news stuff

PCPhoto

well done !! (I haven't checked them yet - will have a pop up to the shops and see if I spot other pics)

stcstc

well it looks like me and DK32 are sharing at least 140 buck

dan took a lot of the pics with my camera
so well done to him too

PCPhoto

better news for ya steve......and dan.

herald p6 (national version) 1 pic
star p4 1 pic
sun p5 2 pics
indo (tabloid version) p10 2 pics

well done !!

you were competing against a well established photo agency (Photocall Ireland) and you won !!! (ahem ahem ...cough cough.....*takes a bow*)

Well done sirs !! .....I applaud you both....great work.

EDIT Confirmed only 1 pic in the Star - have PM'd you will contact details on who to invoice/contact.....just shows Boardsies can make money !! ....right time, right place !! (and a bit of luck)

Photojournalism is not for everyone....the rules of photography go out the window and concentration is jumping between getting a pic and also thinking about if you stop taking photos will you get "the pic" .... all this ...your heart is racing with the excitement and your hands become sweaty.

it was mentioned yesterday that the "bomb" fell off the trolley - if this had been photographed (and information passed on to reporters) ... I can guarantee EVERY paper that covered the event would have run a sequence of pics of it falling and the bomb squad would be hugely embarrassed.

PCPhoto

PCPhoto wrote: »

EVERY paper that covered the event would have run a sequence of pics

There's a question for you. If you have five photos of the guy pushing the trolley and the bomb falling or whatever, and the papers run them as a series (so five pictures, joined with a little arrow or such to show it's a continuous series) are you charging for five photos there?

I would assume so, but I'm not sure if there's an expectation to pay less if they use lots of your images on the one story or such.

Paulw

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a question for you. If you have five photos of the guy pushing the trolley and the bomb falling or whatever, and the papers run them as a series (so five pictures, joined with a little arrow or such to show it's a continuous series) are you charging for five photos there?

I know I billed them for every single image used, even if the same image was used more than once.

1 Pict in 5 papers = invoices for use of images (5x cost of usage per image)
5 picts in 1 paper = invoice for use of images (5x cost of usage per images)

Bill per image used, but some papers pay depending on the amount of space used.

PCPhoto

some of the papers have limits (max 3images) .... but you could argue that if they set the limit they should choose which 3 and not use any more than that... which would be an arguement between the photographer and the paper/picture editor.

most of the papers would understand that if they use 5 images - they have to pay for 5 images....which is why sometimes a great pic doesn't make it into the papers... picture editors are on fairly tight budgets and on occasion have to choose agency images over a freelance image because they have already paid the agency (at least thats what I tell myself when I dont get published in favour of an agency) ....he hee he ....

I remember being so proud years ago knowing that I beat inpho/sportsfile and got printed ..... League of Ireland games are now largely tied up - the papers have contracts with Inpho/Sportsfile so rarely use freelancers who will only cost them money - this is one of my main reasons for stopping doing it (league of ireland football), same reason I rarely goto an international game....there's no thrill in hoping you get published when you know the chances are beyond slim...its disheartening but true.

But if agencies have such a monopoly, wouldn't you be better off with one?

Surely, of all people, you wouldn't struggle to become part of the agencies you currently rival? Although you don't have as much freedom, I do believe you have a regular, consistent wage?

Paulw

Deleted User wrote: »

But if agencies have such a monopoly, wouldn't you be better off with one?

Surely, of all people, you wouldn't struggle to become part of the agencies you currently rival? Although you don't have as much freedom, I do believe you have a regular, consistent wage?

Both Sportsfile and Inpho are fairly well staffed. They do, on occasion, use freelance photographers to cover games, when their own staff are booked/too busy, etc.

But, it's not as simple as being with an agency.

melekalikimaka

why would you wanna work for the man, being your own boss is what makes photography the best job in the world

Irish Examiner Pic Desk

The Irish Examiner recently started a Readers Pictures slot in the New Saturday package that uses a WEB upload facility where the picture and caption can also be uploaded
This Upload can also be used to send the paper LIVE news pictures for publication.
We encourage 'Live' News pictures!

Paulw

The only issue I see there is the very final condition on the website -
http://www.photos.examiner.ie/readers_photos.html

* No payment will be made for use of the pictures submitted.

