DSLRUsers.com

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:29 pm**

As you may or may not know there is a ship aground on one of Newcastle's main surfing beaches at present. I've been looking at some of the reader submitted images on the various online news sites and pondered what the rights to these photos were, so I had a look. It's quite interesting. This is from the News Ltd site and probably typical of others - basically by submitting an image to them they own it and can do whatever they like with it:

# You acknowledge that News may use all intellectual property rights in your content throughout the world, in perpetuity, without restriction and without making payment to you, including publication of that material in hard copy publications or in electronic media, using your content in advertising and promotional material for News and permitting others to do any of these, including when News and others receive payment for this.
# You waive all moral rights in your content and consent to anything which News (or any person permitted to do so by News) may do in relation to your content which would otherwise be in breach of your moral rights. This includes that News may use your content without attributing you as the source of your content.
# News may edit your content in its discretion.
# You warrant that:

* you own your content and all rights in relation to your content;
* you obtained your content in a manner which does not breach any laws or the rights of any person;
* your content is accurate and reflects actual people and events and you did not digitally alter images or footage in any way to create your content or impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
* your content, your provision of your content to News and the use by News of your content, in each case as contemplated in these terms and conditions, does not breach any law (including laws relating to privacy, intellectual property and defamation) or the rights of any person;
* your content, at the time you send it to News, contains no virus or other code or material embedded in it which will have a negative impact on News’ services or infrastructure;
* your content is not being provided for a commercial purpose (including that you are not soliciting funds or promoting particular goods or services); and
* you did not forge any TCP/IP packet header or any part of the header information in any email or SMS.

# News will be under no liability to you in respect of any loss or damage (including consequential loss or damage) which may be suffered or incurred or which may arise directly or indirectly in respect of your supply of your content to News, or the subsequent use of your content within goods or services supplied by News.
# On providing your content to News for publication in any media, you indemnify News and its officers, employees and agents against any damage or loss made against or suffered by any of those indemnified arising, in whole or in part, as a result of:

* the publication by News or a person permitted by News of your content; or
* a breach by you of these terms and conditions.

I wonder how many of the people who submit images like this ever read the terms and conditions they agree to (hyperlinked on a different page) merley by submitting their image.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:15 pm**

Some of those photos are from friends of mine, submitted without reading the t&c's whatsoever..

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:35 pm**

Send your pictures to the ABC! You still keep ownership!

Terms and conditions

If you submit a photograph or video, you do so in accordance with the following Terms and Conditions.

In contributing to ABC News Online you agree to grant us a royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to publish and otherwise use the material in any way that we want, and in any media worldwide. This may include the use of your photos or video on ABC television, transmission of the material by our overseas partners and syndication to our Australian content partners.

You still own the copyright to everything you contribute to ABC News. If your photo(s) and/or video is accepted, we will endeavour to give you credit on publication, should you require it and where it is practical to do so. The ABC reserves the right to determine what photos and video will be used and we reserve the right to edit your comments.

In contributing these images, you warrant that you are the copyright holder or have the permission of the copyright holder to send us the images and to use them as described above.

At no time should you endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws in obtaining the images or sending them to us for publication.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:40 pm**

It really annoys me when people bring this up, and make it seem like ur soul is going to be stolen.........for what purpose is a picture of a sinking ship going to make anyone any money?

What the hell are you going to do with some images of a big red ship?

People are to paranoid these days.....so called Togs and the general public.

If i submitted images i couldn't give a rats what they do with them. NOT everyone is out to RIP photographers off?

Vice Versa most would be amateurs who would be stoked to see their images up on a News Ltd website, i know i was a while ago.....they News Ltd then PAID me for the shots???.......who cares!

Dan

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:31 pm**

Read the conditions Dan.

They include not crediting you etc.

Then read ABCs conditions.

There is a reason people bring this up.

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:39 pm**

pippin88 wrote:Read the conditions Dan.

They include not crediting you etc.

Then read ABCs conditions.

There is a reason people bring this up.

Yeah an like i said i submitted to those terms and i got credited?

Over to you?

Dan

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:53 pm**

Cre8tivepixels wrote:
pippin88 wrote:Read the conditions Dan.

They include not crediting you etc.

Then read ABCs conditions.

There is a reason people bring this up.

