OMG! Church FIRES Photographer - Over Scalia "Flick-Off" Photo!

Church fires photog over Scalia picture: Freelancer pays for ‘right thing’
By Jessica Heslam
Friday, March 31, 2006 - Updated: 07:16 AM EST

A freelance photographer has been fired by the Archdiocese of Boston’s newspaper for releasing a picture of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia making a controversial gesture in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday.
Scalia’s flick-off

Peter Smith, who had freelanced for The Pilot newspaper for a decade, lost the job yesterday after the Herald ran his photo on its front page. Smith said he has no regrets about releasing it.

“I did the right thing. I did the ethical thing,” said Smith, 51, an assistant photojournalism professor at Boston University.
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=132932&format=&page=1

right time right place. lucky bastard. ;)

No worry if the Church is annoyed. He got the goods, and he'll get plenty of work from now on.

What country is this we live in?

of the muscle.

Would you expect any different behavior from a notoriously defensive
organization like the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston?

They've spent the last decade or so trying to rein-in the truth
about their organization.

Tesha

:thumbsup:

:hi:

He must be dealt with accordingly.

and hates America

obviously isn't concerned with the right or ethical thing to do.

Wasn't it the former archbishop of Boston who escaped US justice, fled to the Vatican under "diplomatic immunity" as a prince of the Church and was rewarded by Pope JP with a sinecure as archdean at one of the most spiritually significant churches in Christendom?

Excuse me for the rant. You mentioned "Archdiocese of Boston" and "right or ethical" in the same sentence. :hi:

handle the truth... :crazy:

I thought that the Catholic Church was the truth?

Family Values my ass.

He'll have more job offeres than he'll know what to do with, while the Archdiocese of Boston's bass press will be wholly deserved..

at this hour to ask Peter Smith to give the commencement address for this spring's graduating class.

18-year olds need living proof that the lessons of their History courses mean something. A term paper on Thomas Paine and a commencement address by Peter Smith might be a juicy combination.

of his vile behavior.:eyes: SHOOT THE MESSENGER....unless they're pedophile priests, that is.:grr:

Since he is obviously bat-shit crazy. Not to mention arrogant, unethical, and an all-around sleaze.

On its face, this seems like an incredibly bad decision on their part, and makes it look like they're covering for Scalia.

This is the only explanation provided in the article:



Are they saying that they fired the photographer because he decided to release a photo that the Archdiocese decided not to release? (This begs the question as to why the Archdiocese chose not to release the photo, but that's not the point of this post.)

Does anyone know for certain who would own the rights to this photo? Any freelance photographers or people in the publishing business here? Does the photographer or the Archdiocese own the photo? Is there a typical arrangement for this type of thing, or is it different everywhere?

My experience is in, ahem, adult.....but, say, a photographer takes pictures of a model for LaLa magazine, and LaLa magazine says "No, we don't want those pictures, go away," then the pictures belong to the photographer.

...does the photographer get paid by LaLa magazine? Or does the photographer only get paid if they publish the photos?

edit for clarity: most magazines "buy" the photos by paying a percentage AFTER publication, so this wanders very far from our original premise, trying to figure out if the Scalia picture belongs to the guy who took it. I'd say it does...

We work with one photographer quite regularly, and he's freelance, as in he gets no pay from anyone unless they buy the photographs. I don't know how "Freelance" could mean multiple things, but I guess it might. If LaLa doesn't want them--even if they said "Shoot us some girl in vintagey stuff" and then didn't like them, the resulting pictures are the photographers until someone buys them, and he can (and probably must, lol) try to sell them to another magazine, or throw them out the window or whatever he wants.

edit: clarity

wouldn't you think the Pilot would be threatening legal action against publishers if they had the rights?

Seems like this is more of a mind game to slime the photographer's credibility.

to anyone he wishes? Offering it first to his most recent employer makes sense. It's his photograph, not the Diocese's. He can choose where to sell it from there.

If the Archdiocese said, "here, we'll give you a hundred bucks to go photograph Scalia" then my guess is that the Archdiocese would own the pictures.

