ahar, That's easy for you to say you're not taking photos for a living. I suspect you're not a freelance, working in a highly competitive field. You don't get it. People who don't charge allow the publishers to think they can get away without paying. Publishers, especially newspapers, are always looking for ways to save money, it's the same as companies trying to do the same job with fewer staff - it's all down to money. Think of it like this: you're a long distance driver, using a lot of fuel every day. If someone came along and put perfectly adequate fuel in your car for nothing a couple of times every week you'd be pretty keen for more so you could stop paying BP so much each day. The fact is that professional photographers put a lot into their career - for a start it's not just 'a job'. Many are self-employed and spend a large amount on gear, especially now with SLR prices and the additional hardware required (portable wireless gear, laptop, storage devices....). There were lots of photos taken by the public of the 7th July bombs, quite a number were published, but the ones most widely used (especially later) were taken by professionals. 'Citizen reporting' has its place, for sure, but cannot compete with skilled craftspersons working day in, day out. If you are still not convinced I'll offer my 'citizen' haircutting skills to your entire family for free. Interested? Simon. PS I'm an amateur hairdresser, I've never cut hair before but it can't be that difficult. I have just bought myself a pair of scissors, and I'm happy to put every damn hairdresser in town out of business by doing it for free in my spare time. Hairdressers should just get another job if they can't compete. Phooey!