| 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
Freelance photogs, stand up for yourselves! Zimbel vs NYT
Robert Caplin, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:16 PM on 04.02.10 |
->> I came across a fascinating read while surfing the web in bed last night; veteran photographer George Zimbel who has been a professional, freelance photographer for over 60 years had particular photo he took of Jacqueline & John F. Kennedy cause quite a stir 40 years later in 2000 when The New York Times tried to claim ownership of his historic image. George stood up to The Times for himself and freelancers as a whole.
It's worth the read!
http://bit.ly/aRu7Dw
Unbelievably he's 82 years old and keeps a blog....still on top of his game! I emailed him last night and he's excited to share his blog with all of us, the younger crop of photojournalists. (Assuming most here on SS are younger than George!)
Cheers,
Robert |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 10:27 PM on 04.02.10 |
| ->> Great link and to read the back and forth, thanks Robert. |
|
Matt Barton, Photographer
|
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 11:49 PM on 04.02.10 |
| ->> George got an old print back but I'm not sure what he accomplished really. Sounds like the NY Times can still sell reprints. Seems like a hollow victory to me. |
|
Martin McNeil, Photographer
|
East Kilbride | Lanarkshire | United Kingdom | Posted: 10:06 AM on 04.03.10 |
->> I'm with Matt; the NYT sought (and is likely still seeking) to commercially profit from the sale of prints to which they do not have the permission to do so
Photokunst have the 8x10" print at at 'ticket price' of $4000; the NYT will receive a hefty cut of each sale and, if George's contract with the NYT was for one-time only rights, he's AT LEAST due a cut of the revenues - right? |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:08 AM on 04.03.10 |
->> Matt unless I am missing something, at best, NYT can sell (maybe) scans of the original print. From the letters that I read, the original print AND negative are now back in the photographers possession. Whereas the original item carried the value of being the original, complete with notes and publishing data, copies or prints of the scan will carry a much lower (if any) value.
If you are getting the idea that NYT can sell reprints based on Zimbel's letter of 1/16 where he states...
You have my permission to scan that print, front and back for your archive, with any future sales from that scan paid for in the normal manner which has been our way of working together for nearly fifty years......
I really don't know what the 'normal manner' of payment is but I do know that such 'permission' is just as easily rescinded. All in all, I think that firstly Zimbel won his argument, and secondly that NYT returned the print in the hopes that the story would die and that other photographers would not hear about this and assert their ownership of prints that may have been sold or are being sold improperly.
Personally I believe that the the last paragraph of the letter of 11/29/2000 may have stirred some fear that he would begin contacting surviving photographers bringing together a group that could assert rights to the property or mire the situation into a legal fight between law firms. Just my opinion.
Thank you Robert for a good read. |
|
Rich Pilling, Photographer
|
New York | NY | U.S.A. | Posted: 10:30 AM on 04.03.10 |
->> A most enlightening exchange between Zimbel and the Times attorney.
I must admit during my freelance career I was lax in getting my B&W prints back, which I submitted to clients returned to me. In the case of one client, Sport magazine, when they went out of business they sold what they thought was their archive of photography. Included in this collection were prints of many photographers, including photographs which I owned the copyright to.
I found several of these prints offered for sale on eBay this year. I contacted both my attorneys as well as the legal department at eBay. I learned, much to my dismay, that the only thing that I could do was to prevent a commercial sale of these prints.
Please be mindful of your copyrighted work, and insist that it be returned to you once the project in which it was used has been completed.
Ar Pee |
|
Robert Caplin, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 10:47 AM on 04.03.10 |
->> Matt,
I can'y speak specifically for Mr. Zimbel's contract, if he has one at all, but I do know the current standard contract stipulates that the NYT and the photographer split any print sales 50/50, though some photographers have different arrangements. I'm not sure what "the normal manner which has been our way of working together for nearly fifty years" that George speaks of, but I'm fairly confident he does receive a cut for print sales. But again, that's between Mr. Zimbel and the NYT. Your assumption (and of course mine too) is simply speculation.
Robert |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 11:05 AM on 04.03.10 |
->> Matt -
To say he just "got an old print" back is like saying that Barry Bond's record breaking ball is just "an old ball".
The original, not a scan or reproduction, is what has the very high value and is what was being offered for sale (from my reading of the article).
The statement also completely ignores the fact that what he accomplished was to get them to honor the original terms of his agreement.
It is far from a hollow victory. |
|
Matt Barton, Photographer
|
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 2:30 PM on 04.03.10 |
->> Ok, It was a $4,000 hollow victory.
I guess I misread the intent of this story. It was sorta hyped as a victory for early NY Times freelancers but was actually a unique case. Moral of the story, always get it in writing.
Thanks for the link Robert. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 7:01 PM on 04.03.10 |
| ->> Matt what exactly would you have considered a 'full' or glorious victory? |
|
Matt Barton, Photographer
|
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 10:00 PM on 04.03.10 |
| ->> The print and a front page editor's note relinquishing any ownership claims as well as a full apology, reimbursement for any reprints sold (which violated his One-Time Use clause) and a complimentary six month subscription. It could still be considered a full victory without the public apology and free subscription but definately not glorious. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:12 PM on 04.03.10 |
| ->> Now that's what I call zeal! |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 11:30 PM on 04.03.10 |
->> You know what impressed me the most? How firm, but polite Mr Zimbel was.
Against a NYT lawyer to boot.
The guy knew his stuff. He was firm without being nasty. At the end, he calls them out, but during the entire process he just kept pushing their buttons.He was right and they knew he was right.
A wonderful read. Thanks for sharing, Robert. And God bless Mr. Zimbel. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|