Greg - as someone who makes most of my living licensing images for calendars, let me address a few of your misconceptions:
[ QUOTE ]
This is all about EGO and not about copyright violation.
[/ QUOTE ]
That could be true, as long as the photographer was paid, although its still an important part of the compensation. We generally get photo credits for everything we do, except advertising, and our fees reflect that. In this instance, as he was not paid, the compensation consisted of the credit line, which he did not get. For whatever reason, the credit line was worth it to him, and ironically, costs the publisher nothing, so it was a stupid move on the part of the publisher.
Beyond ego, I can't tell you how many jobs and new calendar gigs I've gotten from people seeing my name on a calendar (even when its just my name, not my website). It is as valuable a marketing tool as a credit line in a magazine.
[ QUOTE ]
So we see that he took each photo and his name has to be on it
12 times..... for each month, including the cover, the
inside covers and the back? Oh, golly gee whiz, isn't that
special?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's really a design descision of the publisher. I've rarely specified how my credit appears, as long as it does, and I've had it done once on the back, as well as under every image AND on the front cover and back cover. It just depends on the publisher, but the photographer can always ask.
[ QUOTE ]
If anyone really cared about who took the photo, they will look
in the back of the calendar and read about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct most people don't care. But some do. Some are collectors, and some actually do want to find the shooter and perhaps hire them (as I mentioned above). In addition, where possible, I always try to get the model's names listed as well (usually on their own page) because I believe it helps them, and draws the viewer into the product.
[ QUOTE ]
This would be a stupid lawsuit if he goes thru with it.
If he has that kind of money to spend-- let him have his fun.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not his lawyer, and we don't have all the specifics. There may be issues we don't know about. For example they could have negotiated the usage such that payment WAS the credit line. W/O the credit, there has been no payment, w/o the payment, there is no license, w/o the license you get a trip to copyright court (if the images were registered). That CAN translate into some big bucks - up to $150k for EACH image, regardless of what value one might try to put on the credit line in the first place.
[ QUOTE ]
If you gather 100 calendars, 95 of them will have
photographer credit in small print in back.
3 of the calendars will have no photographer credit (stock photos).
[/ QUOTE ]
I have been part of a collection of photographs in a few calendars of all types (include datebooks). I have ALWAYS gotten a credit line, sometimes with my stock agent (if one arranged the sale) next to mine. I can't remember ever seeing a calendar with no credits, even (and especially) from stock, which is where most calendars come from. Generally, on retail calendars, when all the photos are done by one photographer, his (or her) name goes on the front in nice type, and then again on the back in the legal section, usually with a copyright notice. As I said, sometimes you also get one under each shot inside. In the situation with mutiple photographers, their names are usually under each shot they did, and maybe listed as contributors on the back.
[ QUOTE ]
1 will list all the photographers on each image because it's part
of the liner notes. (example: playboy photographers, or sports
illustrated photographers, etc)... simply because they are "name."
photographers.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Believe me its not SIMPLY because they're names, its also partly contractual, and partly because those names may help sell the calendar.
[ QUOTE ]
And the other one- simply because the person self-published.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well that goes without saying, but if he paid for it (which is REALLY rare) then he can have whatever he wants.
[ QUOTE ]
Tell the guy to grow up, be a man, and if he wants that kind of
recognition, go print up and sell his own calendar. Because the
money he will spend on a lawsuit could've been spent doing just that.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't missing a play on a football team. This was obviously a business arrangement gone bad. It may have been a perfectly innocent error on the part of the publisher or the designer or whatever, but if the deal was photos in exchange for credit, then I say go for it, IF he can find a way to do it without spending a lot on the attorney. If the attorney is willing to work on contingency, then the photogs only expense is the lawyer's expense. If its a solid copyright infringement, and there are enough images involved and some kind of willful wrongdoing can be proved, they can make a bundle. The copyright law provides for (as long as the images were registered prior to the infringement) up to $150,000 per image in statutory damages, plus costs and attorney's fees. Nothing to sneeze at if the publisher has deep enough pockets.[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of big time photographers who live with it, why can't he?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not a big-time photographer, and I won't live with it, can you name one who has (or maybe not - since if they left his name off the calendar, you wouldn't know who he was!).
Regards,
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman Studio