I'm sure you do encourage people do use it. Again, a corporation, looking for free work from photographers. Shame. :mad:

Fine for a Saturday package, but not really to be used for "news".

Jimdagym

Irish Examiner Pic Desk wrote: »

This Upload can also be used to send the paper LIVE news pictures for publication.
We encourage 'Live' News pictures!

Could you clarify if you are looking for people to submit free images for your Live news, or would your regular remuneration apply?

DK32

I finally got a chance to review yesterdays shots, I had a fairly good view from the police tape line until the head army guy requested everyone move a further 75ft back from the police line, I then got the offer of some local roof access, hanging on by one hand and trying to shoot with a 40D and a 400mm telephoto is not easy, but I think it was worth the effort:D

Delighted to have had the opportunity take the shots and very thankful that Steve had his camera with him, charged and ready to go

Thanks @PCPhoto for helping us.

More photo's in sequence can be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dk400d/sets/72157626409238619/with/5635147263/

melekalikimaka

melekalikimaka wrote: »

why would you wanna work for the man, being your own boss is what makes photography the best job in the world

There's a lot to be said for a steady wage.

PCPhoto

Deleted User wrote: »

But if agencies have such a monopoly, wouldn't you be better off with one?

Surely, of all people, you wouldn't struggle to become part of the agencies you currently rival? Although you don't have as much freedom, I do believe you have a regular, consistent wage?

Deleted User wrote: »

Theres a lot to be said for a steady wage

I have a regular income (well... only when the courts are on ...which means August and Sept ...no income... christmas - approx 3 weeks of no pay, Easter - approx 3 weeks of no pay and any other bank holidays or times when the courts are closed.... no pay)

I work 6 and sometimes 7 days a week ...to ensure that I have money for when I'm not working (and I've got an overdraft facility as a safety net)
EDIT: I had part of this written last night then went to bed and continued today)
Granted...if I worked for an agency I would have regular money (infact I cover the courts for an agency - to ensure I earn a guaranteed minimum each year....I did it on my own for a while but because of delays in getting paid from the papers and being forced to borrow from friends/family in order to pay rent until my payments came in was too stressful)

I had to wait 9 months to get paid from one newspaper and 3 months from another paper (both were at the same time)....at the time I was dependent on getting paid each month and when they didn't pay it meant I couldn't afford to work and had to borrow to pay bills/rent.

Working for an agency does not allow you any flexibility ...you cant decide at the last minute to goto a game or decide at last minute to not bother going to a game (because its raining outside).... the reason I enjoy working for myself is because I get to choose which events I goto.

At the moment I choose not to cover the big international events because I cant see how it will make me money - I will go on occasion - just to keep up practice and get file images.....but the way I look at it, it costs me money to cover these games (it takes a whole day to cover a game that starts at 3pm between turning up early to get parking near the stadium, collect pass, do fan pics, go into the ground, have lunch, set up equipment, shoot and send images, process....pack up and go home)

the difference between working for an agency and working for yourself is that when you do the job you know you are the one making the money....even when I cover the courts at the moment I check the papers and calculate if I'm making my boss enough money to justify my job...which at the moment looks like only has a few months left as the courts have gotten very quiet in terms of photography.

stcstc

i know i wouldnt want to try an earn a living doing it.

I like what i do too much

Although i can see the benefits of the flexibility etc

as more and more big news companies get more and more into social media, i can see a decline in the options to earn a living for it too, just look at how much footage is use on sky news that comes from social media etc

Irish Examiner Pic Desk

Paulw wrote: »

The only issue I see there is the very final condition on the website -
http://www.photos.examiner.ie/readers_photos.html

* No payment will be made for use of the pictures submitted.

I'm sure you do encourage people do use it. Again, a corporation, looking for free work from photographers. Shame. :mad:

Fine for a Saturday package, but not really to be used for "news".

Hi Paul, There was a line about payment for NEWS pictures, but it got lost in the various edits between myself and the legal guys! It's back now, and the gist of it is: No payment for use of pictures submitted for READERS PICTURES, But payments will be made for "LIVE" NEWS pictures submitted by readers and Published In the Paper.