Yeah an like i said i submitted to those terms and i got credited?

Over to you?

Dan

Did you quote a price to them or did they quote a price to you. Also, did you present yourself as a pro and not just any Jo off the street. No organisation pays out money ”just because” so you must have had a prior agreement. . .

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:10 pm**

Some how I think you're missing the point Dan...

Posted: **Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:30 pm**

I think forum member BBJ might have made a couple of bob from a shot he got of a bike race a while ago - http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=10517&highlight=money+shot

He would have been a bit hard done by had he submitted the shot to News Ltd. under those T&Cs!

Cheers

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:38 am**

Dan
They also reserve the right to use your image for advertising purposes....which means they can run it full page for 10 years and make millions of bucks out of it. And the photographer will get zip. They can also use it in any way they wish...so if you give them an image illustrating, say, global warming, they can put a reverse spin on it and push the line that Global warming is not happening. It's a pig of a contract, mean spirited, greedy, arrogant and bloody well underhanded because most folk who might be tempted to send them an image probably never get to read it....until it's too late. It's corporate greed at its worse.

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:34 am**

Cre8tivepixels wrote:....for what purpose is a picture of a sinking ship going to make anyone any money?

Poor Rupert will make some money, he needs its though :roll:

If you are happy with those T&Cs go right ahead and send in your snaps to News. It treats the photog with total contempt and disregard.

Personally I'd rather have my little red ship stored forever on C:\MikeB\Pics and if someone is keen for a photo of a red ship they can either pay me my rate or send out a photojournalist to the scene.....

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:20 pm**

Cre8tivepixels wrote:most would be amateurs who would be stoked to see their images up on a News Ltd website, i know i was a while ago.....they News Ltd then PAID me for the shots???.......who cares!

Thanks for the frank comments Dan. I'm curious now.

Did you submit the photos this way or were they submitted in some other way?
What was the subject of the photos (a look would be nice)?
how much did they pay you?
Did you retain the rights or did they buy ownership?

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:33 pm**

Dan, please send me high resolution copies of your images. They will become my property, I will be able to make money from them and pay you nothing, I can edit them as I please, & I won't have to acknowledge you as the photographer. You should be stoked to take me up on this wonderful opportunity :lol:

. See where this is going?

ozczecho wrote:Personally I'd rather have my little red ship stored forever on C:\MikeB\Pics and if someone is keen for a photo of a red ship they can either pay me my rate or send out a photojournalist to the scene.....

Well put, I completely agree. This raises the other side of the equation: by giving away photos for free not only are you ripping yourself off, you are taking legitimate, paid work away from a PJ. In the past, the Herald would have had to send someone to cover this type of event. Now they screw over the public and photographers by publishing photos in this manner.

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:51 pm**

Cre8tivepixels wrote:It really annoys me when people bring this up, and make it seem like ur soul is going to be stolen.........for what purpose is a picture of a sinking ship going to make anyone any money?

What the hell are you going to do with some images of a big red ship?

People are to paranoid these days.....so called Togs and the general public.

If i submitted images i couldn't give a rats what they do with them. NOT everyone is out to RIP photographers off?

Vice Versa most would be amateurs who would be stoked to see their images up on a News Ltd website, i know i was a while ago.....they News Ltd then PAID me for the shots???.......who cares!

Dan

at first glance this argument seems to hold up.

you're basically saying: "sure, who cares what happens with my photos if i'm not going to use them for anything productive."

and that argument works, it's rational, nothing wrong with it. but i suspect you've missed the point. this argument, and your thinking, will only hold up in debate if your the only photographer in the world, and that your actions have no impacts on the income of others.

rooboy wrote:
ozczecho wrote:Personally I'd rather have my little red ship stored forever on C:\MikeB\Pics and if someone is keen for a photo of a red ship they can either pay me my rate or send out a photojournalist to the scene.....

Well put, I completely agree. This raises the other side of the equation: by giving away photos for free not only are you ripping yourself off, you are taking legitimate, paid work away from a PJ. In the past, the Herald would have had to send someone to cover this type of event. Now they screw over the public and photographers by publishing photos in this manner.

yes, i think this is the underlying issue here. submission of photos for nada takes away $$$ from professional pjs & photogs.

this discussion goes on a lot in the bmx/skate/blade/action sports photog forums... 'should i take no payment, since i am not a pro, in exchange for a photo credit'.

the resounding answer is no. by submitting your photos for $0, even though they may not be of the same standard a pro would submit, simply takes business away from those who make a living (and those who supplement their regular income) with photography.

it's a very important issue today, especially with people who run around with advanced P&S that for all intents and purposes can do very much the same job as a dslr, especially if its only to be published to web or in newsprint.

