| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Photo use on personal website/blogsite/Facebook
Rob Edwards, Photographer
 |
Peru | IN | United States | Posted: 3:31 PM on 01.09.10 |
| ->> Just recently I was told that I had to take photos off of my website, blogsite and Facebook that I have taken for the paper that I work for. I was just wondering if any other photographers have ran into this? Would like to know policies of other newspaper on this topic? |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 3:37 PM on 01.09.10 |
| ->> Rob - did they explain why? May we presume that they own the copyright and you do not? |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:52 PM on 01.09.10 |
->> Assuming you are a staff member, Rob (you did not list your relationship with the paper), you have no legal right to use the photos on your personal non-work sites. You gave up that right, unless you have a contractual agreement to the contrary, when you became an employee.
The newspaper owns all rights to the images you create. I heard of papers that even had clauses in their employment contracts stating that the images you create with your own gear, on your own time also belong to them. The question is what does your employment contract state in regards to the use of newspaper property for personal use?
Barring specific contract language or a letter of agreement stating otherwise, they are within their right to allow or ban you from using their images for your personal use.
There are papers that allow employees to do so, but that policy is purely up to the newspaper's ownership.
HTH |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 8:32 PM on 01.09.10 |
->> Rob - who told you that you had to take the photos down? Was it the newspaper you work for? Are you a freelancer or a staffer? A little more information is needed before good advice can be given...
Clark is, with a select few exceptions, correct - At most newspapers, it is understood (i.e., in the employee handbook or generally agreed) that the publication owns copyright to work produced by staffers. Many have the same agreement for their freelancers. However, it is generally OK for those staffers to republish those images for personal use and professional development (i.e., in a portfolio, on SportsShooter.com or a personal blog). Most of the time it's OK not to ask permission, but occasionally you'll run into the situation you're having.
Let us know some specifics and the answer likely will be clearer. |
|
Rob Edwards, Photographer
|
Peru | IN | United States | Posted: 3:19 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> Here is a portion of the letter that I received.
This Internet Postings Policy applies to XXXX XXXXX (name of newspaper) staff members who use social networking and multi-media (e.g. MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube), web logs or "blogs" and any other site where text can be posted.
Staff members who choose to maintain personal web presences should keep in mind that what they do or say on such pages/sites could reflect on them in their professional capacity, as in any instance when they are in the public eye. Staff members should take great care to avoid potentially compromising their effectiveness and employability as a journalist through ill-considered, intolerant or offensive postings.
Because you are legally responsible for your postings, you may be subject to liability if your posts are found defamatory, harassing, or in violation of any other applicable law. You may also be liable for posting that include confidential or copyright information belonging to third parties. Any posting that violates the rights of a third party is prohibited under this policy.
I'm not trying to fight this in anyway. Is the last sentence of the third paragraph where my paper gets me?
I understand the copyright idea. I'm not trying to sell any photos from my blogsite, website, or Facebook that have been produced from working at the papers. I just want to display my work. Thats all.
I guess my next question would be, why can someone post photos from their former employee on their website, if your not allowed to do it while you work for a paper. |
|
Rob Edwards, Photographer
|
Peru | IN | United States | Posted: 3:21 PM on 01.10.10 |
| ->> I forgot to add, that yes I'm a staffer and not a freelancer. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 3:37 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> They get you because they own the copyright and not you. You have no right to use the image - including displaying it on your web pages/blog - without their consent.
Without knowing the specific policies at a given institution any answer to why ex staffers are displaying images taken during their employment is pure conjecture. Such conjecture would include an assumption that such ex-staffers are doing it without permission but their former employers have chosen not to expend the resources necessary to address it. |
|
Dominic Hanna, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Bear | DE | United States | Posted: 3:52 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> Rob,
That and the one before it is where you have a problem. It doesn't matter if your not trying to sell/license the photos are not. The point is, you have no legal right to show off "their" work.
As to posting work as a "former employee", again it all depends on what the agreement is in place with the staffer and the company, some people can, some can't. If you really want to post photos, you should have a conversation with the powers that be at your place of work. Maybe you can work out some kind of comprise. |
|
Craig Mitchelldyer, Photographer, Assistant
|
Portland & Orange County | OR and CA | USA | Posted: 4:53 PM on 01.10.10 |
| ->> I dont see where this says you have to take thing off your blogs and facebook? Maybe I am missing something. This looks like a standard "don't be a jackass online, you never know who will see it" kind of letter. I could be wrong. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 7:16 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> Craig is correct, it actually doesn't say anything about A: taking your images off and B: any mention of photos.
Excerpts: "This ... Policy applies to ... members who USE ... and any site where TEXT can be posted."
