Paul,
It depends somewhat on the situation and whether they're buying the rights, or just paying to reprint. If they're buying the rights, then you're probably excluded from reposting them. If you were to repost, it would somewhat defeat the purpose of them paying you, because then why would someone buy the magazine if they could just get them for free where you posted them? If they were just paying to reprint something though, that'd be a different matter.

I know a similiar thing often applies for news photography. Whereas I'm haven't done much freelance, I'm not exactly sure how it works in every situation, but often they're buying the rights to the photos and not just usage, like I said though, it does vary by situation.

Davinator... any reply on how the freelance situation works or any insight on Paul's question?

How that helped somewhat, although I may be completely off base. :-)

Paul, according to FineScale Modeler....

"All submissions are paid for upon publication, at which time FineScale Modeler obtains all reproduction rights unless otherwise agreed." So.... unless you negotiated with them that you retain the rights to your work, you are out of luck. After all, to post them on the web would be a reproduction and that is not your right - assuming FSM published your work and paid you. I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly certain that the only way you could post your work would be if FSM had not paid you and therefore does not own the rights, even if they had published your work

19k

What 19K said..

Kinda figured that, but good to know for sure.

I have worked with a few magazines in the past, albeit sports magazines, but I am sure that standard OP is the same for magazines in the modeling world... Usually, the mag pays you an agreed upon fee for your photos (and or article)... Usually there is a contract involved that states that the magazine owns the rights to your work for an agreed upon period, usually 1 year if they never publish your work... If they do publish your work then their rights extend out, usually, for one year after the date of publication. If they never use your photo or article within the first year, then you are able to resell it to another party, and keep what they paid you in the beginning, if they do use your material then they own the copyright for the predetermined period of time after which the copyright reverts back to you... But be advised, none of this is that standardized... The more well known or the more desirable your work is, the better the terms of the contract can be... If you have a decent agent or if your material is highly desirable you can actually get pretty good terms...

As for how it works for us newsies... Well, I have not yet worked for a paper that cared a whit what happened to an image a couple weeks after they printed it... I always work freeleance or retainer, so typically, I give the paper an image they can use for a story, they run it, and then they are more then happy to refer any requests for prints to me rather then deal with it themselves... (Most papers don't want to be in the print selling business)... There are a few exceptions... A rare few news papers do try to make money off of prints of photos that have run in their issues... This is rare though... It presents a bit of a conflict of interests for a serious journalistic endeavor...

Then as a sports photographer, there is another possible situation... Some years ago I was hired as a "stringer" for a photographer who had been hired by a big time major league baseball player. The photographer I was working for had been hired to photograph this players last year before retiring... I was at nearly every game that year. I shot from the "off" angle while my employer shot from the "primary" angle... At the end of each game, I turned my film (we were still shooting film then... Hasn't been that long ago really... No really!) But all of the photos I shot belong to the photographer who I was working for... A couple even appeared in major sports magazines with my employer's name attached... Unfair? Not really... I knew going in, and the contacts and contracts I have made since then were more then worth the photo credit... It's just how the business works...

Thanks guys, just what I wanted to know.

I think ther eis somthing else to concider in all of this. Regardless of the official line printed in almost all books, you may copy parts of it for personal use. you may even copy of books you dont own in any Library so long as you don't reuse them in another publication. I'm not sure of the legal classification of this , but I do believe the library of Congress and your local libraries would not allow it if it violated copyright laws . I'm not after what time peiod but I would assume that modelling MAgazines are like TIme . The Economist that you will find in these libraries in their archives.

Right, Josh.

It's called "fair use." You can copy and keep just about anything you want for educational and research purposes. It's when you start giving it away that it starts getting sticky. Selling copied material is a definite NO-NO.

Publishers are less likely to worry about things that they can no longer provide themselves. For example, if I send you copies of a FineScale Modeler article from 1988 and its publisher, Kalmbach, somehow finds out about it, they probably won't care, because they don't sell back issues that old anymore. On the other hand, if I pick up the May 2004 issue and give away some copies of articles or reviews out of it, they will probably get upset, because that issue is still available on newstands and will be available for a while as a back issue -- I'd be taking money out of their pocket by giving away free copies.