Nat'l Geo, Pro Digital Photographers & Copyright protection

I found the following story on the AP wire:

National Geographic Selling Photos Online
Tue Nov 26, 2:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The National Geographic (news - web sites) Society is putting thousands of its culture and wildlife photos online for sale.

With the launch of its digital archive on Tuesday, the society is responding to stronger demand for computer accessible images from its clients — including ad agencies, magazines and textbook publishers — which use them to sell their products.

"I had to really wait until the market was demanding digital images and online accessibility," said Maura Mulvihill, National Geographic's vice president of image collection. "It wasn't really a great idea financially until the last year or two."

National Geographic will initially move about 10,000 photos from catalogue to computer from its archive of over 10 million images. Up to 3,000 new images will be downloaded for commercial use each year thereafter.

Depending on usage, prices for a single image run from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, with a high premium for exclusive rights.

Now, you might think this is a good thing (and it is for the acceptance of digital images) BUT, now check out this story from The Digital Journalist. Apparently, Nat'l Geographic may not be actually paying any of th (e photographers who took those pictures!

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/editorial.html

Wow!! That's the last time I sell any photos to Nat'l Geographic (not that I have so far anyway).

Mike F.

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

Maybe we should start attending law school, instead of shooting pics ; (

This link may add a little more perspective http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb011022-2.htm .

Selling these pics online is VERY big bucks for NG. With the sheer volume of pics, it's very difficult if not impossible (in some cases), to determine if the pic has a copyright holder and where they are at, to get permission, etc.

They just decided to go for it and worry about copyrights later.

Just another business decision.

If you ever sent a pic to NG, maybe it's time to contact your local shyster.

Michael F. said:

I found the following story on the AP wire:

National Geographic Selling Photos Online
Tue Nov 26, 2:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) - The National Geographic (news - web sites)
Society is putting thousands of its culture and wildlife photos
online for sale.
With the launch of its digital archive on Tuesday, the society is
responding to stronger demand for computer accessible images from
its clients — including ad agencies, magazines and textbook
publishers — which use them to sell their products.
"I had to really wait until the market was demanding digital images
and online accessibility," said Maura Mulvihill, National
Geographic's vice president of image collection. "It wasn't really
a great idea financially until the last year or two."
National Geographic will initially move about 10,000 photos from
catalogue to computer from its archive of over 10 million images.
Up to 3,000 new images will be downloaded for commercial use each
year thereafter.
Depending on usage, prices for a single image run from a few
hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, with a high
premium for exclusive rights.

Now, you might think this is a good thing (and it is for the
acceptance of digital images) BUT, now check out this story from
The Digital Journalist. Apparently, Nat'l Geographic may not be
actually paying any of th (e photographers who took those pictures!

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/editorial.html

Wow!! That's the last time I sell any photos to Nat'l Geographic
(not that I have so far anyway).

Mike F.

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

Click to expand...

It all in the contract! You sign away your rights and get the QDOS of having worked for NG.

Thats the business there in and if you don't like the contract, well don't sign up.
Alex

Michael F. said:

I found the following story on the AP wire:

National Geographic Selling Photos Online
Tue Nov 26, 2:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) - The National Geographic (news - web sites)
Society is putting thousands of its culture and wildlife photos
online for sale.
With the launch of its digital archive on Tuesday, the society is
responding to stronger demand for computer accessible images from
its clients — including ad agencies, magazines and textbook
publishers — which use them to sell their products.
"I had to really wait until the market was demanding digital images
and online accessibility," said Maura Mulvihill, National
Geographic's vice president of image collection. "It wasn't really
a great idea financially until the last year or two."
National Geographic will initially move about 10,000 photos from
catalogue to computer from its archive of over 10 million images.
Up to 3,000 new images will be downloaded for commercial use each
year thereafter.
Depending on usage, prices for a single image run from a few
hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, with a high
premium for exclusive rights.

Now, you might think this is a good thing (and it is for the
acceptance of digital images) BUT, now check out this story from
The Digital Journalist. Apparently, Nat'l Geographic may not be
actually paying any of th (e photographers who took those pictures!

