As we debate the likely implictions of the dreaded Digital Economy Bill for British photographers, this exchange from almost a decade ago caught my eye. Do read it to the end.
“Many media companies are often at odds with freelance writers and photographers over who owns the words and images once they have appeared in print. What follows is an exchange of letters about a single picture. It was triggered by an e-mail from the photographer, George S. Zimbel, to Barbara Cox of Photokunst, a consulting firm for both individual photographers and archives, including The New York Times archives.”
Related posts:
wow … what an exchange. Possession is 9/10th of the law.
Eh?
thats what they thought. We have it so we own it!
Ok.They knew.
No respect for the content providers.
Déjà Vu.
I just posted this on my blog with an eerily similar headline and came here to find you talking about it as well.
Question: I’ve always had to sign contracts, and presumably a signed contract would clear this up fairly quickly as to who owns the rights. And if there was no contract, then by US law, the photographer owns the rights anyway and I can’t see how the Times is contesting that. Thoughts?
As a writer, I have never had once had to sign a contract in nine years of freelancing.
The only time as a photographer I have signed a contract was when I’ve worked with an NGO. I don’t know if that’s unusual or not.
UK law may be quite different from how it works in the US….?
You’ve got it right. UK publications (as well as those in Asia and most of Europe) aren’t as concerned about contracts as American ones. Some US publications have 10-20 page contracts, and I’ve signed one with the NYT before (only 2 short pages, though), which is why I ask.