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:55 pm**

The other issue James is that by submitting images for free when you wanted to be treated like a pro, you're telling them that you're still an amateur and why should they pay you then?

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:56 pm**

Nnnnsic wrote:The other issue James is that by submitting images for free when you wanted to be treated like a pro, you're telling them that you're still an amateur and why should they pay you then?

exactly!

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:08 pm**

stubbsy wrote:
Cre8tivepixels wrote:most would be amateurs who would be stoked to see their images up on a News Ltd website, i know i was a while ago.....they News Ltd then PAID me for the shots???.......who cares!

Thanks for the frank comments Dan. I'm curious now.
Did you submit the photos this way or were they submitted in some other way?
What was the subject of the photos (a look would be nice)?
how much did they pay you?
Did you retain the rights or did they buy ownership?

Ahh at it again, you all love any chance to take me down.......can i NOT express an opinion myself without being attacked (Rooboy)?

To answer ur questions Stubbsy...

I submitted the image - correct
It was a page three lightning image
None of your business (granted it wasn't much)
I did retain rights to the image - i had a NON-Exclusive arrangement with them.

Maybe i have missed the point....but its just MHO thats all. Sorry to those of you who feel offended.

Sure Rooboy......which image of mine would you like, i will send it through at save as 9 in photoshop as i did with News Ltd

Dan

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:20 pm**

Once again Dan you're making yourself out to be a martyr. No offense, we're not doing this to "take you down" but rather to reply to your comment with statements of how it works.

You're not being attacked. If you were, mods would have picked up on what he'd said. In fact, what Rooboy has said was absolutely not attacking. I'm not sure how you can see that it was... but okay.

I don't think any of us feel offended, Dan. I don't see you as doing that and I wouldn't think anyone else here would've rather.

I just don't think that in a time when photography is constantly under threat from stupid government decisions in line with what a minority of people want as well as greedy corporations finding ways to screw photographers out of their image rights you can really seem so naive as to what a lot of us would think.

Please note: this is not an attack. Mind you, if I have to write "Please note: this is not an attack" on every message people post in your general direction I'm going to get mighty annoyed. People are not attacking you Dan.

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:26 pm**

Nnnnsic wrote:Once again Dan you're making yourself out to be a martyr. No offense, we're not doing this to "take you down" but rather to reply to your comment with statements of how it works.

You're not being attacked. If you were, mods would have picked up on what he'd said. In fact, what Rooboy has said was absolutely not attacking. I'm not sure how you can see that it was... but okay.

I don't think any of us feel offended, Dan. I don't see you as doing that and I wouldn't think anyone else here would've rather.

I just don't think that in a time when photography is constantly under threat from stupid government decisions in line with what a minority of people want as well as greedy corporations finding ways to screw photographers out of their image rights you can really seem so naive as to what a lot of us would think.

Please note: this is not an attack. Mind you, if I have to write "Please note: this is not an attack" on every message people post in your general direction I'm going to get mighty annoyed. People are not attacking you Dan.

Cheers Leigh for the sensible considered reply......i can see all your points and i think that maybe we are all a little right.Trust me i am NO martyr, but i do feel as though i seem to ALWAYS be at the center of some controversy, but i suppose its better to evoke chatter rather than be ignored all together.

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:28 pm**

Ahh at it again, you all love any chance to take me down.......can i NOT express an opinion myself without being attacked (Rooboy)?

Dan I doubt you impinge on anyone's consciousness enough for them to see it as their mission to take you down :wink:

I read what Patrick said as pure sarcasm.

As for being attacked for expressing opinions - if someone is doing that then we'll be on them - so far I've seen none of that.

Posted: **Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:45 pm**

Cre8tivepixels wrote:Ahh at it again, you all love any chance to take me down.......can i NOT express an opinion myself without being attacked (Rooboy)?

