Scotts Valley anti-war banner hang over Highway 17

Look at the photo on the SF Chronicle's website:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/sfgate/object.cgi?object=/chronicle/pictures/2002/01/30/mn_flags2.jpg&paper=chronicle&article=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/30/MN47011.DTL

Notice any similarities?

Photo is only slightly edited; No photo credit is given; The photographer told me that the Chron. didn't get his permission to use the photo.

The photo was included in the Printed edition of the SF Chronicle (Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2002 - Page A4).
They included photo credit: "San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center"

The reuse policy of sfimc is "free for NON-COMMERCIAL reuse":
http://www.indybay.org/publish.php

The Chron. may be loosing money but it's not a non-profit organization last i heard.

add IMC photo credit to the online version of the photo, although they still don't give the photographer credit.

...give the photographer credit on sfgate now.

James Irwin, Multimedia Manager of the SFGate online arm of the SF Chronicle, was kind enough to add the credits to the photo page. Though not until after Brian(?) from above was kind enough to raise a stink with the Chronicle. B-)

However, regarding the greater issue of photo theft by virtue of the SF Gate/Chronicle being a commercial entity that us thus prohibited by SF IMC's default disclaimer that allows only non-commercial use, he states that he obtained the photo from the Chronicle internal channels, having no idea the photo had not been legally obtained. He says this is the only way in which they obtain photos, and thus their bureacracy makes no provision for paying fees to freelance photographers.

Irwin kindly directed me to the Chronicle's Scott Sommerdorf, Director of Photography. Sommerdorf has failed to respond to email thus far, since last Friday.

Irwin has twice offered to pull the photo from the SF Gate's site, though expressed his desire to keep it showing. Sharing his desire, I have avoided responding in the hopes that Mr. Sommerdorf would satisfy my request for whatever standard freelance photographer's fee they usually offer (I have no idea how much or how little this might be.)

I'll keep you posted. I definitely don't approve of the Chronicle stealing our photos while selling high-priced ad space, but at the same time we - you and I and every other photographer posting here - aren't in it for the money, eh?

Edison

In light of my pursuit of the matter through the Chronicle chain of command, Irwin of SFGate has chosen to pull the photo of his own volition as of this afternoon. I was hoping it wouldnt come to that, but I can understand his decision.

Still waiting for an answer from Sommerdorf on standard Chronicle policy regarding the securing of commercial rights from freelance photographers. I wonder if he's hoping I'll go away, because I'm becoming increasingly curious about this problem. B-)

I need to go buy a copy of that edition.

EC

Scott Sommerdorf, Director of Photography at the Chronicle, says no one under him even remembers handling the photo. Heh! He suspects a rogue editor who isn't playing by departmental rules.

I understand from the SF Editorial guys that normally the Chronicle does contact them in an attempt to obtain commercial rights to photos in which they are interested. So presumably this incident was the exception (though I wonder how often it happens and no one notices? Thank you, Brian.)

Anyway, Scott has since invited me to send an invoice for what he says is their standard internal price of $50, which I've accepted. Hopefully SFGate will feel safe to restore the photo now.

Scott suggested the problem of their own internal deadlines (the print industry is notorious for them) making it difficult for editors to obtain reprint permissions from us freelance IMC photographers in a timely manner. Which I can see, given that an initial email contact (if an address is even given in the header at all) may often take too long for their tight schedules. Of course they didn't actually initiate contact at all in this case, but their legal dept is probably afraid of getting the attention of some wingnut who thinks his photo is worth $1M now that it's already been printed.

I certainly don't mind the Chronicle picking up my work, especially not for $50 a shot. I imagine many of you don't mind either. But it sounds like we need to establish a better process to accomodate, and thus encourage, the Chronicle to make use of us.

What do people think of an option in the Publish page, where with one click we can pre-approve the release of non-exclusive commercial reprint rights for, say, the Chronicle's standard $50 price? Anyone who wishes to set different terms, can do so the old fashioned way by including them in the post or whatever.

