Rights as a press photographer

We all know that newspapers are failing miserably. But, something I've noticed lately is that they are selling prints of many of the pictures that run in the paper at a high cost.

I understand that the press are allowed to take photos as part of their rights in the media. And, of course the photos can go on their websites and print.

But, when they start selling prints of the photos without model releases, aren't they stepping outside of their legal limits?

Just curious..

No. You don't need a model release to sell prints of pictures (even if they feature people). You only need a model release if you use an image to promote/advertise/sell a company, product or service. This is referred to as commercial use - it is the usage of the image that is important not the selling of it.

Of course given how many stories there are of the press using images without permission/payment how long before one gets in real trouble when it turns out they were selling prints of images they don't own. - It is also interesting how many don't want to pay for images (presumably because press images aren't worth anything) - yet they are suddenly worth something when the publisher wants to sell them

If the shot was taken on public property in plain view where there is no expectation of privacy, the requirements for a model release is reduced.

there have been some big lawsuits challenging this (from people who produced books using images taken in public), and the artists have won.

If a newspaper runs a photo, they usually own the copyright and can sell reprints for personal use of the purchaser. They cannot sell the photos for commercial use, though the newspaper can use them for promotions and ads for the newspaper.

Location?
Asfar as I know, there's nowhere in the world that'd need a release to sell prints. In lots of countries the only reason we ask for a release at all is if we're selling through an agency that'll possibly sell to the USA where a release would be required for certain usage.
When asking advice re legal matters like releases and copyrights, it's important to post your location, because the law isn't the same all over the world.

The photos are being "sold" daily in the newspaper and probably on the paper's website. If they aren't illegal to use for those methods selling it as a print isn't going to be illegal either.

No, a few years back when this revenue stream started to grow, many news agencies decided to get on board and sell the images. They are sold for fairly low rates (usually) and the copyright exists with the paper as these were works for hire. Now to your release question, the only way this may get sticky is if the image is used in a commercial way. But they will always use them in their own advertising regardless, as long as it was a staff shot. If it was shot as part of a news item, then there is rarely any expectation of privacy. So it isn;t really an issue as of yet. Now just because they use an image of you for advertising that does not mean the cash register is going to start spitting cash either, You have to prove damages... Most laywers won't take them.

wdwpsu wrote in post #13771717
I understand that the press are allowed to take photos as part of their rights in the media.

Just so we're clear on this - "The press" have the same rights as you, me, uncle Bob and Grandma. Being employed by a news organization doesn't give them more rights.

Legitimate press photographers are sometimes granted privileges, however. They are often given access to areas that are off-limits to the general public.

The concept of "editorial use" gives them certain latitude vs. commercial use, but if they're selling prints by themselves, they have to obey the same laws as anyone else.

A few years ago, the Illinois Press Association got into a big pi$$ing contest with the Illinois High School Association (the organization that sets the rules for high school athletics) over print sales from high school sporting events.

Here's a whiny editorial from the Rockford Register Star:
http://www.rrstar.com/​opinions/x1520650147

Here's an excerpt:

As usual, the press got all whiny, wrapped themselves in the First Amendment and started talking about "rights" when they were only being restricted on "privileges." Of course, the underlying issue was money. Who gets to profit from pictures of kids playing ball? The legislation mentioned in the editorial passed and the newspapers got their way, but I sided with the IHSA.