School Newspaper Legal Questions

[george_richardson2]

<p>I am the Photo Editor for my college's school newspaper, which I have been photographing with for almost 3 years. During this time I have asked the higher ups, non-faculty advisers who help run the paper, what my rights are to my images. I finally got a straight answer from them in the past few weeks however when I asked if there was anything in writing describing the working relationship between the paper and our photographers I was told that there was nothing in writing. Yikes! So, I insisted that instead of keeping the issue open I would draft up some "Photographers' Rights" documents to make sure that both the paper and the photographers are covered in the future.<br>

<br /> The paper has a large number of photographers. However, none are really "on staff" besides me and the assistant photo editor. We, as staff members, get paid per assignment shot. Everyone else that submits photos to our paper gets paid only when they have shot 8 assignments in a month's time. At that point, they are paid per assignment. Photographers take assignments as they please and there is no expectation of any of them to shoot any amount of photographs in a given time period.<br /> Most of the assignments we give to the photographers are pedestrian in access. For example, we might write an assignment for the soap box derby that is taking place as part of homecoming activities. This kind of assignment requires no advanced access as any Joe Blow off the street could walk up and photograph the event. This is what I will refer to as Case #1.<br>

<br /> Some of our assignments we make available require advanced access that we provide to photographers. An example of this would be football games. The paper has available to it three photo passes which it allows photographers to use to gain field access. In this instance, Joe Blow wouldn't be able to take the same photos that our photographer can because they have special access provided to them by the paper. This is Case #2.<br>

<br /> What I am trying to draft up will attempt to cover the rights of the photographer as well as the rights of paper. I think we can all agree that in Case #1 the photographer maintains all rights to the images they produce. The paper in no way contributed to the production of the image. <strong>However, what should be the rights of the photographer after they submit the images to the paper?</strong> I would think that they should be allowed to use the images to promote their own work, but should they be allowed to sell the images or use them in other publications? From the paper's end of things, I believe that they should be granted an internal-only multi-use license. This prevents the paper from pawning off the photographer's work or even for the paper to circulate the images to other publications. <strong>Does this license to the paper seem reasonable?</strong><br>

<br /> Case #2 is an entirely different ballgame. This is the area where I am most confused and would like to hear what you all have to say. <strong>First, I would think that given the access provided to the photographer would prevent them from being able to sell or publish the images produced while on assignment.</strong> Obviously, the paper has given them a leg up on everyone else and as such they should get some sort of exclusivity to the images.<strong> At the same time, I would think that the copyright should stay with the photographer</strong>. Otherwise, you strip everything from them. This would be understandable for a full time photographer or even a freelance photojournalist with a real newspaper or large magazine but for college students it seems like a major roadblock to career advancement. If you take away a photographer's right to their images then how are they going to effectively market themselves coming out of school?.</p>

<p>So, those are the key points I have identified so far. Seeing as I'm still very new to the business of photography I'm sure that I have missed some things. I would like to hear different opinions on this matter. There are a few I am pretty confident I understand but it wouldn't hurt to have it reinforced by some people who have been the game for a bit longer than 3 years.</p>

[hannah_defran]

<p>As a photographer married to an Intellectual Property attorney, I URGE you not to draft the contract yourself but have a professional do it.</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I FULLY second Hannah's proposal. I will only add the following points as a matter for consideration and thought ONLY:</p>

<p>1. There is a difference between the rights of the photographers who are working on a per-assignment basis and you who is working full time. In your case, absent a separate, specific agreement, your photos are considered as being taken as "work for hire" and therefore the copyright belongs to your employer. All other photographers retain full rights to their images.</p>

<p>2. You can attempt to restrict their usage rights in any way you desire by having them sign a specific contract detailing everything, but bear in mind that any such contract would only be binding IF the photographers are over 18. Otherwise a parent or guardian would have to sign for them, otherwise nothing you say or print would mean anything in a potential legal dispute.</p>

<p>3. A photographer ALWAYS retains copyright, regardless of whether the newspaper provides assistance (either in the form of passes or even equipment) - the question is one of usage. If the photographer agrees to hand over exclusive USAGE rights to the paper, then you're okay. Remember however that ANY such rights agreement should be "fair" (which is a VERY broad term and hence the advice to get a lawyer) to the photographer otherwise it will not stand in court (the judge CAN overturn even a perfectly signed contract IF s/he deems it to be unfair to either party, especially in a case like yours, where one of the parties can be seen to have largely disproportionate power over negotiations).</p>

<p>I think that's it from me. Be fair to your photographers...;-))) Oh, and get a lawyer to help you out...</p>

[steve m smith]

 

<blockquote>

<p>As a photographer married to an Intellectual Property attorney, I URGE you not to draft the contract yourself but have a professional do it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a college student, do you think he can afford that?</p>