Clearly my sense of humour doesn't transmit over the internet :wink:

If you think I was attacking you, then you have to admit that News Ltd et al. are attacking us all - although worded in legalistic jargon, the T&Cs posted by Stubbsy carry the same meaning as what I posted.

Posted: **Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:59 pm**

stubbsy wrote:
Ahh at it again, you all love any chance to take me down.......can i NOT express an opinion myself without being attacked (Rooboy)?

Dan I doubt you impinge on anyone's consciousness enough for them to see it as their mission to take you down I read what Patrick said as pure sarcasm.

As for being attacked for expressing opinions - if someone is doing that then we'll be on them - so far I've seen none of that.

bhmmmm,

i personally red it as Cre8tivepixels getting stuck into the OP, acting as if the whole topic is completley trivial?

i think this is going to be one of the major issues for professional and semiprofessional photographers in the digital photography age...

Posted: **Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:42 am**

MHO is that in general companies are becoming more and more tied up in defining exact legal positions via extremely long winded contracts largely written in some obtuse language. A great example would be the somtimes 100+page software contracts we simply tick as accepted. Much of what News Ltd has written is to protect them from litigation from other angencies, for example should it be found that the image was not actually yours to give away, sell or capture. Then again a lot has also been developed so that they do not have to pay professional or semi-professional photographers for the shots.

By having images submitted for free it allows them to hand even poor shots to their graphic department for complete overhauls. These overhauls could make a fairly poor shot into one that they may even be able to sell to another company for use in advertising thereby making a lot of money off a shot they received for free. Then if it is found the image capturer did something wrong in capturing it they are completely protected and more importantly the money they made is also protected.

If you are happy to cede first use of the image and it gets published I congratulate you, if you get a few dollars for it once again I congratulate you. If on the other hand, the company you ceded your rights to use these submissions to stop using professional / semi-professional photographers submissions or to make money then I feel you have been cheated.

While it is difficult and time consuming it is becoming very important that the general public read these contracts that they are ticking or signing up to.

Remember it is not only companies or rich people that have legal rights, the general public also have them .......... until they sign them away.

Posted: **Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:04 pm**

The present discussion reinforces what the ABC's Media Watch has been saying now for years and that is that generally journalism standards are practically non existent and also that newspapers and other media outlets don’t hesitate to use plagiarized material and claim ownership of resources produced or researched by someone else without attributing due recognition.

A few years back at university, some fellow students got caught using plagiarized material and failed the subject instantly. Judging by what I read and see in the mass media, I often wonder what kind of journalism graduates universities are now producing. Is it possible that some loose or lower their standards once they get gainful employment?

Personally, like many of you, I find no objection if someone uses my material for the purpose I originally intended and gives full credit where and when is due, but the organization under discussion makes enough money spreading half truths and misleading the gullible public opinion. Therefore, this appropriation of photographs and possible use for a purpose for which the material was not intended only reflects a lack of moral values, even if it is not illegal.

I remember the case of photographs of the madman who killed some many inocent people in Port Arthur. Apparently, a journalist illegally went into his house and stole a family photograph for publication which was then altered to make him look evil and a monster. As they say: never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

Posted: **Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:07 am**

Cre8tivepixels wrote:...for what purpose is a picture of a sinking ship going to make anyone any money?

i can 100% guarantee you without a single doubt in my mind that newspaper editors would have been scrambling to find the money shot of that ship for the front covers.
Having worked for a newspaper, and two tv stations i can tell you a hell of lot of sales aka money ride on that cover story and lead story in the news.

if the editor thinks they are going to have a scoop on the competition the call will go out for extra papers to be printed because they know they are going to be sold out on a normal run.
and its all about circulation and the advertising dollar.

its still making it into the tv news before the first ad break so its still a money maker as far as the news department is concerned.

Posted: **Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:00 am**

zafra52 wrote: Is it possible that some loose or lower their standards once they get gainful employment?

You're suggesting that they have standards to begin with? I'm not sure I'd accept that premise.

Posted: **Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:22 am**

I was watching Media Watch last night and I was amused by with the story about the flooding of Luna Park (its management is spitting chips with the lack of veracity) with a doctored picture being spread across the nation.

Anyway, the main thing here it is that there is a common core of agreement among us all in that we should read the fine print before submitting our images, we all prefer to be paid or at least have our work recognised.

Posted: **Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:52 am**

gstark wrote:You're suggesting that they have standards to begin with? I'm not sure I'd accept that premise.