"Staff members who choose to use (said sites), should take great care to avoid compromising ..."
What they're stating and alluding to, is basically to be careful what you write online as it can potentially reflect on the paper. Not only does it not mention photographs, it explicitly does NOT state you can't do it or take it off line. |
|
Rob Edwards, Photographer
|
Peru | IN | United States | Posted: 7:43 PM on 01.10.10 |
| ->> Thanks for all of the comments. I guess I will look at this as a learning lesson. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 7:50 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> Rob wrote,"I just want to display my work. Thats all."
Rob, first and foremost, it is "NOT YOUR" work. It is work you created for your employer who owns ALL the rights associated with the creation of that work (unless otherwise stated in your employment agreement). It would be like a line worker at automobile plant who installs AC units, wanting take AC units home with him to show others the quality of his workmanship. Does that make sense?
I agree with Thomas and Craig that the portion you provided does not directly ask you to remove their content from your personal site, however it is state here: "Any posting that violates the rights of a third party is prohibited under this policy."
The company, who is the copyright holder and legal owners of the work you created for them, is prohibiting your usage. By displaying the company's images on your social networking page or private website without their expressed permission violates one of their rights of ownership, otherwise known as copyright infringement. The issue has nothing to do with selling the images but the right to display (or use) their work to promote your talents or ability.
The right thing for you to do is simply ask for permission (in writing) from your supervisor. If your request is denied, you can either appeal the decision with your supervisor's supervisor or go out and create great images on your own time with your own equipment. You have 2/3 of a calendar day to create something special on your own time. |
|
Gary Cosby, Jr, Photographer
|
Decatur | AL | USA | Posted: 8:25 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> I have written a couple of policies for our newspaper regarding revenue sharing from the sale of photos for advertising and additional editorial sources such as magazines and web sites. I have also negotiated the use of pictures I produce at work on my blog. By the way, I don't get revenue from the blog.
The way I approached our publisher was that while he certainly owns the copyright to the pictures we shoot on the job, he could not have those photographs without the individual talent of the photographer producing the work. Based on that, we have formed a working relationship that allows us to blog and to share revenues from certain types of externals sales.
I think the best way to approach the situation is to speak to the management person one on one and negotiate some ability to display the work you create on a blog. Have a professional presentation with well thought out points that make good business sense for both parties involved and show your management how allowing you to blog actually enhances their product.
Remember that you are dealing with business professionals who have little understanding of the creative side. To reach a person on the business side you need to get into their shoes. Hope things work out for you. The news business really is a collaboration between the business and the creative. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 8:30 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> While I don't fully agree with Clark's comparison about "YOUR WORK" and assembly line installers, he is right about talking to the supervisors about displaying the photos on your site. It sounds like in your inclusion that they want to make sure you don't editorialize yourself to seemingly represent the publication on your thoughts and impulses, that could make them look bad.
I think before you came on the post here, you should have talked to them first and gotten clarification, just coming on here, if any of them lurk the pages, could make a negative impression about you and how you handle disciplinary actions. |
|
Willie J. Allen Jr., Photographer
|
St. Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 10:09 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> I would suggest adding the name of the newspapers that you work for to the copyright. I've never had a problem using my images on my personal website, Sportsshooter.com or any other place. In my captions it always reads [WILLIE J. ALLEN JR. | Times] on each photo, which is exactly like every other caption I write for the St. Petersburg Times. This way there is not a question who made the image and who owns it.
http://williejallenjr.com/c/williejallenjr |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 11:46 PM on 01.10.10 |
->> The policy sounds very cold and corporate.
A publisher I worked for came up through the ranks who said that employees who work for towards professional goals were a significant benefit because we weren't working solely for the meager salary. And because of that, we were of greater benefit to the paper. IMHO, this policy takes away the possibility of the greater good.
It appears there's only one team you play for at this particular newspaper so keep an eye out for a better work environment. |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 1:01 AM on 01.11.10 |
->> Folks -
Technically speaking, Clark is correct - as a staffer, the author of the work is the paper, not the photographer. The paper is not obligated to even provide a photo credit.
More than once, there have been stories here on SS about papers using photographers' posting of images that they shot on websites as grounds for termination - and justifiably so.
Rob - you ask:
>>>I guess my next question would be, why can someone post photos from their former employee on their website, if your not allowed to do it while you work for a paper.
While they legally can't, it's highly unlikely that a paper would send a DMCA takedown notice to your web hosting company, or pursue you for infringement (both of which they legally can do) because it's not worth the time and trouble.
Darren - you write:
>>>The policy sounds very cold and corporate.
Yup, it is, it's business, not personal.
>>>It appears there's only one team you play for at this particular newspaper so keep an eye out for a better work environment.
