Got my first photo published

[psychowarden]

I have been taking pictures recreationally for a few months now, and I enjoy it alot. I have recently been taking alot of pictures of our local High school varsity Basketball. I actually got my first photo in the paper today. I am totally thrilled. I, unfortunatly, do not get credit for it, because it is a small image that appears on the front of the paper, and not a full sized image that appears with the story, but the sports editor did acknownledge that the picture is indeed mine. I will try to get a scan of the picture soon.

[liza]

The first one is always a nice feeling. Congrats. Now just work on getting paid for it. :)

[bombay_shutterbug]

Congrats..

I still remember the first time i got my picture published, i still look at it once in awhile. I only got photo credit for it no money :(

Next time try and get paid for it. The first image you get paid for will be cherished even more.

Cheers

[Tareq]

I wish to get any of my photos published in newspaper or magazine, i will be so pleased happy, and if i got paid too then this is what i look for, but here in my area it is looks like imossible, so i don't know if i have to try in another countries but this too is impossible, thats why i don't do hard to get better works if i can't get paid or be published even once.

[softball29]

I have been taking pictures recreationally for a few months now, and I enjoy it alot. I have recently been taking alot of pictures of our local High school varsity Basketball. I actually got my first photo in the paper today. I am totally thrilled. I, unfortunatly, do not get credit for it, because it is a small image that appears on the front of the paper, and not a full sized image that appears with the story, but the sports editor did acknownledge that the picture is indeed mine. I will try to get a scan of the picture soon.

Wait, how's this possible? He acknowledged it's your shot? How did he get it?

[Big WIll]

Yeah how did he get it?? Surely you would know you have given it too him!?!?

Anyway congrats, i cannot remember my first published image! I had several in one magazine in my first time, i believe.

[dou_b_14]

i had football photos published in a newspaper and i never got around to buying or evening seeing the photo in the paper....What a shame because that was my first published photo also.

[HighPlainsPhotographer]

Congrats! I am supposed to have my first published next week! It is pretty exciting.

Shaun

[psychowarden]

Wait, how's this possible? He acknowledged it's your shot? How did he get it?

I have been giving her a CD every week with pictures on it. I am not getting paid as of now, because I am not an official employee of the paper until this upcoming summer, and then she said that she would give me a job since there is no school to interfere.

This is the picture that I got published. It's not a scan, but the original picture without any editing.

[tomd]

Is there a range of compensation $$ that newspapers will follow for published pics from amateurs? I'm sure it varies based on circulation, size of pic, color vs b/w, and location within the paper. But there must be a range?
Tom (this is my first post!!!!!)

[Big WIll]

did they flip it over? or just like that! lol, so you dont know when they're putting your photos in the paper then?!?

[psychowarden]

did they flip it over? or just like that! lol, so you dont know when they're putting your photos in the paper then?!?

I can always tell when they put my pictures in because of the angle that they are taking. I sit on the opposite side of the gym as the other Photographer, so it's simple for me to tell...but if I'm not even paying attention, then I don't notice, and that's what happened with this picture.

[maxyedor]

It does not matter that you are not an employee of the paper, you should have been paid. That's what a freelancer is, somebody who des not work for a paper, but papers run their stuff and pay them, and the reason that papers have staff photogs is that it's cheaper than hiring freelancers. You provided a product/service and did not get paid for it, that's just wrong, if they like your work they will pay for it, you just have to be firm and ask/demand, you should not give away your work like that. It hurts you just as it hurts other freelancers.

Congrats on the pub. though, just make sure to get a check next time.

[MJPhotos24]

It does not matter that you are not an employee of the paper, you should have been paid. That's what a freelancer is, somebody who des not work for a paper, but papers run their stuff and pay them, and the reason that papers have staff photogs is that it's cheaper than hiring freelancers. You provided a product/service and did not get paid for it, that's just wrong, if they like your work they will pay for it, you just have to be firm and ask/demand, you should not give away your work like that. It hurts you just as it hurts other freelancers.

Congrats on the pub. though, just make sure to get a check next time.

agreed, but depends on the situation as well. I have let some places publish my pics w/o compensation because of different reasons that will usually benefit me in the long run, especially when first starting out. Now I'm to a point there's not really many reasons I would "give" it away. Early on though new photogs are trying to create a portfolio and get "out there".

I also agree it hurts other freelancers at times, I know in minor league baseball teams will use guys who shoot for free instead of paying someone, so they get less quality photos just because they're free 99% of the time.

