Local paper selling pictures - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/21/2006 01:50:50 AM · #1

I noticed something in our local paper today that I had not noticed before -- and frankly I don't see how they can do it. It was a small advertisement that stated 'If you see any pictures in this paper you like, contact us and we will be happy to put the picture on a CD for you for a $5/picture'.

I understand the paper is free to use images for editorial purposes without a model release, but that can't possibly cover the above advertisement, could it?

I mean, a quick look thru the paper found very few images that were not of people either just standing or doing what they were mentioned in the paper for. How can they sell pictures of someone without a model release -- use it in the paper, yes; but sell it?

David

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

06/21/2006 01:52:01 AM · #2

That has been standard practise over here for as long as I can remember.

rlinn3

Nikon D100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

06/21/2006 02:00:26 AM · #3

Most papers do this. They aren't being sold for commercial purposes only personal use, so the majority who buy them are the people who are pictured.

JRalston

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/21/2006 02:20:00 AM · #4

Originally posted by rlinn3:

Most papers do this. They aren't being sold for commercial purposes only personal use, so the majority who buy them are the people who are pictured.

I agree, but also understand David's concern. But if they are in the paper, that is just as bad as someone having a copy of the picture anyways.

Another thing...when I went to sign the freelance paperwork, they were adament (sp? not looking it up...lol) about getting people's names and the village they lived in. I would think someone who did not want their pic in the paper would speak up at that point. However, I am not sure if all newspapers work the same way.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

06/21/2006 02:23:16 AM · #5

Originally posted by David.C:

Kind of like those roller coaster rides where you can buy a picture at the end of the ride. I wonder what they do with the pictures that they don't sell?

JRalston

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/21/2006 02:25:42 AM · #6

Originally posted by faidoi:

Kind of like those roller coaster rides where you can buy a picture at the end of the ride. I wonder what they do with the pictures that they don't sell?

Everyone knows they have them pinned up in their lunch room and make fun of people while eating their ham sandwiches.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

06/21/2006 02:27:23 AM · #7

It may just be I don't read the paper much (this one was sitting on a table in the break room at work) or that the local paper finally went digital (don't bet on it, probably scanned) and I had never seen it.

But still, what makes it different from the paper to sell a picture of, say a kid at a swimming competition and me selling a similar picture? Even if the photo the paper was selling was one I took (it's not, but...), I would need a model release to sell it. Why don't they?

Maybe they claim the $5 covers the cost of copying, and no profit is made. Still, there seems to be something about the copyright laws I'm not understanding. :(

David

rlinn3

Nikon D100

06/21/2006 02:34:26 AM · #8

It has nothing to do with copyright law. It has to do with releases. Editorial use (news orgaizations) is pretty broad in what they are allowed to do without a release. Most other uses, because they are not "news" require a release. Jennifer is right about the need for names & Addresses, but it is usually for identification more than requesting a release in my experiences.
The only time copyright comes into play is if they are selling pics they don't have a right to. As a freelancer for several papers, I can tell you most paperwork signed has a clause about their right to resell the images they purchase from you.

edit: are you sure they're ham and not PB&J?

Message edited by author 2006-06-21 02:39:33.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

06/21/2006 03:40:43 AM · #9

Originally posted by rlinn3:

... edit: are you sure they're ham and not PB&J?

I'm afraid you lost me completely on your edit. :(

---

Also, just to make it clear, I don't care what anyone does with any picture they have. I'm not one to consider a photo of anything done in public as causing any harm (at least not any harm that doesn't need causing). :D I find a lot of the nonsense that goes on about pictures to be a lot like thinking someone has power over you because they know your name -- even if it is your true name. Although I have seen some photos that I swear stole a piece of the subjects soul. :P

My main concern/question is that I am not understanding copyright law properly -- and it's something I think I should make a point to understand.

David

e301

06/21/2006 03:49:57 AM · #10

It's not really copyright, actually. It's about usage of the images. If you have a shot of four people messing about in a fountain, and a newspaper buys it to illustrate an article about summer, for instance, then they do not require model releases to run that image - that's editorial. However, if an insurance company buys it and uses it on a poster selling their stuff, they do require model releases. You can't use someone's image to sell stuff without their permission.

e

taterbug

Nikon D300

06/21/2006 05:53:04 AM · #11

Originally posted by e301:

Right. But I think what David is referring to is an ad that the paper is running (the State Journal here has the same thing), that states that John Q. Public can purchase any photo they see in the paper. No stipulations on what for or anything, just that anyone, can buy any photo. Wouldn't that no longer be for editorial purpose?

In other words...I see a photo on the front page of today's paper, I really like it, I can contact the paper and buy a copy of that photo and hang it on my wall.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/21/2006 06:49:24 AM · #12

Originally posted by taterbug:

Originally posted by e301:
It's not really copyright, actually. It's about usage of the images. If you have a shot of four people messing about in a fountain, and a newspaper buys it to illustrate an article about summer, for instance, then they do not require model releases to run that image - that's editorial. However, if an insurance company buys it and uses it on a poster selling their stuff, they do require model releases. You can't use someone's image to sell stuff without their permission.

e

Right. But I think what David is referring to is an ad that the paper is running (the State Journal here has the same thing), that states that John Q. Public can purchase any photo they see in the paper. No stipulations on what for or anything, just that anyone, can buy any photo. Wouldn't that no longer be for editorial purpose?