Good luck on this one. Everyone now should be preparing to lose their staff jobs - it's not a matter of if, but when, for about 95% of all staff photography jobs in the news media.
Rob - if the person who told you to take them down is above you in the papers hierarchy, you need to either take them down, or get a sympathetic photo editor whom you work for to write you a letter giving you permission to have them up (and know that the PE has the authority to do that).
Keep in mind that even here in SS, when you post your images in the member galleries, you are certifying that you have the right to do that, which either means you own the copyright, or have been granted permission (preferably in writing) by the copyright owner (usually the publication if you're on staff) to post those images. I cringe at the probable number of staffers on SS who have posted staff photographs and do not have the right to do so. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 3:44 AM on 01.11.10 |
->> Clark-
--"I agree with Thomas and Craig that the portion you provided does not directly ask you to remove their content from your personal site, however it is state here: "Any posting that violates the rights of a third party is prohibited under this policy.'"--
Correct, but the paper is considered the "first party" (due to it being their contract/policy in the first place) and the photographer is the "second party". "Third party" would be everyone else in the world, such as the subject of the postings/comments or photographs who could for example slap a libel suit on the paper. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 3:56 AM on 01.11.10 |
| ->> The reason I brought that up, is I assume you meant the paper would claim it violated THEIR rights, such as copyright infringement and whatnot. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:46 AM on 01.11.10 |
->> Thomas:
You may be correct. I was looking at the situation as the photographer, the curator of the site, being the first party, the hosting company the second and the university as the third party because neither Rob nor the hosting company retain ownership. The hosting site would also look at the University's content as that off a third party.
Darren wrote: "The policy sounds very cold and corporate."
It is not just corporate but government policy as well. As both a former University photographer (state employee) and photographer for a military contractor (federal), I made a number of images I would love to have in various portfolios to showcase my abilities. I had great access on the military base I worked on because of the relationships built with our base commanders and the security police. In both cases, the condition of employment were images could never be sold, displayed or possessed for personal use. I'm surprised your University employer does not have similar prohibitions in place.
As funny as it may seem given the number of crooked Governors Illinois has had recently, using images we created on the job for a personal, non-University related website would have been an ethics violation and cause for disciplinary action (for misappropriation of University resources) by our supervisor.
Rob you also wrote: "I guess my next question would be, why can someone post photos from their former employee on their website, if your not allowed to do it while you work for a paper."
As John wrote: "... they legally can't..." However, you are posing the question to the wrong group of people. It is a point of conversation you should be have with your supervisor or the paper's administration. The paper's management may not even be aware the former staffers are using the images, they may not care or may not want to expend the resources, as Mr. Harrington also points out, to have the offenders remove the images from their sites. It could be they may have been granted certain usage rights as part of their termination/retirement/buyout package. Depending on the length of their employment, their employment contract may have been other slightly different terms. There are too many variables and the course of action again is to speak with your supervisor.
To be clear, I'm not saying the policy that paper chooses to enforce is either right or wrong. Above, Gary offers some good advice, start there, Rob. Who knows? May be you can work something out with your employer that will address their concerns and give you the freedom you are seeking to use images you create on the job for personal use.
Keep us posted. |
|
Chris Pietsch, Photographer
|
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 10:22 AM on 01.11.10 |
->> Talk to your bosses about the benefits of having your work seen on venues outside of the paper's print and web products.
There are a number of members of SportsShooter.com who are using this site, Facebook, Twitter, etc. to drive traffic to their employer's website. I just recently became friends with two entire photo staffs at the Oregonian and the Chicago Tribune.
Of course these photographers are using social networking sites in a professional way. Their posts are about their work, not what they had to eat that day. |
|
Rob Edwards, Photographer
|
Peru | IN | United States | Posted: 4:43 PM on 01.11.10 |
->> I'm not sure at this time I would benefit in talking to my boss. My publisher was the one who told me to take down the photos.
I guess that I'm frustrated that I've worked hard for this company, done everything I've been asked to--including things that are not in my job description and I get treated this way. I know it's a business and corporate American. I guess having taken everything else away from us, I would think that some things would not be that big of a deal.
Posting photos that would drive people to the papers website and earning money for them, I would see that a plus not a negative. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:13 PM on 01.11.10 |
->> Rob -
Isn't that what all of the bloggers who lift our photos say - why are you bothered it's promoting you?
Would it be nice if they permitted their staffers to display work product they produced in a responsible manner? Yes. Are they obligated to or somehow evil if they don't? No.
I guess I just don't see the basis for a making a statement about getting "treated this way" or that you've had something taken away. It's their property and you apparently used it without asking. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|