| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Major newspaper selling prep sports photos
John Fulton, Photographer
 |
Pleasant Hill | CA | USA | Posted: 12:21 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> I was in Las Vegas over the weekend and spotted the following blurb in the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
PHOTO SHOOT
The Review-Journal is taking pictures of select high school sporting events, and you can order the finished photos online. Check out the new events each week. Look for the link on the home page under "Inside reviewjournal.com".
I had not seen anything like this before. Is it me or........ |
|
Paul W Gillespie, Photographer
|
Annapolis | MD | USA | Posted: 12:42 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> A lot of papers are doing this including mine. They have been doing this as long as I have been there, 5+ years. We now use DotPhoto to handle the printing and orders. Photogs used to print them ourselves and kept the money to go towards our gear. Then the paper decided they wanted the money, went with DotPhoto and bought us company gear. I like having the gear but they think that it was a one time investment and are not looking to the future. They think that this stuff will never wear out, but that is another story.
We used to get calls all the time for prints of the kids from their families. This is just a way to give the customers what they want. |
|
Alan Rogers, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Carbondale | IL | USA | Posted: 12:43 PM on 11.14.05 |
| ->> Lots of papers are selling photo reprints online these days, including my own. Sports photos are the biggest sellers, to parents and fans. This ad is worded a little strangely but I don't think it's anything that unusual. |
|
Alan Rogers, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Carbondale | IL | USA | Posted: 12:49 PM on 11.14.05 |
| ->> My paper uses PhotoBroker to handle our online sales, similar to DotPhoto I'm sure. We get a custom web page where readers can search for and buy our photos, they get an initial setup fee of around $1500 and a percentage of each sale. |
|
Marc F. Henning, Photographer
|
Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 12:52 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> we do it at my paper too. the photos are sold through a Print Room account. from what i'm told it generates a nice chunk of change each month. it's just too bad we, the photo staff, currently don't see a cent of it.
marc |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 1:13 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> Photo release needed?
How does the paper verify who is buying the photos?
Conflict of interest? |
|
Mike Morones, Photographer
|
Fredericksburg | VA | USA | Posted: 1:30 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> My employer does the same thing, for good or ill. Personally I don't care for the practice and have questions and concerns but the bottom line is that it is now Policy.
Apparently it generates a significant amount of money and my guess is that the vast majority of those sales are attributed to high school sporting events. The service will print the photos on just about everything you can imagine, which as far as I'm concerned is a bit tacky at best but who am I to criticize? I am waiting for the day I will see one of my photos on a t-shirt while in line at the grocery store though! |
|
Kevin Sperl, Photographer
|
Laconia | nh | USA | Posted: 2:52 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> Our paper sells on line as well. As far as I can tell, sales are limited to photos that are published in the paper.
I worry about issues of selling photos of "news" (accidents, fires) that are then used as evidence.
We have, in the past, been contacted to provide photos of such things and I have been unwilling , so far, to be a part of that process, although I dont have a whole lot to say about it. |
|
Will Powers, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:31 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> Many papers won't sell unpublished photos because it opens the door to a gov't. authority demanding to see photos or reporters notes, since photos are our notes of an event. Probably a bad idea to sell unpublished photos for that reason.
The papers should also pay the photographer something for the resale of the photos, too, but that may be where it can becomes a conflict for the photographer. Will the shooter become more interested in re sales and shoot a more commercial product, instead of shooting for news value. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 3:47 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> To whoever gave me a "huh"...
Photo/model releases should be on file if a photographer/newspaper is going to use the pictures in a non-editorial manner (selling prints). If a newspaper is selling images of me or my family members, I would demand that they stop or give me a cut of the profits.
Now if I buy a picture of myself or my kids, then that's a different issue. Just like a mom buying prints of their kid from me. No release is needed.
Conflict of interest for newspapers selling prints...(see Will Powers' post above).
Please think, post a question, or email a person before you give someone a "huh". |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Tempe | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:55 PM on 11.14.05 |
| ->> It would be nice if photographers got a percentage, but in the very least, it would be good if the money went to the photo departments for gear and bonuses. Too bad it gets absorbed into other things.... |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> Our paper also does this for high school sporting events. We have a seperate "web gallery" section where we post any extra pictures from events. We only sell 8x10 and 5x7 prints unless there's a special request for other sizes. We print all of the pictures in-house.
The photographer gets roughly 20% of all sales, (whether web or in the newspaper), and the remaining money goes mostly towards photo equipment.
