Freelance Alert

I guess you freelancers will have to include a return envelope and add a "Return all materials the photographer" clause to your "One-Time" contracts..

Money is the root of all evil..... Money is neither good nor evil. Good or Evil is in the hands of the one who has possession to decide.
 
While the Times is clearly wrong, the long-time practice of not insisting upon getting the film or prints returned from freelance assignments doesn't do much to help the freelancer's argument.

In addition, he lost out on 50% of fairly high sale price for a print he forgot about. He may have gotten his print back but will he readily be able to sell it elsewhere for as much?
 
"You assert in your letter that all physical photographs taken by you and submitted to The Times for one-time reproduction are not owned by The Times. We disagree."

"The Times has been providing free storage for your property."

"As a photographer who has shot extensively throughout his life, I know you understand the worth that The Times brings to history, and now your photograph has become part of ours."

"our return of the photograph does not suggest that we do not stand by our legal position. We continue to believe in our ownership of the print, but, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to make an exception in this case."

"there is no legal basis for returning photos"


I often wonder if mental illness is contagious, I would love to see them pull a stunt like that on Contact, Black Star ... ;):mad:
 
Dear Bill,

Good story. Thanks.

No surprise, though.

Stand up to a bully (or the bully's lawyer) and you will retain your rights. They know what it will cost them otherwise...

Cheers,

R. (LL.B., F.R.S.A.)
 
Frank Petronio said:
While the Times is clearly wrong, the long-time practice of not insisting upon getting the film or prints returned from freelance assignments doesn't do much to help the freelancer's argument.

In addition, he lost out on 50% of fairly high sale price for a print he forgot about. He may have gotten his print back but will he readily be able to sell it elsewhere for as much?
Click to expand...

He did not want it back to sell IMO, he did have several "Kennedy" displays in museums, My guess, he would put it in one of them. But, It was his print. I agree that a clause to have all material returned after use is a reasonable Agreement, and should be honored. I have photo's hosted on several site, that does give those sites any ownership rights at all. That similar reasoning was a lame legal mumbo-jumbo to try to scare him off.
 
No one wants to pay for content and free-lancers are treated like dirt everywhere -- even at the New York Times.
 
The NYT hiding behind the skirt of their lawyer knew they had a losing stand and also knew trying to sell this print was wrong from the start too...
They got caught, were embarrassed but needed to save face...
What really gets me hot is this statement..."Indeed to accept your position one must believe that all these years, The Times has been providing free storage for your property."
For a woman and a lawyer she's got a set of balls...
 
"Balls", cried the Queen for if I had two I'd become king".:eek::D;)

nikon_sam said:
The NYT hiding behind the skirt of their lawyer knew they had a losing stand and also knew trying to sell this print was wrong from the start too...
They got caught, were embarrassed but needed to save face...
What really gets me hot is this statement..."Indeed to accept your position one must believe that all these years, The Times has been providing free storage for your property."
For a woman and a lawyer she's got a set of balls...
Click to expand...
 
"Money is the root of all evil..... Money is neither good nor evil. Good or Evil is in the hands of the one who has possession to decide." The second statement hits the mark more closely. Power is the root of the evil; money is just one source of power. $4,000 is no money at all! Who would act like that just for $4,000? The lawyers and the Times want the power to decide; they want control. As one of the neo-cons said, "The war in Iraq is not about oil; we can buy all the oil we want. It's about controlling the oil so someone else doesn't.' (paraphrased but says it all). The questions is, why would they take a stand over this one photograph? To the precedent for all other photographs and all other photographers. That's what lawyers and judges do. I stopped short sending in a photo to the local Baltimore Sun newspaper when I noticed that it said that the copyright would be signed over to them. So, no photograph. They are now on the verge of going completely out of business.
 
Thanks for sharing this. I would have thought the NY Times would stand on higher ground but apparently even the mightiest have fallen on hard times.
 
Nikon Bob said:
I find it perfectly normal for big business to do this kind of thing and you thought big government was bad.

Bob
Click to expand...

My limited experience with government tells me that if an employee sues, there is no consideration of right or wrong, simply an attitude of We've been attacked, circle the wagons, obsfucate and delay for as many years as possible, and see if we can wear them down. Looks sort of like what the NYT wanted to do, but thought better for some reason.
 
oftheherd said:
My limited experience with government tells me that if an employee sues, there is no consideration of right or wrong, simply an attitude of We've been attacked, circle the wagons, obsfucate and delay for as many years as possible, and see if we can wear them down.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this.

John
 
Yes indeed. An old practice. See Charles Dickens' Little Dorrit ch. 10 (containing the whole Science of Government) and the Circumlocution Office...
 
sig said:
I am missing something? Did he not get his print back?
Click to expand...

I'm with Sig. I would have considered the matter closed after receiving the January 17 letter (and the print).

I can see why Magnum always got their press prints returned by publications--they were able to flog the lot of them to Michael Dell for a ton of money. I'll wager the NYT didn't try to charge them rent for any prints the paper hung onto.

Didn't this all go down about ten years ago?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom