Mike Gunter said:
Hi TTJ,

Good for him, but that galls me that he would have had such a bad experience with such a good one....

I didn't mean to imply that he had a bad experience - I parsed all the stories maybe a bit much. He really enjoyed it, had great experiences and was offered work at a few newspapers based on his work for the daily rag.

We went to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln which (at that time at least) was in the top schools for journalism so I was surprised to hear the separation but they certainly had their rudder as they did have a full time "professional" staff that advised them. Many years before my time, professors harshly graded their students who wrote stories they didn't agree with. One of my Professors in the Communication studies department, which had separated from Mass Communications, spoke fondly about fighting with the students to separate it from the program. A few spaces were reserved for Journalism students but nothing large. There were close to 1,500+ students in the program at that time so probably much of it was just pure unrealistic logistics on how they could give equal time every student. They did have many other avenues they utilized like the two state and a few dozen local papers in the surrounding areas that students wrote for.

photoguru2 said:
I am worried about the "work for hire" statue, as it relates to my contributions.

There is nothing about the contract or "work for hire" statue to know or that is in some way a violation of any right or law. If they require that to continue to work, then that is the requirement. People may disagree with it, but there is not a "fight" though laws. These types of contracts have been around for decades. Hell there are still a handful of companies I can not work for that were vendors of an employer I once worked for 6 years ago. That was a 10-year non-compete. It was simple - sign the contract or be "released"/fired since there was no use for me then. That's just the world.

If you want something different then what they offered, then the only way to change it is to sit with them and negotiate it. Give them what you would like to have and show the advantages it has for them, and/or how it realistically doesn't effect or change the reasons they believe they need the contract. If you remember to keep it about them and not you, you should be successful. It all could be as simple as some lawyer (or worse not one) suggested it and no one really thought it through. That happens more often than not.

Thanks for all the help. Take care.

Hi,

"The paper can't be taken back by the school because it's its own corporation."

Why not? It didn't magically become a corporation without the university's help. The college could buy it, it could sell a controlling share, whatever. It could be put into bankruptcy by court order.

"I'd like to point out, though, you insinuate that there would be some sort of lawsuit for language used in the paper."

Insinuate is not the word you should have used. It would mean that I was hinting coyly or slyly.

There's nothing coy about what I'm saying: you could be sued.

If you or the paper liable someone and are successfully sued, your wages and some of your possessions (such as your nice camera) and future wages (only in rare cases do judgments ever go away, in NY it will hang on you for 20 years unless renewed for another 20) and that what's at risk for a poor youngster with nothing in his/her pockets. You can likely get an attorney for little or paid on time, but it be a drag.

You might be poor now, but, god forbid, if it ever comes to it, a generous judgment against you will guarantee that for quite some time it will linger around your neck stinking like a dead albatross from a Coleridge poem.

As for it can't happen to me, the list of school papers that have been sued includes high schools from Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, New York, and many more.

If there isn't much of a case and you don't have much likelihood of a future - you don't look like you have much prospects - it's likely that the suit would be dropped, although you would likely have to pay some money for attorney fees (and some part of your future would be affected), but you would have a few months of some uncomfortable times.

Will it happen? I don't know. My guess is no. But I'd also guess that you don't know the circumstances that can ignite a legitimate suit especially when your chief concern seems to be public figures that would will the fire for the suit - you clearly don't understand "public figures" in media, and the "privilege" that media has - and that seems wrong to me, and without having a someone at the paper who is well founded on media law to advise you and others, you are walking in a potential minefield, not even knowing of what the makeup is of the mines.

"Insinuate would mean that I'm hinting slyly.

There's nothing coy about what I'm saying: you could be sued.

If you or the paper liable someone and are successfully sued, your wages and some of your possessions (such as your nice camera) and future wages (only in rare cases do judgments ever go away, in NY it will hang on you for 20 years unless renewed for another 20) and that what's at risk for a poor youngster with nothing in his/her pockets. You can likely get an attorney for little or paid on time, but it be a drag.

You might be poor now, but, god forbid, if it ever comes to it, a generous judgment against you will guarantee that for quite some time it will linger around your neck stinking like a dead albatross from a Coleridge poem.

As for it can't happen to me, the list of school papers that have been sued includes high schools from Arkansas, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, New York, and many more.

If there isn't much of a case and you don't have much likelihood of a future - you don't look like you have much prospects - it's likely that the suit would be dropped, although you would likely have to pay some money for attorney fees, but you would have a few months of some uncomfortable times.