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/editorial.html

Wow!! That's the last time I sell any photos to Nat'l Geographic
(not that I have so far anyway).

Mike F.

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

Click to expand...

One thing that people never think about with copyright, that I always tell them, is that a copyright is only as valuable as the owner's willingness and ability to protect them. Organizations and individuals can steal images any time they like, and if you, the copyright holder, don't pursue them, there is no government agency that will do so for you. ZThe National Geo thing has been going on for some years, and is just a prominent piece of the landscape of corporate copyright violations that does threaten the very nature of copyright. Individual authors are usually unable to muster the legal bandwidth that it takes to take on a large corporation. Arnol newman is right in predicting that photojournalism will become (much like fashion photography has already) a place where the person who is willing to work for free or little money and the implied prestige of the association will be getting the work.

In my business, I control the use of the images I create by creating long-term relationships with my clients and adding services in addition to photography (design, marketing, etc) this usually allows me to defuse the idea of "asset" value of my photos. I retain the rights to my work, but I also provide broad access through my design business to those images at a good price. I don't think you could pay me enought to work for the miserable terms and conditions that editorial photography has come to, on the whole.
Kevin
http://www.studiotwo.com
[email protected]

Time, Inc., sent me a contract to sell my images (which they are digitizing) and it will pay me for monies recieved (with the usual split, which is worth it). However, I should re-read it, altho when I signed it, all was fine with me.

Well, actually not just business, IMO. I am both a photographer and a magazine publisher (in China). My magazine would NEVER presunme to sell photos we had previously published without permissiopn. Secondly, we always know who took what photo and where they are.

This is the kind of IPR (intellectual property rights) that the Chinese govt. gets criticized for by most westerners.

In my opinion, its a flagrant and egregious violation of copyright laws.

Mike F.

Marty Scher B said:

This link may add a little more perspective
http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb011022-2.htm .

Selling these pics online is VERY big bucks for NG. With the sheer
volume of pics, it's very difficult if not impossible (in some
cases), to determine if the pic has a copyright holder and where
they are at, to get permission, etc.

They just decided to go for it and worry about copyrights later.

Just another business decision.

If you ever sent a pic to NG, maybe it's time to contact your local
shyster.

Michael F. said:

I found the following story on the AP wire:

National Geographic Selling Photos Online
Tue Nov 26, 2:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) - The National Geographic (news - web sites)
Society is putting thousands of its culture and wildlife photos
online for sale.
With the launch of its digital archive on Tuesday, the society is
responding to stronger demand for computer accessible images from
its clients — including ad agencies, magazines and textbook
publishers — which use them to sell their products.
"I had to really wait until the market was demanding digital images
and online accessibility," said Maura Mulvihill, National
Geographic's vice president of image collection. "It wasn't really
a great idea financially until the last year or two."
National Geographic will initially move about 10,000 photos from
catalogue to computer from its archive of over 10 million images.
Up to 3,000 new images will be downloaded for commercial use each
year thereafter.
Depending on usage, prices for a single image run from a few
hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, with a high
premium for exclusive rights.

Now, you might think this is a good thing (and it is for the
acceptance of digital images) BUT, now check out this story from
The Digital Journalist. Apparently, Nat'l Geographic may not be
actually paying any of th (e photographers who took those pictures!

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/editorial.html

Wow!! That's the last time I sell any photos to Nat'l Geographic
(not that I have so far anyway).

Mike F.

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

Well, apparently, the contracts didn't sign away all rights, but were limited use.

Mike F.

ajs2 said:

It all in the contract! You sign away your rights and get the QDOS
of having worked for NG.

Thats the business there in and if you don't like the contract,
well don't sign up.
Alex
/

Click to expand...

As Kevin pointed out, a copyright is only as good as the copyright holder's willingness to protect that right; no one else gives a hoot.

On contracts, I almost NEVER sign away unlimited rights - almost always for one time use only.