Is there a range of compensation $$ that newspapers will follow for published pics from amateurs? I'm sure it varies based on circulation, size of pic, color vs b/w, and location within the paper. But there must be a range?
Tom (this is my first post!!!!!)
most of the time yes; some I've dealt with usually depended on size more so than if color or b&w, location as well (cover vs. inside). some however do just have a flat rate, they will pay x-amount for each used no matter where or how big it is. those are usually the smaller ones I believe.

welcome to the forum btw!!

[troutbreath]

Congratulations on getting published. A little extra $$ is always nice, but you know where that pic originated, and that's good too.

[psychowarden]

I am letting them use my pictures because I am just a rookie photog that is trying to build up a portfolio. At the current moment, I don't care too much about getting paid, I can worry about that later when I have more experience with photography, at the moment, I am doing this just for fun, and if I can get the honor of having my name in the paper under a photo, then that will benefit me in the long run.

[Tareq]

I am letting them use my pictures because I am just a rookie photog that is trying to build up a portfolio. At the current moment, I don't care too much about getting paid, I can worry about that later when I have more experience with photography, at the moment, I am doing this just for fun, and if I can get the honor of having my name in the paper under a photo, then that will benefit me in the long run.

Exactly.
I am doing this way thinking, i try to know alot of publisher here and go to photog freelance for myself as fun and get experience, so if they want to have my photos in newspapers or magazine then that will be honor for me, and if i will be more well known then later i can try to make it as money income, just no rush as i am still newbie hobbyist.

[DarrenL]

I am letting them use my pictures because I am just a rookie photog that is trying to build up a portfolio. At the current moment, I don't care too much about getting paid, I can worry about that later when I have more experience with photography, at the moment, I am doing this just for fun, and if I can get the honor of having my name in the paper under a photo, then that will benefit me in the long run.

I must say, I disagree with everything you said this post.

I understand what you are saying but the bottom line is that if your pictures are worth printing, then the newspaper should be paying you. It's damaging the industry if you give your images away. It's not relevant if you are a full timer tog, a freelancer or a hobbyist. Once you start giving your images away, you will never be able to charge that publication for an image again.

You should have more confidence in your ability and don’t sell yourself short. I've not seen the image, but it's got to tell a story otherwise the paper would not have run it.

I approached one paper with some of my images and said they would like to print them and they would do me a favour and give me a photo credit (Photo Credit's should be mandatory IMHO) and would also be able to supply me with occasional perks like free tickets. I turned them down.

I would loved to have seen my images in that paper as it has a large circ daily however, if I had given them my images for free, I would have never been able to be paid for any future images.

Oh, well done on the published image. It feels good, it feels better when you get paid :D

Darren

[bigjon0107]

I would loved to have seen my images in that paper as it has a large circ daily however, if I had given them my images for free, I would have never been able to be paid for any future images.

Darren

That is so very true. Once you provide free images, you have set a standard with the publication that you are shooting for. If you then try to ask for money, they will have the "Why should I? I have been getting them for free." type of attitude and it would be VERY hard to convince them to pay you.

[MJPhotos24]

I must say, I disagree with everything you said this post.

I understand what you are saying but the bottom line is that if your pictures are worth printing, then the newspaper should be paying you. It's damaging the industry if you give your images away. It's not relevant if you are a full timer tog, a freelancer or a hobbyist. Once you start giving your images away, you will never be able to charge that publication for an image again.

You should have more confidence in your ability and don’t sell yourself short. I've not seen the image, but it's got to tell a story otherwise the paper would not have run it.

I approached one paper with some of my images and said they would like to print them and they would do me a favour and give me a photo credit (Photo Credit's should be mandatory IMHO) and would also be able to supply me with occasional perks like free tickets. I turned them down.

I would loved to have seen my images in that paper as it has a large circ daily however, if I had given them my images for free, I would have never been able to be paid for any future images.

Oh, well done on the published image. It feels good, it feels better when you get paid :D

Darren

I won't speak for the original poster, but will say I disagree with this. Reading the original post and his response after, it almost sounds like at this time he's viewing it as an "internship", even if it's not officially. He's been shooting for a few months and the paper is taking him on this upcoming summer...when doing internships for the college I go to you're not allowed to get paid for them (even though I know some that do and are not supposed to - also it's not the photography field so that may be different). Sounds more like they are allowing him to learn before bringing him on than anything.

