Posted on 11/17/2009 7:37:04 PM PST by Bigtigermike
On the cover of this week’s issue of Newsweek is a photo that was shot for the August 2009 issue of Runner’s World, in which Sarah Palin was featured on the monthly “I’m a Runner” back page. Runner’s World did not provide Newsweek with the image. Instead, it was provided to Newsweek by the photographer’s stock agency, without Runner’s World’s knowledge or permission.
From the wording it sounds like the “stock agency” owns the photo and therefore can do anything they want with it.
Runner’s World could sue, but what money does Newsweek have left anyway. They are firing their employees left and right. I look forward to that “Magazine” going out of business permanently. Who reads that crap anyway, besides people sitting at the dentist office waiting to get their teeth drilled. I personally read Sports Illustrated at the Dentist’s office.
They also retouched the photo- and eliminated the blue star mom flag.
What? How could it be her fault? She probably released the rights to the image to Runner's World, which, according to this statement, did NOT release it to Newsweak, which, in turn, got it from the photographer. How could any of this be her fault?
If the runner was a freelancer who gave Runner’s World only first North American rights to the photo (the normal setup) than the picture is the property of the photographer and Runner’s World can’t do a thing. If the picture was taken by a Runner’s World employee and it was their property it would be a different story, but that’s not the case here.
I read hi-lites with Obama and Galant
In fact....I think newsweek did Runners World a favor, I’m guessing that the “I am running” article, which by the way is very good and portrays Sarah in a good light, will get more traffic....thanks newsweak!
>>>From the wording it sounds like the “stock agency” owns the photo and therefore can do anything they want with it.
All hinges on Runner’s deal with the photog - it’s entirely possible Runner’s commissioned the photo and retained ownership of the product. I hope they did, and they sue Snoozeweek into bankruptcy.
Photographers own the copyright on their photographs.
Period.
Typically Photographer/Publisher agreements of this nature are exhaustingly detailed “boilerplate” agreements where each party owns some particularly narrow rights to use of the work product (the photos).
It’s more likely than not (but by no means certain) that the photographer was acting within the rights granted under the contract agreement.
Runners World just wants to make it clear that they aren’t the ones who whored out the pics.
Why is everyone looking at this photo like it is a bad thing? Sarah looks stunning in it. She appears to be in incredible shape and I fail to see a downside to this photo at all. The left is just “wee-weed up” because they have no one that would look that good in running shorts. I don’t think thast any of them run. Maybe Hillary does to the McDonald’s down the street or something.
You got me wrong, its certainly not Sarah’s fault but some trolls or Romneybots were going crazy earlier, blaming her for this saying that she should have made sure it wouldn’t be sold or used for other purposes.
It’s still there. It is blocked by the lead-in block writing.
No, photographers don’t always own their photographs. It depends on the agreement between them and who they shoot for.
I think you are right. The picture is another case of jealously and fear. There isn’t one prominent democrat woman that looks half as good as Sarah.
It is very odd Runner’s World would have allowed total ownership of this image considering whom the photo is of. It is almost accepted that this image would be abused by the liberals with PDS. I am unsure of when this photo was taken but if it was after or during the time she ran as vice president it was handled inappropriately on the contracts end at Runner’s World.
Sorry, a spread like that would have only been shot for the Runner's World article, and paid for from conception; rights should go to the magazine because the photographer was literally on their payroll at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.