Will it happen? I don't know. My guess is no. But I'd also guess that you don't know the circumstances that can ignite a legitimate suit, and without having a someone at the paper who is well founded on media law to advise you and others, you are walking in a potential minefield.

"I am worried about the "work for hire" statue, as it relates to my contributions."

That seems to be the easy for you. Sign the contract, the work is theirs and don't worry. Don't sign and the work is your and don't worry.

Moreover, if you really can produce work at a good rate, do it. The college wasn't paying you anything. What prevents you from just working on your own? You can collect your own royalties with any middlemen.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
The UG case is a good case in point of fact. The students there had used adjectives to describe the student body in libelous language. 'Burr headed' is but one example, and I suspect the gathering of the newspapers is to limit the college's liability.

Their note to the staff was poorly written, even dumb, but gauging the paper's content, written to its readership.

A few lawsuits will likely take these quasi-independent papers back into a oversight position, since culpability - the payee - is the college or university.

Somehow you misread my comments on oversight and advise and got 'Big Brother'. Must have had a rough childhood. Big brothers aren't all bad. They can be teachers and mentors and lead their wards to meaningful decisions.

If you looked into the Associated Collegiate Press and the Student Legal Press Center, you would have found out that Student Presses, even High School Presses, control their own content. I've tried to use language such as 'oversight', 'manage', 'teach', and 'help', never have I indicated select, edit or pick or select content.

The paper can't be taken back by the school because it's its own corporation. I'd like to point out, though, you insinuate that there would be some sort of lawsuit for language used in the paper. Who would have any vested interest in suing the newspaper and spend thousands of dollars in litigation? You state earlier that: "...[the] last of [your] worries would [be] that your images would be tremendously fought over by news or other agents." Our paper isn't one that would slander a government figure or politician who has the potential to sue for libel because we're just that, a paper that isn't read by millions of people. Also, I'd liken oversight at the paper by the University to permitting the City of New York or Columbia University to advise the New York Times. It shouldn't happen and it never would happen.

I am worried about the "work for hire" statue, as it relates to my contributions.

It is my opinion, this thread is documenting some wonderful advice which I hope is being listened to by the younger folks on NRF. While my experience working in college news was to run my own business and make some money, I was able to do this and hand pick what I wanted to shoot. Then, my jobs in more commercial work started at $490 per month. This in 1966. My first Nikon F with 35mm f/2 was about $400. By 1969, I was up to $800 per month. But, during those years I was learning from some very talented photographers and was able to shoot with top models when this was the assignment.

It takes time to learn how to take photographs, but even more time to mature as a photographer. And this is what I believe the ones with experience are talking about here on this thread. And, the process of maturation is one of being open minded, curious, able to take direction and willing to make a heck of a lot of mistakes. But most important it is one of bing able to admit we are in error when we have been wrong.

Unfortunately for many of us, probably me, it took fifty years at least to figure this out...:-)

Hi,

The UG case is a good case in point of fact. The students there had used adjectives to describe the student body in libelous language. 'Burr headed' is but one example, and I suspect the gathering of the newspapers is to limit the college's liability.

Their note to the staff was poorly written, even dumb, but gauging the paper's content, written to its readership.

A few lawsuits will likely take these quasi-independent papers back into a oversight position, since culpability - the payee - is the college or university.

Somehow you misread my comments on oversight and advise and got 'Big Brother'. Must have had a rough childhood. Big brothers aren't all bad. They can be teachers and mentors and lead their wards to meaningful decisions.

If you looked into the Associated Collegiate Press and the Student Legal Press Center, you would have found out that Student Presses, even High School Presses, control their own content. I've tried to use language such as 'oversight', 'manage', 'teach', and 'help', never have I indicated select, edit or pick or select content.

Mark Twain said that experience might be the best teacher, but the fool's only teacher.

I have had to teach the writers how to write, the photographers how to photograph and develop and print and more, but what went into the paper was all up to them - advise, but no consent.

You'll find, if you ever work as a photographer, there will be someone that will tell what should or shouldn't be published. I don't know how old you are, but I started working full time at 19 as a combat photographer in Vietnam, and switched to the AP at 21.

The AP is always looking for good shooters. That would at least pay better.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:

I'm more concerned that an all-student publication doesn't have a rudder. There has to be someone there to tell them that their stuff is bad or good or needs work or whatever. There is no mention of someone to teach them how to do a newspaper or news work. That's a grave mistake.