When I first started I took the same route, though it wasn't with a paper. I now get paid for everything, even from the same teams/publications I gave stuff to for free at first. So saying they will never pay is false, fortunately! When first starting, especially if you have no background in it like I didn't, then you have to do something to build yourself up. If I would have asked for pay my first season as a team photographer for a minor league team they would have said no and I would have never been the photog (now paid) for 7 seasons starting in '07. The guy before me did it for free to, he just happen to suck (sorry, but true).

So, with that all said I do think the paper should pay for all used, it's just proper business. However, in this situation it seems like it's more learning at this time than payment. Trading off a few extra bux (literally only a few) for a future job that will get a lot more.

[DarrenL]

I won't speak for the original poster, but will say I disagree with this. Reading the original post and his response after, it almost sounds like at this time he's viewing it as an "internship", even if it's not officially. He's been shooting for a few months and the paper is taking him on this upcoming summer...when doing internships for the college I go to you're not allowed to get paid for them (even though I know some that do and are not supposed to - also it's not the photography field so that may be different). Sounds more like they are allowing him to learn before bringing him on than anything.

When I first started I took the same route, though it wasn't with a paper. I now get paid for everything, even from the same teams/publications I gave stuff to for free at first. So saying they will never pay is false, fortunately! When first starting, especially if you have no background in it like I didn't, then you have to do something to build yourself up. If I would have asked for pay my first season as a team photographer for a minor league team they would have said no and I would have never been the photog (now paid) for 7 seasons starting in '07. The guy before me did it for free to, he just happen to suck (sorry, but true).

So, with that all said I do think the paper should pay for all used, it's just proper business. However, in this situation it seems like it's more learning at this time than payment. Trading off a few extra bux (literally only a few) for a future job that will get a lot more.

I'm glad that it worked out for you in the end. You are the first person that I have heard from that has been able to renegotiate after providing images for free so very well done.

When I started approaching teams about 6 months ago I offered a selected of images to the the clubs for web and marketing only. Any prints would have to be purchased. I have no problem with providing images to clubs\teams in return for perks such as free entry, getting pitch/court side etc. as clubs are normally on a wafer thin budget and are generally not running for profit.

However, I still stand by my rule about providing images to newspapers for free. They have (or should have) budgets to cover 'on spec' shooters. Newspapers need pictures to add to a story/match report, they need the images, thus they should pay to going rate.

Darren

[softball29]

I must say, I disagree with everything you said this post.

I understand what you are saying but the bottom line is that if your pictures are worth printing, then the newspaper should be paying you. It's damaging the industry if you give your images away. It's not relevant if you are a full timer tog, a freelancer or a hobbyist. Once you start giving your images away, you will never be able to charge that publication for an image again.

You should have more confidence in your ability and don’t sell yourself short. I've not seen the image, but it's got to tell a story otherwise the paper would not have run it.

I approached one paper with some of my images and said they would like to print them and they would do me a favour and give me a photo credit (Photo Credit's should be mandatory IMHO) and would also be able to supply me with occasional perks like free tickets. I turned them down.

I would loved to have seen my images in that paper as it has a large circ daily however, if I had given them my images for free, I would have never been able to be paid for any future images.

Oh, well done on the published image. It feels good, it feels better when you get paid :D

Darren

Fully agree with you on this one. The big thing is this -- newspapers make money. Therefore, if you provde a service, you get paid. Credit is always a must. Never let them just run a shot.

Here's another thing to consider -- once a photo is published, 9 out of 10 times (freelance contract), the paper can sell the photo and WILL sell it. Therefore making money off your shot. Get paid. Always.

[softball29]

I won't speak for the original poster, but will say I disagree with this. Reading the original post and his response after, it almost sounds like at this time he's viewing it as an "internship", even if it's not officially. He's been shooting for a few months and the paper is taking him on this upcoming summer...when doing internships for the college I go to you're not allowed to get paid for them (even though I know some that do and are not supposed to - also it's not the photography field so that may be different). Sounds more like they are allowing him to learn before bringing him on than anything.

Internship is totally different -- you are getting college credit. Supplying photos for free to a profit-making company, such as a newspaper, is bad. I work at a newspaper and we have a standing thing where we won't accept anything for free (besides an intern). Now, we don't pay a ton for freelancers, but they are paid. Reasons are because of rights of said photo(s) and that it's a company. Someone is supplying a service and deserves to be paid. If the photo is good enough to be published and the paper has the want, then they need to pay.