This last summer another photographer and I threatened to sue a major publisher here that had solicited contributions for a photo book. We each agreed, subject to appropriate credit either on the page or at the back of the book. Also, one time use only. The first proof run (of only about 30 copies) did not give credit to either of us and we threatened to sue if they did not comply with the original agreements. The alternative, we told them, was that we would bill them for US$1,500-$2,000 per photo for the purchase of unlimited use rights (for me that would have been about $30,000 and for my colleague Steve, about $60,000). The publisher killed the book.

Mike F.

Pete Biro said:

Time, Inc., sent me a contract to sell my images (which they are
digitizing) and it will pay me for monies recieved (with the usual
split, which is worth it). However, I should re-read it, altho when
I signed it, all was fine with me.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

We're talking about a relatively large corporation with over a hundred years of material (some they own and some they don't) and probably a battalion of lawers ready.

Somewhere, somebody probably had a meeting and determined that it is cheaper to wait for the lawsuits, instead of going to the effort to contact, get permission and pay for the additional use of the photos up front.

It's not right, but apparently that's the way that it is.

Michael F. said:

This is the kind of IPR (intellectual property rights) that the
Chinese govt. gets criticized for by most westerners.

In my opinion, its a flagrant and egregious violation of copyright
laws.

Mike F.

Marty Scher B said:

This link may add a little more perspective
http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb011022-2.htm .

Selling these pics online is VERY big bucks for NG. With the sheer
volume of pics, it's very difficult if not impossible (in some
cases), to determine if the pic has a copyright holder and where
they are at, to get permission, etc.

They just decided to go for it and worry about copyrights later.

Just another business decision.

If you ever sent a pic to NG, maybe it's time to contact your local
shyster.

Michael F. said:

I found the following story on the AP wire:

National Geographic Selling Photos Online
Tue Nov 26, 2:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) - The National Geographic (news - web sites)
Society is putting thousands of its culture and wildlife photos
online for sale.
With the launch of its digital archive on Tuesday, the society is
responding to stronger demand for computer accessible images from
its clients — including ad agencies, magazines and textbook
publishers — which use them to sell their products.
"I had to really wait until the market was demanding digital images
and online accessibility," said Maura Mulvihill, National
Geographic's vice president of image collection. "It wasn't really
a great idea financially until the last year or two."
National Geographic will initially move about 10,000 photos from
catalogue to computer from its archive of over 10 million images.
Up to 3,000 new images will be downloaded for commercial use each
year thereafter.
Depending on usage, prices for a single image run from a few
hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, with a high
premium for exclusive rights.

Now, you might think this is a good thing (and it is for the
acceptance of digital images) BUT, now check out this story from
The Digital Journalist. Apparently, Nat'l Geographic may not be
actually paying any of th (e photographers who took those pictures!

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/editorial.html

Wow!! That's the last time I sell any photos to Nat'l Geographic
(not that I have so far anyway).

Mike F.

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

Click to expand...

You're undoubtedly right. The piece cited above says:

"Various editors and department heads at Geographic immediately raised red flags. They pointed out that Geographic did not own many or even most of the images that had been featured in the magazine. In a willful act the executives overrode their warnings and proceeded to sell the discs. . . .

"When photographers found out their images had been scanned and sold without their permission, they immediately cried foul. But by their accounts, Geographic made no effort to come to some sort of understanding. In fact Geographic had made matters worse in June, 1997 by sending letters to 2000 affected photographers informing them of the upcoming product and telling them they would not be paid for the use of their material.

"Over the past four years, lawsuits have been filed, and last year, photographer Jerry Greenberg won the first big court victory against Geographic in a federal court in Atlanta. That case has since been remanded to a court in Miami for the assessment of damages.

". . . Panicked Geographic lawyers, reeling from the Greenberg decision, have come up with a last ditch attempt to rewrite the history of the relationship between photographers and publications. They have come up with the proposition that in the 60s and 70s it was common practice for photographers to sign away all rights for the privilege of being published in major magazines.

