Telegraph Media Group PLC
| Site design and content is © original authors. To reproduce any content on this website, contact admin@copyrightaction.com who will put you in touch with the copyright holder. You can read our privacy policy here. You are advised to seek professional legal advice in all matters pertaining to copyright. Any advice given on this site is not intended to replace professional advice, and Copyright Action and its authors accept no liability for loss or damage arising from any errors or omissions. Copyright Action is not responsible for third party content, such as adverts, other websites linked to from this site, or comments added to articles by visitors. | ![]() |

The Telegraph is the latest newspaper group to attempt to award itself megalomanic rights over freelance contributors' work, and all for the sort of rates that were low for single use 20 years ago:-
A few things to note about the red bits Copyright Action views as completely unacceptable:
Self-billing is allowed as an opt-in arrangement by Customs & Revenue. The VAT regulations make it perfectly clear that this is an optional mechanism and that suppliers may choose whether to allow self-billing or raise their own invoices. Telegraph, like many newspapers, tries to implement self-billing as mandatory. Of course there are legitimate administrative reasons why they would prefer it, but self-billing is widely misused by newspapers as a means to dictate amounts paid to contributors.
Perpetual free re-use by Telegraph Group is of course a blank cheque in their favour. Newspaper fees have historically been low because re-use was paid for. The rates have barely increased and in the Telegraph's case are reportedly lower than they were in the 1990's when re-use fees applied as well.
Mandatory syndication is an impossible term for photographers who have existing agents who are contracted to handle their syndication. Telegraph seems to forget that it is dealing with independent small businesses not employees.
The 90 day embargo is of course an absurd expansion of the First British Rights basis on which commission fees are predicated. After 90 days most news photos are worthless.
We also take issue with the weasel words '50% of the net identifiable sum'. Everywhere else this term has cropped up it has meant the publisher is able to avoid or minimise payment of syndication fees quite often, because they have been unable to identify the sum where complete articles have been re-sold as a package, or images have been bundled with others. 50% of 'we don't know' = zero.
Finally, the viral rights-grab of third parties' work (and indemnity by the freelance contributor against any claims arising) is a clause that seems to be gaining popularity among publishers' more creative lawyers. It's a Machiavellian concept that potentially spells huge trouble and expense for the freelance who accidentally includes someone else's IP, and who does not actually consent to Telegraph appropriating their economic rights.
It says in big red letters at the top of the covering email that announced these changes THESE TERMS SHALL NOT APPLY TO COMMERCIAL AGENCIES . That is because no commercial agency would accept them and would promptly stop supplying Telegraph Media Group. What's the difference between independent freelance professionals and commercial agencies? Only that Telegraph Media Group believes it can get away with imposing this egregious agreement because freelances need them more than they need you.