 

[daverhaas]

<p>I would strongly recommend that you or the school have a conversation with the school's legal department. </p>

<p>They have contract lawyers either on staff or on call who could take the situations you have outlined above and craft a legal contract that covers both the school and photographer. And since they're on staff - it's paid for with "funny" money - meaning they bill the paper - the paper pays them - it's all on paper - internal budget transfers. </p>

<p>The point about being over 18 is a good one - if your photographers are under the age of 18 - then they can not sign a binding contract. They can sign, sure...but then the document isn't worth the paper it's printed on. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[george_richardson2]

<p>All good points, and I think I will take the advice and seek the guidance of the school's internal council. I may draft up something just to give them a frame of reference to work from.</p>

<p>As to my position as a work-for-hire employee, I have already talked with the paper and they want us to be able to maintain full ownership and copyrights. Marios mentioned, this would be per a separate agreement in the language of the rights of photographers.</p>

<p>Luckily for us, most of the photographers that come to shoot are in their second year of school. I don't think we have had anyone under the age of 18 on staff in the photo department since I began shooting. Still, a good point none the less and I appreciate you bringing it up.</p>

<p>If there are others who have an opinion on the matter I would still like to get your input. The more I have to discuss with the lawyers who help me draw up the wording the better the chances we end up with something that fully covers everyone.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I insisted that... ...I would draft up some "Photographers' Rights" documents to make sure that both the paper and the photographers are covered in the future.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its very unlikely you are authorized to draft and enter into contractual relationships of this sort as a photo editor for the paper, school, government or whatever entity is involved and you can't do it in your individual capacity for other reasons as well... http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/upl/upl.html Instead, you may be able to provide insight to those who are authorized to do that. See David's post above.</p>

<p>(Note: This was written before George's last posting but posted after)</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Is there an academic component to work on/for the newspaper? As in it's a class for which there is credit given, etc.? The reason I ask is there is probably a policy in place regarding copyright ownership of university, faculty and student work products. If it's only a "job," then this might not apply. However, I'd agree that the school has access to legal services and they should be a part of this effort. </p>

[denniswms]

<p>I shot 20% of my school's 200 page annual and printed the majority of it. Never thought about it again. I find the school paper concerns a bit obsessive. Unless and until a school representative presents a piece of paper to you wherein you agree to surrender your rights as author of the works in question I just would not worry about it.</p>

<p>Athletes play school sports for no compensation beyond the same scholarship money available to students excelling in other mediums. They take what they've learned and their reputations with them. Even if you leave the work published by the newspaper behind when you leave school you still get the credit for shooting the shots and you move on. Also- consider the content of the shots in the newspaper and the likelihood you'd realistically be negotiating poster rights twenty years from now.</p>

<p>As for the wonders of access, there is no rule (unless you'd sign one) that says that while shooting the game or event for the paper - or a campaign for Ralph Lauren for that matter- you cannot concurrently shoot a few frames earmarked as personal work. I f you are running multiple bodies it's easy.</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>One of the struggles in "sports photography" is the increasing trend for the shooters or organizations covering an event for "news" poaching on the territory of the shooter covering the team for action shots, etc. If being paid to cover an event for a sponsor of some sort, shooting your "own" on the sly on the clock seems outside the scope of what he's asking about here - and implies that there is a lasting separate value to be considered.</p>

[george_richardson2]

<p>Craig: There is no academic component of the paper. Some students use the experience as for their practicum credit. Aside from that, our job at the paper is totally separate from any class on campus.</p>

<p>Dennis: I bring this up because just two weeks ago an outside source came to the paper wanting to use images for a mural to be put up in a local Applebee's. Now, the administration that is in place right now has handled things well and I have take precautions to make sure they don't run off with the images we will provide. However, in the future this may not be the case. What if you saw your images from the annual you shot in a full page ad in a major magazine without any credit? It's unlikely to think they would do such a thing but I would rather be covered than rest on my laurels. For example, imagine that I were a photographer at the Cal - Stanford game in 1982 and got the definitive shot of the band on the field. Without any kind of legal backing, the school may block me from using the shots outside of their own publications. I would rather deal with the issue upfront instead of waiting until a court says it's alright for me to use it elsewhere. Time is money, especially with the speed at which images go from the camera to publication.</p>

<p>As to your Ralph Lauren example, I find it hard to believe that a photographer on assignment would be able to shoot some "personal use" photos of the subject at hand. Sure, the photographer physically can hold onto any and all images they shoot but what they are legally allowed to do with the images afterward is what concerns me. Like I have said before, it pays to get things inked out before the storm hits.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Have you any familiarity with NPPA? National Press Photographers Association?<br>

They have faced this a number of times through the years and can help. Why re-invent the wheel?</p>