"This is simply not true. As Fred Ward recalls, "In those days almost all assignments were done with a handshake, without contracts. I did about half of my nearly 30 years of NGS assignments with nothing more than a phone call from photography director Bob Gilka." The American Society of Magazine Photographers had already established the basic relationship between photographers and editors that assignments were done for a one-time use. This was the formula that would allow photographers to resell their archives in future years, to make up for the lack of benefits that staff photographers and the editors who assigned the stories enjoyed."

Marty Scher B said:

We're talking about a relatively large corporation with over a
hundred years of material (some they own and some they don't) and
probably a battalion of lawers ready.

Somewhere, somebody probably had a meeting and determined that it
is cheaper to wait for the lawsuits, instead of going to the effort
to contact, get permission and pay for the additional use of the
photos up front.

It's not right, but apparently that's the way that it is.

Click to expand...

Probably the point is that even though the contracts don't sign away rights, the corporations are just taking them anyway, in this historical case with natl geo. That's the real root of the problem.
kevin

For sure, that's what's happening. Its just a shame that its NatGeo that is doing this; they as much as any magazine (except for the old Life Magazine, maybe) for photography.

Mike F.

Kevin Sprague said:

Probably the point is that even though the contracts don't sign
away rights, the corporations are just taking them anyway, in this
historical case with natl geo. That's the real root of the problem.
kevin

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

Now that it is so easy (and presumably profitable) to distribute electronically, this move by NG is probably only the beginning of the nightmare for anyone who produces and owns the copyright to intellectual property, and wishes to protect it (or at least get paid for it's usage).

There are areqady other threads about unauthorized web site linking, image copying,etc.

Regards

Michael F. said:

"Various editors and department heads at Geographic immediately
raised red flags. They pointed out that Geographic did not own many
or even most of the images that had been featured in the magazine.
In a willful act the executives overrode their warnings and
proceeded to sell the discs. . . .

"When photographers found out their images had been scanned and
sold without their permission, they immediately cried foul. But by
their accounts, Geographic made no effort to come to some sort of
understanding. In fact Geographic had made matters worse in June,
1997 by sending letters to 2000 affected photographers informing
them of the upcoming product and telling them they would not be
paid for the use of their material.

"Over the past four years, lawsuits have been filed, and last year,
photographer Jerry Greenberg won the first big court victory
against Geographic in a federal court in Atlanta. That case has
since been remanded to a court in Miami for the assessment of
damages.

". . . Panicked Geographic lawyers, reeling from the Greenberg
decision, have come up with a last ditch attempt to rewrite the
history of the relationship between photographers and publications.
They have come up with the proposition that in the 60s and 70s it
was common practice for photographers to sign away all rights for
the privilege of being published in major magazines.

"This is simply not true. As Fred Ward recalls, "In those days
almost all assignments were done with a handshake, without
contracts. I did about half of my nearly 30 years of NGS
assignments with nothing more than a phone call from photography
director Bob Gilka." The American Society of Magazine Photographers
had already established the basic relationship between
photographers and editors that assignments were done for a one-time
use. This was the formula that would allow photographers to resell
their archives in future years, to make up for the lack of benefits
that staff photographers and the editors who assigned the stories
enjoyed."

Marty Scher B said:

We're talking about a relatively large corporation with over a
hundred years of material (some they own and some they don't) and
probably a battalion of lawers ready.

Somewhere, somebody probably had a meeting and determined that it
is cheaper to wait for the lawsuits, instead of going to the effort
to contact, get permission and pay for the additional use of the
photos up front.

It's not right, but apparently that's the way that it is.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I remember receiving that letter from National Geographic, but not paying much attention to it as I was just too damn busy. Funny thing, though - I keep receiving unexpected checks from National Geographic as my share of sales they make to other publications and museums of images of mine that have appeared in their magazine. Someday, I will have to look deeper into this, but although I have survived as a freelancer all these years, business has never been my forte'.

Michael F. said:

Mike F.

Kevin Sprague said:

Probably the point is that even though the contracts don't sign
away rights, the corporations are just taking them anyway, in this
historical case with natl geo. That's the real root of the problem.
kevin

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mibon/

Click to expand...