Paulw

Irish Examiner Pic Desk wrote: »

Hi Paul, There was a line about payment for NEWS pictures, but it got lost in the various edits between myself and the legal guys! It's back now, and the gist of it is: No payment for use of pictures submitted for READERS PICTURES, But payments will be made for "LIVE" NEWS pictures submitted by readers and Published In the Paper.

Great stuff, and very good to hear. Sounds very appropriate.

Thanks for the clarification.

Promac

Just out of curiosity - do you not need a release signed for people in photographs that you intend to make money off? For example, the bomb disposal guy in the pics - do you need to get a release from him? I imagine not but it sounds odd that you can take a picture of someone on the street and put it in the papers and make money from it without their permission.

I know you can take pictures of anyone in public without a release but if you're intending to make money from the pictures I thought you need a release/waiver.

Paulw

Promac wrote: »

Just out of curiosity - do you not need a release signed for people in photographs that you intend to make money off?

I know you can take pictures of anyone in public without a release but if you're intending to make money from the pictures I thought you need a release/waiver.

Nope, no release needed for editorial use. As long as the image is not false/slanderous, then you're fine to use it, and make as much money as you can.

PCPhoto

Promac wrote: »

Just out of curiosity - do you not need a release signed for people in photographs that you intend to make money off? For example, the bomb disposal guy in the pics - do you need to get a release from him? I imagine not but it sounds odd that you can take a picture of someone on the street and put it in the papers and make money from it without their permission.

I know you can take pictures of anyone in public without a release but if you're intending to make money from the pictures I thought you need a release/waiver.

I cant understand how people cannot understand this after so many threads on similar theme's.

In Ireland if you are in a public place you are liable to be photographed and people seem to except this (with a few people claiming its a breach of their human/civil rights :rolleyes:)
(My understanding of the law) This image is the property and copyright of the photographer and they can - UNDER IRISH LAW - do whatever they want with the image..... with the exception of using it in a commercial advertisement.

if people consider being photographed as an infringement of their human/civil rights ...by all means...take a legal action and stand up for your beliefs.

Just dont become a keyboard warrior and say its not fair .... (not directed at anyone...just a general observation)

DK32

After I approached the Garda tape I asked the Garda in charge from the Dun Laoghaire station if I could photograph the event, he said...

"as long as you don't interfere with the tape or any of the vehicles you can take as many pictures as you want"

Having never done this kind of photography before I figured there was no harm in asking.

I got talking to him again after, while walking back to his car, he said, "I hope you got my good side"

DK32

DK32 wrote: »

After I approached the Garda tape I asked the Garda in charge from the Dun Laoghaire station if I could photograph the event, he said...

"as long as you don't interfere with the tape or any of the vehicles you can take as many pictures as you want"

Having never done this kind of photography before I figured there was no harm in asking.

I got talking to him again after, while walking back to his car, he said, "I hope you got my good side"

Which is exactly the opposite of the attitude I seem to come across.

It would appear that as a Garda, the more photographs of you in the public domain the harder it is to get into special branches of AGS (detective work and such I'd assume), so I've come across many Gardaì who will tell me I can't take photos (though I'd always argue the point and win) and those who say "fire away, but make sure I'm not in them!".

There are only a few Gardaì I've encountered who are happy to let me fire away without issue. Oddly, it's usually the older Gardaì who don't seem to care (which could support the promotion to special branch theory).

Fire Officers are the best, though. Even during an emergency situation the lads seem like they'd be happy to do handstands to help you get a better shot (again, of course, in my limited experience).

DougL

DK32 wrote: »

I got talking to him again after, while walking back to his car, he said, "I hope you got my good side"

Fair play to him...that's definitely the right attitude.

Promac

PCPhoto wrote: »

I cant understand how people cannot understand this after so many threads on similar theme's.

In Ireland if you are in a public place you are liable to be photographed and people seem to except this (with a few people claiming its a breach of their human/civil rights :rolleyes:)
(My understanding of the law) This image is the property and copyright of the photographer and they can - UNDER IRISH LAW - do whatever they want with the image..... with the exception of using it in a commercial advertisement.

if people consider being photographed as an infringement of their human/civil rights ...by all means...take a legal action and stand up for your beliefs.

