Student Paper Copyright Advice

I'm no good for legal advice, but that all seems weird. If you aren't getting paid, it seems like you aren't really staff. Copyright in the US usually defaults to the person who pushes the shutter button, no matter whose equipment is being used or whose input went into making the shot, without some other arrangement (a contract, money, etc.) transferring copyright to someone else. Consult a lawyer for real advice about all that; I'm sure you could find a sympathetic photo attorney who'd be willing to do some pro bono work on behalf of educating students and budding photographers. One possible way to approach this is to ask why the paper wants the copyright. Would a license agreement (similar to option b above, but without the awful requirement of permission for other publication clause) allowing the paper to have full reprint rights within the paper's publications not satisfy their needs? I don't know why a newspaper would want full copyright unless they're intending to resell the pictures without compensation to the photographer, which just seems morally wrong. Anything else can easily be accommodated with a license agreement. My university paper had an agreement that all photographers signed that ran something along the lines of: Photographers retain rights, photos may not be published in another area publication for one semester, the publication retains the right to use the photos in subsequent student-paper-run publications without compensation to the photographer (so we basically had our own in-house wire service for sports (using last year's or last week's pictures for this week's previews) and mugs of professors). We were using paper-owned equipment and we were getting paid quite well (relative to other college newspapers). I think the re-use without compensation is important for the functioning of a student newspaper because student papers have absolutely no budget (meaning they can't just pull something from a wire or a stock archive) and it's useful for student pictures editors to learn how to use and manage a stock archive.

Eunice, I ran into the same exact problem when I was photo editor a few years ago at my school paper. The agreement we came to in the end was something to the effect of the following: a.) the photographer, when on assignment (meaning identifying themselves as from the paper, to cover spot news events and such where an actual assignment was not sent out) shares all copyright with the paper itself. b.) the paper has the right to republish, edit, crop and sell the photo to other publications and to individuals as prints, when used outside of the paper however, the photographer is to be made known of this for resume uses and the like. Attribution will always be given, especially in other publications (ie it would never just say "The Herald" but "Eunice Hong/The Herald". c.) the photographer, since he or she retains the copyright as well can sell the photo for various purposes as well, with exception to direct competitors, as long as the same attribution rules are followed. The photographer does not owe the paper anything from the payment. This rewards intrepid photographers if they take the initiative and sell their photos, which means they'll continue to take assignments. Most photographers would not actually spend the time to market themselves. If you have any questions or anything about this let me know. I went through *exactly* the same situation, took a year to figure out the best way to do it. My staff did not get paid, but most equipment was supplied and they were required to sign an agreement stating the previously mentioned stipulations. We got burned and put the situation in place. Best of luck, hope to hear from you on how it all works out, Cheers

Wow, well, you cant say they aren't preparing you for the real world. They are getting you ready for all the "bend-over and just take it" contracts that publications and clients will try to make you sign once you are outta school. I commend you for asking the question and not just signing away your rights. Before I banter more, I think we should have somebody that is actually a lawyer read those terms and really see what they mean... as legal jargon confuses me... however... NEVER sign away your copyright is rule #1. The only time you sign it away is if you are being extremely well compensated, or being setup with a consistent staff gig that is providing a living and a future for you. Copyright and control of your images is the only thing we have in this world, when it is all said and done. As far as I can tell, this student publication is not providing you any compensation, or any sort of security like a 401k and medical insurance that a real staff job would, so tell them to go fly a kite. What good is it in a contract to say "we have exclusive rights but we will ask in advance before use?" Seems like THEY don't even know what they are talking about. Tell them to strike any notion of "exclusive rights" or you will not sign... period. And tell them that if you decide to inform them of the sale of YOUR images to other publications, you will do that as a courtesy and nothing more. Not selling images to the competitor is a time honored tradition, and doing so will only burn bridges, but re-selling images to different publications that are in different genres and different markets is how freelancers make a living.... I was an editor for my college paper as well, and would never have agreed to anything like this, and would have told my staff to walk if the higher-ups tried to make them sign anything as well. The purpose of a student publication isn't only to inform the campus, it is also to give you working experience and clips for your portfolio. What better way to give your work exposure than your ability to sell your work to other more wide-spread publications? I did a piece on Hurricane Katrina for my student publication when I was a shooter and not an editor yet... flew myself on my own dime to New Orleans and risked my neck to make those pictures... what if I had signed a contract like that? I wouldnt have been able to sell the images to other magazines etc. and wouldn't have gotten the corresponding exposure that helped launch my professional career once I finished school. Given, this is an extreme example, but extreme examples are precisely why you have to protect yourself against contracts that give up your rights.

