As I’ve discussed before on Contrastly, copyright is a tricky issue at the best of times. Negotiating the rights you’re prepared to assign to a publication or website requires an understanding of the laws surrounding copyright, and highlights the fact that, to be a successful photographer, you need to be good at more than just taking beautiful shots!

But one of the areas where copyright seems to rapidly be becoming a four-letter word is in the editorial world. The publishing house, Condé Nast, has long been notorious for incredibly strict contracts, which take most rights from photographers and allows the company to republish, reprint, and reuse photographs in any medium.

CN relies, and always has done, on the fact that many would love to shoot for such illustrious titles as Vogue, GQ and Vanity Fair.

image by Horia Varlan

A Few Examples

Unfortunately, CN’s attitude towards photography copyright is no longer a lone voice in the editorial world. All over the world, publishing companies have been issuing stricter contracts, which put a squeeze on photographers’ rights.

Here in the UK, it seems that a variety of magazines and papers are guilty. Time Inc expects photographers to assign copyright and waive all moral rights, Bauer Publishing wants complete copyright control and IPC, whilst still officially ‘allowing’ photographers their copyright, has made a variety of mutterings and contract changes over the last decade. And these are just a handful of examples.

Short-Term Prestige?

These companies are now relying on their dominant place in the industry to enforce their terms on freelancers, leaving them in a vulnerable position. Editorial work is fast becoming a no-go area for photographers who actually want to retain any control over their images.

Now, of course, it’s up to the individual photographer to decide whether the short-term prestige of appearing in these magazines is worth the loss of copyright. And, whilst this could be an appealing prospect in the here and now, the overall downsides over the years could be far worse than the immediate benefit.

It’s a depressing state of affairs for those of us who make our living from taking photographs (and indeed, writing about photography). Contracts like these narrow down an already competitive field and make life even harder for the average freelancer. Combine this with lower rates paid by many companies, and it becomes increasingly hard to keep your head above water. By taking away photographers’ copyright, these companies are also taking away their ability to make money from any sort of reprints or reruns or indeed syndications.

A Way Back

But there is a way back from this. As photographers we need to stand together and stand up to these sorts of bullying tactics. The more people refuse to work under these archaic conditions, the less power companies will have. It’s not too much to ask to retain the ownership of your own work, after all.

What I find reprehensible is the fact that any company thinks behaving like this is an acceptable way to do business. The thing is that the more they push issues like copyright grabbing, the less photographers are going to want to work with them, and rightly so. Long term, this is bound to mean that the quality of photography in these publications will deteriorate.

Trying to take away rights from freelancers is no better than papers that have laid off their staff photographers and given journalists a camera to keep costs down. And this has happened in a large selection of papers already, believe it or not.

So my advice here is to stand your ground. Refuse to sign any contract with a magazine that seeks to take away your copyright. Because your ownership of your photographs should be your legacy. Remember, you put in all the work on the photographs and you have the right to make the money out of them!

What do you think? Please chime in via Twitter or Facebook!