Out of the Blue...

[Deckyon]

I just got an out of the blue call from a local newspaper about doing some freelance stuff for them. The editor stated he was going to check out my website, which was forwarded by someone else and that he would call me back in a week for some more information. Yay Me!

My question is this, not having worked in this capacity in regards to photography before (my stuff was displayed and sold by people who liked the work) what do I need to have on hand, contracturally, for the editor when he calls back? Would it be better to have a contract already drawn up or "take what they give me" as a contract? Also, is it unreasonable to expect to keep the copyright on the photos while working freelance?

[NGrinerPhoto]

when i was a freelancer before i was staff, the paper owned the photo that ran. i would always get a by line, but they could use it as many times as they wanted and for whatever reason. all the other photos from the shoot were mine. i would sell them back to the company i photographed for additional profit (it was a business pub).

[IndyJeff]

Deckyon you should ask the following questions:

1.What is the rate of pay? Per photo ran, assignment rates or day rates?

2. Who owns the copyright?

3. What becomes of the unused images?

[primoz]

I don't know US market and I would say it's useless to discuss how it's here, since it's probably completely different over there. So I will stick to last question you had. I would say it all depends on deal you make. No it's not unreasonable, but sometimes it just doesn't go. Sometimes I give back cf card without even looking at photos on my laptop but other times I keep photos, send few to agency and rest of it is my and I can do with them whatever I want. But since I'm working for agency it is unreasonable to expect I would keep copyright... at least here. Actually we have some laws that after period of time (if I remember right it's 10 or 15 years) copyright is transfered back to original photographer, but inbetween agency has copyright, unless you had different deal (which in 99% is not the case here).
From what I heard from my US friends it's different in US. Obviously you can be freelancing for Reuters or Getty and still keeping copyright (depends on deal you got), but here it's no way something like this would happen.

[ilcounican]

When I freelanced for Spanish press in Philadelphia, the publication paid me for "newsworthy" images that I submitted to them. If they paid for the development of film, they kept the other negs/prints for WHATEVER. On other occasions, I paid for processing, gave only what was needed for the story at hand, and could sell other images to event hosts or other interested parties. Newspaper maintained copyright only on images they bought from me. I currently GIVE images to a local grassroots paper with which I have a good relationship, but we have a verbal agreement as to the ownership of the copyright of the images: The copyright belongs to the online news service from which I draw images for their newspaper.

Deckyon you should ask the following questions:

1.What is the rate of pay? Per photo ran, assignment rates or day rates?

2. Who owns the copyright?

3. What becomes of the unused images?

ask, ask, ASK!