# I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid!! (I know, because my mother had me tested, lol).



## Tight Knot (Nov 9, 2012)

So, I may be dumb for doing free work, knowing full well that all it ever brings you is more free work, and I had an opportunity to prove this well-known concept to myself again (quite a number of times actually).
The true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results each time. So, am I insane or just well-meaning and too trusting?
Then again, maybe I'm wrong and expecting too much.

A few weeks ago, I was shooting a town parade for my own enjoyment, not as a paid gig, and 2 of the officials saw me, and asked me if I would be prepared to email them some of my photos for use in the weekly town gazette. No pay, but they would make sure to credit the photos to me.
Well, I was there anyway, shooting and then editing anyway, so I figured that all it entailed was for me to go one step further and send an email. No pay, no big deal, but some free advertising.

So, I sent the email with some photos with my watermark on them.

I did not have a chance to see the publication, and was recently on a night hike that had been organized by the town, and of course took photos again. I was again asked to send the photos to them for publication in the same weekly town gazette.
So I thought, sure, no problem, more free advertising.

Well, surprise, surprise. I just saw both of the publications, and not only was my name not mentioned, and no credit given to me, they had taken the liberty of cropping my photos, making sure to remove the watermark.

I guess the question is whether I should be royally pissed that they cropped around my watermarks, or if that is normally done?
If they wanted the photos without watermarks, they could have just asked me to give the photos to them without the watermark on them, without them taking the liberty of butchering my photos.
The fact that they did not add my name, just teaches me (again) not to do free work, but if they would have at least left the watermark in (which is my website), I would have been happy, as that would have been close enough to the same as giving me credit,

Looking for some fresh perspectives on this, as I am too biased at this point to know what is right or wrong.


----------



## JAC526 (Nov 9, 2012)

I think if I was them I wouldn't want your mark on a picture I am running in my publication.  I don't think it would look very professional to run images with a watermark on them.

However, a tagline with photo credit should of been done.  I would be royally pissed about them leaving that out.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 9, 2012)

this is why if you care AT ALL about what happens to your photo after you give it to someone...you get something in writing. written contracts are our friends. verbal ones don't hold up at all. next time, insist on a contract. even if it for a freebee.


----------



## Tight Knot (Nov 9, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> I think if I was them I wouldn't want your mark on a picture I am running in my publication.  I don't think it would look very professional to run images with a watermark on them.
> 
> However, a tagline with photo credit should of been done.  I would be royally pissed about them leaving that out.



Hi Jac526,

Makes sense. 
Looking at the photos again, I noticed that not only were they cropped to remove my watermark, some of them were also cropped even further, which totally changed my photo (iIMHO). In fact, at first I wasn't even sure if some of them were mine, only upon closer inspection did I realize what they had done.
Is it normal for editors to do this?


----------



## RichardH (Nov 9, 2012)

I had a similar instance with the local newspaper back in the 80's when I had a studio.
I owned a color lab and became friends with a local photographer that I printed for. After a couple of years of printing for a number of local photographers, he ( due to age ) asked me to join him and move my color lab to his establishment. Their was plenty of room to do this move and I moved. We worked together for a good year. He was shooting a wedding reception and had a heart attack. The father of the bride was a doctor and saved his life at that moment. I had to stop shooting what I was assigned and finish the reception. Long story short, I bought his studio and was sending bridal photos to the local paper after this without any problem. The paper usually gave a credit to who shot the photos. All of a sudden, my photos were not credited along with the other 2 local studios. I called the newspaper and had a long discussion with the editor. After that I started getting the credits until one day no one was getting credits. From then on, no one got the free advertisements. They didn't charge anything for the photos the brides would take to them. I think now they do charge for this but I don't live in this town and don't have the studio anymore.

To answer your post, I would call the newspaper and have a talk with them and explain what was stated at the time. I'm sure somthing can be worked out. I hope it does and you get the free credits.

Richard


----------



## 12sndsgood (Nov 9, 2012)

I'd be annoyed that I wasn't given credit, but I probalby wouldn't have sent a watermark since you really don't see those in paper photos or websites or things like that. You agreed to send them some photos. they failed to send you the credit. so next time they ask you, i'd tell them no. I feel if your into the business stages you should start being a lot more picky to who you donate your time to. I was just in Vegas last week for SEMA I was there with the wife taking photos for myself, I got contacted by an online publication while there about helping with coverage, I new there was no money but like you I was there anway taking photos. so I helped them out. It helps with these guys that I know them. but no pay. Well upon delivering the photos yesterday were talking about the trip and he's mentioning next year wether i'm going and there is talk about how they rent out a few big condos while there and if I go next year I can likely stay there. so now if i'm going next year i have free room for the week. so for me, that works out. another time I came down to a venue to photos a dancer friend of mine who models for me. they were practicing for an event that night. It was free work, but I took it as a chance to work on dancers on a low lit stage. good practice for me. and wound up talking to the promoter of the event that night and getting hired. So if you choose to do free work. maybe get a contract as said. or make sure its something that you can recieve some good benefit from it. wheter it be some sort of compensation. some learning experience. some proper exposure of your name and business. whatever it may be.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 9, 2012)