Running a student paper is actually more work than running a professional publication. I've done both - several times over. When you give a story to a Ph.D. at Princeton who is _the_ authority in the field and is going to get some money and notoriety for the article he's asked you to place, you sort of expect him to do it on deadline and have it fact checked for you (although, since you have a staff for that, you do it anyway). With students, well, not so much.

Students don't know much about how things work. They really want to put themselves into everything they do, which is neat, but terribly wrong. News should be reporting facts. And I've never, ever, ever had any student that didn't need help getting their first stories or pictures right - including me. If I could have taught journalism without advising the newspaper, I would have. :-)

Well it's been working for years with no input from anyone from the school. I have friends who just walked out of their offices at the University of Georgia because the school was imposing censorship requirements. I would much prefer have an independent paper such as the one for which I contribute without any overhanging head or "big brother," if you will, constantly telling the publication what should and should not be published. In fact, the University once even removed the paper from the newsstands because it was judged too critical of the school, or portrayed the school in a negative light.

TaoTeJared said:
I ran into an old friend from college today who worked for the "daily rag" and I asked him if he had contracts, and what Mike wrote. He was a journalism student but then went to law school and is now practicing at a firm.

At a larger school (less than 10 yrs ago), he got paid $5 for each published photograph. He had to use his own gear, no insurance (he got a mono-pod bearing his only camera and a new 300mm lens busted on the sidelines at a game - home owners insurance covered it), it was not connected to any sort of academics but did have access to professors for "help" if he had questions. There was no, zero, zip relationship to his major or academics at all and when he was there, out of a staff of 40 there were only 10 students in the journalism school. He had to sign a contract, but they only owned the photos that were published. In 4 years working with them only 1 photo ever made it to the news wire, and the school made $2,000 and him nothing more than his $5.

That all surprised me a bit, and it seams that photoguru2's experience is not an unusual practice, except for "all photos" belonging to them.

What I found interesting was that he didn't really want to talk about not being paid, broken gear, etc. but the times he met Desmond Tutu, Coretta Scott King, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, Bono, B.B. King and the 100's of others who added to all the stories he will have for the rest of his life. That was an amazing experience and opportunity that few ever get.

Hi TTJ,

Good for him, but that galls me that he would have had such a bad experience with such a good one.

In any of the schools I've worked with all the students had the option to get credit for writing or photography (some choose not to), and all could vie for scholarships, some of them very, very good.

Furthermore, I wouldn't let anyone use their own equipment less they _insisted_ and I got a wavier from them; however, one of the schools told me our insurance would cover the students' gear.

All photos reverted to the original user - there is so, so, so little chance of a rainmaker, and ownership and sales are a bitch - some beginners are all about 'rights' - really it should be all about the work.

I'm more concerned that an all-student publication doesn't have a rudder. There has to be someone there to tell them that their stuff is bad or good or needs work or whatever. There is no mention of someone to teach them how to do a newspaper or news work. That's a grave mistake.

Running a student paper is actually more work than running a professional publication. I've done both - several times over. When you give a story to a Ph.D. at Princeton who is _the_ authority in the field and is going to get some money and notoriety for the article he's asked you to place, you sort of expect him to do it on deadline and have it fact checked for you (although, since you have a staff for that, you do it anyway). With students, well, not so much.

Students don't know much about how things work. They really want to put themselves into everything they do, which is neat, but terribly wrong. News should be reporting facts. And I've never, ever, ever had any student that didn't need help getting their first stories or pictures right - including me. If I could have taught journalism without advising the newspaper, I would have. :-)

But it comes (or came) with the job.

The same is true for taking news photos. One of the best biased photographers was Alfred Newman, and one of his pictures for _Newsweek_ was a 1963 photo of German industrialist Alfred Kruff, Jr, who was involved in the Axis tank building industry some 20 years earlier.

The portrait makes no attempt at impartiality. It casts Krupp as cold and sinister. I think the only reason _Newsweek_ passed it was the proximity to the WWII.

Photographers who shoot for the news need to do better. They can be artists and create their own vision on their on time. But shooting a story needs a clear vision thats has no filter.

TTJ, as a young reporter, I met President Johnson and candidates Nixon and Humphreys and many more interesting folks, too. Reporting was one of the coolest jobs there was, although I think print media is taking a long drag of its last breath. That pains me, but I read the news on my pad or computer and don't subscribe to a paper anymore either.