Just dont become a keyboard warrior and say its not fair .... (not directed at anyone...just a general observation)

I understand perfectly well that being photographed in a public place is fair game - the part I'm unclear about is using said photograph to make money. A commercial advertisement isn't much different than a picture accompanying a news item - you, the photographer, are making money by having a photograph of someone published in some form.

I'm not complaining about it - I'm just asking how in one form you need a release and in the other you don't.

PCPhoto

Promac wrote: »

I understand perfectly well that being photographed in a public place is fair game - the part I'm unclear about is using said photograph to make money. A commercial advertisement isn't much different than a picture accompanying a news item - you, the photographer, are making money by having a photograph of someone published in some form.

I'm not complaining about it - I'm just asking how in one form you need a release and in the other you don't.

Yes it is different...very different !! ... a commercial advertisement sells a product and is solely for that purpose.
A news image enhances a story ... the story will still be there but the image gives a visual of the scene/person involved..... (in your defence) you could argue that someone would buy a newspaper based on the front image but I'd have to argue that people get the newspapers to read the stories not just look at the pics.

There is a whole world of difference between commercial photography and photojournalism - for one thing ... with commercial photography it is mainly produced in a controlled environment and the image shot is exactly what is in the brief.
Photojournalism is about capturing the image or series of images which convey a story, a pictorial illustration of the event which is usually accompanied by text explaining further details.

Promac - have you ever tried commercial photography ? or photojournalism ? ...like all aspects of photography they each have their disciplines,

Photojournalism requires constant awareness of the situation, searching for vantage points, important/relevant people while respecting privacy for those affected, for the true freelancer - it involves being ready to work at the drop of a hat - effectively having no social life...... sometimes the job can involve meeting/photographing famous people, sometimes it can be a cheque presentation with a number of boardroom execs, the photographer has to adapt to photograph images which will be suitable for tabloid and broadsheet newspapers as well as adapt for each situation from shooting a football game in a local park to shooting a murder scene and on to capturing images of a new baby animal at the zoo.

I received a phone call approx 20mins ago asking me have I applied for access to the Queen's visit, I had no intention of covering it but now.... as a precaution I have to apply for access to photograph the Queen of England on a visit to Ireland - I don't know if I will get permission to photograph or not ... but I have to be prepared and apply for access.

Paulw

Promac wrote: »

A commercial advertisement isn't much different than a picture accompanying a news item

Commercial or editorial. Both are very very different.

A news item image, editorial, can be used without any release at all.

Commercial photography, is endorsing a product, or such, basically advertising, which does require a release.

Making money is not really a consideration of the difference, in fact it doesn't come in to it at all.

Almost all avenues of photography can make you money.

tororosso

Irish Examiner Pic Desk wrote: »

Hi Paul, There was a line about payment for NEWS pictures, but it got lost in the various edits between myself and the legal guys! It's back now, and the gist of it is: No payment for use of pictures submitted for READERS PICTURES, But payments will be made for "LIVE" NEWS pictures submitted by readers and Published In the Paper.

Hi Irish Examiner, just wondering do you have a link to the different section for LIVE NEWS pictures? And also does the bit at the bottom of the READERS PICTURES page refer to photographs submitted by readers? See below:

Photographs may also be purchased through our sales counter

at City Quarter, Lapps Quay, Cork

or phone

Tel: 00-353-21-4802393 or 4802208

Promac

Yeah I understand the difference in the two processes - it's quite obvious.

The similarity I was talking about is that, from the photographer's point of view, and ignoring the actual techniques involved, the two types of photography are the same thing: Producing images of people for the express purpose of making money.

In both cases the image will be used to attempt to sell something - in the case of photo-journalism the product is the newspaper or website. The only real difference is in how you produce the actual images but that's not what I was asking about.

And I understand copyright - that's not what I'm talking about.

I just found it funny that you need a release from someone who knows that you're going to make money from the image and is being paid for their time but the person on the street who hasn't a clue and receives nothing is completely without any kind of legal control on the use of the image.