I would definitely be pretty mad if they did that to my photos...and that's why contracts are important. as of now, I don't believe you have any recourse. 
It might not be a bad idea to talk with them, and explain your position. but ANY future work  you do for them or anyone else....get it in writing exactly what they are getting the rights to, and what they can and cannot do with your photo.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 9, 2012)

You have every right to be pissed, but you shouldn't be surprised. If it's not in writing, it never happened. I've done work for my city and local chamber of commerce several times, but it's ALWAYS in writing, lining out specific terms and a limited release for whatever specific thing they want to use it for (web, print, etc). And if they want to use one of your images, you have every right to require a fee be paid for use. I've had 4 or 5 images in our local paper in the last few months, and I'm paid for every one that prints.


if you value your work and reputation, you owe it to yourself to confront whoever your contact was and clear the air. You were wrong to send them a watermarked image, and they were definitely wrong to not credit you. That's basic rules of journalism. These guys sound like scrubs.


----------



## sm4him (Nov 9, 2012)

I've had a couple of similar circumstances, and yes, I've learned--I may not be a professional, I may not even be charging, but if you give them a photo of any sort without a contract, you completely lose control of what they do with that photo. Sure, you can "complain"--but it's like those Walmart checkout line signs that say if there are more than 3 people in line, they'll open a new register. But--what if they don't? There's no consequence for their failure to do what they said. We guarantee we'll do this, and if we don't--well, then we didn't.  They may TELL you they'll give you credit, but then you send the picture, and what if they DON'T give you credit? Well, then they don't. Stinks for you (that's a generic "you" not directed personally at the OP).

The worst one I had--which is when I changed my whole attitude about my photos--was when I'd taken a bunch of photos on opening day of our new transit center (where I'm employed), with my trusty little Canon Powershot (didn't have the DSLR back then).  A couple of months later, my boss comes in with a trade magazine and says, "hey, isn't this your picture?" FULL PAGE photo in the magazine--but NO credit given to me or even to my employer ANYwhere. And I'd never even given them the photo, or had a conversation with them about it!
Turns out, our general manager loved my picture, so she *graciously* supplied them with it, without discussing it with me or asking for credit to be given or anything. Our GM is a huge twit anyway, so I can't say I was surprised. Well, yes I was.
At the time, photography was not really part of my job description (except for that pesky, "and other duties as requested by..." line), so the photos really were not hers or the company's to distribute.
But at least it made me more aware that I have to have a written understanding, even if I don't plan to market myself as a photographer.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 9, 2012)

Agree with the advice already given.  One thing I ALWAYS do when I give out images,regardless of WHAT it is, is include a basic print  release & usage license on the disc as a text-file which clearly states no editing/editing allowed, etc.  I would definitely be talking to the newspaper management.  It isn't surprising, but it is bad form.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 9, 2012)

I would be really pissed off about the whole situation.  First of all, they could have e-mailed you right back and asked you for non-watermarked images if that's what they normally do and if they told you that you were getting credit then you should have got credit.  Did you call them?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 9, 2012)

Sending any publication free photos lets them do what they want. Photo editors all around the world are cropping pictures to fit spaces in the papers and they don't care what it does to the content.  Many of them just want a picture to fit, I've seen vertical images cropped to fit a horizontal space, especially for web use.  Photo credits while important to many photographers, especially to those just starting out, aren't always a concern for the newspapers.  

Publications don't want photos with watermarks, and if they couldn't have cropped it out, they would have done one of two things, asked for one without the watermark or not used it at all.  This is really the nature of the business, once the photo leaves your hands, it can get altered.


----------



## Tight Knot (Nov 10, 2012)

I appreciate all the advice given. I will most certainly take your advice for the future. I will be contacting the person I sent the images to, and explain my position for the future.
Tirediron, would you be able to send me a generic copy of your basic print  release & usage license?

Thanks again to all who took the time to post here. It's amazing how much there is to learn, and the hope is usually to learn from others mistakes instead of your own. Although I seem to be racking up a pretty good track record of teaching others what not to do from my own mistakes lol.


----------