One last thing, rarely, but in a blue, blue moon, I see one or two or so of my photos from either the AP or Vietnam surface in illustrating something or other, nothing iconic. If I were to get any royalties from anything it likely wouldn't even pay to have the photos warehoused anywhere.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
So you have to instruction? No compensation? No insurance?
No variety of professional-equipment to learn to use?
Guided training?
No educational goals?
No supervised graded critique of adviser assignments?

I ran into an old friend from college today who worked for the "daily rag" and I asked him if he had contracts, and what Mike wrote. He was a journalism student but then went to law school and is now practicing at a firm.

At a larger school (less than 10 yrs ago), he got paid $5 for each published photograph. He had to use his own gear, no insurance (he got a mono-pod bearing his only camera and a new 300mm lens busted on the sidelines at a game - home owners insurance covered it), it was not connected to any sort of academics but did have access to professors for "help" if he had questions. There was no, zero, zip relationship to his major or academics at all and when he was there, out of a staff of 40 there were only 10 students in the journalism school. He had to sign a contract, but they only owned the photos that were published. In 4 years working with them only 1 photo ever made it to the news wire, and the school made $2,000 and him nothing more than his $5.

That all surprised me a bit, and it seams that photoguru2's experience is not an unusual practice, except for "all photos" belonging to them.

What I found interesting was that he didn't really want to talk about not being paid, broken gear, etc. but the times he met Desmond Tutu, Coretta Scott King, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, Bono, B.B. King and the 100's of others who added to all the stories he will have for the rest of his life. That was an amazing experience and opportunity that few ever get.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi all,

@photoguru2

So you have to instruction? No compensation? No insurance?

No variety of professional-equipment to learn to use?

Guided training?

No educational goals?

No supervised graded critique of adviser assignments?

My best,

Mike

Correct on all accounts, except the educational goals. I am majoring in something entirely unrelated to photography and my work for the paper. Of course I have educational (academic) goals, but they are not from working at the paper. I just hope to gain experience working with them, but I could otherwise get more experience outside of the newspaper as well if need be. The paper is completely independent; it's not like I get educational training, equipment funded by the University to cover campus events, and a check every month for my work. I have the opportunity to meet a crap load of cool people whether they be those working at the paper or those I photograph (Jon Stewart, B.o.b., John Oliver, Taio Cruz, Major Lazer, Paul Wolfowitz, Eric Schmidt, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill Nye, Nancy Pelosi, Ron Paul, etc.).

Hi all,

@photoguru2

So you have to instruction? No compensation? No insurance?

No variety of professional-equipment to learn to use?

Guided training?

No educational goals?

No supervised graded critique of adviser assignments?

My best,

Mike

@ TaoTeJared +1

One of the first studios I worked at was nicknamed "Alderman University" as many folks worked there in the 1960's and learned a lot, then went on to do other things...... Young folks need to understand that in photo school, you learn how to develop film, or whatever, but on the sidelines, in the line of fire, this is where one learns how to take photographs.

photoguru2 - I think the questions you need to answer for your self and/or with the editor are;
What use do YOU want for the photos outside of the paper you take for them for?
And/or, Do you believe that you can sell them to another outfit and make money?

The question you need to ask or understand is if the photos you take have any intrinsic value.

You haven't really stated what you are taking photos of. If it is the University President at meetings, or students at a home-game rally, quite honestly the images have zero value outside of that paper.
If you are even shooting NCAA games and get a "killer shot" it is probably only worth something for less than 48hrs for publications. If you don't have another outlet lined up, then again, as good as they are, have zero value.

I would say 99.9% of the photos you take for them have no intrinsic value and would say the experience it worth more than the images ever could be. If your name becomes well known because you have had over 100 published photos in the school paper, that could help you get a job at a paper or AP, etc. later which that experience is worth much more.

Now if they want the option of selling your photos over the "wire" - then you have issues and you should be paid. I equate it too; if they make money, you need to make money. If they don't make anything on it, then likewise you don't and chalk it up to experience.

You need to ask the editor and not us (or whoever is asking you to sign the contract) why they need ownership. You might be surprised that there is a lot of room for a mutual beneficial solution. You can't be the only one who ever had questions.