But if the freelancer said, "hey, I'm gonna go take some pictures of Scalia, do you want some?" then my guess is that the photographer would own the pictures.

But this is just a guess, as I have no clue how the freelance photography business works.

(To be clear, either way the Archdiocese appears to have made a very unwise decision in this case.)

I think the term freelance isn't really the best term for his relationship with the church. Seems more an independent contractor relationship. If so he is being hired by them for taking pictures, just as if I hire someone to take pictures of my wedding. If they take some unflattering pictures, I would hope they can't sell them to whoever they want. I don't agree with the Church's decision but I think they own the pictures.

Wedding Photos have people in them. In order to sell those images, the Photographer has to get model releases from all people in the shot, or he can't publish it.

The difference here is, that Scalia is a public figure, and those rules don't apply to them. Politicians, public servants, news-makers, celebrities, rock stars, atheletes, etc. are fair game to sell. Private citizens, such as those at a standard everyman/woman wedding require model releases to sell their images.

Most professional freelancers don't sell the photo, they sell publishing rights to the photo for one-time use. If there was no contract, just a "go shoot Scalia," they're SOL. Even if they chose to run the photo, if they only purchased a one-time use, they're still SOL if the photographer wishes to also sell it to non-competing publications.

It's not in a photographer's interest to sell all copyrights to a photo.


When a picture is purchased from a photographer or picture library for publication in a magazine, newspaper, book, poster, calendar, postcard or any other form of publication, the fee paid is usually for 'once-off reproduction rights'. In effect this means the client has paid to use that picture once, but the copyright still remains with the photographer and that very same picture can be offered for use in other non-competing markets.
For example, if a one of your pictures is published in a magazine, you can still offer it for sale again to other magazines that aren't rival publications to the current user, or to non-competing markets with immediate effect, such as calendars, postcards and so on. This allows you to gain maximum sales potential from your pictures.

http://www.ephotozine.com/freelance/fullstory.cfm?freelanceid=19

The photographer owns everything he shoots, unless he sells them, which most smart photogs (and this one is a teacher) never do. He has the right to sell the USEAGE RIGHTS to anyone he chooses. If he's an employee of the Pilot, and he's on assignment for them, then they own his work, but he's a freelancer, so he sells his shots to the paper. If they don't want them, then they don't own them anyway. The shots are his to do with what he wishes, and he sold them to the Herald. The Pilot "snoozed and they loozed."

A freelancer can't be fired, since he was never an employee anyway. There's no breach of trust, since they never bothered to put him on the payroll. There's no company loyalty since they never paid FICA/Medicare for him. If they don't want to use his photos anymore, then it's their loss. The "fired" bit is a lie. It implies that he's beholden to them when, as a freelancer, he clearly wasn't.

If it was a simple verbal agreement like "here, we'll give you a hundred bucks to go photograph Scalia."

In that case, the photographer will take the photos, process them, pick out the ones he knows the Archdiocese will want (most likely excluding the one in question)and give him either a CD or prints.

The photographer is then allowed to sell any of those photos, including the ones he handed over to the Archdiocese, to any news publication.

wasn't their employee to begin with.

I suspect there was a more formal relationship.

So it was steady work for the photographer, which is kind of like a job, but no different than the guy you hire to cut your lawn, who comes by every few weeks or so. You can fire him, but he doesn't really work for you, and he is free to cut other people's lawns as well.

Unless previously agreed under a written contract that he will relinquish all rights to this photographs.

... well you can bet that your actions don't engender trust in yourself.

The one formerly existing between Peter Smith and the Archdiocese. The church may be paying for all photography, or only those pictures which they choose to buy.

Separate from that agreement (and I am not a lawyer, and furthermore I have no familiarity with Massachusetts labor law) I suspect his rights as a freelancer were severely limited.