We've been doing it for a little over three years now, and it's profitable, plus parents love the idea. If I'm running a little slow in posting the pictures parents will come up to me at a game and ask when the pictures will be posted. |
|
Matt Barton, Photographer
|
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 5:10 PM on 11.14.05 |
| ->> Do these sales include prep photos from freelancers or is it just staff pics? |
|
Gavin Werbeloff, Photographer
|
La Jolla | CA | USA | Posted: 5:55 PM on 11.14.05 |
| ->> You might be killing the kid's NCAA eligibility though. Someone, other than the school, is profitting from the kid's image in his capacity as an amateur athlete. NCAA violation. I can see the headline, top football recruit get's declared ineligible before playing one down because his parents bought photos of him from a photographer. The other problem is that prep athletic depts don't know whats going on with the regs. They don't know what would harm eligibility and what wouldn't. They don't have lawyers on hand to decipher the regs. All they see are lenses taking pictures of their kids and lenses=publicity for their school. There needs to be a proclomation handed down from the NCAA on what is kosher. The shoot and sell is definately against NCAA policy, I don't know whether they would enforce the same standards on prep athletes. This practice is going to land someone in a lot of hot water one day. It's only a matter of time. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 7:58 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> Gavin:
Newspapers or freelancers selling action photos for private viewing do not violate any NCAA eligibility. Their eligibility would come into question only if the athlete authorized a company to use their photo commercially to endorse a product or service.
Landon:
At this point in time offering online ordering of images shot by a paper or photographer is not considered traditional "commercial use" of an image. Commercial use has been defined as "any use to promote, market or endorse a product or service".
Purchasing published, and in many cases unpublished photos, by the general public from a newspaper is NOT a new activity. Prior to the internet anyone could walk into just about any newspaper and purchase a photo that appeared in the paper which was more commonly called a 'reprint'.
If the local newspaper shot a photo of you and I wanted a copy, I and hundreds others could walk in and plop our hard earned dollars on the counter and get the one of you sticking your tongue out at the mayor or doing whatever activity that made it newsworthy or feature-worthy in the first place within a few days.
The only thing that has changed is the customer can order the desired image from the comfort of their home over the web. Again this is not a new practice by the majority of publications out there. Only delivery system for the service has evolved and move to the electronic medium. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 9:46 PM on 11.14.05 |
| ->> Clark, while I see your point that it is not "commercial use", it doesn't seem right (or legal) that a newspaper can profit from selling images of people that they don't have permission from. |
|
Paul W Gillespie, Photographer
|
Annapolis | MD | USA | Posted: 9:51 PM on 11.14.05 |
| ->> Landon doesn't the newspaper sell a copy of the image with every newspaper they sell? You may not feel it is right but it is legal. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 9:58 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> Paul,
Yes, but that's for editorial purposes. Presumably the pictures have some news value. Selling of prints doesn't necessarily have any news value. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 10:08 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> Paul,
This also brings up this issue...a newspaper gets access using their "press pass" and yet it is also a commercial venture. That doesn't seem ethical. (The policy of only selling images that are printed in the newspaper does seem to address this somewhat.)
If we take it to the extreme...newspapers start sending "photojournalists" to all the area high schools as "event photographers" under the guise of "photojournalist".
OR
Newspapers cover those schools that have a history of "buying a lot of prints"....
This whole idea seems a bit off key so to speak. |
|
Paul W Gillespie, Photographer
|
Annapolis | MD | USA | Posted: 10:45 PM on 11.14.05 |
->> Landon I understand your concerns and I have no feeling either way whether papers should sell pictures or not. When us shooters kept the money it was a nice way to help pay for gear but now that the paper gets it is just more work for the photo staff.
On the other hand when we sold the shots there was no end to the amount of parents who would call wanting shots of little Jimmy scoring a TD. I guess it is just now more accessible on the internet for anyone to buy. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:12 AM on 11.15.05 |
->> Landon wrote: "...it doesn't seem right (or legal) that a newspaper can profit from selling images of people that they don't have permission from."
Using that line of thinking, would it be just as wrong that newspapers can profit from using the names of people they don't have permission from?
Landon later wrote: "Selling of prints doesn't necessarily have any news value."
The definition of editorial content, Landon, is any medium which informs, educates, and distributes information to the general masses. What 'news' that may be of no interest to you, may be very important for another individual.
