(PS) Photo Supplied

[geoffsta]

Ok.. here is a question.
Recently I have had a couple of photos in the local paper. I took a photo of a NFP (Not for profit) group, and they asked if they could use the photo to promote themselves on the web, or through their national association. They said that any of my images would be credited to me. And I know they have done the right thing.
But.... The local paper did a story on them, and used my images. I know the papers policy is to not credit a photographer.... And the images had (PS) under the photos and at the end of the photos commentary. (PS) means "Photo Supplied" The normal Joe Blow wouldn't have a clue what the (PS) would stand for.

What gives the media the right to do it that way.. It stinks........ I know the group are not responsible. So I don't blame them. But to me, it's just not right.

[I @ M]

Geoff, you supplied the image to the organisation with no strings attached.
That basically means that you allowed them to use it in any manner that they see fit to promote their cause and by passing it onto J Y esq. they are simply promoting their cause through the local media as well.

Live and learn pal or otherwise ask anyone who has worked for that particular "business" about how they operate before you hand over photos willy nilly. Of course, many people who aspire to fame through their images simply go oooh goody, my photo is in the local rag and revel in the glory for at least 15 minutes on facebook ----

[ricktas]

Have to agree with Andrew here, sorry Geoff.

We have seen and read about this so often these days, that it should not be of a surprise that it happened. The mainstream media are cheapskates, their only goal is to get a good bottom line, every day. Make as much money as they can, and if that means they can get a photo, article, comment, and more for free, they will. Hell if they can even get us to pay them, they enjoy it even more. Reality TV, get advertisers to pay big bucks, and then get the viewer to pay to vote..double win.

Accept it as a learning experience and move on. Sadly, going into see them about it, will get you no-where.

[geoffsta]

It doesn't worry me about the images being in there. Sort of had that 15 minutes of fame feeling showing the yobo's at work.
It's more that the (PS) means nothing, unless you know what it means. Would it be better to have the words "Photo Supplied" so that the readers (Not they would give a rats) would understand that the images were not taken by the newspapers photographers.

Recently a thread was posted http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...t-would-you-do I find this is on a similar vain. And I read stories on this forum all the time , that follow that same line of thought.

Now newspapers are a business, same as any other. The photos that they use are there to sell papers.. To make a profit. Therefore they are using the images for financial gain...

After a bit over 4 years involved in this fantastic forum. Learning from the best, making friends that I may never ever meet. And after reading many threads on copyright law. Ones brain begins to think "How does this apply"

[Mark L]

Geoff, you supplied the image to the organisation with no strings attached.

They said that any of my images would be credited to me.

Maybe they should have told the paper this, or maybe the paper didn't ask.

[geoffsta]

I already knew that the paper doesn't credit images, from a previous experience. And the part of "No Strings Attached" doesn't faze me at all. That's not what I am getting at...
It's the (PS) Which I bet that not many on here would have known, is crap. They should have "Photo Supplied" instead. That way readers know that the image is from another source, other than the papers photographers.


EDIT:... I must also add that both images had (C) Geoff Stanton 2014 on them, which had been cropped out....

[I @ M]

Now newspapers are a business, same as any other. The photos that they use are there to sell papers.. To make a profit. Therefore they are using the images for financial gain...

Without knowing the full details I will venture a thought or two. Yes, the newspaper is attempting to gain financially through advertising sales, sales of the printed copies and the overall news content that they provide. I assume that the not for profit organisation that you freely gave the images to in the first place with no conditions attached want to use the images to promote themselves. Once again I will assume that by promoting their cause they want to raise awareness of their cause amongst the public at large. I will also assume that they are heavily engaged in using volunteers to further their aims. I will further assume that they need monetary resources to keep their organisation operating and that at least some of their income is in the form of donations and possibly some of it comes in the form of government funding.
If my assumptions are correct then all you have done is donated an image to the organisation so that they can use it for purposes including financial gain. The fact that it ended up in the newspaper is simply another step towards financial gain ( as well as overall promotion of their cause ) by the organisation and a smart one at that. They get advertising in the local rag at no cost.

So, do you object to the organisation gaining financially from the use of your images that you donated to them or merely to the fact that they ended up in a commercial enterprise which is attempting to stave off the 3rd ( or is it the 4th ) threat of bankruptcy attempting to make a profit partly through donated images.

Geoff, whichever way you look at the scenario, there is one root cause for your time spent thinking and typing about this subject. It aint the organisation or the newspaper behind it all, it is you. Out of the goodness of your heart you gave images away for use pretty well wherever, simple really, the end results are a result of your actions.

EDIT:... I must also add that both images had (C) Geoff Stanton 2014 on them, which had been cropped out....

Copyright is not affected, you still own it. They are merely presenting images ( freely licensed to them ) in a form of newsworthy content and they do have space limitations in their paper so by cropping out irrelevant information to the story being presented they are facilitating better coverage for the organisation in question ----

At least that is how they would possibly answer the question.

- - - Updated - - -

[ricktas]

Now I sort of get where you are coming from, with the (PS) issue.

Again this is really just about making money. Using PS instead of Photo Supplied, means they use less space on the page for it, again allowing them to place a slightly larger advertisement on the same page. Newspapers work on a defined space size (the page or newsprint) and they are very adept and making sure every single bit of that piece of newsprint is used. Shortening words to single letters is one way. If they do that several times on a page, they can then fit in an extra advert.

I agree that using PS instead of picture/photo supplied is overkill..as a photographer, but as a sub-editor, their job is to make everything fit on the page to optimise space and advertising revenue, so they would see it differently to a photographer. Not sure which one we could say was 'wrong'.

[Warbler]

I find this is on a similar vain.

Freudian slip there Geoff. Take my comment in the right vein.