There's legal, and then there's ethical. I observe that this distinction repeatedly surfaces with regards to the actions of Republicans and their sycophants.

different papers have different policies. Some papers revert ownership of unused photos back to the photographer. Which is what I think would be the case, here. As a freelancer he would be technically an independent contractor, and therefore they contract to use the photos they choose. I would not think they have control over photos they did not use.

You'd have to have a copy of the freelance contract to know for sure.

for or at a newspaper.

...I've shot freelance and you are paid for what you can sell...I've never seen a situation where refusing to buy a photo had any implication that it could not be sold elsewhere...if in fact that was their desire they should have bought the photo and all reprint rights and been done with it....

If his time (rather than the photos) was what he was contracted for, there's something very different going on than just selling photos.

And unless previously agreed, the photographer owns the rights to all his photos. Usually when shooting for a client other than a news service, the client pays the photographer a daily rate then extra for each photo they end up purchasing. Or even if the photographer agreed to give the client a certain amount of photos for a flat rate, the photographer still owns the rights to the photos and is allowed to resell them.

If a client hires a photographer under a "work for hire" agreement, that means the photographer is giving up all his rights to the photo, which is something professional photographers strongly advise against. Of course, a photographer is justified in charging much more than he normally would under this agreement.

When it comes to shooting for news agencies, the agreements differ. Remember that photo of Elian Gonzalez being seized by federal agents in Miami? The photographer had been hired by the Associated Press, which means he got paid his daily rate and not much more, even though the photo ended up on the front page of all almost every major newspaper in the world.

Had he been shooting that night on spec, meaning just hanging about in the hopes that he would get a good shot, he could have shopped the photo around and received up to $500,000. Instead, he won a Pulitzer Prize.

Do you remember that picture of Monica Lewinskly and Bill Clinton hugging each other that made the cover of Time Magazine a few years ago, back when the story first broke? That was just a throwaway shot taken by the photographer a few months or maybe even more than a year earlier that had little value at the time. But when the story broke, the photographer recognized Monica's face, went back in his old photo files and ended up selling the photo for a significant amount of money.

I seriously doubt the Archciocese owns the rights to the photo because we would be hearing about a lawsuit instead of a termination. Here is an article that talks about photo rights.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/042700/Worldandnation/Accolades_for_Elian_p.shtml

That's the kind of explanation I was looking for.

they probably own it. If freelancing for the paper, he should own it.

Doesn't this "chattering class" reporter realize that Scalia has been Sainted?!? :eyes:
How dare one of these "little people" prevent a member of the Christian Catholic Aristocracy his right to tell someone to "go take it in the a**!" His royal Highness, VP Dick Cheney, is also well within his rights to tell Leahy to "Go f**k yourself" on OUR revered Senate floor with ZERO moral repercussions. He's exempted because he's, after all, wealthy and connected beyond our dreams.

Don't you SIMPLE people understand that the concept of FAMILY VALUES (including Justice Roberts Insta-Kids special order) is not for those in power?!? :puke:

WTFU, you damn peons! It's time for you to know YOUR PLACE and fully realize that the ruling class gets a pass because it's hErd wErk being either a World Dignitary and/or Supreme Court Justice. :puke: :puke:


So to all you *chattering classes* - "Just shut the f**k up!" Those of us in power would not take the time to take a sh*t on your opinions. That's why we are successful at keeping you AFRAID, CONFUSED with disinformation and lies of the Whorish Corporate Media. Yes, it's almost too easy to divide and conquer you with wedge issues. Hell, it's hardly even sport to rule over the chattering classes in the present day. :puke: :puke: :puke:

:sarcasm:

:thumbsup:

Scalia's "people" did tell them not to print it. I mean geez people, how the hell do you expect them to spin the story when there is ACTUAL FACTUAL proof out there???
Some days I just don't understand why people resist the propaganda catapult...;)

problematic is the Church's stance - which does not surprise me, but still odd.

... Catholics sure have a fine sense of fair play don't they.

honesty right?:sarcasm: Wrong for the Church not to bring this into the light, instead of covering it up.....

by his own church for profane acts within the church? In fact, the church denies any proof that Scalia uttered an obscenity in church?(though the picture pretty much suggest otherwise)

Even if he had not uttered the word "Vaffanculo", the gesture is the same as shooting a bird. I don't have to say fuck you for you to know exactly what it means when I flip you off.