I was reading New York state law and prominent court cases relating to "work for hire," which is where the contract is to be litigated if that ever results. Apparently there are several court cases from the United States Court of Appeals, such as Playboy Enterprises, Inc., vs. Dumas (1995), and Schiller & Schmidt, Inc. v. Nordisco Corp. (1992), whereby "work for hire" agreements signed after the creation of work, are illegitimate, and cannot be considered valid. It's important to note that I have been contributing to the paper for more than six months already. The former case (Playboy v. Dumas) is in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which includes New York State. And further on the "employee," vs. "contributor" point, the Supreme Court, in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989), ruled that independent contractors who create copyrightable, artistic works are not employees and therefore cannot be ruled by a "work for hire" statue. This is certainly an interesting legal question that will no doubt be examined further in the future. I'm not sure whether to sign the agreement, and still ultimately hold the copyright, or simply stop contributing.

Oh BTW, I've done volunteer work for my university's paper back when I was in college and I can tell you this is not the norm. We did the volunteering on a per assignment basis and we didn't have any contracts involved. My photos always remained property but the paper was given permission to publish them, that's all.

My 2 cents worth:

Just don't do it. If something doesn't feel right with you then just don't do it. From the looks of it, it sounds to me that even if you accepted and signed the contract, you'll always have that nagging thought in the back of your mind that you're working for free AND being cheated out.

A few questions to ponder: are you trying to get into photojournalism specifically or photography in general? Are there any other newspapers in the area that you can volunteer for that wouldn't impose that kind of contract? Have you considered working/assisting for a local studio/photographer instead?

As TaoTeJared points out, if you want the job, sign the contract.

If you take an "Afghan Girl" or a "Sailor Kissing a Nurse", see an attorney about the validity of a contract with no mutual consideration. You may have a case that they can't own something they have not compensated you for. The paper will want to cut a deal rather than go to court.

Hi,

"No we are completely independent from the University. There is absolutely no advice from the school. We have a private Board of Directors, editorial staff, and editor. All the money comes from alumni and advertisement in the paper. In fact the paper's offices, and editorial staff, are located several miles from any property owned by the school."

You don't have any adult supervention? Then none of you know what you are doing?

It seems like a very easy answer. You really don't want to play with those kids; at some point, someone is going to get hurt.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
My guess is that there is advisory oversight at the paper, and there is a journalism teacher who is familiar with the requirements of the Student Press who can offer advise to 2Photoguru, although that advise might be hard to take.

No we are completely independent from the University. There is absolutely no advice from the school. We have a private Board of Directors, editorial staff, and editor. All the money comes from alumni and advertisement in the paper. In fact the paper's offices, and editorial staff, are located several miles from any property owned by the school.

Beso said:
photoguru2 - I see two issues here: 1) legal issues and copyright law; and 2) your own personal choices about what you do and the decisions you make. While there is much information regarding copyright law available I question how unpaid activity constitutes "work for hire" since there is no equitable exchange of value - typically necessary for contractual rights. Nevertheless, here is a good link to information: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Exactly. I feel that something of this nature cannot be classified as "work for hire" because there is no compensation at all. I am not employed, have no employment contract, and make no money from the paper.

Generally, if you are a captive photographer (an employee), the photos you take for your employer belong to your employer. As noted above, employees usually get paid, get benefits, etc.

Personally, I would not agree to be an unpaid employee of any publication that got all the benefits of the employment relationship (ownership of the photos), while I got virtually none.

Quick background -- I've made my living writing for and selling photographs to magazines for many years.

Your photos have value. If they didn't, the publication would not use them.

Does the publication sell advertising? Is anyone getting paid? If so, why should you give away your work?

Simply put, if there is a choice, I would tell them I don't give away all rights to MY photos. Period. Why would they want all rights (which is what a "work for hire" is)? Because they think there is value in them or might be.

If you are getting paid, and you thing that payment is enough to cover any potential value to the photos, then sign it.

If you are not geting paid, forget it. Never sign a work for hire agreement. Why would you?

Again, your work has value. Get fully compensated for your work.

photoguru2 - I see two issues here: 1) legal issues and copyright law; and 2) your own personal choices about what you do and the decisions you make. While there is much information regarding copyright law available I question how unpaid activity constitutes "work for hire" since there is no equitable exchange of value - typically necessary for contractual rights. Nevertheless, here is a good link to information: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

As far as your choices are concerned, obviously you are troubled by the newspaper's demand. In my opinion the issue boils down to: Does your work have commercial value and does the experience gained fairly "compensate" you for the value given? Only you can decide.

Personally I would never sign away my rights under a "work for hire" agreement if I wasn't being compensated. I think that is just asking too much from someone who is already allowing free use of their work.

