1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Daily Telegraph on the Make ?

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by perkeo, Nov 30, 2005.

  1. perkeo

    perkeo Well-Known Member

    Just wondering what Paul, Len and anyone else who perhaps relies on news photography or Photojournalism to provide a crust thinks about the DT's offer to publish readers' newsworthy pics without payment and with a host of other 'conditions' ?

    To me it seems pure exploitation of the natural desire of most amateurs to see their work 'in print'.

    Unless every amateur submitting pics can be encouraged to negotiate a fee, I have a nasty feeling the scheme will succeed.

    Perhaps they should be reminded of the small fortunes made by 'amateurs' who took digipiks of Prince Harry in his Swastika Uniform, Kate Moss, the footage of Concord on fire and many more similar instances before submitting their potentially lucrative images.

    perks
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Spot on, Perks - it's disgusting, and that's from someone who has nothing to lose.
     
  3. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Afternoon Jon,

    Agree with you 100%.

    :)

    Jack
     
  4. mags

    mags Well-Known Member

    I'm just consoleing myself with the thought that when ever the great british public are invited to submit newsworthy events they do so, usually with great enthusiasm, but the actual content could be along the lines of Buster Harris of citybank BUYS A ROUND, ha ha, pity the poor picture desk editor who with hopes of finding a world wide picture scoop, has to wade through mountains of blurry mobile phone shots of Mr Hoppy, Lucindas pet rabbit escapeing from his hutch, and other such enthralling delights......I feel I should add that in no way am I encourageing or surgesting anyone should bombard the telegraph with such pictures, Why that would be just plain wrong........
     
  5. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Agreed. Though they are to be fair no worse than any of the others.

    On this broad subject, I was shocked to read a news item in BJP today suggesting that freelancers are being paid as little as £12.50 for an image according to an NUJ survey.

    This situation is obviously exacerbated by silly people who are cheerfully giving away photos from their phones or camera F.O.C., just so they can see their pics in the paper. Think before you do it; there's photographers out there who rely on this stuff to put food on the table.
     
  6. GlennH

    GlennH Well-Known Member

    We already have 'microstock', which sells people's pictures (usually the vain and naive) for as little as twenty cents a throw, Royalty Free. People that partake in this try to justify it by saying it's the natural evolution of the digital age. They'll do anything to dupe themselves into believing they're 'successful'.

    Well here, and with various TV channels, we have the next and last step in that evolution. The valuation of photography at nothing. And the photographer is required to take legal responsibility if something goes wrong. Some deal.

    Giving photographs and work a value creates competition, and results in much of the high quality work that inspires many of us. That's one of the real shames of this type of venture - it threatens professional photography and subsequently photography in general.
     
  7. ab..

    ab.. Well-Known Member

    Re:Daily Telegraph

    ...or on the web, as we found out in July.


    <span style="color:red">In contributing to BBC News you agree to grant us a royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to publish and otherwise use the material in any way that we want, and in any media worldwide. </span>
     
  8. wesforee

    wesforee Well-Known Member

    Re:Daily Telegraph

    I started working for a group of regional (family owned) papers in 1986. There were 16 staff photographers. When I left in 2002 the company had twice been sold to larger national companies and there were four photographers covering the same geographical area. Those papers happily use any pictures submitted by readers, without payment. The papers also have less pages of news than they did a decade ago, with a higher ratio of adverts to editorial.
    If a freelance approached them they wouldn't pay for a news picture.
    Management have a low regard for photographers ("anyone with a camera can do it" attitude) and see them as a drain on rsources. Priorities lie with advertising sales staff who are seen to bring in the cash.
    The situation is exacerbated by a drop in advertising sales - estate agents have long been the mainstay, but now there are websites like Rightmove and folks are less reliant on buying regional papers. Also a lot of younger people get their news from the web and it's hard to get them in the habit of buying local papers.
    The big companies have shareholders to keep happy and by constantly cutting costs (and inevitably quality) they can maintain their profitability, at least in the short term.

    Matt
     
  9. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Re:Daily Telegraph

    The BBC have been that way for years now and no amount of complaining about it will change their approach :(

    Only if everyone who would submit a picture to them refuses to do so and they don't get any entries would they even being to form a thought on changing.

    :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
     
  10. snapperlondon

    snapperlondon Well-Known Member

    Re:Daily Telegraph

    I totally agree...Gwen Thomas from the AOP visited us at college and, amongst other things, told us all about the BBC rights grab and what the AOP were trying to do to stop it. Everyone agreed that it was terrible, yet only weeks later the BBC announced a photo competion (with some awful prize that was worth very little) and many of the students who had said how awful it all was entered the competion, even though in doing so they gave the BBC full rights to use the images however they wished! There is no telling some people! :D
     
  11. ahar

    ahar Well-Known Member

    I'm probably going to get a (figurative) kicking for this, but what the hell, it's the internet not real life !