In other words...I see a photo on the front page of today's paper, I really like it, I can contact the paper and buy a copy of that photo and hang it on my wall.

Exactly!

Actually, now that I've had a chance to cool back down my brain is starting to work again. (That is cool down from heat exhaustion at work last night that took a few hours to recover from -- not being angry about the paper.) A new thought for me as I read the above, can a picture that appeared with an article in the paper be considered editorial content when not included with the article? I have no problem seeing that a picture can tell the story by itself -- but most papers don't have pictures of that quality. Or is anything the paper sells considered editorial content? Following that line of reasoning seems to be a bit of a stretch at best.

I suppose it comes down to 'what are the limits of editorial permisiveness?' It just seems strange that the staff photographer and I could photograph the same event, and the paper be permitted to sell copies of their photos while I can't. Very strange indeed!

David

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

06/21/2006 07:07:05 AM · #13

Originally posted by taterbug:

The person in the picture is still not selling anything. Their image is being sold - much different. When you sell a picture to someone, you really have no control over how they might eventually use it. But, if a person/company uses it commercially - to sell a product or service, they can be sued by both the model and the photographer.

My son's school tried to make me sign a blanket model release. I 'rewrote' it to limit their commercial rights to advertising for the school only. If they or the photographer sold the image to be used commercially for any other purpose, I could sue them.

Editorial includes anything non-advertising - books, articles in newspapers and magazines, fine art...

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/21/2006 07:12:26 AM · #14

it works like this:

there is editorial content, there is commercial content, and there is personal use. editorial use covers everything not related to advertising. publications are free to publish whatever they want (as long as it's not libelous or slanderous). they are also free to sell these images for personal use. they may, depending on the situation, license the image for commercial use (typically, this is when they are writing a story about a business and they send a photog out to get some shots, and the business decides they want to use those photos on their website and in their marketing collateral.).

as to selling for personal use, this falls under the same category as selling images as "art"--you do not have to have permission or a release to sell art. it's only when you want to use an image as part of a commercial endeavor that you need permissions. the most common misunderstanding is assuming that "commercial use" includes "being in the business of selling art", when it is primarily covers what would be considered "marketing/advertising."

06/21/2006 09:46:25 AM · #15

My local newspaper doesn't do this. I tried to get them to do it and they just ignore the idea. While I'm suffering a lack of work due to a stringer budget cutback, I have started doing it on my own, and hopefully will do it solely when the fall school season starts back.

I believe my newspaper could completely fund their stringer staff by selling these photos this way ....

06/21/2006 10:00:09 AM · #16

You mean like this?

MyCapture Photo Gallery

06/21/2006 10:01:36 AM · #17

Yup.

My newspaper just gives the photos away to anyone who calls. If it's one of my photos, I have to process it, put it on a CD and get it to the customer and I get nothing extra for that.

06/21/2006 10:03:42 AM · #18

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

... I have to process it, put it on a CD and get it to the customer and I get nothing extra for that.

That kinda stinks.

06/21/2006 10:04:40 AM · #19

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
... I have to process it, put it on a CD and get it to the customer and I get nothing extra for that.

That kinda stinks.

It won't stink for long :)

Hopefully I'm gonna freelance to the parents in the fall.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/21/2006 10:11:46 AM · #20

Originally posted by skiprow:

... as to selling for personal use, this falls under the same category as selling images as "art"--you do not have to have permission or a release to sell art. ...

Question for ya Skip. The image below is one of six on display at a local photography show (opens to the public tomorrow). We are allowed to sell the prints we have displayed. I've set pricing for several, but not this one. Didn't think I could legally sell it because I don't have a release. It was taken during a civil war reenactment in downtown Fredericksburg, VA last year. This guy was one of the participants. Based on what you've mentioned it sounds like I could sell a print without a release, but if I want to put it up for stock then I would need a release for it. Is this correct?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/21/2006 10:19:54 AM · #21

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by skiprow:
... as to selling for personal use, this falls under the same category as selling images as "art"--you do not have to have permission or a release to sell art. ...

Question for ya Skip. The image below is one of six on display at a local photography show (opens to the public tomorrow). We are allowed to sell the prints we have displayed. I've set pricing for several, but not this one. Didn't think I could legally sell it because I don't have a release. It was taken during a civil war reenactment in downtown Fredericksburg, VA last year. This guy was one of the participants. Based on what you've mentioned it sounds like I could sell a print without a release, but if I want to put it up for stock then I would need a release for it. Is this correct?

That's basically correct, yes. The selling of images as art is not considered "commercial usage" as a rule. And here's another important point; if your "model" DID have a vested right that could prohibit you selling the print, that same right could prohibit you even exhibiting it...

R.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

06/21/2006 10:23:08 AM · #22

Robert-What would be an example of a vested interest?

06/21/2006 10:23:38 AM · #23

There are some other issues with this as well. In the case of celebrities, you probably can't sell prints.

Sugarland
Doc Watson

These are two prints from my personal collection. I display them occasionally but I don't sell them. In the case of a celebrity, their 'image' is basically trademarked. It's part of what gives them the ability to make money, so I can't profit from it myself.