Replies

He has a right to protect his work.

The family most likely already paid him for the minute or two that it took him to click the camera and print the picture, so in your professional opinion, how much in addition to what he already received as compensation, do you think his valuable work is worth?

As to the photographer of the picture in question, he took the photo and all the metadata is in the picture and can prove it.

Interesting, that it doesn't look that way. It seems that the station was given a photo of the deceased child by the family and it was shared with the family's permission.

from the image posted by KVOA:

FILE - In this file photo provided by the Green family, Christina Green is shown. Green, 9, was killed at a political event with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz. on Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011. Donated corneas from the young girl killed in the Arizona mass shooting have saved the eyesight of two children, her father told The Associated Press Monday, Jan. 17, 2011. (AP Photo/Green Family, File) NO SALES

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The issue at the very bottom of your post about the Copyright being the AP is what I bet is at the root of this.The AP is copyrighting their story to include the photo but the AP did not take that photo, they used it with the permission of the family. The AP should have, by the photo, said courtesy photo. I think this is what has the photographer upset..he is not even being given credit for the photo as a “courtesy” photo. When an article was in our local paper about my husband and a photo was asked for I provided one I took, which was quite a good one and the paper at the very least gave me credit by stating that the photo was a courtesy photo and did not claim it as theirs. The comment at the last of your post implies that the AP somehow has the "rights" to that photo.
It does not matter that the parents paid for the picture or pictures taken by this photographer. Yes it is their daughter but the photographer took the picture and the artistic character of the photo is his work and he is protecting it. He would have been smart to put on the photo that it may not be reproduced without permission. I always state that on my photos. The reason for that is simple..if someone has that photo and then submits it to say a national magazine and tries to take credit for it and I see it I can challenge it. Being that I can prove by way of metadata that I took it, with date location and all the info about the photo ( technical stuff) I would win in a court case. Why should someone make $$ off my work not their own? This, I would suspect is what is annoying the photographer who took this photo in the first place.
It is sad that this whole thing is in the public arena and causing this family such distress.

In all fairness to the photographer, see what happens if you use an AP photo without paying for it and it comes to their attention.

The photographer is being a jerk, though.

There are times when money isn't worth it. I happened to take a photo of a baseball coach one time. It ended up being his last game, as he died of a heart attack that summer. The school put up a plaque at the ball park and had an engraving of the photo done as part of it. Recently, a friend of mine passed away from a brain tumor. His family had used my services several times before. A few weeks before he passed away, his wife called and asked me to take photos of him with his family and grandchildren, a last photo that he wanted in his casket with him. I just can't imagine charging someone for doing that.

I may end up passing on some money, but people who use me generally won't use another photographer. I don't have customers. I have friends I do business with.