Another plan by which it is possible to sell a photograph to more than one publication is the labeling each print as: "Non-Exclusive" or "Not Exclusive." When that is done, the photograph may be sold to as many editors as care to buy it.
If no mention of any rights or of exclusiveness is made at the time of sale, it is inferred that the publisher buys "All Rights." In that case the photographer loses all claims to the photograph; if he attempts to sell it again without the consent of the editor who first bought it he is breaking the copyright laws; in fact, he is selling another's property.
There is no need to affix any such terms to any photograph which can sell to only one, or which is to be offered to only one magazine. Magazines are more partial to prints which they can buy outright, and thus acquire "All Rights." Indeed, there are very few prints of enough value to sell to more than one magazine.
Now we plunge deep into the mysteries of copyrights. When a print is copyrighted it is unalterably the property of the person first copyrighting it until he signs "Transference of Copyright." A copyrighted print may be published in a dozen publications if they will buy it, and it still remains the property of the one who first copyrighted it. Copyright laws were passed for the benefit of those who "promote the progress of science and useful arts." This is done "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to use their respective writings and discoveries." Under this law, "author" includes makers of photographs, and "writings" includes photographs.
The process of copyrighting a photograph is not an involved one. A request should be addressed to the Register of Copyrights at Washington, D.C., for a few copyright-blanks, form J1. (Form J1 is for photographs to be sold, J2 for photographs not to be sold.) One of these cards is then filled out, and two prints of the photographs sent with it to the Copyright Office, as well as the necessary fee. "The fee for the registration of copyrights ... in the case of photographs, when no certificate (of copyright) is demanded is fifty cents; for every certificate, fifty cents" additional. A certificate is not usually necessary, and is useful only in cases of disputed copyright ownership, etc. The fee should be sent only in the form of a money-order to the Register of Copyrights, and the photographs must bear the mark of copyright, which is "either the word 'Copyrighted' or the abbreviation 'Copr.' accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor. In the case of photographs the notice may consist of the letter C inclosed in a circle provided that on some accessible portion of such copies ... the name of the person copyrighting shall appear." Upon the Copyright Office receiving the photographs, the sender is notified; and again, when copyright is granted, he is sent a small card notifying him, or the certificate is sent to him if he has ordered one. Then the print is considered copyrighted.
It is useless to copyright any except those prints of extraordinary value, the rights of which the photographer wishes to retain at all costs. The average quality prints are not likely to be stolen, and so the copyrighting of them is unnecessary. If the photograph is merely to be offered to two or more publications it is only necessary to mark each print as directed in the foregoing paragraphs.
Publishing companies are business-institutions which are of necessity conducted according to the highest ethics. To unwittingly sell to another magazine a print one magazine purchased as exclusive, would be likely to exile the photographer's work from those particular magazines. The photographer should remember that a print of his making is not his property once it is first copyrighted by someone else, unless he has sold only certain rights of it. It is nothing less than theft, to make a photographic copy of a published photograph and to offer it as original and unpublished. The photographer should never try to sell what is not his own work. But since not many have the urge to do so, undue emphasis on that point would be offensive.
"The sum of the foregoing advice is that the author (photographer) should exercise common sense in disposing of rights," says J. Berg Esenwein, editor of the Writer's Monthly, in one of his books. "In most cases it would be better to allow the publisher to have 'All Rights' than to forego the chance of a sale; but nearly all magazine-editors are disposed to be reasonable and will agree to share any future profits that may arise from supplementary sales of a manuscript (photograph). The chief point is that author and publisher should clearly understand each other, without the author's losing his rights, yet, without harassing the publisher by making unnecessary stipulations regarding a trifling matter."
The law of copyright should be followed strictly when attempting to submit the same photograph to more than one publication or buyer. If the photographer keeps an eye on what rights he has sold when he cashes his cheque, and governs himself accordingly, he will sail along without trouble of any kind.