Student Yearbook Photographer

[TehYoyo]

This is a noncommercial discussion.

I'm submitting photos to be a yearbook photographer for my high school next year. Obviously, I'd like to retain the copyright on my images. I'm pretty sure I'll still have it regardless, but I'm going to make sure anyways.

How do I keep my copyright? Do I have to sign anything? I don't want to make it a huge deal.

 

[tirediron]

Keith (KmH) can provide much better information on US copyright than I can, but in essence, unless you agree to the contrary, (eg, you sign a document relenquishing it) you will retain the copyright to your work regardless of its use.

 

[CCericola]

Just ask the yearbook committe chair. Or ask them who to ask. I'm thinking you retain copyright. I'm trying to think way back in 95 when I was a senior. We shot film and I remember we had to print them for the yearbook in the darkroom then I took all the negs home in my film binder. Then we had student submit prints that were used. We're talking taping up all the layouts and cutting and pasting text onto templates for the printer, (no computer layouts here). No one signed anything. Things may be different now.

 

[TehYoyo]

That seems to make sense. Thanks for the help.

 

[orljustin]

Of course you retain copyright. It's a school yearbook. Do you think they are going to take your pictures of "Bob having a burger in the cafeteria" and go license that to some company? Don't worry about it.

 

[CCericola]

The only thing that would come up is if you wanted to sell them you would need to get model releases from the people and maybe a property release from the school. But I'm guessing nobody is going to want them

 

[hirejn]

You maintain ownership and copyright of your work until you sign it away. However, I wouldn't do any work without a contract. There should be a written agreement between you and the client detailing the work to be done and the products to be delivered, how they're to be delivered, and the images should be licensed so the school understands the terms under which they're to be used. I realize paying for an attorney may not be realistic for you, but it's recommended because that's the best way to ensure your contract is legal and enforceable. You can also look online for sample contracts and licenses and modify the content to fit your needs. Something is better than nothing. The biggest mistake photographers make early is working without a contract. If nothing is in writing and there's any sort of disagreement later over even the smallest thing, especially if you go to court, you could get your clock cleaned because you have zilch to stand on and ambiguity tends to benefit your client.

 

[hirejn]

Don't worry about it.

Yeah, don't listen to this guy BTW. What's the worst that could happen without a contract, right? Do yourself a favor, dude. Get stuff in writing. Write it on a napkin, on a piece of paper. Just get an agreement in writing and have both parties sign and date it. Even the most innocent small job without a contract can turn against you. Doesn't matter if it's your best friend, your school, your mayor, your parents. Get it in writing.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Are you submitting photos for the purpose of being considered for the position of photographer for your school's yearbook? That seems more like you'd be showing your work/your portfolio to the teachers/advisors making the selection - if it's being looked at but not used in any other way I don't know that copyright would be a concern yet as you'd own the copyright to photos you've already taken and have in your portfolio.

It might be a different situation than if you become a yearbook photographer next year. That might be when you'd need to find out about usage; usually if someone is working for a newspaper or other publication I think that even if the photographer retains copyright the publication would own the photos because the photographer was contracted/hired to do work/shoot photos for them. If you're a student I don't know if the situation is the same for student work as it would be if you're 18 and being hired/paid - that's where a contract would specify terms and usage and payment. I believe that type work is different than if you'd be using/selling some of your own personal work - there's a difference between usage in journalism and retail/commercial use.

If you're taking photos for the yearbook the school might be the one responsible for photo releases etc., and you'd be dealing with under 18 year olds as subjects so that would involve parent permission. If you'd want to use photos you took at school events for a purpose other than publication in the yearbook that might be where you'd need to find about terms and usage and obtaining permission and school policies etc. As is done at college level, I've read that some high schools are starting to issue credentials for sports to control how their student athletes' images, school name and logo, etc. are used so you might need to ask about your school's policies and procedures for their publications and for their yearbook staff.

 

[orljustin]

A high school yearbook staff member is going to take photos at random events without any releases or notice, and the club/class will use them in the book. It isn't paid. It's for fun or credit. The use goes as far as the book. No further. Like I said, don't worry about it.

 

[TehYoyo]

But I'm guessing nobody is going to want them

Thanks.

 

[tirediron]

But I'm guessing nobody is going to want them

Thanks.

I think what Christina meant was that it was unlikely that anyone was going to want to use yearbook images for commercial (advertising) work since there aren't a lot of products that such images are likely to be used in conjunction with, NOT that the quality and subject-matter of the images was sub-par.

 

[KmH]

The only thing that would come up is if you wanted to sell them you would need to get model releases from the people and maybe a property release from the school.

Even if the school is a private school, getting a property release is likely overkill.

Images with people in them do not need to be released to be sold or even licensed, as long as the use is not considered a commercial use in the legal sense
Selling prints of people images in low volumeis considered an editorial use (art), and for that usage a model release is not needed.
On a practical level, un-released people images are routinely used for commercial (in the legal sense) purposes, because the publisher deems the risk of being sued small enough to be worth using the image un-released.