we had a client ask us for a pic for the paper - wedding announcement. we forwarded it to the paper and noted that this is a copyrighted image, and we require credit.

i got this back from the paper... (took out names for privacy)
"Robin,

This is in regards to the mmmm wedding photograph sent to me for publication in the mmmmmm. We do not give photographic credit for wedding photos printed with the wedding announcements. Please let me know if we have permission to use the photograph sent to me with the wedding announcement of BRIDE AND GROOM.

Thank you,
PAPER"

so i let out a little yell, and replied...
"Hi PAPER,

I receive your email from the mmmmmm that you do not give photographic credit for wedding photos. (please see below). We are going to release this image to the paper, as we know that this is important to our client, who is our first priority.

You have our permission to print the photograph for the XXXX wedding announcement.

It may not seem like a big deal to the paper, however, as you can imagine, this is very disappointing, not only to us but to all photographers who rely on people being able to find them. Additionally, we do control our images carefully, as I'm sure other photographers do, which is why we do not just release a proof, rather, provide a finished file. A simple comment of 'photograph by Bellissima' is not advertising, it is credit for copyright.

We do appreciate that the paper notified us to clarify, rather than just running the image. We hope that this is something they will re-consider in the future, as it is, in my opinion, the right thing to provide credit.

Warm Regards,
Robin and Brenda"

i am really upset about this. i'll be chatting with the ppa, and let you know what the deal is, but this just seems wrong to me. am i being a PITA?

any thoughts?

very well written response. Certainly seems unethical to print their own staff photogs names but not yours.

Yes, it really sucks, but it has been standard practice in many, if not most, publications. When I was shooting fashion, I was often able to get credit for editorial content, but not for ads using my work. Most magazines at that time didn't provide any credit to photographers, but that has changed.

It isn't a copyright issue, as the publications copyright covers all the content. And I think most just simply don't want to print credits with every single image.

How about this one - at the PUG meeting last night, I learned from David Greene from Toronto that in Canada, when a wedding couple pays you for your services, they are the ones that own the images by law, unless you have a notice to the contrary in your contract!!!

That really, really sucks!

so i guess the answer is "too bad".


and if i was in canada, i would have the notice to the contrary.

Same thing with the paper here in Charleston. It's frustrating.

some papers do run photo credit - if you want to give them an example, the Syracuse Post Standard is one.

the thing is, my client asked for a pic. they could have just as easily ordered a print, and sent it in without me knowing. i'm sure this happens all the time. when i questioned further, the client said it was for the paper, and we take care of that for our clients, free of charge and so they have no hassle about the size and color, etc. we get the details and send it off. i've never really specified that we want credit, but this time i did.

i just don't see how the paper could print without a proper credit, if it's requested. it's not an ad, no one is endorsing us, simply stating that we took the pic. i could even put the ©Bellissima on the pic for them. they told me they'd cut it off.

ok. i'll let it go. but i am waiting to talk to ppa.

Some newspapers run the images as 1/2 colum mug shots, or occasionally a full column wide.

With some of the business names of the phtographic studios, the photo credit would take up almost as much -- if not more -- space than they donate to the eng/wed announcement picture.

Other reasons for eliminating photo credit might be to make a blanket statement, and avoid legal action should they err and not publish credit, because the submitter didn't provide the info, and the photo wasn't marked.

In today's world of dissapearing newspapers, shortening staff, and budget cuts in print journalism, we're lucky they even publish the pics. Too many papers are or have been bought out by bigger chains -- whose sole purpose is profit -- not serving the community (at least not any farther than is required to sell papers).

It sucks for the photographer, but its just CYA for the papers.

by the way, here's the pic from my blog....

i took the little thing off the bottom for the paper and made it b&w. i love this shot, and was just hoping that people could find us if they liked it, too.

oh well. i'm not doing a good job of letting this drop, am i?

I LOVELOVELOVE the images of that couple (seen at OSPW). I want what I want but I guess I don't always get what I want LOL. Good thing you can vent here!