    The 'worth' of a particular object or service is set by what actors in a market are willing to pay for it. If newspapers and such are offering very little money for photos, it's because of the large amount of photos that reach their required quality. If the supply of photos of the required quailty were limited or the number of people taking photos ofthe required quality were limited then the price would go up. It follows that taking photos of a quality that newspapers need has become 'easy' enough (whether because of technology or differing needs of newspapers) that the general public can do it, otherwise BBC and the telegraph would not be doing this.

    If you're a pro and you can't make money from your work - tough. You're not good enough. Get another job. You can moan and wail about the 'good old days' as much as you want, but it won't make a difference.

    I'm one of the people who will happily send in a picture to a paper and get it published and not worry about money. I have a job and photography is a hobby. If, as a professional, you can't beat the photos that I take enough that someone would rather have your pictures for cash rather than my pictures for free then you're in the wrong job. Sorry, but that's the reality.
     
  12. snapperlondon

    snapperlondon Well-Known Member

    This simply isn't true...at the agency where I work we have several prize winning photographers who are having real trouble at the moment, despite the agency's best efforts, simply because newspapers, magazines, etc, want the work but don't want to pay for it!
     
  13. Bettina

    Bettina Well-Known Member

    Exactly. It's the attitude. Even if you have a great picture and ring them, the first thing you'll hear is "great, send it in, but we're not paying you anything". At the same time they want to you be up to date technically (wifi, digital, car, Photoshop etc.)

    The more we agree to working for free, the more we're devaluating our job. There's no such thing as "amateur plumbing" or "amateur dentistry", is there. "Hey, we've got a leakage. Let's call this plumber who advertised his services in the shop window. Let's see if he can do the job. Next time round we might even pay him. Or hang on, we'll try that other plumbing bloke in the shop window down the road."

    Even if you're holding down a day job, even if it's just a hobby, don't do it for nowt!
     
  14. snapperlondon

    snapperlondon Well-Known Member

    Well said Bettina...you are exactly right!

    Andy, how would you feel if you didn't get paid for your 'job' because someone else was willing to do it for free!? As an amateur photographer you should still expect proper payment for a good photograph!

    The dictionary definition of an amateur states: "A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession". That doesn't mean you are a charity, willing to give your work away so that newspaper shareholders can get even richer! If you truly value your work then don't give it away to people who can afford to pay!
     
  15. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    So you won't mind if I go to your website, download all your pictures and then sell them to other people?
     
  16. Chris Cool

    Chris Cool Retired

    Hello Perks - good to see your still keeping an eye on things ;)

    I think with the advent of the internet a ‘we expect it for free’ culture has evolved :(

    TBH, if I had anything news worthy, I would probably give it to Burgy to deal with – at least I know I’d get a drink out of it :eek: :D :cool:


    Chris [​IMG] …and if I didn’t get a drink, I go on his site and annoy him till I did get one – cos I’m that sort of guy…
     
  17. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    Oh LORD, that is the scariest Santa I have ever seen! :eek: :eek: I thought he was abiout to flash at me... :eek: hands on the edges of his mac and a dodgy beard...
     
  18. Chris Cool

    Chris Cool Retired

    Yes, it's my 'Dirty Harry' version :eek:




    Chris [​IMG] ...no more Mr. nice Santa...
     
  19. downfader

    downfader Well-Known Member

    Twelve pound ******* fifty!!!? :mad:

    I have read about this before, time to add my tuppence, I completely agree that money is duely owed, and I, personally after having invested my time in taking the picture, using my skills and my kit, paid for with my money, even though I am an amateur, would still be happy to phone around and see what the top papers would offer me. If it was 12.50, sod them, go elsewhere, if all the papers offered a SIMILAR MEASLY AMOUNT I wouldnt bother publishing/selling. Screw them.

    I have also read (from 2 pro press photographers, one was in AP recently) that its not just the money they make, its the blimmin (trying not to swear) Editors and co who no longer print your name next to the picture (should you get your money). How is anyone going to get a good reputation if nobody knows who you are? :mad:

    I'll say it again, as I've said else where, the UK pro photographers who work in the press need to go on strike at a major event. Maybe similar to the Labour Party conferance this year, all down cameras and equally provide a lack of coverage for a big event. I'd say a premier league footie game, or something.

    If they all stand together they can acheive a solution, and we as amateurs, or whatever, need to pass this information on to the public to educate them. The papers make a hell of a lot of money from advertising, sports articles, etc. The first thing joe-public looks at ina paper is the picture.
     
  20. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    Santa should never show his knees...
     

Share This Page