Irish Examiner Pic Desk

tororosso wrote: »

Hi Irish Examiner, just wondering do you have a link to the different section for LIVE NEWS pictures? And also does the bit at the bottom of the READERS PICTURES page refer to photographs submitted by readers? See below:

Photographs may also be purchased through our sales counter

at City Quarter, Lapps Quay, Cork

or phone

Tel: 00-353-21-4802393 or 4802208

The Same upload is being used for NEWS and Readers pictures (for now). The bit about Photo Sales does NOT apply to Readers Pictures. I will ask our flexible friends at the IMAGEFILE (who host our Photos site and are fantastic!) to see if the sales reference can be removed from the Readers Pictures page.

Ghost Train

Nice photo captured of Ferry falling into water
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0421/galway.html#article

PopeBuckfastXVI

Promac wrote: »

Yeah I understand the difference in the two processes - it's quite obvious.

The similarity I was talking about is that, from the photographer's point of view, and ignoring the actual techniques involved, the two types of photography are the same thing: Producing images of people for the express purpose of making money.

In both cases the image will be used to attempt to sell something - in the case of photo-journalism the product is the newspaper or website. The only real difference is in how you produce the actual images but that's not what I was asking about.

And I understand copyright - that's not what I'm talking about.

I just found it funny that you need a release from someone who knows that you're going to make money from the image and is being paid for their time but the person on the street who hasn't a clue and receives nothing is completely without any kind of legal control on the use of the image.

In a commercial the people in the image could be construed as endorsing the product/service - hence release.

In an editorial picture it is a document of an event, and implies no endorsement of any particular product or service.

As said above, money doesn't come into it.

mdebets

Promac wrote: »

I just found it funny that you need a release from someone who knows that you're going to make money from the image and is being paid for their time but the person on the street who hasn't a clue and receives nothing is completely without any kind of legal control on the use of the image.

You have to see the bigger picture to understand this.
You need to be able to publish photos at News related publications (Newspapers, TV Stations, Magazines, etc.) without having to go through too much red-tape, to guarantee a free press. Imagine if every picture in a news paper would need release forms from people in the picture, you wouldn't be able to print most of the pictures. The whole society gains thrugh free press and freely published photos. This is especially apparent, if you look at countries which have more stringent laws regarding pictures of people. They mostly are all less stringent for press use.

For advertisement on the other hand only the company gains, so there are much more stringent requirements on what is needed for a photo (e.g. model release, so that the person in the picture is aware of what the photo is used for).

Saying all that, even with press photos you can't do everything you want (e.g. slender). They can't for example use a photo of you entering a house and having a title like 'Client visiting a prostitute'.

SetOverSet

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

In a commercial the people in the image could be construed as endorsing the product/service - hence release.

In an editorial picture it is a document of an event, and implies no endorsement of any particular product or service.

As said above, money doesn't come into it.

This - endorsement - I believe, is the key as to whether a release is required or not; i.e., generally, for fine art or editorial images, no release is required, but where it is implied that the person in the photo is endorsing the product/service, such as in an advertisement, they would need to consent to their image/likeness being used...

Paulw

Promac wrote: »

the two types of photography are the same thing: Producing images of people for the express purpose of making money.

No, you're really missing the point, totally.

It's not about the money. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Editorial - you're telling a story, as it happened. You are showing an actual event that is news worthy.
Commercial - you're selling a product/service, endorsing a product.

They are very very different, and the fact that the photographer makes money from it is totally irrelevant.

Promac

Paulw wrote: »

No, you're really missing the point, totally.

It's not about the money. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Editorial - you're telling a story, as it happened. You are showing an actual event that is news worthy.
Commercial - you're selling a product/service, endorsing a product.

They are very very different, and the fact that the photographer makes money from it is totally irrelevant.

I think the fact the photographer makes money from it is exactly the point. We're talking about professional photography as a product - it's not art. It's people using tools to produce a product for mass consumption. You can call it "telling a story" if you want but what it boils down to is producing a series of images that you want to sell to newspapers and magazines.

If you were talking about someone out taking photographs as artistic expression, where the subject of the photograph was really the point then I'd agree with you - and I do admit that there's a blurred line between that guy and the journalist. But the line is definitely there - even if the odd journo straddles it.

None of the people in the above scenarios are me by the way - I'm purely an amateur and happily so. I've done journalism and freelancing and it's not for me. I like a salary

I do agree with PopeBuckfastXVI about endorsement though - I think that's what I'm probably missing.

Paulw

Promac wrote: »

I think the fact the photographer makes money from it is exactly the point.

