Copyright Question?

[DogGoneGood]

I live in south Louisiana, in the area that is currently flooding. Today, I rode over the Morganza Spillway that has been opened (as I live near it), and I snapped what turned out to be a photo that tells quite a story. This spillway was farmland full of crops and cattle, until just a few days ago, when they opened these spillway locks for the first time in decades.

Today I captured this photo, a farmer standing at the farm gate of what was once most likely his farm, water from the Mississippi river gushing thru the spillway locks in the background.

My question is, I want to submit it to our local newspaper, as they've been running photo's and stories covering this flood. However, on their submission page, its says to just upload the photo and send it to them, and they may or may not publish it. However, a few people mentioned that once I submit it, they may hold the copyright to it, even if they don't publish it.

Basically, I'm very new to submitting any photo to a newspaper or publisher and the whole rights to my photo thing, and not sure how to go about it. Just a bit of insight would be great, thanks guys!

This is the photo, by the way...


A Farmer Without A Farm by Turtletastic, on Flickr

 

[Ryan L]

I would think the site would outline the details somewhere, but maybe not. You ultimately own the copyright to your work, by sending it to them, you are not giving up your rights to your photo. Someone on here wil be able to explain in more detail, or tell you to consult a copyright attorney....

Is he putting up a no swimming sign lol

 

[DogGoneGood]

K, thanks. And no, that's a no tresspassing sign that's hanging on the gate.

 

[Ryan L]

In that case, it should be a "No public boat launch" sign

 

[Double H]

As long as you took this from a public place, and especially for press you are totally legal. If you try and use it for commercial purposes, there may be infractions.

edit* never sign a total rights release. The newspaper will only be looking for news release. if they want to use it in another way like promoting their paper, it would be a different agreement.

 

[480sparky]

No. He's hanging a "No Photography" sign up! :lmao:

 

[DogGoneGood]

Thanks for the suggestions Double H. I submitted it to a couple local papers here, and heard back from the editor of one a little earlier saying he'd like to print it in the paper. He didn't say anything about a release form, he just mentioned that I'd receive full credit for the photo.

 

[KmH]

Copyright is a complex subject and an online photography forum is not a reliable place to be seeking legal advice.

If you want to learn about copyright visit www.copyright.gov, the official website of the US Library of Congress's, Copyright Office.

The newspaper is required by law to have information online that details their terms, and transferring copyright may be one of them.

If you want some information on the ins-and-outs of using photos with people in them visit: Model Release Primer

 

[bennielou]

When working on a national story like this, I wouldn't send it to the local paper. I would approach a national wire service. Don't sell yourself short here. This is a big story.
It basically works like this:
Approach the wire service and show them all the photos you have. They will either give you a temporary or perminent agent or tell you they aren't interested in the photos.
If interested the agent will upload your photos to wire. Wire is basically a place where all the magazines go to find photos to go along with their news stories.
If your photo is chosen, then the agent will work out a deal for you. I will warn you though that there is rarely big money involved. The norm for big publications is between 250 and 500 bucks, but it's huge exposure, so maybe that will help.

But I will also caution you that wire is really picky about post processing. You can change the crop and the curves, and maybe even a slight boost in saturation, but dodging and burning is nomally a no no, as is sharpening, as they will sharpen for publication due to the needs and the printer preferrences of the magazine, or newspaper. It appears to me (and I can be totally wrong) that you burned the sky area, and sharpened the overall photo. This could be due to uploading, but if you approach a wire service, I would go back to pretty much straight out of camera.

Good job and the photo, and all the best for publication.

 

[boon4376]

I would think the site would outline the details somewhere, but maybe not. You ultimately own the copyright to your work, by sending it to them, you are not giving up your rights to your photo. Someone on here wil be able to explain in more detail, or tell you to consult a copyright attorney....

Is he putting up a no swimming sign lol

The fine print on the website may say that you are giving the newspaper unlimited rights to use, publish or alter the photo as they see fit in any of their media outlets.

When the media purchases or receives an image, they do not like to deal with non-unlimited licences. It creates a management headache. Most do not have adequate digital asset management systems and chances are an intern could be deciding which photo to use that doesn't know anything about licenses. If licences are complicated, they dont want to risk someone bringing the photo back up for use in 2 years and getting sued because of some time-expiration clause in the license (Or similar situation).

Thus while you still own the rights to your photo, you may be granting the media source to use it as they see fit for the indefinite future.
However they cannot turn around and sell the image or claim ownership of the image, and it cannot be used outside of their media publications by them. (They cant go posting it on personal facebook pages, an employee cant share it anywhere else)

I would estimate these forms are mostly used for cell phone pics of fires and car accidents.

 

[480sparky]

17 USC has been unconstitutional since 1790 and is still unconstitutional today.
Google Inc has faced me in US Courts now for three years regarding image search.
Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al,(5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)
Visual Art copy+rights were already ruled not to apply to the Internet!
Appeal is pending ...
I am losing against Google Inc thus far ...
Many newspapers let you submit photos and make you trade your exclusive rights to them to do it.
Newspaper print resolutions generally require 100 dpi but PS does this easily for most press quality needs.

Is your Copy & Paste function stuck on Paste or are you just one pissed-off dude?

 

[KmH]

17 USC has been unconstitutional since 1790 and is still unconstitutional today.

Sure, since 1790. That's why it's still on the books, and still enforced. Because it is unconstitutional. Get real.

People who want to did something not allowed in the statues that make up 17/18 USC, and get caught doing so, immediately jump on the "it's unconstitutional" bandwagon.