As a historian every photo has "editorial" value in that it records a piece of time visually that can be used to disseminate a wealth of information for historians, anthropologists, and scientists. From an educational standpoint even the most mundane family snapshot has editorial value. It may not interest you but to a segment of a given population, immediately or at some point in the distant future, an image may have great 'news' value.
Landon then wrote: "If we take it to the extreme...newspapers start sending "photojournalists" to all the area high schools as "event photographers" under the guise of "photojournalist". "
I hate to break this to you Landon, but the photojournalist was the first 'event photographer' or 'celebrity photographer' or 'news photographer'. Before creating staff positions for photographers early newspapers bought photos from enterprising young men and women (freelancers) with cameras, access, and who could deliver an image from an event quickly to make the paper's next deadline. Not much has changed in that regard. The photographer would also sell outtakes or the pubished image to anyone who could afford his/her product.
When the competition to "scoop" or beat competiting papers to the street with stories and images became great, publishers began hiring the best, most reliable shooters to get exclusive uses of their talents and services. Thus the staff photojournalist position was born.
Finally, Landon wrote: "Newspapers cover those schools that have a history of "buying a lot of prints""
Guess what? That isn't much different than what happens in the newspaper world already. That isn't much different than covering schools, social, or political events that are supported by major advertisers in a community. Not much difference, Landon, than covering events, professional teams, or schools events that will sell a lot more papers.
I can appreciate your line of thinking because I had similar notions long ago. Upon doing research and learning from very experienced photographers like many on this site, I've learn many of things I thought were 'wrong' and didn't make sense were actually 'right'. |
|
Ron Holman, Photographer
|
Visalia | CA | USA | Posted: 11:02 AM on 11.15.05 |
->> I agree with Clark's explanation. At our paper we make published (web or print) images available for sale as a public service to those who don't have the same access (ie. sidelines) that we do.
These sales help us to purchase equipment and supplies. Which, in turn, help us to cover events for the public.
We do not distribute unpublished images. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 11:46 AM on 11.15.05 |
->> Clark,
I appreciate your insight and the information you provide...
However, I think your definitions and explanations largely ignore the "spirit" of the terms and do not address the conflict of interest issue.
1. Selling newspapers that (supposedly) seek to inform the public about happenings is one thing, selling prints without any context of news/information, is quite different.
2. Lets face it, the vast majority of prep athletes are not "news".
3. As a history and sociology major in college, I appreciate the role newspapers/photographers have in creating a historical record, but creating a historical record doesn't have to include the selling of those images via prints outside of a newspaper and outside the context of what was happening when those images were created.
4. Having access and then selling images to news outlets is one thing, using a press pass to gain access and then sell prints is another.
5. About conflict of interest you wrote:
"Finally, Landon wrote: "Newspapers cover those schools that have a history of "buying a lot of prints""
Guess what? That isn't much different than what happens in the newspaper world already. That isn't much different than covering schools, social, or political events that are supported by major advertisers in a community. Not much difference, Landon, than covering events, professional teams, or schools events that will sell a lot more papers."
Just because it already happens, doesn't mean that its right.
Clark, I understand that what you say may be right about what has happened in the past or does happen now, but that does not make the practice of selling prints right or ethical. |
|
jeff martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 12:45 PM on 11.15.05 |
| ->> Landon, IMO you are correct. What is the diff. between the paper selling prints and any event shooter. I can call my images "news" just as easily as the paper can. That being said...Some High Schools do not let me offer shots of their games online for sale. When I pointed out the fact that the paper was already doing this, the AD said 'they get to do lots of stuff you don't.' I guess it goes back to the old saying about picking a fight with some one who buys ink by the barrell. Jeff |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 1:04 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> Jeff, I'm guessing the reason the local paper gets to do things that you don't has little to do with how much ink they buy.
I'm guessing it has more to do with the fact that they don't only shoot athletics. They are also probably at the school taking pictures of the annual banquets for each of the teams...
They are there taking pictures at the assembly when the scholarships are handed out...
They are there when the senior class holds the annual blood drive...
The are there when the ecology class breaks ground on the new organic garden...
They are there when WWII vets come to the school for Veterans' Day
They are there when members of the senior class break ground on building dugouts for their senior project.
They are there to take a photo of the winning Ace, OOM, Scholastic scrimmage...etc team...