Hi TTJ,

You point out some of the issues, but it's incredibly complicated - that's why I posted two links and ran. ;-)

Typically, in the course of pursuing a journalism major, a student will work on a student newspaper all 8 semesters.

My guess is that there is advisory oversight at the paper, and there is a journalism teacher who is familiar with the requirements of the Student Press who can offer advise to 2Photoguru, although that advise might be hard to take.

Neither is it trivial what 2photoguru needs to know to work at the paper. He will be shooting news which is very specific.

I would be interested in how he shoots now. RAW or JPEG and what software he edits with.

My best,

Mike

There was a recent court case that was just settled that probably helped prompt some of this. It was a photo of a bear that fell out of a tree that a student photographer (working for the university paper) got a photo of. It went viral, was used in some Asian add campaign and the student who came on mid-term had not signed a contract. The university paper was trying to collect royalties on the photo. Student sued the paper/university and won the rights to the photo all due to the lack of the contract.

Don't kid yourself, the Paper is part of the university - oversight, budget, etc. maybe separate but they "own" it. Either way it doesn't matter much or make a difference in the situation.

If you want the job sign the contract - there isn't a choice. It is as simple as that. Contracts like that exist with any and every job that is worthwhile. You will gain much more through experience than any single photo you take will ever make you.

What to be sure to do is to get in writing where the Paper's photographs end, and your personal stuff begins. If it is their gear - that is easy, just don't shoot personal stuff with it. If it is your own gear, make sure to log the events and begin and end of the file name sequence and have your editor sign off on it when you deliver the images. That way if some question comes up, it is clear where that line is. It's just like logging mileage on your car to be reimbursed on. It is very doubtful they will let you cherry pick images of an event they sent you too for your own use. If you are somewhere by their request, then it is theirs. If they want to cherry pick from your images, and you get to keep the rest (most ideal for you) then log the file name they are taking. If you have a similar photo (say a 5 frame burst shot of something and they pick what they feel is the best one) you can point to the different file names to show it is a different image. Again, log it & have them sign, or initial what they take. As always, make sure to ask if you can use images for a personal portfolio for future employers as well.

What I have bumped into for the college world series is the NCAA rules for shooting games as part of a Paper/organization with a press pass (not a general ticket holder/spectator) on the court/sidelines are quite strict to protect the athletes. What I understand, the paper can protect you until you start using images for your own use. Some have told me there are some massive teeth that come out if you break their rules and huge fines. Evidently the NCAA is not shy from suing the pants off of photographers who break their rules. It could be that is just something for the CWS, but something to look into. The one photographer I know who has shot for it for 4-5 years now, said she gets a 600+page contract each year to sign. Keep in mind, ignorance is not a defense in court.

Mike points out a great concern about insurance of your gear as well. Today at a FB game I saw a sideline photog get wiped out and his nice shiny white canon bazooka lens was turned into a a movie sequel - Part I and Part II.

I say take the gig, allow them to get you access to experiences you couldn't get otherwise so you can build a portfolio for later. I respect other's opinions not to sign something like that, but many of them are established and have the experience already - something you do not and are much harder to get on your own.

tcole1983 said:
Never having had a situation like this...looking from the outside it is a no brainer to me. I would never sign something giving them total rights to my photography being provided for free. I see no reason that your unpaid contributions should be their property. I would ask for a different contract or not do it. Not that every or any picture for that fact will ever be used again or possibly award winning, but to have no rights to the pictures is over the line when it is your equipment and you are getting no compensation. IMO they should be happy to have someone with nice camera gear willing to take pictures for them and allowing them to use those pictures for free...because photography equipment and time are not free.

Hi all,

+ 1

@photoguru2 - My students who worked on the newspaper earned college credit and some earned scholarships and some good ones, too. My words had that in mind.

While links to profit sites frowned upon, this link is a non profit for the Associate College Press. The site has a lot of information concerning how papers should be run.

http://www.studentpress.org/acp/

Moreover, the Student Press Law Center has a lot of information as to the disposition of legal matters of student media that you might find useful.

http://www.splc.org/

Personally, I don't know if the job of working for the paper would be worth it or not.

Where is the line drawn concerning other responsibilities? Do what is news and how to prepare pictures for publication - what kind of training have you had? There are credibility as well as jeopardy issues.

Your equipment could be a problem, too. Should you get robbed on the job, or 'detained' and your equipment broken.

My best,

Mike