It would provide a way for commerical publishers to quickly, easily, and with full legal safety pick up our work at their hectic convenience. And we certainly know how we'll spend that money. 8-)

Yeah, I know, "the SF Chronicle is corporate media! They're evil!" But aren't they evil because they *don't* report the side of the news that we do? Well, with the publication of Amy & Cassandra's photo, they just reported *our* news. Isn't that what this is all about? I don't care if it's in the Chronicle, on CNN, or spraypainted on the moon. The story is being told.

EC

The Chronicle doesn't often reprint photos from SF Indymedia (at least, not to our knowledge), so there is not much history of the Chronicle obtaining commercial rights of Indymedia content. This is the message i sent which I believe led to them finally getting in touch with Edison.

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:54:39 -0800
From: mark burdett <mark [at] indymedia.org>
To: jkoopman [at] sfchronicle.com, feedback [at] sfgate.com
Subject: Please credit photo

Hello,
The photo at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/30/MN47011.DTL is from http://www.indybay.org/news/2001/12/111380.php and was so credited in your print edition. Please credit it on your web site.

I trust you first contacted the photographer (ecarter [at] network-23.tv) regarding this photo, as the Indymedia content licensing policy allows only non-commercial reuse, unless you have obtained permission from, and met any conditions set by, the author or producer. [...]

Are you suggesting a blanket policy of payment to SF Indymedia, which would then distribute funds, or that the photographer be paid directly? I'm not sure SF Indymedia wants the financial/legal hassle of managing such a service. And some photographs may end up being worth a lot more than $50, so it would suck for Indy photographers to rip themselves off. I'd say the price should be as much as you can get for it!

> Are you suggesting a blanket policy of payment to SF Indymedia, which would then distribute funds, or that the
> photographer be paid directly?

Paid directly, not through IMC (and then we photographers are on our honor to kick back something to IMC, I suppose.) The modification to the Publish form would just be to make it that much easier for us to do something that we already could do, but never bother to - specify pre-approved terms of commercial release. We already have pre-approved terms of non-commercial release.

> And some photographs may end up being worth a lot more than $50, so it would suck for Indy photographers to rip
> themselves off. I'd say the price should be as much as you can get for it!

Yes, but then prices have to be negotiated before an agreement can be made, and as they say in print "Today's news is tomorrow's fishwrap." With a pre-approved price, a Chronicle guy can grab a photo right now for a deadline in one hour if need be. So this proposal would significantly grease the wheels. However, the form could have 2 options - one click for the pre-approved standard price, or another click and enter a $$ amount in a field for a custom pre-approved price. Yes?
Oh, and the 3rd and default option, which is "No pre-approval for commercial release, please contact me for permission."

I discussed this with the Santa Cruz IMC team last night, and they've approved the idea.

-Ed

The pick up trucks flying large US flags on the tailgate haven't gone away. Flags normally don't bother me, and this country has some things to be proud of, but this blind unquestioning "patriotism" shit and leader worship of the Schimpanse Führer is really starting to get on my fuckin' nerves

I was driving behind a pickup truck flying a large tailgate flag today, and not only was his muffler loud, I think the guy removed his catalytic converter, and his engine needed a tune up, because it was billowing noxious exhaust, that I could smell in my car.


I'm going to buy a really small used American car, maybe a Ford Escort or Festiva, or something along those lines. Then, I'm going to have a welder mount a tri- or quad-pod flagpole holder smack-dab on the center of the roof. And I'm going to put a BIG ASS FUCKIN FLAG on it -- at least 8' x 12', maybe (so long as it doesn't droop over the windows when the car isn't moving).

I'm going to make a bumper sticker that sez "Remember the 9-11! Kill All Evil Doers!" And another a bumper sticker that sez "If You Use Drugs, You Support Terrorism"