Michael F. said:

Wow!! That's the last time I sell any photos to Nat'l Geographic
(not that I have so far anyway).

Click to expand...

You will probably never sell any to NG. They only use inhouse staff photographers, that's their rule. I am sure there are exceptions we are not aware of.

--
JR

James Riley said:

Michael F. said:

Wow!! That's the last time I sell any photos to Nat'l Geographic
(not that I have so far anyway).

Click to expand...

You will probably never sell any to NG. They only use inhouse
staff photographers, that's their rule. I am sure there are
exceptions we are not aware of.

--
JR

Click to expand...

As a past Time-Life photog, I can say that back in the 70's and 80's it was common knowledge that NG was, as a family owned Mag., you signed all your copyright protection over when you accepted a position with them as a "Staff Photographer" wether that was for a month or a year's contract; is was a simply matter of a "work-for-hire" clause that you never had to worry about with Time-Life. I use to love the checks from them as I gave them release to re-sell my photos to other pubs, usually overseas, after their usual 6 to 8 wk. first time rights. I don't think things have changed all that much over at NG and with that "work-for-hire" in that contract, photogs don't have a leg to stand on, unfortunatly! That's the cost of being a NG photog!

No, James Riley - you are absolutely wrong on this point. National Geographic uses freelancers all the time.

James Riley said:

Michael F. said:

Wow!! That's the last time I sell any photos to Nat'l Geographic
(not that I have so far anyway).

Click to expand...

You will probably never sell any to NG. They only use inhouse
staff photographers, that's their rule. I am sure there are
exceptions we are not aware of.

--
JR

Click to expand...

Jim Cheal said:

As a past Time-Life photog, I can say that back in the 70's and
80's it was common knowledge that NG was, as a family owned Mag.,
you signed all your copyright protection over when you accepted a
position with them as a "Staff Photographer" wether that was for a
month or a year's contract; is was a simply matter of a
"work-for-hire" clause that you never had to worry about with
Time-Life. I use to love the checks from them as I gave them
release to re-sell my photos to other pubs, usually overseas, after
their usual 6 to 8 wk. first time rights. I don't think things
have changed all that much over at NG and with that "work-for-hire"
in that contract, photogs don't have a leg to stand on,
unfortunatly! That's the cost of being a NG photog!

Click to expand...

Regardless, I would love to be a NG photographer for a few months, nice item on the resume/reputation, impress the common folks.

--
JR

I thought unless you were a "freelancer", with a specific agreement with a company, you were an "employee".

The company paid your salary and your expenses while on assignment. In doing so, they owned the rights to the pictures you shot.

Is this not right, or am I looking at it too simply?

Jim Cheal said:

James Riley said:

Michael F. said:

Wow!! That's the last time I sell any photos to Nat'l Geographic
(not that I have so far anyway).

Click to expand...

You will probably never sell any to NG. They only use inhouse
staff photographers, that's their rule. I am sure there are
exceptions we are not aware of.

--
JR

Click to expand...

As a past Time-Life photog, I can say that back in the 70's and
80's it was common knowledge that NG was, as a family owned Mag.,
you signed all your copyright protection over when you accepted a
position with them as a "Staff Photographer" wether that was for a
month or a year's contract; is was a simply matter of a
"work-for-hire" clause that you never had to worry about with
Time-Life. I use to love the checks from them as I gave them
release to re-sell my photos to other pubs, usually overseas, after
their usual 6 to 8 wk. first time rights. I don't think things
have changed all that much over at NG and with that "work-for-hire"
in that contract, photogs don't have a leg to stand on,
unfortunatly! That's the cost of being a NG photog!

Click to expand...

Marty Scher B said:

I thought unless you were a "freelancer", with a specific agreement
with a company, you were an "employee".

The company paid your salary and your expenses while on assignment.
In doing so, they owned the rights to the pictures you shot.

Is this not right, or am I looking at it too simply?

Click to expand...

The rules say you have to be full-time, benefit employee, and that the photos has to be shot on assignment by the employer.

--
JR