I do agree with PopeBuckfastXVI about endorsement though - I think that's what I'm probably missing.

No, making money is not THE point, it's YOUR point.

You are failing to see the difference between photojournalism/editorial images and commercial/advertising images.

I don't think we can explain it any better to you.

Promac

Paulw wrote: »

No, making money is not THE point, it's YOUR point.

You are failing to see the difference between photojournalism/editorial images and commercial/advertising images.

I don't think we can explain it any better to you.

I already said - I understand the difference in them perfectly well. And before we go any further here - I want to stress for the more sensitive people in the audience that I'm not looking for a fight or anything negative here - I'm enjoying the discussion and find it very interesting. Insert the appropriate quantity of smiley faces at your own discretion.


So, let's take the example of photographing people at the courts - are you saying that's editorial? Are you there to frame your opinion on something? Or are you there, as you've already said, to get shots that you've been commissioned to get by an agency? I.e. are you out fulfilling a quota of images of people for publication online or in print?

Unless you want to argue that there's some kind of artistry in hanging around outside the four courts and you're just trying to express yourself?

If you're just there to "tell the story" of people going to court then why do it more than once?

You're talking about a photograph that's going to a newspaper with a caption under it and saying it's not the same as a photograph going to a magazine with a logo across it. As PopeBuckfast pointed out, the release is required by the model because of the endorsement but then, you need a release for stock photography too don't you? And those people aren't endorsing anything at all because they've no idea what the picture might ever be used for. That really has just occurred to me by the way - how is stock photography different than filling a quota of shots at the courts?

I hope no-one's offended by any of the above - it's not intended in that way at all. As I said, I'm genuinely interested in the discussion.

charybdis

I don't have references or citations, but I believe it comes down to personality rights and freedom of speech.

A person has a right to control how their likeness is used for certain commercial purposes, but not where images of them are reasonably newsworthy and fall under the protection of freedom of speech.

The point where an image of a person becomes newsworthy is very open to interpretation, but as long as news organisations operate within the law and don't become slanderous or libellous, they're free to use images they consider newsworthy (which really is one of those "I hate it but I understand why it's neccessary" things).

Promac wrote: »

[H]ow is stock photography different than filling a quota of shots at the courts?

Stock photography may be issued under a blanket license that allows the use of the models' likeness in advertising or commercial contexts where personality rights come in to play, whereas the use of newsworthy photographs of people outside courts is protected under freedom of speech law.

salamanca

There was an article in the Irish Times today about a Nokia ad being withdrawn. There were complaints about the ad because it encouraged people to take photos of strangers and post them on Facebook.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0421/1224295160102.html

I was thinking of the current challenge when I read it!

smelltheglove

Promac wrote: »

So, let's take the example of photographing people at the courts - are you saying that's editorial? Are you there to frame your opinion on something? Or are you there, as you've already said, to get shots that you've been commissioned to get by an agency? I.e. are you out fulfilling a quota of images of people for publication online or in print?

Unless you want to argue that there's some kind of artistry in hanging around outside the four courts and you're just trying to express yourself?

If you're just there to "tell the story" of people going to court then why do it more than once?

You're talking about a photograph that's going to a newspaper with a caption under it and saying it's not the same as a photograph going to a magazine with a logo across it. I hope no-one's offended by any of the above - it's not intended in that way at all. As I said, I'm genuinely interested in the discussion.

My take on it is as above, editorial and commercial are completely different.

Why do it more than once? Well its a job... my dad delivers bread to a shop on a Monday, why do it again on Tuesday, well because Mondays bread isnt as in demand as Tuesdays.... i.e. the fella in court for drink driving was interesting on Monday but on Tuesday people are more interested in the rapist getting sent down because they have already seen the drunk driver.

Advertising isnt giving a service to the public, it is selling a service hence the need for model release, news, editorial / documentary IS giving a service to the public, it is for the wider good that the community know what the loca criminals look like, that they know what it looks like to be a victim of a car crash so as to try and avoid one. If we take into account stcstc's pic, these images let people see the reality of bomb threats, the clear danger and the work that goes into disarming them and making the area safe for the public again.