I think you get the idea. These are just SOME of the things I shot at ONE of the high schools we cover in our area. There are plenty more events that I haven't mentioned. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:28 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> Landon:
I have to honestly say I cannot see where you are coming from by saying 'does not make the practice of selling prints right or ethical." What is the ethical and moral dilemma here? I find your line of thinking fascinating. Prehaps you can explain your thoughts better.
........................
Landon wrote: "Lets face it, the vast majority of prep athletes are not "news""
I would have to disagree. Just because you or I may not be interested in the average athlete's or team's successes or failure it may not be "news" to us, but to someone, to a family, to a community, large or small, it very well may be just as important to the community as a neighbor winning the lottery.
........................
Landon wrote: "1. Selling newspapers that (supposedly) seek to inform the public about happenings is one thing, selling prints without any context of news/information, is quite different."
So a picture, in your view, is not worth a thousand words? Are you saying that a photo, not accompanied by text, as a stand-alone medium is not news? I would beg to differ on this opinion. Images can present a far more powerful message than 95% of the writers in this world could ever muster. For example, I could read about the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps and be untouched, but when I look at photos taken by Nazi photographers and US troops in the aftermath my eyes fill with tears of sorrow.
You could read about the routine lynchings that occurred in the southern states after African-Americans were freed from the chains of slavery and not think much above 'how awful'. However, when I look at photo of a man, eyes bulging, bleeding from his face and hands, hanging from a tree while hooded men dressed in white and their children celebrate their bloodlust, my eyes fill with tears.
Photos documenting the aftermath, distruction, and genetic mutations caused by the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki moves me to tears.
Granted it is probably the way my brain is wired, but images are far more powerful in disseminating 'news' and information than words.
........................
Landon you wrote: "4. Having access and then selling images to news outlets is one thing, using a press pass to gain access and then sell prints is another."
Probably because I'm a bit pragmatic I don't see the difference in here. In either case a print is being sold. It is up to the buy to then determine whether to publish it in another media or 'publish it' by displaying it their home or office for personal enjoyment. Let me know if I'm off-base here, but is your discomfort and ethical dilemma based in the fact that a newspaper or picture gathering organization may have more access than the individual photographer thus posing competition for today's 'event photographer'?
........................
The last point to touch on, you wrote: "Clark, I understand that what you say may be right about what has happened in the past or does happen now, but that does not make the practice of selling prints right or ethical."
I'm not sure why you see this practice as being unethical. A news organization is like any other enterprise and is in business to make profit. In order to do that they must create, market, and sell a product that will generate a profit for the company to pay salaries, production cost, and equipment expenses.
Being a devout capitalist (and may be not so touchy-feely when it comes to business), you'll be hard pressed to sell me on the fact that creating and marketing a product to a target audience to engage in a form of commerce to make a profit is a bad thing. |
|
Kevin Sperl, Photographer
|
Laconia | nh | USA | Posted: 1:47 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> Clark:
I think your comments are getting around to a "feeling" I have. Its kind of hard to pinpoint but it has to do with the perception of a newspaper as a "company' in business to make a "profit" as opposed to being somewhat a non-profit "service". I'm pretty sure that papers need to be businesses that make profits, I just think the perceptionof the reader is contrary to that.
I get this a lot from people when they feel we should give out copies of pictures for free. It is very hard for some to understand that we would charge for such things.
If papers now sell images outside the context of the published paper itself, does not our perception of mission change somewhat? We no longer are charged with reporting the news but are attempting to profit from the news?
Our paper does sell images, mostly those that are published. We have also thought about building CD slide shows for events (sports championship games, events like NASCAR, Bike Week, etc) and then selling them.
Are we just selling photos or are we repackaging the news in a different way, based around the images??
I do think papers need to get creative to survive and we accrue an enormous bank of images, most never see the light of day.
I think Landon is talking about, among other things, the tendency for papers to then cover those events that are "profitable" as opposed to "newsworthy" |
|
Marc F. Henning, Photographer
|
Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 2:11 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> a point that hasn't been made here, correct me if i'm wrong, but in most communities the local newspapers are also BIG sponsors of the high schools in their coverage areas. they are paying lots of money to have their names on scoreboards or signage at the schools' sports facilities. and yes, as already mentioned above, the newspapers don't just show up for the schools' sporting events. we're there for just about every other function or event that goes on during and after school.
the bottom line is the schools WANT the newspapers there. they want the publicity and the coverage. if youth sports photographers are feeling slighted because they can't get in on the action, then start doing something for the schools. put some of the money you've been profiting off of soccer moms and dads back into your local school system.
and Landon, you're quite wrong. the vast majority of high school athletics is "news." it's news to readers who have children, grand children, nieces, nephews, friends, god children, etc.... that attend the schools and play football, basketball, volleyball, baseball, softball, tennis, golf or whatever sport is popular in that region. a newspaper, especially one that considers itself a "local" paper, isn't serving its readership if they're not providing a basic form of preps sports coverage.
marc |
|
Ron Holman, Photographer
|
Visalia | CA | USA | Posted: 2:40 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> They are buying prints, nothing more. They are not represented to be anything more. These prints are not endorsing anything.
