I shot a cover story, for a prestigious (I believe) business magazine, which was published in June. I dealt with three different photo editors during the corse of this assignment and now the last one is gone too.
I was promised a "cover bonus" if it made the cover, which it did. I was paid for my fee but not yet for the bonus. Today I called and got a vm for yet another PE, who I left a message for re: my outstanding bill.

Of even more concern, in the original contract was a break down of additional fees for reprints. I strongly suspect the subject of the article is buying or has bought the reprints. They actually approached me about buying the images. I gave them an estimate but then did not hear back. And they now have a very professional looking PDF on their sight of the article...

I am thinking of calling the person there who contacted me and just asking her if they purchased reprints from the mag. If so, then what? I am with Corbis and could turn it over to them (but then they will take 50%). If the newest PE calls me back, I could just ask her about it?

If they have sold the reprints with out notifying and paying me,
it would be a copyright infringement right? Would it be worth talking to a lawyer?

OH! I just saw this on the bottom of the PDF:
Reprinted from the June 2008 issue of ::name of magazine:: . Copyright 2008 by ::name of magazine::. All rights reserved.

UPDATE: I confirmed with the PR guy that they did order reprints and also paid for 1 year of PDF web hosting. Which is not addressed in the contract!

One word - "Lawyer".
Sadly lotsa disputes get resolved by just a letter from a lawyer. On surface it seems like you have mostly good ground to stand on.

We are not talking about a huge amount of money here (under 3000.00) if they just paid according to our contract. So my question is; since they have done this without paying me can I go after them for more?
Making a lawyer worthwhile?

If your images are registered, you can collect MORE than actual damages. :-)

They are not registered but were published and credited to me does that not also constitute copyright? Can I still get them registered?

You will need to see if you can register the images and then move forward with a case. I believe that it is 90 days from publication but do look at LOC website. The damages are limited to actual damages unless the images are registered.

Well I talk to the new PE and am trying to work it out amicably as per our original contract. I sent her a new invoice with the additional reprint charges and then charged that same amount for the web use. I told her that I needed payment by the end of next week and included this on my invoice or else I would turn it over to Corbis...

I tried to be nice but firm, told her I understood she was not responsible and she assured me it would be taken care of... we will see.

quote:

Originally posted by cuechick:
[qb] They are not registered but were published and credited to me does that not also constitute copyright? Can I still get them registered? [/qb]

This is important stuff for your business and I encourage you to read copyright.gov and the ASMP tutorial on copyright to understand it better, but here is the very brief version...

In the US (and many other places), the moment you take the image (if you are not an employee or have previously signed a WFH), your image is copyrighted. It does not need to be published or have a credit line or anything.

Consider that "minimum protection" under the law. You can only collect "actual damages" which means the value lost according to what a court decides your image in that use alone was worth. Because this amount is so little, often lawyers won't want to take the case--it's just not going to pay enough.

HOWEVER, if you register your copyrights you get to collect statutory damages of up to $150,000 PER INFRINGEMENT and you can also recover legal fees, etc.

That is why registering is a good thing to do. It is also inexpensive (you can register large numbers of images at one time for one fee--in many cases). It should be a regular part of all photographers' workflow.

HTH--
Leslie

Take a look at War On Photography II for some thoughts on how to handle infringing.

Here is a quote from, Edward Greenberg, Esq. - Greenberg & Reicher, LLP., one of the panelists:

You can't know the value of any infringement, whether you're going to bring a "regular legal case" or whether you're just going to try to negotiate with the client - maybe it's a nice client, maybe you just want to get along with the client - if you don't know the full nature and extent of the use.

I am still dealing with this situation and they are now claiming that this paragraph in our contract, gave them the right to sell 1 year of online use to the subject for their (the subject, not the magazine's) website.

To me, this only says the magazine has the right to show for it 30 days on their own site?

What do you all think?

In consideration for the payment of the day rate of $1000 FLAT, Photographer grants Publisher the exclusive, worldwide rights to reproduce the Photographs on the inside pages of the Magazine, in all editions for a period of 30 days from publication date, including the right to reproduce, display and permit access the to Magazine (including the Photographs as they appeared in editorial context) in PDF format via delivery on the internet.

It precisly states, for 30days after publication. I wish it would've stated after FIRST publication in the SAID magazine. but that is hindsight.
Ask them to highlight where they read 1yr & to anyone other than the magazine. This clause is for the reprints of the article in PDF formats to be used by the subject to brag @ their recognition by the publication. JUST THE PDF OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE W/YOUR PHOTO. That is all the reprints they get to hand out. (I am not shouting )
It definately does not state the article to be on somebody else's website with your image. They seems like sold your image for some compensation or for future business, either way they do not possess the right.