I submitted 6 photos to an online magazine for an article. They were all edited and composed for 4X6 layout. When the article was published they were all cropped to hell, even cutting off some of my models heads... who worked for free to get magazine exposure. I wasn't paid for the shoot (the magazine makes no money right now). I'm just wondering how to handle this. What exactly are my rights if any. I don't want to cause a fuss as I want to continue working with them... I'm just wondering how to get my point across as nicely as possible.

Nature of the beast. Once you hand the files over to an art director sometimes you just have to cross your fingers and hope.

Most magazines (and newspapers) are designed with the photographic placement holders anchoring the design -- the size and dimensions of the photographs have already been chosen even before they give a thought to the content of the photo. Then the art directors (or whoever is in charge of designing the page), chooses photos from a batch and decides which ones work the best given the available crops.

If I don't feel like the art director is doing a good job showcasing my images, then I would probably wouldn't submit to the magazine again. Everybody wants exposure, but not all exposure is good exposure.

Did you not have a contract that specified how they would be used? If not, you don't have any rights.

While nothing is absolute, my guess is that most page designers would be very reticent to sign a contract stipulating how the photographer's photos can be cropped. See my post above.

mdude85 wrote:
While nothing is absolute, my guess is that most page designers would be very reticent to sign a contract stipulating how the photographer's photos can be cropped. See my post above.

I agree, it is never that black & white, but sometimes contracts stipulate that significant changes that alter the integrity of the work won't be made without the approval of the artist.

nathanlake wrote:
mdude85 wrote:
While nothing is absolute, my guess is that most page designers would be very reticent to sign a contract stipulating how the photographer's photos can be cropped. See my post above.

I agree, it is never that black & white, but sometimes contracts stipulate that significant changes that alter the integrity of the work won't be made without the approval of the artist.

It's generally acknowledged, within the field, that necessary cropping is not considered to be altering the integrity of the photo. The NY Times and other news agencies have made this fact quite clear when they release memos urging their freelance photographers not to submit any digitally altered photos. On the other hand, burning, dodging, cloning, reversing orientation of objects, etc, are examples of alterations that might be prohibited in a contract. Cropping typically isn't.

It's also generally-acknowledged that the photographer shouldn't be sending an art director shots that are specifically-composed and cropped beyond what was done in-camera, since the photographer doesn't usually know what the final editorial layout is going to be.

For instance, why 4x6? Was it arbitrary, because you're used to editing for customers buying prints from you, or because someone at the magazine told you that's what they wanted?

Most art directors will want you to leave them cropping options so that they can make the photo edit that best fits their needs, not yours.

Once you hand images over to the client (and it doesn't matter if you are getting paid or not) you must divorce yourself from the emotional link. You have no rights or control in this situation. Next time you work for free, do it with an art director you can have faith in and you may stand a chance. Of course if you were getting paid, it would lessen the pain.

The best thing here is to understand your role as a photographer: providing images for someone else to integrate, as they see fit, into the final product.

If you want to do minimal cropping before sending in-- IF that is acceptable to the AD-- fine. But what happens afterward, unless and sometimes even if you're already famous, is up to the art, design, and other editorial staff. You can choose not working with a client, or hiding your involvement with a client, if you think they make your work look bad. But there's no way you're gonna make any kind of living in this business if you think you have any kind of control over what photos get selected, how they are cropped, and how they are arranged. That's simply not your role. Even the most famous photographers will voice their frustration with how they don't get to make final selects on the images-- and how there's often a photo they think was best that wasn't chosen to run. That's the business.

Hell, this is all the more true if you ever get a paying client: "We paid you to make submit images-- we're not paying for your opinion on what to do with them."

shatterkiss wrote:
It's also generally-acknowledged that the photographer shouldn't be sending an art director shots that are specifically-composed and cropped beyond what was done in-camera, since the photographer doesn't usually know what the final editorial layout is going to be.



Definitely true!

SmegHead wrote:
I submitted 6 photos to an online magazine for an article. They were all edited and composed for 4X6 layout. When the article was published they were all cropped to hell, even cutting off some of my models heads... who worked for free to get magazine exposure. I wasn't paid for the shoot (the magazine makes no money right now). I'm just wondering how to handle this. What exactly are my rights if any. I don't want to cause a fuss as I want to continue working with them... I'm just wondering how to get my point across as nicely as possible.

Let me get this straight.........they don't pay you, they chop up your photos....and you still want to work for them?

Brent Ward wrote:
Nature of the beast. Once you hand the files over to an art director sometimes you just have to cross your fingers and hope.