It is a shame that public opinion of journalists has sunk so low. It's easy to see how, given the crap that is often pedaled as news these days.

Knowing a number of people just graduating from a journalism degree and having had family dealing with a number of journos, I can tell you that there are a large number of quality people in the industry, doing quality work. However, while we all bitch and moan about the quality of journalism in this country, we choose to financially support the worst of it by watching today tonight and buying the daily telegraph and new idea. Editors give us exactly what we want.

Back OT, the T&Cs here do blow. As news services are delivered on-line more often and user content includes both images and written word it will be interesting to see how these issues are addressed over the next few years.

Posted: **Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:55 am**

dawesy wrote:...we choose to financially support the worst of it by watching today tonight and buying the daily telegraph and new idea.

I most definitely do not and in fact go out of my way to avoid them.

Posted: **Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:58 am**

ATJ wrote:
dawesy wrote:...we choose to financially support the worst of it by watching today tonight and buying the daily telegraph and new idea.

I most definitely do not and in fact go out of my way to avoid them.

"We" is a very loose collective term. There will be many exceptions, which I should probably have stated upfront.

Posted: **Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:15 pm**

dawesy wrote:
ATJ wrote:
dawesy wrote:...we choose to financially support the worst of it by watching today tonight and buying the daily telegraph and new idea.

I most definitely do not and in fact go out of my way to avoid them.

"We" is a very loose collective term. There will be many exceptions, which I should probably have stated upfront.

But does that mean that I'm not allowed to "bitch and moan about the quality of journalism" because other people have lower standards than me? That's what you appear to be suggesting.

Posted: **Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:20 pm**

No I'm not. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those that do support crap journalism and complain about it at the same time. That is a lot of people, including myself at one time.

Like I said, we wasn't the best choice of word. "Many of us" would have been better. I've said it twice now.

I was also primarily trying to make the point that tarring everyone involved in journalism with the same brush is erroneous.

EDIT: I was also trying to make the point that quality journalism is not well supported, despite it's availability.

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:52 am**

dawesy wrote:
gstark wrote:You're suggesting that they have standards to begin with? I'm not sure I'd accept that premise.

It is a shame that public opinion of journalists has sunk so low. It's easy to see how, given the crap that is often pedaled as news these days.

Knowing a number of people just graduating from a journalism degree and having had family dealing with a number of journos, I can tell you that there are a large number of quality people in the industry, doing quality work. However, while we all bitch and moan about the quality of journalism in this country, we choose to financially support the worst of it by watching today tonight and buying the daily telegraph and new idea. Editors give us exactly what we want.

Back OT, the T&Cs here do blow. As news services are delivered on-line more often and user content includes both images and written word it will be interesting to see how these issues are addressed over the next few years.

a lot of this has to do with concentration of media ownership.

conspiricy theorys and cynicism aside,

the concentration of media ownership has led to a drastic decrease in competition between media outlets... leading to falls in output of what most would consider 'quality', 'in depth', 'investigative' journalism. the bulk of the major papers are trash.

fairfax is the only paper that seems to be continuing some reasonable levels of investigative journalism, and as a result, is a favorite bookmark of mine...

Posted: **Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:39 pm**

Really? I've found that Fairfax is getting as bad as News Ltd. It's still not "News Ltd" bad yet, but I find that a lot of it's writing is getting increasingly dumber.

Posted: **Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:47 am**

Nnnnsic wrote:Really? I've found that Fairfax is getting as bad as News Ltd. It's still not "News Ltd" bad yet, but I find that a lot of it's writing is getting increasingly dumber.

i do agree, it is certainly on the downhill. but it is still ahead of news by a country mile.

actually, my personal preference is reading the economist (i'm an econo-geek, i subscribe :twisted:

) . sadly, it doesnt cover much of our local affairs... but it is still a great read!

DSLRUsers.com

Free images and all rights for newspapers

Free images and all rights for newspapers

Let's call it what it is : a lack of moral values

Re: Let's call it what it is : a lack of moral values

Re: Let's call it what it is : a lack of moral values

Re: Let's call it what it is : a lack of moral values

Re: Let's call it what it is : a lack of moral values

Re: Let's call it what it is : a lack of moral values

Re: Let's call it what it is : a lack of moral values