The photographer being paid for the image should not come into it, the photographer is supplying the service, taking the picture, the same as the journalist is supplying the service by writing the story and the editor by editing it, the printer by printing it and the paperman for delivering the papers to the store and so on and so on.

smelltheglove

salamanca wrote: »

There was an article in the Irish Times today about a Nokia ad being withdrawn. There were complaints about the ad because it encouraged people to take photos of strangers and post them on Facebook.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0421/1224295160102.html

I was thinking of the current challenge when I read it!

I dont think that has any affect on editorial, I would assume someone sitting on a bus or a luas on the way home from work would have a reasonable expectation of privacy and I would also assume, (actually I think it was discussed on boards before) that on board a Luas is private property and not public property where you are free to photograph as you wish. Also the reasonable expectation of privacy would no longer be there if the Luas was to be involved in an accident and said girl was photographed being pulled from the accident.

Promac

smelltheglove wrote: »

The photographer being paid for the image should not come into it, the photographer is supplying the service, taking the picture, the same as the journalist is supplying the service by writing the story and the editor by editing it, the printer by printing it and the paperman for delivering the papers to the store and so on and so on.

But that's actually more like what I'm saying - you're describing a chain of events in producing and supplying a product. Each part of the chain is an ingredient, created and sold by some individual as a product in it's own right. The bread your dad delivers is a product, not a service, and that bread is made up of other products like flour, water, etc. The photographer in this context is providing the flour. Just another product.

But, as Charybdis has already clarified - it's just one of those grey areas that we accept for the sake of keeping things running.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Another angle to view this from is to ask yourself:

If the photographer donated her image of a third party for free for use in an advertisement, should a model release be necessary? If not, why not?

Promac

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Another angle to view this from is to ask yourself:

If the photographer donated her image of a third party for free for use in an advertisement, should a model release be necessary? If not, why not?

Well, since the release is for the benefit of the magazine/whoever is using it, it would still be necessary. It's to protect them from being sued by the model at some point. Isn't it?

smelltheglove

Promac wrote: »

But that's actually more like what I'm saying - you're describing a chain of events in producing and supplying a product. Each part of the chain is an ingredient, created and sold by some individual as a product in it's own right. The bread your dad delivers is a product, not a service, and that bread is made up of other products like flour, water, etc. The photographer in this context is providing the flour. Just another product.

But, as Charybdis has already clarified - it's just one of those grey areas that we accept for the sake of keeping things running.

Haha he used to be a paperman haha:D Ah but on a serious note, the news paper is a product but the story is not.

I don't know if I agree that endorsement of a product/service is the only thing that matters.

If I take Smelltheglove's photo, and I think she looks amazing in it and I think it's a lovely shot, surely I need a release to print a load of them off and sell copies of the shot to people?

Promac

smelltheglove wrote: »

Haha he used to be a paperman haha:D Ah but on a serious note, the news paper is a product but the story is not.

And that's what I was saying earlier! It's all for a commercial product, just like a magazine - what's the real difference between an advertisement in a magazine (which is more the reason the magazine is produced at all - sales are totally secondary) and a news item in a newspaper? The more popular the newspaper the more they can charge for ads (just like the magazine) and the more papers they sell. The better the news, the better the item, the better the paper, etc. It's totally just interpretation, in my opinion anyway.

charybdis

Promac wrote: »

But, as Charybdis has already clarified - it's just one of those grey areas that we accept for the sake of keeping things running.

Intellectual property (like actual property) is just a notional construct we have that happens to be enforced by governments under threat of penalties in case of infringement. It exists because (in capitalist societies) it is thought that it is preferable to have things controlled by individuals so that they may profit from their work and cumulatively drive progress by having good incentive to produce significantly new or improved things.

It has its problems, but it's tolerated for its benefits.

Deleted User wrote: »

If I take Smelltheglove's photo, and I think she looks amazing in it and I think it's a lovely shot, surely I need a release to print a load of them off and sell copies of the shot to people?

Nope.

Promac

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know if I agree that endorsement of a product/service is the only thing that matters.

If I take Smelltheglove's photo, and I think she looks amazing in it and I think it's a lovely shot, surely I need a release to print a load of them off and sell copies of the shot to people?

Aparently not - if she was standing in the street in front of a luas crash at the time then it'd be "news" and you wouldn't need a release at all.