content and copyright

[buckweaver]

I don't think Kinko's is saying you can't do it...they're saying they won't.

Yep. That's what they're doing.

Still annoying as ****, though.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

I don't know the exact wording, but it goes something this...once you work for a newspaper/magazine/any other company, ALL intellectual property created for said publication/broadcast belongs to them, not you. You don't own anything.

So, technically, Kinko's is right, but it still doesn't make much sense.

That's why some freelancers won't sign the paper's standard work-for-hire agreement, replacing it with one in which the paper only gets first-use rights, after which possession reverts to the photographer. More power to 'em.

 

[King_Cecil]

another thing to note is that my a few of my clips are bigger than 8.5x11 so I asked the customer service woman (this question is what prompted the whole thing anyway) if there was a way I could preview the copy to see if I had resized it correctly and she said "no". Seriously, in this world of technology where phones play mp3s and have MS Office, there's no way to see a preview of a copy? I hate Kinkos.

 

[henryhenry]

bizarre. this is twilight zone stuff. amazing.

 

[Peg McNichol]

I'm not a lawyer, but have been reading and studying this business of copy ownership, etc. for the last couple years.

The fine line, according to lawyers I've interviewed who specialize in this, has to do with with how you intend to use the copies.

As you can imagine, that line is marked with dollar signs.

If, as the aforementioned company did, you plan to repackage the content and resell it, you're depriving the original owners of potential income.

If you take the content and splash it all over your 'blog in order to drawer readers, thereby drawing them away from the legal owners of the content, you divert potential income from the legal owner.

Copying clips for prospective employers is not, in and of itself, going to divert readership/circulation/cold hard cash from your current employer.

Some might argue the dollar issue applies, because if you get hired away from Employer A by Competitor B based on those stellar clips, droves of readers will follow, thus depriving Employer A from readers and income. If you've got that kind of sway in your marketplace, you are well beyond the stage of creating clip packages.

Again, I'm not a lawyer. But your state press association has a lawyer, who can likely advise you on this.

Good luck in the job hunt!

EDIT: Also, it's been my experience that editors want to see clips in an 8 1/2 x 11 format. Any comments on that?

 

[King_Cecil]

Well I just wanted to be 8.5x11 so they could fit nice and neat in my envelope without having to fold them but hey, if that's what the editors like then cool.

I'm not really in the job hunt...it's a just weird situation and I found a position I liked and wanted to apply for it.

Thanks for the answers PegNichol. I think I'll just take my business to Staples instead of Kinkos if I'm going to get harassed every time I walk in with some clips.

 

[da man]

A few points:

1. I went to OfficeMax to make copies of clips yesterday because I had a coupon for free copies. When I went to the desk to ask how to redeem the coupon (it was for full-service copies), the lady looked at what I was going to copy and said, ``Oh, that's copyrighted material. You're going to have to use one of the self-service copiers.'' So, apparently, their policy is they won't copy copyrighted material for you, but they're not going to stop you from doing it yourself.

2. Don't ever go to Kinko's for copies. Office Depot is much cheaper.

3. Most freelance agreements I've seen lately (and that's a lot of them) only give the paper control over the material for a limited amount of time. After that period expires, control reverts to the writer.

 

[Satchel Pooch]

Seriously, it's often a question I have for the BMV and Kinko's, et al.: Is it that much harder to say yes than no?