By Carlos Miller
An editor at the New York Post just informed me that whatever happens to me while on assignment for the Post is only for publication in the Post.
In other words, I was being asked to remove the blog post.
Because this was my first assignment with the New York Post and I have yet to sign a contract, I was unaware of this dilemma. Besides, I specifically waited until after the story was published before I wrote about it on my blog.
It is not something I wanted to do, but if I didn’t remove the post, then I would never get another assignment from the New York Post again.
And my whole goal in launching a freelance career a couple of years ago was to maintain a steady supply of assignments from national publications.
So hopefully, they’ll keep calling.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
No related posts.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
19 responses so far ↓
1 van // Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Sucks, but you gotta put food on the table.
2 srcohiba // Mar 12, 2008 at 12:39 PM
oh well. in any event, Can’t they get you a press ID so that folks will cut you some slack?
3 Ms Calabaza // Mar 12, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I get an absolute kick out of the NY Post’s headlines. . . I hope you get more work from them. . . but then, not much happens in Miami.
4 Carlos Miller // Mar 12, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Cohiba,
I’m sure they’ll give me a pass once I start doing regular work for them. I have a press pass from People Magazine that I use when I am on assignment for them.
Ms C,
You’re not serious, are you? Miami is one of the most newsworthy cities in the United States.
Van,
As it turns out, I am still a slave to corporate America.
5 genewitch // Mar 12, 2008 at 7:55 PM
…?
6 Ms Calabaza // Mar 12, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Sarcasm doesn’t work well on the internetssss.
7 nonee moose // Mar 12, 2008 at 8:44 PM
I see now, Carlos. Your First Amendment rights are inviolate. That is, unless you’re paid to move along. Or in this case, shut up.
Where’s the outrage?
8 FerfelaBat // Mar 12, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Yeah. Well. When I worked at the Herald, even though it was as a computer god and not a writer, the employment contract was worded in such a way that anything I wrote as long as I was on salary there could be construed as the property of the Herald. I went over it with my boss and human resources a few times when I wrote for other publications to be on the safe side, but it was always in the back of my head as something to worry about. That’s not why I left, but it was on the list. It’s a tricky situation so I definitely inderstand where you are coming from on this one.
Sorry you were harrassed again by police. They are twitchy as hell down here with the spring breakers crawling all over the Keys. Aparently, McDonalds is ground zero for badness. That or they’ve become addicted to the yogurt parfaits and don’t want to get too far away from their source. Try one. You can hate me later when you find yourself turning into every McD’s drive through to get a parfait fix.
9 Carlos Miller // Mar 13, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Ms C,
I was wondering if you were being sarcastic, but I wasn’t sure. It is hard sometimes to decipher sarcasm on the internet because sarcasm depends so much on the tone of delivery.
That is why people use the little smileys like Nonee did in this thread.
FerfelaBat,
Usually employees of newspapers are under different rules than contract workers.
For example, if I was on staff for the New York Post, any picture I take would be their property.
But as a freelancer, I maintain ownership of all my photos and only license them for usage.
10 genewitch // Mar 13, 2008 at 5:05 PM
AFAIK if you’re not allowed to publish what happens to you while on assignment for the post, then you don’t have ownership of the photographs. seeing as how they wouldn’t (i assume) let you republish those photos elsewhere (on your journal, for instance). It can’t be both ways. If the picture is yours, then what happened is yours to talk about too (especially if you didn’t sign a contract) - even though i get your desire to continue to do work for this company in the future.
I have a feeling the legal team was concerned that whatever you took pictures of were going to sue. this sentence made a lot more sense before i obfuscated what i had originally said.
did you even read the comments i had posted under that blog post?
11 Carlos Miller // Mar 13, 2008 at 9:05 PM
genewitch,
I have complete ownership of my photos. That is not even part of the question.
The issue was the content, not the photos.
Because I didn’t sign a contract, I was under no legal obligation to remove the post.
But they are also under no obligation to hire me for future assignments.
I was not forced to remove the blog post. I chose to remove the blog post.
In doing so, I considered my options:
1) Refuse to remove the post and enjoy that traffic and attention it gets for about three or four days.
But then piss the editor off to the point where I will never get hired again.
or
2) Remove the post, provide an explanation to my readers and show the NY Post that I am willing to cooperate with whatever requirements they have, even though I never signed a contract.
The NY Post pays very well. They have the ninth highest circulation in the country. Continuous work from them will lead to work in even larger publications.
I doubt this situation was even brought to the attention of the NY Post legal team.
What happened was that I emailed the editor the post, thinking he would appreciate it.
He emailed me back in seconds informing me that whatever happens to me while on assignment for the Post is only for publication in the Post.
It was more of an automated response more than anything else. And there was never a mention of the photos.
The fact that I made him aware of the blog post put him in a position where he had to inform me of the company policy, if only to protect his own ass.
In hindsight, I should have never even sent the post to him in the first place.
12 OldProfessorBear // Mar 15, 2008 at 2:10 AM
Gotta make a living somehow. Too bad it has to be the NYPost, second suckiest paper in the country (Boston Herald being #1).
13 genewitch // Mar 15, 2008 at 11:48 AM
since this evidently went under the radar last time:
Photographer’s Bill of Rights:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
and the printable PDF:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
don’t need press ID, just hand them a laminated copy with the relevant parts highlighted and be on your way.
14 The Teacher’s Mailroom : The fucking police in Palm Beach already [1] // Mar 16, 2008 at 4:50 PM
[...] Christ, the fucking police in Palm Beach. I mean, really? (via) Update: Carlos deleted the post. Here’s why. The gist was that he was on assignment to photograph a mansion, cops were called in and told him [...]
15 genewitch // Mar 17, 2008 at 12:50 AM
comment is in mod limbo, can we do something about that? i’m not a spammer, honestly.
16 Carlos Miller // Mar 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM
genewitch,
Comments go into mod limbo if there are two or more links included.
Thanks for the links, but I already have that link of my site on the right hand column.
I’ve tried using that on cops and it really doesn’t work.
17 genewitch // Mar 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM
i’m a jackass, pardon me.
18 Carlos Miller // Mar 20, 2008 at 6:37 PM
genewitch,
You’re not a jackass. I appreciate your comments.
19 Henry Gomez // Apr 12, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Nonee misses the point again.
Carlos, you like everyone have a first amendment right to post whatever you want whenever you want. The Post also has a right to use you or to not use you. They have the right to dictate the terms under which they will continue to use you. You had a right to disagree with them and no longer work for them but you also had a right to agree to their terms. That’s not a violation of your free speech rights. The mission of your blog speaks to what our rights are about. The first amendment was written to protect us from the government (in your case the police) not from our employers.
Leave a Comment