Exactly right.

legally, none, even if you signed a contract. a properly written contract would say they get to decide everything including throwing away all your images. what they can't do is misrepresent your images as coming from someone else. those are about your only rights.

Herb...

SmegHead wrote:
What exactly are my rights if any.

Call and speak to your contact, the photo editor, or AD. Play the 'forever student' approach and just pick their brain as why what happened happened. They are not mind readers and your not either. If your aware of their usage intent then you'll better be able to delivery what they want. If it doesn't work for you, their usage intent, then stop working for them. Don't shoot free for long unless your able to leverage it for paid work (their advertisers).

I shoot food for a mag conglomerate. The Sr. AD is my contact. I've called and spoken w/her at least once every 2-3 months. Just to get an idea of what's up and what she's liking or not about what I've been sending in. In our conversations I've explained what my goals are as well to better discover what she's looking for, in general as well as from me. There are 2 aspects of images I'm delivering, 1) ad pages for venues the images are cut down to 2" square, so they print so small that a lot of detail is lost. 2) Editorial assignments issued w/full bleed in mind.


For small display, I supply 9x6 or 8x8 images. They will use what they want and is large enough for the biggest of usage intent.

Editorial - With these requirements I approach my end product in consideration of what she might want to do with the images. Some will be full sensor uncropped or some I'll crop to 9x12. This leaves her room for layout if she choose to go full bleed, or she can crop in for just a piece or resize.



Just one way, I'm sure there are more.

What I do is try to get a exact measurement and if that is not available crop slightly to remove any unwanted background or objects but leave enough so they can fit it to most any size. Most local magazines I work with care only about how to fit more ad space and not too much about fitting content around a photo.

It does not sound as if your work is well presented from your or your model's point of view.

The art director would be a fool to dry up your free resource and so, their own free photo resources at the same time.

This is a concern they would want to know about.

Wow.. so many things wrong with this whole scenario that it's a little frightening. Publications making horribly misguided crops, etc. to photos is nothing new. If only I had a nickel for every time one of the designers at my former newspaper did that, I would be very wealthy man. Having a calm, rational discussion with the AD could help, but eventually one has to simply submit the images, then step back from the process and happily go deposit your paycheck. Which brings me to the terribly troubling fact that you're working for free. It does not matter that they are not making money yet. This approach is killing the industry.. period!! I've been doing this a long time, and never have I heard so much about photographers working for free. I'd go on, but it would only drive up my blood-pressure, and fall on deaf ears anyway. Happy shooting...

316shooter wrote:
Wow.. so many things wrong with this whole scenario that it's a little frightening. Publications making horribly misguided crops, etc. to photos is nothing new. If only I had a nickel for every time one of the designers at my former newspaper did that, I would be very wealthy man. Having a calm, rational discussion with the AD could help, but eventually one has to simply submit the images, then step back from the process and happily go deposit your paycheck. Which brings me to the terribly troubling fact that you're working for free. It does not matter that they are not making money yet. This approach is killing the industry.. period!! I've been doing this a long time, and never have I heard so much about photographers working for free. I'd go on, but it would only drive up my blood-pressure, and fall on deaf ears anyway. Happy shooting...


I don't want this thread to turn into another bash of photogs that give their product away, but there will always be more people willing to give pictures away than will sell them. There are lots of good reasons to give photos away...and no real bad reasons. It is a personal choice and if enough people make that choice, it will impact the business, but that is just how it works. If the quality of free can compete with the quality of not-free, then there is no reason for the existence of the "professional" photographer.

If you want to remain a pro, you need to figure out how to compete with free. Linux is free, but Microsoft is still making money.

If I want to remain a pro?? lol... wow that made me smile for sure. In all honesty, all the rookies giving away work for free have been a financial bonus for me the last few years. In the last 2 months alone, I have been paid three times by new clients to clean up messes left by weekend warriors working for free. So I was incorrect to say they are killing the industry. Perhaps they are helping some of us. Most working professionals have established clients who not only value the work, but also know they can depend on a photographer to deliver no matter what. What annoys me to no end are the repeated emails/calls I get from people trying to get the proverbial "foot-in-the-door," who ask advice, then don't follow it. In every single case, those same people have contacted me again saying they tried asking for payment on following shoots, and were told no. Then the clients just went to the next sucker willing to work free. In reality it just cheapens the whole photo community. The very community that all these folks are trying so desperately to get into. I have little doubt this offends some, but it is the truth.