Prep athletes are not news? They are definitely news for community papers across the nation. Even the larger papers cover prep sports. Not because somebody might order a print, but because people want to know. (See Marc's list above.)
If historical pictures are made, where is it written that selling such images is unethical? As Paul pointed out above, every copy of the newspaper is a sale. I don't think anyone in their right mind expects publishers to produce without compensation (ads, subscriptions, etc.)
Landon says “Having access and then selling images to news outlets is one thing, using a press pass to gain access and then sell prints is another.” I agree if the photographer is using his or hers employer’s credential to gain access for personal use. That is misrepresentation on the part of the photographer, not the media. (But that issue has a flip side. Ever notice the swell of credentialed photographers in letterman jackets with point-n-shoot cameras at homecoming?)
Jeff, if you’re given the same access, you have the same right to sell your images to moms and dads or whomever. I’m confused as to why they would allow you access to the field and then deny you permission to post online.
Where exactly can the line be drawn of who is a news outlet? That sounds like a First Amendment issue on a slippery slope. Private event access issues are decided by the promoters. Media access is often limited. Some media credentials state resale (or worse) restrictions right on the back. There have been many horror stories posted on this site about some of them. If the agreement doesn’t suit you, seek a workable compromise or don’t go.
The images we're talking about were not obtained surreptitiously. The games are played before the general public. We stand in the open while making these photographs. We are invited into homes, businesses and events with the understanding that the resulting images may be widely circulated. The promoters admit newspaper photographers (and writers) for that very reason- to get the image (and words) out to the public. Freelancers just don't have that benefit in the eyes of the promoter.
I’ve seen a lot of reprint orders in my 18 years at newspapers. People buy pictures that mean something to them. They also respond to images they can’t (or didn’t) take themselves. I don’t see that changing.
Print sales are one more way to share an image with the person who probably cares even more about it than I do. Payment for prints of these images is a fair expectation and far from any wrong doing or conflict of interest.
As far as the tendency for papers to cover events that are "profitable" as opposed to "newsworthy"… our advertisers don’t have that kind of power much less our print sales. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 3:03 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> Clark...more things to think about on my end...thanks!
You wrote:
"I would have to disagree. Just because you or I may not be interested in the average athlete's or team's successes or failure it may not be "news" to us, but to someone, to a family, to a community, large or small, it very well may be just as important to the community as a neighbor winning the lottery."
Editors must decide everyday what "news" is worthy of publishing in the paper. In this sense of the word, the vast majority of prep athletes are not news. Under your definition, everything is news, including the fact that I used Crest toothpaste this morning:-) It may be important to someone....
..................... (I like your method of breaking up the post)
Some images are worth more than a 1000 words....but its not the job of newspapers to sell prints; the newspaper's job is to inform the community it serves.
If I know a newspaper is in the business of selling prints to the public (outside of the newspaper), I have to wonder why the newspaper is covering that particular event. Is the newspaper there because this is truly a newsworthy event, something the public should know about, or is the event a "great possibility to sell some prints" (along with newspapers).
As Kevin wrote (thanks Kevin) "If papers now sell images outside the context of the published paper itself, does not our perception of mission change somewhat? We no longer are charged with reporting the news but are attempting to profit from the news?"
It does change the purpose of the newspaper (to some very small degree) and I think it can erode the credibility and (presumed) objectivity of a news organization.
Ideally, a newspaper would have no advertisements and would be able to cover the community it serves in an objective manner. I realize this is impossible, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for objectivity and be free of the pressures that come along with getting large amounts of money from advertisers.
I understand that news organizations are a for-profit business, but when the company's own practices (selling prints) hinders the mission of the news org., it is shooting itself in the foot.
I also realize that most papers are not going to send photogs to "profitable" events, but it could, even ever-so-slightly, influence the decision of an editor as to where to send a photog.