The paper has not thought this through very well. The notion that the writers can't retain copyright in what they write is looney. They can license the material to the paper on terms that keep the scribblers from re-selling their story for some period, or within a particular geographical are or media type, or some other appropriate restrictions on their re-use. But they can definitely be freelancers and keep their copyright. And freelancers - shooters and writers - can be assigned by the publication to cover individual events...that is exactly what is done in the magazine world. The part about encouraging the "community" is nice team-building language, but in fact it is shackling the members of the community from growing outside of it. They need to learn how to repurpose their content, something that all journalists are going to have to learn how to do in the brave new world. Fewer and fewer journalists are going to get salaries in the future, so binding them into an organizational model that is at least going to shrink and probably disappear will do no one any good. Of course none of the points made above are legal issues. I will finish by saying that there is no legal impediment to having the photogs and the scribblers retain their copyrights and operate as freelancers. This whole thing boils down to leverage and power to negotiate.

I think my statements were misunderstood concerning this. The terms that I described above (obviously not in the correct legal terminology, and I will attempt to find a copy of the contract that they use) are meant to take into account the issues that student newspapers deal with while still trying to allow as much usage as possible for the photographer. The terms I fought for at my paper actually came out as good, if not better than most freelancer agreements I've ever signed with an organization (with the exception of single-use agreements, which are becoming more and more rare anyways these days). The truth is that when it comes to student papers there's two significant differences than with other publications. The first, is that when papers take on new photographers, if they deal on the same business style as mine did, and it seems Eunice's does, they don't hire in the traditional sense, I say this is a good thing. This allows anyone to come in and try their hand at working daily assignments without needing to present a portfolio, undergoing an interview, or taking too much time away from their studies. This allowed me to get into photography, and I know these lenient methods have enticed many of the best student photographers I've known into the profession. The downside of this however is that some of these people, in fact a large portion, don't stick around. School intervenes, a girlfriend or boyfriend comes along, they transfer and phone numbers change, all, for the most part, without ever letting you know. Unfortunately these people often have photographed events, speakers, games, that have produced photographs that will eventually be needed to be run as file photos months or years later. Finding these people to ask permission to rerun their photos is nearly impossible in most cases. I ran into this exact problem my first semester as editor. A man who had photographed nearly every football, basketball, hockey and volleyball game for the previous two years (staffing problems I was tasked to fix during my tenure caused this for the most part) was "let go." I was then stuck in a very sticky situation where he threatened to sue if we touched a single photograph. To put it mildly, this made life difficult. He had used exclusively newspaper-owed bodies, lenses and computers, however, we had no legal safety in place to protect ourselves since he insisted he owned the copyright, which he probably did. The second aspect that defines student papers, is that, in most situations, they are volunteer based but usually supply the equipment that is used. Thus the joint copyright clause I mentioned. The paper does not do a rights grab, the photographer them self owns all the same rights the paper does, with the exception of selling to close competitors (other local student papers is what this usually entails). They have every opportunity to repurpose their content, I sold many photos that I originally took for the paper as editorial stock (especially my election coverage) on the Photoshelter Collection site before it shut down. That's the way that it worked with me and my staff at least. I believe it's a fair compromise considering that editors are often unpaid as well, and the entire organization is based on training first, but staying in business second, and that does mean informing the audience in the best way possible. Hope that helps clarify my position on this issue, sorry for not being clear enough to start out with and please ask any questions, I have had many years of thinking this through.

