Many photographers will work with a contract that transfers photo ownership from them to you, but sometimes, the creator will expect to keep “rights of authorship” basically stating that another creator cannot attempt to take credit for the original creator’s work. The contract you make when commissioning any kind of work for commercial use (design, content, photography) should clearly outline who has rights to what, and how the final work can be used. Most professionals will be very reasonable to work with, but laws like this one just serve to protect photographers from having their work claimed by other artists. It’s not much different than an artist or architect requiring that another artist or architect not take credit for their work simply because the other artist or architect added a blue dot or an extra window to the original work. I hope this helps : D

That’s like saying that everyone can cook like Gordon Ramsey so long as they can crack an egg in a pan. Absurd!

Once a prof-makeup artist myself, I can tell you that it is your/our sole responsibility to protect our own contributions to works with contracts that state our terms. We cannot (nor could we ever) rely on others to watch out for our best interests. Besides seasoned skill, contracts are what separates the hobbiest from the professional. Your contract should read clearly and be fair, and you can request terms such as: “the Makeup Artist shall be credited (by featuring full name) whenever imagery created under this Agreement is used for commercial purposes, contests or in publications. This does not include 3rd party usage of imagery, whereby the imagery’s other contributors, including the photographer, are not mentioned (such is the case when imagery is used in ads and billboards etc).

Inquire with other artists and hair stylists whose work is often featured in catalogues etc. Good luck!

Wrong on two out of three counts. I most definitely show contempt for an industry that almost always places revenue above all else, often at the expense of all else. I was laying out images for the printing press long before the digital workflow arrived and offered unbelievable flexibility and attention to detail. But 37 professional years later, after working with or for, three provincial newspapers, and countless magazines, I’ve seen a steady increase in irreverence for the image and a quick decline in the quality of it’s application, whether that be press or digital publication.
You simply cannot argue that as a culture, we have lost our way in regards to the ‘art’ of photography and all that should command. Much of that is about massive image saturation at every level. Where’s there was once one absolutely gorgeous sunset picture there are now 4,239,623 of them you can steal with a Google screenshot and post on your Facebook page!
In regards to newspapers specifically, ads rule, editorial is fodder between the ads and images you squeeze in the cracks if there’s room. Oh, wait, toss that image, Bob in sales just sold another ad! I’m not saying I like it that way. I truly don’t but it is what it is despite your personal ideals. There are exceptions of course and I’m proud to say that may own four-year football publication lived and breathed on interesting editorial and large, plentiful, dramatic images. Since I shot many, sometimes all of them, and laid out the pages in Quark Xpress, I had full control. I also had only 25% advertising content which is a luxury almost no newspaper on Earth can claim. Most fringe around the legal limits of about 70% ad space and simply cannot offer the images the attention they deserve.

Now if you really want to see how far newspapers have decayed, go find yourself a copy of the original Illustrated London Times. I have two copies, one from 1897 and the other 1925 (Jubillee year) and oh my God, these were the days! Absolutely incredible specially commissioned images on a massive scale. One hundred plus years later there is nothing anywhere that can rival the glory of, and the reverence for the image in this one publication.

The C-11 bill has a ridiculous clause that makes usual fair use activities, such as backing up data, illegal if the media you are trying to back up has Digital Rights Management locks on it. It was more for big media companies than it was for us photographers, unfortunately.

I’d need to re-read the bill, but last I heard it made it very difficult to alter media to add closed captioning and other accessibility features. That’s pretty terrible for people with hearing disabilities.

I believe that this a plus for those who do the work and those who take the credit. It the photgraphers eye that makes the company look good. Customers believe that the company is responsible for those amazing images.

I shoot weddings … you hand me a contract like that my rate just tripled or I tell you to go **** yourself.

And we aren’t free to sell the pictures … unless you signed a sweeping model release as part of the contract, I can;t use these images commercially … I can sell prints as art, I can use them for editorial work, I can enter them in to contests, I can use them for self promotion … but I can’t sell them (at least, not the images with identifiable people in them) to a florist shop to be used in their advertising for example.