Now I realize that the vast majority of newspaper readers are not going to think along the lines I am thinking and would have no effect on readers' perception of the newspaper.
However, I liken it to this...most readers wouldn't care if you "Photoshopped" out some "unimportant" element of a picture.
......................
Marc...yes, "high school athletics" is news, but not every prep athlete is news. And yes, schools want newspapers there (when its positive news)...
Marc also writes, "but in most communities the local newspapers are also BIG sponsors of the high schools in their coverage areas. they are paying lots of money to have their names on scoreboards or signage at the schools' sports facilities".
This is all the more reason to DOUBT the newspaper's objectivity.
......................
From a business perspective, I don't care if the newspaper sells prints because it wouldn't impact my income in anyway.
......................
Having access and then selling images to news outlets is one thing, using a press pass to gain access and then sell prints is another...
I see it this way because again, the public assumes the newspaper's job is to cover newsworthy events, not to make a profit off some prep star.
Clark you wrote: "Before creating staff positions for photographers early newspapers bought photos from enterprising young men and women (freelancers) with cameras, access, and who could deliver an image from an event quickly to make the paper's next deadline."
I may be reading this wrong, but it seems like these freelancers had access NOT because they worked for a particular news org., but because of some other reason (personal connections, they were hired by the event organizers, etc.). The newspaper then decides whether the event is newsworthy after the fact. However, in regards to our discussion, newspapers can use their press pass to gain access for non-newsworthy images to sell as prints and this is not the newspapers' mission.
I look forward to hearing from more people out there...interesting topic/discussion (at least a few of us think so!). |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 4:11 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> I guess it's time for event organizers to start charging newspapers a vendor's fee. If I have to pay 10%, why shouldn't they?
As far as the argument goes I have no problems with newpapers selling prints, and it certainly doesn't change my perception of them - they are a business like any other - but after all is said and done, the press is granted free and extended access to these events under the pretext of providing news service to the community at large. If that focus changes (or just the perception) toward serving athletes and their parents, then they should expect to be treated like any other business that provides similar services. |
|
Kevin Sperl, Photographer
|
Laconia | nh | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> Dave:
In the past 3 years as a staff photographer, I have thought a number of times. "I have not paid a dime to attend any event in the past three years while workng".
I guess this is part of the potential "conflict" we are talking about.
The concept of charging news papers to attend events due to the fact that the paper "profits" from said event. Hmmmmm. |
|
Kevin M. Cox, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Round Rock (Austin) | TX | US | Posted: 6:26 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> Landon wrote, "newspapers can use their press pass to gain access for non-newsworthy images to sell as prints and this is not the newspapers' mission."
While I agree that hypothetically this seems like a problem, I think you'll find that most newspaper photography departments are stretched so thin and are so crunched for time already that they can barely cover the assignments they need to fill the newspaper, let alone finding time to cover things simply in the hopes of generating print sales. |
|
Trent Nelson, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 6:29 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> sorry, this thread is full of way too many words for me to read, so if I'm repeating what someone else said, sorry.
I noticed a lot of stuff about newsworthiness, etc.
bottom line, most newspapers sell copies of the photos they publish. some sell prints of the photos that don't run, as well.
with prep sports images, the only ones buying are moms and dads. the last thing they're going to do is complain that people are selling photos of their kids- because they're the ones buying them. |
|
Chris Machian, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 6:33 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> Might I add to Trent's statement by saying newspapers make money off of advertising not reprints.
There is no conspiracy against event photogs. |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 9:32 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> The existance of any "conspiracy" is irrelevant. What is important is that newspapers get the same access for free that I am charged for, yet they then sell prints to the same market, in violation of the contract I have with the event organizer.
As an event photographer, I say regardless of how you newspaper folk justify what you're paper is doing, the bottom line is that you're pissing in my pool. I guess the proper solution is to remove media from my contract exclusion. |
|
Paul W Gillespie, Photographer
|
Annapolis | MD | USA | Posted: 10:37 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> Dave your pool has been occupied by the newspapers for longer than I bet the profession of event photographer at HS sports has been around. It is only with the recent advent of cheaper digital cameras has the prep sports market begun to boom.
Back in the film days the only guys you would see on the sidelines is the shooter from the local paper. And for as long as there has been PJ's covering prep sports I will bet there has been parents calling the papers to get reprints.
