On Wed, February 25, 2009 13:44, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Now the AP do they have work for hire contracts with independent
photographers??? Why would anyone sign such an agreement unless they were
EXTREMELY well paid up front? Does AP really just have use rights? Is
this a case of the AP thinking that they have more money for lawyers than
an independent photog?
People sign because it's the only way to get AP press credentials?
Except in this case the photographer (Mannie Garcia), who wasn't a regular
AP stringer but a fill-in, says he *didn't* sign the usual AP contract.
Also -- there were at least two previous claims that the right photo had
been found, which looked pretty close, but were eventually debunked in
favor of this one (which looks even closer). If there are that many
published photos (and who knows how many on hard drives from that day?
not to mention other days!) that are nearly indistinguishable and which
could equally have served as the basis for that poster, is the necessary
factor of "creativity" actually present in the photos in question in the
first place? It looks to me like anybody standing in the press area
shooting with the obvious lens would get pretty much that photo.
Add into the situation the issue of damages and you have a real mess.
Whether the artist charged for the work isn't the issue. Is there
anything there to collect even if you win??? So many possible twists.
Well, that's one reason (not) charging for the poster is relevant; if he'd
charged for it there might be a big pot of money to fight over.
