| 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
Sun-Times sells its photo archives, still owns copyrights
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 10:52 AM on 12.21.09 |
->> So is this a "fire sale"? Some staff member goes into the files, pull some glossy 8x10's and offers them up on the street like hot dogs? Yes old photo prints can be a revenue source, but who is going to control the scanning and reditribution of said items? They can do better by hiring an agency.
"The paper's current and former photographers also might have wanted a crack at buying pics"...buying, how about getting a crack at some of the money? |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
 |
Kokomo | IN | | Posted: 12:28 PM on 12.21.09 |
->> I was at a talk where I asked an SI photo during the Q & A afterwards about their archive and it doesn't sound like Getty who is handling scanning all the the old negs is actually doing that and promoting the images. The negs are just sitting, lots of stuff that might be of interest to someone, but won't ever be seen.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that everyone is so focused on what the next big thing is going to be and the need for cash now, they don't take a moment to look at what they already have available to them. And I don't think it's just publishing companies, I think it's media in general, newspapers, particularly tv. I just got an ipod touch for xmas and I don't care about buying the current tv shows that are available on Itunes, but I would love to get some of the old WWII news reels that were shown before movies or some of Edward R. Murrow's shows like "Person to Person" or "See it Now" Unfortunately stuff like that doesn't rate in the current American Idol/Lost/Jackass/Youtube generation we currently live in. |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
|
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 1:59 PM on 12.21.09 |
->> ""The paper's current and former photographers also might have wanted a crack at buying pics"...buying, how about getting a crack at some of the money?"
sam- really? i mean, do you really think the photo staff is going to get royalties from their work over the years? sounds f**ked, but i'm not sure the staff SHOULD get money from the sales of pictures. staff photogs don't own the copyrights. heck, many staffers don't even own a camera! it's one of the single biggest reasons NOT to be on a staff, i suppose. a staffer can spend a career making amazing pictures, but aren't entitled to do anymore than show their friends. for some, that's a problem. so they freelance. others could care less. but i think it's a pretty straight-forward agreement. the paper offers a salary, benefits, camera gear and access in exchange for labor. you can't really expect to use 'their' camera on 'their' time to make images 'you' are going to sell for 'your' benefit.
by 'you', i don't necessarily mean you- but 'photographers.'
i might be way off. i'm sure i'll find out shortly. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