So who came first the Newspaper selling reprints to the parents or the Prep Sports event photographer? |
|
Tom Morris, Photographer
 |
West Monroe | LA | USA | Posted: 11:20 PM on 11.15.05 |
->> One thing I clarified with NCAA:
When selling photos of NCAA games, photographers MUST be charge the same price to a player, player's family, booster, fan, or a snotty-nosed kid. When a player gets a better price than others, then the NCAA says player is breaking their rules by getting something cheaper than its set value. That's why I like my Printroom account. I just direct everyone there and I don't have to promise "freebies". |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 12:05 AM on 11.16.05 |
->> With all due respect Paul, who gives a damn who came first?
I have only two issues here - the disparate conditions under which two directly competing photographers are forced (or allowed) to work, and the obvious disregard for the contracts that all of event photographers have in place.
I don't begrudge a newspaper or parent a reprint of a photo that actually saw newsprint, but when newspapers start offering prints of all their outtakes as well then they are nothing more than a competing event photographer with a press pass. Under those conditions, I expect both the paper and the event organizer to respect the contract I've signed and quit selling. Period.
Otherwise, I'd be more than happy to tell the organizer that no one else shoots, the papers can buy from me, and the event organizer with get their 10% cut as usual.
Why is this so difficult to understand? |
|
Mike Morones, Photographer
|
Fredericksburg | VA | USA | Posted: 6:34 AM on 11.16.05 |
->> Dave, I understand your point about papers selling outtakes. I don't like the policy but it really isn't up to me.
I suspect that if I showed up to a high school football game and was told by an AD I couldn't shoot because some event photographer had a contract to shoot and would be providing photos to us, I would probably laugh in the guy's face, go pack up my gear, call the paper and leave. Then I'd go home and enjoy my newfound Friday night off. The paper would not run ANY game photos and people would call in the morning to complain.
Believe me, I'm not trying to begrudge you making a living but I'm guessing my employer made the decision to make outtakes available largely in part from demand. I don't run into too many people outside of yearbooks contracted to cover sports here. Anybody in Virginia know if this is a VHSL thing or what? Either way, at least around here, it doesn't seem like this practice is cutting into anybody's business.
The bottom line is that the sports parents are happy, apparently it is making money for the company and I have the pleasure to do more work!
One of the reasons I really fought having to do this when it came up here is that I didn't want to have to shill for the company. I like being a newspaper photographer and I like doing my job, which is daily photojournalism. I don't want to shoot for the parents or the school. Otherwise I am at the beck and call of everybody who wants a picture of their kid. So I generally don't tell people that they are available. I agree with others who have raised concerns about opening up outtakes to the public and I believe it will lead to some uncomfortable legal situation sometime.
I got into some arguments with my boss about this and how I thought it wasn't right, I'm a photojournalist, I shouldn't have to worry about this crap. But the sad truth is that I am an employee and sometimes you just have to learn to work around a situation rather than against it. Or quit and become a freelancer, maintain good business practices and own your copyright. But that's another thread! |
|
Paul W Gillespie, Photographer
|
Annapolis | MD | USA | Posted: 7:42 AM on 11.16.05 |
->> Mike all I can say to you is Amen.
Dave I did not mean anything bad with my post. I was just making a point about your "Pool" comment. And that newspapers have been in the pool for a long time and people expect them to be there. Sometimes they act as if it is a right for coverage of their event. It's actually the public's pool and I think you should be allowed to shoot for free at public events.
At a private event we are both up to the rules of the event organizer and while if they charge you to shoot the event and tried to charge us to shoot it, as Mike said my night would just be over that much quicker.
Good luck. |
|
Tom Morris, Photographer
|
West Monroe | LA | USA | Posted: 8:06 AM on 11.16.05 |
->> I always get a kick out of event organizers "owning" an event played on public property. If a publicly taxed school system is playing in a publicly taxed/financed stadium, then as a taxpayer a high schoo/junior high/little boys football game is fair game.
I've got a local "contract" shooter trying to bully other photograhers from shooting action. He feels he has exclusive rights to all action shots. Give me a break.
All I can say is if you're going for the exclusive contract, then you better be damn good and at all places at all times during the game.
My philosophy is the pictures sell, not the photographers.
Leave the exclusivity to the taking of the glee club and student group pictures. |
|
Trent Nelson, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 9:25 AM on 11.16.05 |
->> you've got to love threads where the posts start out "No offense, but..."
