had an experience opposite yours, in that one of my shots was/is to be used in a national publication and without my asking... was told that I would receive credit in whatever form I asked for, e.g., "photo by...", and/or a bio summary. i'm glad you posted this question because it's one i've pondered only lately because I've never been in the position to be published until now. best regards and good luck!

[jgalyon]

p.s. - it's late, i'm sleepy, and i left out the most important part of what i intended to say. what was so nice about my experience was not the "receiving credit" part...but the fact that these people were thoughtful and considerate enough to ask. wouldn't it be nice if we saw more of that in our world?

[j.kivekas]

Wow, what kind of answers! At least in Europe, and as far as I've understood, in every country that has signed Berne convention (also USA) the creditation is a must and belongs to the concept of absolute fatherhood. Only with the permission of the copyright holder can the creditation be left out and even this right is limited. I'd be really surprised, if the practise was different in the US.<p>

I know that in many mags and model agencies the practise is to leave the creditations away. However, practise is no excuse, legality, at least in Europe requires creditation as a default.

[j.kivekas]

Here you find more about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works">Berne convention</a>. The USA has fully committed itself to Berne convention principle in 1988! Thus, there must be creditation by default.

[jgalyon]

Even if the law is the same in the states...I would think that in many cases it's a matter of how much time, energy, and expense would a photographer expend to resolve such an issue. If the publisher I mentioned earlier had printed my work w/o giving appropriate credit...would I have (in this particular instance) pursued legal remedy if necessary to bring about "justice"? No. Not worth it in this case. Some cases...yes.

[calebcondit]

but you could at least say something nicely and maybe forward them a copy of this info on the Berne convention not to be agressive but as a reminder what people's responsibilities are when it comes to publishing. It's just a respect thing.

[j.kivekas]

I am especially surprised about the answer given by Bob Atkins.

[graham_line]

You can discuss the legalities all you like, but best resolution is to clearly mark your photos with 'please credit xxx xxxx' before distributing them, and having a clear understanding that you require a credit in exchange for allowing the photo to be used.

Some publications credit hand-out photos whenever possible, some are too lazy or don't care. Some handouts arrive with full caption and credit information, some arrive with nothing at all. No one is going to chase down credit data for a photo that arrives without one.

Waving the Berne Convention at them won't substitute for personal contact.

[derek_simpson]

You have a Moral Right under copyright law to have your work credited. In UK newspapers are excused - they probably argued production pressures. The tatty local I supplied for several years downright refused a credit - "people pay to advertise in this paper" - I was paid (lowest rate I'm ashamed to say how little) for use of the photo so I wasn't getting free advertising. Photos submitted free were allowed.

[zave_shapiro]

I work at a hotel that has a press package that includes a variety of images. These were created by a pro on a "works for hire" basis. In other words, the hotel paid him to create images for its own use. The hotel owns the images. When these are used in magazines there is no credit given. Perhaps the paper felt they were being offered images as part of a promotional package. I expect they would offer a correction and credit if asked.

[j.kivekas]

Well, commercial shots are usually not credited and thus they are much more worth. A (credited) newspaper photo may be worth 60 euros and a similar sized commercial photo is worth minimum 600 euros. The difference is related to the "amount of rights" sold.<p>

"The hotel owns the images". What do you mean by this? If you buy a photo, it's not the same as you buy a magazine. It is the same as if you bought a computer program license. You can only use it according to the conditions given.<br>

In most cases the client buys a right to use a photo, a license so to speak, analoguous to computer programs. Creditation is by default always a must. However, terms of use may contain a permission to leave the creditation away. The fatherhood is a subjective right and only the "father" can give the permission. One way road. Depending the interpretation the client can't even demand for the permission. <p>

Notice that even in the case the client buys the copyright, this does not automatically give the right not to credit the original "father". In fact, again, the default is that the one with the true fatherhood ("owner of moral rights") has defaultwise the right to be credited. Owning copyright means basically the right to sell and decide the applications of the photo. Again, sales term decide, but default is obligation to credit.<P>

The Berne convention leaves very little for national interpretations.

[j.kivekas]

I am surprised how poorly this matter is generally known (even here in Europe) and I would very much appreciate a US interpretation by a law authority. That is, something more than an opinion. Every photographer should read the Berne convention conditions and the national addictions to that, the national law of copyright. There are pros who are completely unaware of their rights - especially in the fashion world. Photojournos usually know the law in and out.