Good reason to ask for payment:

Well, though the situation didn't call for payment, as no photographers or writers were ever payed at the newspaper I worked for, it's a good cautionary tale for those thinking about not getting reimbursed for their photos.

For two years I submitted photographs to a small, school oriented, but financially independent newspaper. In total, 149 were used online and print (properly credited, another two dozen or more before their records were properly kept) for editorial purposes, a dozen times for non-editorial purposes (I am still debating with them on this matter, so it won't be included in the rest of the post). Most were 1/8th page to 1/4th page in size, but there are many cover shots in there as well. Some were printed as big as half page, taking up the entire above the fold front page section (yes, stylistic nightmare, but that shot was better than anything the paper had run in decades). In other words, they got it off good from my photography.

Now, I decided to check out some standard photo prices for editorial purposes on a paper of that size for a print of that size. The numbers ranged from $125 to over $250 per image, average of $187.50. Take the average, multiply by 149, you get $27937.50. Even if you use 125/photo, the number is $18625. With even the lesser of the two, I would be quite happy, being able to buy all the lighting equipment and lenses I want (mainly lighting equipment though, perhaps a workstation computer too).

But like all sad stories, the missed earnings were not the worst part. Now the newspaper is going under new management, restructuring not only the hierarchy, but also their policies. They want to not only deny photographers the rights to their own photos with a work-for-hire contract, but also refuse to pay them at all. Yes, a work-for-nothing contract... Needless to say, we have more or less gone our own separate ways, me taking all my photographs with me, as I was never under any contract.

Moral: Sell your stuff even if it's for far less than profit margin, you'll get less annoyances later down the road, particularly with repeated customers.

Boy, that really stinks for you. Sorry about your losses - hard lesson learned.

I wish them luck getting any new shooters with that policy. I don't think even the most naive would give them photos under those conditions...although I'm probably wrong. Some people think the credit line is gold.

why would someone shoot FOR FREE and give up ALL RIGHTS to their pictures?
am i missing something here?
cus that sounds like slavery!

cdifoto wrote in post #5918727
I wish them luck getting any new shooters with that policy. I don't think even the most naive would give them photos under those conditions...although I'm probably wrong. Some people think the credit line is gold.

Sad thing is, there's always gullible freshmen for them to prey on... I feel sorry for them, once they are in they'll never be able to leave...

Edit: As for this comment, I'm sure the paper will use the good old signature on file thing so that they can steal any of the photographers photos whenever they please, even after quitting. They still are trying to use mine after they "fired" me (not technically fired because I was never hired, rather I no longer get their spam lists).

basroil wrote in post #5918800
Sad thing is, there's always gullible freshmen for them to prey on... I feel sorry for them, once they are in they'll never be able to leave...

Why won't they be able to leave? There's no law saying they have to shoot for free for that paper. I suspect the newspaper will just have really high turnover.

Indeed. This is a free country, after all. They can just pack up their cameras, and go where the money is. Talent goes where money is, and people who want a good product and work will pay for that talent. I do feel bad for whomever works for the newspaper under their new policy. Naivety is a disease quickly cured by experience though! Bylines don't put food on my table!

Still, that's a lot of money you lost.. . I do work for free on occasion, but it's usually for a good cause or a charitable organization that could use my abilities to help their cause.

How I wish that experience could teach these kids... some are willing to shoot less than second shooter rates for weddings as a primary shooter, and then give a cd of all the files. Yellow-orange WB and bad cropping, along with consumer nikon and a single cheap prime might be why the price is so low... but they can't get better equipment when half that money is spent on transportation and the other half on booze...

I just can't wait to see drunken photographers be the norm at the paper.

Zansho, but like I said, they won't be able to go to where the money is because they will still have a valid contract. If they use and give away photos from photographers that no longer work for them, the money just won't be there.

Does the contract state length of "employment"? If not, they can just say "f*ck this. I quit."

Did you sign away the rights? If not, send them a letter stating that their right to use your images has expired & require them to delete all images of yours in their files. Keep a copy in your files.

Good one!

PhotosGuy wrote in post #5925938
Did you sign away the rights? If not, send them a letter stating that their right to use your images has expired & require them to delete all images of yours in their files. Keep a copy in your files. Good one!

Oh, even at the beginning I wasn't dumb enough to do that. I was given a contract to sign at one point but never did, they never asked for it again. I've made it clear they are not to use my photos without my written permission. Depending on what happens in the next few days, I may have to do just that. I'll be sure to offer a stock photo service option in case they want to use the old shots for editorial purposes though, at a fair rate

cdifoto wrote in post #5918727
I wish them luck getting any new shooters with that policy. I don't think even the most naive would give them photos under those conditions...although I'm probably wrong. Some people think the credit line is gold.

Credit line is pretty cool the first couple of times, but thats about it.My first magazine cover & by line paid a lot more over the last 2 years in oportunity then the orignal $250 they paid me.I just hope once they don't have any free photographers left the realize what they are missing and pay you what you are worth. The problem is there will always be guys willing to work for free for that credit.

basroil wrote in post #5926315
I've made it clear they are not to use my photos without my written permission.

Put it in writing, send it registered mail to the new owner. Put all the images they have on a CD or DVD at 640x480 JPEG res, fill out form VA, and send it to the US Copyright office via Fed Ex. It will cost you about $65 total. Then, you are totally covered with the full protections of the copyright law. If there is ever an issue, and you don't do both of these items, you'll really wish you had.

If they ever decide to use an image and ask for forgiveness later, you'll be in the drivers seat, not them, and will have the negotiating power to work out something fair to you.

Wow, sounds to me like this paper only wants student photogs on call.
Sorry you learned a lesson the hard way, Thank you for passing on your experiences.
It will help many people in the future!

cdifoto wrote in post #5918727
Some people think the credit line is gold.

Oddly enough, for some people its all they care about. Of course once they get published a few times, their tune changes...