I think you underestimate the impact that a lot of newspapers have, and the history they have built up in their communities. Having the paper show up to take photographs means more to the league, team, and parents, than having an event photographer. Having coverage in the newspaper has so much more impact for these organizations than great action prints.
This is a guess, but I'd imagine if push came to shove and you were trying to remove a working newspaper photographer because of your exclusive access, the league you were shooting with would have a serious problem with your actions. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 10:30 AM on 11.16.05 |
->> Dave mentioned that maybe newspapers who sell outtakes should have to pay a fee to the school, but the point of my post above is that in a round-about way we are paying a fee, and then some.
If the senior class is having a bake sale to raise money for their class trip we will publicize it for free. If the bakery on Main Street was having a sale they would have to pay $228 for the same publicity. Can an event photographer offer the school this service?
Take that $228 and times it by the amount of times we are at each school in a year, which averages out to about 20 times, and you're at over $4,500 for each school. Our paper cover's ten schools.
I know for a fact that our paper is not doing $456,000 worth of reprints in a year, so we are investing much more than 10% of or sales.
As far as Landon's point...
"I also realize that most papers are not going to send photogs to "profitable" events, but it could, even ever-so-slightly, influence the decision of an editor as to where to send a photog."
That's a pretty lame arguement. ANYTHING is POSSIBLE. It's POSSIBLE that a teacher who also shoots senior portraits could give his student extra credit if they have their sitting with him. It's POSSIBLE for him to give more points to student who buy bigger packages. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it is POSSIBLE. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 11.16.05 |
->> Actually Bob, the scenario I bring up is NOT possible if newspapers don't sell prints.
As is the case with all "conflicts of interest," they should be avoided so there is no question about what is happening.
It’s interesting that bring up this particular scenario because I am a high school teacher who does senior portraits. I (conveniently) teach only a few seniors and avoid shooting pictures of them. That way, the scenario you bring up, is NOT possible. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 11:35 AM on 11.16.05 |
->> Sorry, that should have read:
"It’s interesting that you bring up this particular scenario..."
(The teacher in me had to correct it.) |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 4:12 PM on 11.16.05 |
->> I would like all of you who's employers are selling prep sports photos to go out and make those same arguments to NASCAR, Major League Baseball, etc., and try and sell their photos.
I'm sorry guys, but you're supposed to swim in the "news photography" pool. You got there first, and the schools know what you are and what you do for them.
But I swim in the "retail event photography" pool, and I can assure you, I got there first. I have an exclusive contract. I pay dearly for that contract and the rights it grants, just like the folks who market for the above sports. And yes, just like them, I expect my contract to be honored and enforced. Just because the sports and its athletes are lower profile and the dollars less, doesn't make your papers any more right. |
|
Tom Morris, Photographer
|
West Monroe | LA | USA | Posted: 4:29 PM on 11.16.05 |
| ->> With all due respect, Dave: NASCAR,MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, private schools are not what I'm talking about. They are private corporations and call their own shots (no pun intended). Public high schools on public property don't have a leg to stand on even negotiating "live" action photo sales on an exclusive basis, especially when it's not put out on competitive bid. |
|
Kevin Sperl, Photographer
|
Laconia | nh | USA | Posted: 7:16 PM on 11.16.05 |
->> Dave,
I speak only for myself and the contact I have had with "event" photographers.
I can reasonably assure you that you and I are there to take very different photos. Based on what I have seen the "event" shooter take, they are getting individual "action portraits", if I can term them that.
I, on the other hand, am looking for peak action shots that show faces, ball, both teams, etc. Something to run Sports front page.
I dont have the time or inclination to take shots of each of the players on the the field/court.
I have been asked to do so and explain that that is not my mission.
The shots we submit/publish do go up for sale but they are very different, in my opinion and from what I have seen, of what you guys do.
They are both valid types of work, just different.
We can co-exist just fine. |
|
Trent Nelson, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 9:35 PM on 11.16.05 |
->> Dave-
Isn't your beef with the league? It seems that they're not enforcing your exclusive contract.
What do they have to say about it? And further, would they be WILLING to enforce your contract?
I think if you push it, here's the scenario:
The president of the league calls the publisher of the paper and tells them to stop selling reprints. Then, assuming there are any legal grounds to the request (public field, public school, etc.), the publisher says okay, we're not going to cover your league. At this point, I'm putting money down that the league says "Hmmm, do we keep Dave around, or the local paper?"
I feel for you, buddy. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|