Thanks, all, for your responses and support. I'm very glad to see I'm not alone or crazy. "The downside of this however is that some of these people, in fact a large portion, don’t stick around. School intervenes, a girlfriend or boyfriend comes along, they transfer and phone numbers change, all, for the most part, without ever letting you know. Unfortunately these people often have photographed events, speakers, games, that have produced photographs that will eventually be needed to be run as file photos months or years later. Finding these people to ask permission to rerun their photos is nearly impossible in most cases. I ran into this exact problem my first semester as editor." This is exactly what my eic said, and I have to say I definitely do see the practical problems he cites. In reality, we very rarely receive outside interest in photographs, so in essence the argument was pretty hypothetical. Still, the copyright grab really pissed me off - not because the paper was being malicious, I don't believe this was calculated, but because they were being ignorant and insensitive. The final agreement turned out like this: "My best proposal and pseudo-final proposal is to give photographers a choice. To be a staff photographer means agreeing that the photos you take on assignment are for The Herald, and rights go to The Herald, which in turn will not redistribute staff photos outside of its publications without consulting photographers as long as they're at Brown. Photographers can also choose (b) and work as a contributing photographer. They would retain rights to their photos, and license to The Herald and its publications the photos it publishes for re-use but not redistribution, etc. Being a staff photographer would give staffers priority on assignments, masthead/credit as a Herald photographer, chance of advancement, whatever else goes with being a staff member v. contributor." As someone who came into the Herald earlier, I am sort of "grandfathered in" - I keep all of my copyrights, but I will be the last to do so as an editor/staffer. I still have problems with this: mainly that NOBODY uses Herald equipment or gets paid, so the idea that being "on assignment" even means much is absurd. In addition, this "asks for permission as long as they are at Brown" is an annoyingly sneaky and vague clause, although I suppose necessary for practical purposes if people are untrackable. In addition, this "contributor" clause seems to basically penalize those who wish to keep copyright. Finally, we haven't worked out whether copyright applies to just the photo published in the paper or the entire assignment (frankly, I think the paper taking the copyright to all unpublished photos is ridiculous, and I'll be arguing that one when we get back from the break to make sure it's not done). I took the deal. I was torn - I'm not crazy about it, and it does feel a bit like I'm sort of condemning future staffers while I don't run into any problems, having been grandfathered into my copyrights and whatnot. But it's a tiny paper that really doesn't make money, and photographers will be given a choice. Also, the eic was quite firm in that he would budge no further. Mostly, though, the problem was that: nobody cared. Since I have started working at this paper, not a single photographer or writer on staff or contributing has ever even mentioned copyright. We ran into problems with the last two photo editors just taking pictures from the web and thinking that was okay. I am literally the only person making a deal out of this. I don't mind being annoying and dramatic, but I have no leverage for a better deal if there is nobody with me. So now I can just hope that the "contributors" don't get excluded too much and that the paper does act in good faith (which I don't really doubt it will - the problems I've run into are really a lack of education rather than heartless copyright grabs. I think.). Thoughts?

christopher, your "compromise" sounds a lot like the terrible New York Times contract. Copyright cannot really be "shared," what does that actually mean? It seems nice, "you do what you want, and I do what I want = shared copyright," but in reality, doesn't that mean a 3rd party who wants the image could bid you against each other? E.g. student newspaper photographer at university photographs Kent State/Virginia Tech type tragedy. Images suddenly have much greater value than just campus distribution. So, if copyright is "shared," TIME magazine asks student price, student says, $5000, and TIME talks to college newspaper, who then says, "$4999," at which point TIME goes back to student who then has to say, "$4998" and so on, down ad infinitum until it's 50 cents. If both parties "share" copyright, they can be played against each other. Bad story. It has been well established in legal precedents that it doesn't matter who owns or supplies the equipment. If I lend/rent you a hammer to build your house, does that mean I own your house? Obviously not. It's your house. And honestly, who is unreachable in this internet age? That's the same excuse for the horrible orphan works legislation. Especially if you are working for free, your copyright is all you have. It may not seem like a lot. But it is your pride and ownership of your creativity and your labor. It's what makes you different from working stiffs who have to obey their bosses. You're a small business owner, a petit bourgeois, an independent contractor. The term freelance comes from the Italian Renaissance, when the "Free Lances" were independent mercenaries fighting for whichever city could pay them the most...and their loyalties were usually more to each other than to their erstwhile employers. So that's who we are. We're all in this together. Let's all remember, especially younger and more inexperienced photographers, YOU own your copyright. You are not "selling your photos," you are selling a "one-time license" for your photos. If you don't think this matters, look forward fifty years from now, when you are old and retired. Not having been an employee your whole life, you won't have much social security or pension. You will, however, have the continuing resales from your ARCHIVE of all the amazing things you've seen and photographed in your long career, and these pictures continue to be printed in textbooks, websites, and the prints of which go into collections, galleries, and museums. Of course for most photographers this might not be a huge income. But it sure as hell is better than NOTHING, which is what you get when you sign away your rights. There really isn't much of a middle ground or "compromises" on this UNLESS you are a full-time staffer with job security, benefits, etc. OR you're being paid enough that a work-for-hire total sale is acceptable (as in advertising). So Eunice, if your college newspaper is trying to screw you (unbelievable, that they would do this even though you're working for free), forget about them. All you're going to learn there is just the same as in the real world, where institutions that themselves will hardly survive take every opportunity to cheat the humble contributor. Arguably you will become a better photographer, artist, and journalist without them.

Amen Alan!