Do Magazines Need Permission From An Artist To,........?

Do magazines need permission to publish an article on an artist? In short, no. Do magazines need your permission to publish an image of you? "Your consent is not required for anyone, be it a newspaper or otherwise, to publish an image of you." If you are a public figure, and a magazine or newspaper decides to write a unique story about you, they do not need your permission. If they purchase Photography copyrights to images of you, from the photographer who owns them, the magazine or newspaper does not need, the artist's permission to print the photos, along with the article. There are event photographers, who specialize in taking images of celebrities, at various public events. From conception the photographer who took the image, owns full copyrights. There are event photographers, and stock photo websites, that sell celebrity images for editorial, and commercial use; like magazines and newspapers. I understand artists want magazine editors, and journalists to seek them out, ask for an exclusive interview, and pay them. Unfortunately, that's not going to be a situation offered to every artist; even the ones they'll still publish an article on; minus an interview. As long as a reporter, or journalist is writing about proven facts, they technically do not need an artist's permission, and definitely do not need to pay them. Yes, there are magazines and newspapers that pay for interviews, just like they pay photographer's to go out and take images, set up photos shoots, and pay everyone involved. That ideal situation is usually only going to be a reality, for actual celebrities. Even then, as long as the magazine buys the copyrights to any images they publish, from the photographer who owns them, they can legally publish an article on anyone, at anytime. I think so many old school, and new school artists don't know much about photography copyrights. They automatically assume since an image is of them, they own the rights, or at least partial copyrights; and they don't! Unless and until the photographer who owns the copyrights, gives you full or partial rights, they own each and every single image, they've ever taken of you! Anyone, be it you, a company, a magazine, or newspaper, etc., that wants permission to use them in various ways; must get the photographers permission! Not you, but the photographer! Photographers can do anything they please, as long as there's no malicious intent. They can refuse to allow YOU, or anyone else to use the images. They can sell the images, but not allow YOU to sell them. They can alter the images, anyway they please, however; refuse to allow you to alter them! Yes, this is the way photography copyrights work, and have since the law passed in the 70's. I cover this topic, from time to time, honestly; hoping to enlighten artist's, that hasn't done the research. Even if you pay to be photographed, from conception the photographer owns the copyrights! No one can give you full or partial copyrights except the photographer, period! Some photographer's will provide an artist with a few images of them, at a public event, and allow them to post them on social media, and or use in a digital flyer/advertisement, free of charge, yet; when it comes to a journalist or magazine wanting permission to use, they charge! I've met artists that just assumed, a photographer that took images of them, posted them, and has allowed the artist to use them on social media, would give up copyrights for magazine publication, for free, like; as a favor. Nope! I've met artists that had no clue, no knowledge what so ever, that numerous photographers, over the years, have photographed them, and are currently; selling images of them, online. Yes, that's what photographer's do. They get invited to attend events, they may or may not be paid. If someone pays them to take images, then they give that person copyrights, because they were PAID, to show up and shoot. When a photographer is invited to an event, isn't getting paid, they can sell the images, to whomever they please; right away, next years, or years down the line! To get full copyrights, usually costs, and no matter full or partial, and no matter exactly how much you paid them, from conception, meaning; as soon as the take the shot, they own it! So, consider yourself slightly lucky, if you're an artist who was provided with images, giving you permission to use on social media, giving you permission to alter the images, creating flyers, and ads, WITHOUT paying that photographer! Technically, and legally they do not have to allow any usage, to anyone, including you! There are celebrity photo websites, where phone take images of famous people, then sell them via these sites. Getty images, being the most well known, and most expensive, charged $499, for a single image! Yes, if you want to legally use an image, they took and are selling, in published blog, in a digital or printed magazine, in a newspaper, or book, you pay 500 bucks, to obtain partial copyrights. If you want to use one of their images for advertising, or promoting a product, brand, company, or anything, that's a different copyright license, and different fee, usually; it's much higher! If you hire a photographer, you'll still need a signed release granting you any amount of copyrights. I highly recommend, suggest and encourage all artists, entertainers, models, performers, etc., brush up on laws that directly pertain to YOUR career! Know a little bit about what the people on your team are up against, the challenges, the guidelines, rules, and laws they must be aware of, and follow. The information can be easily found on Google, and as far as the laws on photography copyrights, the main law in copyright infringement, was established in the 70s, to protect photographer's, and the work they own. In a perfect world every magazine, or newspaper that wants to do a story on you, would ideally pay you for an exclusive interview, and pay the photographer for copyrights. Magazines may choose to do the research on you, and add your information to an article, without paying you, and without permission; it's legal, unless they are tarnishing your reputation. Fyi, the exactly the same with Wikipedia. Anyone, I mean anyone, can edit an existing page, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They can choose not to set up an account, or choose not to use their real name. As long as they are adding actual FACTS, that can be proven by a reputable source, an accredited source, they DO NOT NEED your permission, to add, nor delete, a single thing; yes, on YOUR Wikipedia page. When celebrities get into hot water, legal battles, drugs, jail time, anything negative or positive, that's a PROVEN FACT of information, it can legally be added, and published, on Wikipedia, by ANYONE. Education and knowledge is key. I know all about photography copyrights! I'm certified in copyrights laws. I'm heavily experienced in this exact subject. Emotions, and lack of knowledge, does NOT erase laws, or make them any less valid. Below are quotes from several different articles I found on Google, relating to this topic. Photography copyrights: "Although not all images have been “officially”copyrighted, at the creation of an image, the snap of apicture, the work has immediately become copyrightedand the owner is the only person with a legal right to distribute, replicate, or display the work." "Legally Using Images Under the U.S. Copyright Act So illustrations, photographs, charts and the like are all protected by copyright. ... The owner of copyright has the exclusive rights to exercise their rights such as: Reproduce or republish the image. Prepare newimages and other works based on the original image." Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy,called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of edits every minute. All these changes are recorded here, and here." "Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately. You do not need to register to do this, and anyone who has edited is known as a Wikipedian or editor. Smalledits add up, and every editor can be proud to have made Wikipedia better for all." Journalism rights: "Public figures rarely can hold journalists liable due to the very high "knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth" standard. Your standard of proof would be a negligence standard. Such suits, with exceptions, are rarely successful." "They are entitled to publish your name and what occurred at the meeting. To the extent they got something wrong you'd have to show actual malice - that they were trying to harm you when they published it..." Can a magazine publish an image of me, without ny consent? "It depends on what you mean by “my image”. ... This is rare; in most cases, they would need to have your permission in order to use an image you are the copyright holder of. If you mean that the image has you in it, yes. Your consent is not required for anyone, be it a newspaper or otherwise, to publish an image of you." "First, a simple rule. If what you write about a person is positive or even neutral, then you don't have defamation or privacy issues. For instance, you may thank someone by name in your acknowledgements without their permission. If you are writing a non-fiction book, you may mention real people and real events."

Publicist Dianna Prince

The New York Institute of Art and Design

Yale University, Harvard University

Photo by Luigi Hernandez