...more to the point, the photographer that exposed Scalia for being profane in church, and setting the record of truth straight, bothered the Archdiocese of Boston far more than the vulgar, disrespectful, and certainly most un-Christian display by Scalia?

and to make an even finer point, the photographer was fired for not going along with hiding the fact that Scalia did make an obscene gesture in church, as well as speak in a vulgar manner, and now the Archdiocese of Boston feels they can't trust the photographer because he wouldn't go along with it?

Alrighty then....

that has driven my family away from the Catholic Church. They will never get another dime out of us.

photographer I'd have done the same thing and just accept the job loss.

did or said this .. then the photographer wouldn't have published them.

Where is the "if you don't have anything to hide .. what are you worried about?" logic now?

:kick:

Has the Archdiocese said anything about Scalia's disrespect for the church and his office with that little gesture? Didn't think so.

:puke:

the smallest "infraction," which this is not.

The photographer is now famous. He can do better than the Pilot. TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT!

I would also have no regrets. This has done more for his career than if he chose not to sell the photo. Now if I can only get one of this right-wingers to do that to me while I'm holding my camera.

It was solely and purely a political decision. The only journalistic decision would be to tell the truth. Saying it was a journalistic decision is a flat-out lie.

Put that in your "Christian values" pipe and smoke it. Oh, sorry, I forgot. For those who love that term "values," the only value is hating people whose sexuality is different from theirs.

You might think rendering the sex abuse cases invisible would be the first journalistic scandal, but how about softpedalling Pope John Paul's stance on the war? Most of the Catholic newspapers are controlled arms of the diocese and bishop. Any equivocation or attitudes one might expect from many or all US bishops is present there. But overall, the paper is pretty soft stuff, pretty thin, and only tackles controversy on a stratospheric level. The national journals fare little better, being under the heavy influence of the US synod of bishops and the press outlet for priests and nuns with credentials to get in print.

Any photo thant sparks national controversy on any subject is likely to start the turtle heads ducking, but consider the whole story. Scalia insults himself as a Catholic AND his Sicilian heritage. Decades of trying to separate identification of ethnicity from Mafia connotations down the drain. Forget Scalia, the subject matter itself is considered offensive. Next, it almost signals a censure by the diocese when its propaganda outlet features the photo. No way are they going to censure THIS public figure for disgracing the Church, but "luckily" the MSM is not inflating the situation.

If they printed all the letters to the editor on this one it would be vastly entertaining and would highlight why the diocesan paper avoids controversy in the first place. Journalism comes second to the duty of the paper to boost the Church and local Church.

On edit, the real circulation of these papers, judging from local practice is forced subscription to all parishioners and subsides from all parishes. Controversy, cost, slant, and quality make this objectionable to a lot of pastors for a lot of different reasons. If the parishioners had a say(they don't) the subscriptions would decrease by such a percentage as to obliterate the papers almost everywhere and of course annihilate the advertiser base in the process. This is a weird system from a purely journalistic point of view or even an organizational publication point of view. It is not fish, but some kind of fowl.

:D

Shooting the Messenger

How lame

:kick:

Cathedral of the Holy Cross
617-574-9637
1400 Wash St
Boston MA 02118

We should not let them hide.

Wow, that's not that far from me, may need to go pay them a visit!

:kick:

I am an Italian and that is so funny. Little crazy Italian man.

“Because he breached that trust with the editor, we will no longer engage his services as a freelance photographer,” Donilon said.

Dopes. No skin off his nose as a freelancer, and they just made him an even more high profile and more famous freelancer than yesterday. AND his pic. Good on him.

This is another example of that Monolith's coruption.

but it's organized a large group of people, whose vote we need.

This Corp. has been a scam from it's inception.

completely.

I'm sure Scalia will give the Church a nice ruling some time in the future.

After all, that's how America's institutions work now.