When I first started I took the same route, though it wasn't with a paper. I now get paid for everything, even from the same teams/publications I gave stuff to for free at first. So saying they will never pay is false, fortunately! When first starting, especially if you have no background in it like I didn't, then you have to do something to build yourself up. If I would have asked for pay my first season as a team photographer for a minor league team they would have said no and I would have never been the photog (now paid) for 7 seasons starting in '07. The guy before me did it for free to, he just happen to suck (sorry, but true).

You said when you started, you went the same route, didn't get paid and it wasn't a paper.

Then it isn't the same.

Seriously, newspapers are so wound up over profit margins and everything else, that you can't ever give them free work. And shouldn't. I have NEVER seen someone who supplied, we'll say 5-6 photos/stories to a newspaper and not get paid, then turn around and say "I want to be paid."

Once you go for free, they will drain it as much as possible. It's a sad but true fact.

I go back to the full argument of this -- even if you have absolutley NO background, if you prove you can do the work and it's something the paper can publish, then it's worth getting paid for. Background has nothing to do with it if you can ge the job done.

Now, speaking about teams, or things like that -- it's a totally different situation. It's not even close to newspapers.

So, with that all said I do think the paper should pay for all used, it's just proper business. However, in this situation it seems like it's more learning at this time than payment. Trading off a few extra bux (literally only a few) for a future job that will get a lot more.

In this situation if said person is fine with it, then that's cool. That being said, a photo should NEVER, under any uncertain terms be used without proper credit. That's just ethically wrong on so many levels.

[softball29]

I'm glad that it worked out for you in the end. You are the first person that I have heard from that has been able to renegotiate after providing images for free so very well done.

Well, he did say it wasn't newspapers, so I still have never seen that. :) Seems like the path he went was a smart and strategic move and often, with things like minor league teams, it's good to do something like this. Reason being, when you supply them with this and they get used to it (and fans do as well on a website), you now have the upper hand to be paid as there's a demand for the work. In newspapers, if you give free after free and then demand money, they push you off and find someone else or go without.

When I started approaching teams about 6 months ago I offered a selected of images to the the clubs for web and marketing only. Any prints would have to be purchased. I have no problem with providing images to clubs\teams in return for perks such as free entry, getting pitch/court side etc. as clubs are normally on a wafer thin budget and are generally not running for profit.

Again, a great strategic move that seems like it probably worked out well. You get to be seen, your work is noticed and you sell photos. Good move!

However, I still stand by my rule about providing images to newspapers for free. They have (or should have) budgets to cover 'on spec' shooters. Newspapers need pictures to add to a story/match report, they need the images, thus they should pay to going rate.

They do have stringer budgets. And they like to push those budgets as far as they can for photos/stories.

Remember -- the one thing papers always want and need is local stuff. So if you are at games that they can't get to and can shoot stuff, they love it. (Especially in small papers). So again, if you do the work, get some money and credit -- even if it's only $10 a photo!

[MJPhotos24]

Softball, down boy! Like I said before, I do think papers should pay because it's good business and they should run it as a good business. I've shot for USA Today for 3 years now, they never let a photo go unpaid because the books are run so good. That's how it should be and said that I think they should pay because it's good business, HOWEVER, I also see his standpoint on it.

As for my comparison to how I got started, that's all it was - comparing to a similar situation, didn't say it was the exact same. Teams are money making businesses, like papers are. You can compare it to selling & marketing anything - music, art, food, etc. - you give them a taste and once you know they want more you tell them what you need for them to get more. They give it or don't, either way it's your terms. I've done marketing and promotions in the music business and sports for about 9 years now, sometimes you have to give away money to make more in the long run.

As for internships, they don't always get college creds. I've seen several times where people didn't get creds because it didn't fit the requirements by the college, YET, people still did them for experience. That's why I was comparing it to that. I did an internship of sorts with a college paper shooting, didn't get a lick of credit or pay, but got some experience shooting sports I don't normally do. That again was when I was starting out.

As for the photo credit. I think "ethically wrong" is taking it a bit to far. I've had plenty of published photos with no credit, or even wrong credit to some other photographer. Not sure how your, or his, paper does it but others I've shot for give photographers a code, for example mine at one company is MJ1 and that's in the file name of the photo I put there for them. Another is (and I have no clue what the exact code is) only numbers - the last few of the file name. I send them a file with my name in it and they rename it to fit how they want. So this paper may have renamed the file for use but not put down who took the photo, though it'd be nice - big whoop. SHOULD they credit his pic, yes of course, you put credit where credit is due. But is it ethically wrong that they may have forgot it, or say the photo editor gave it to the printer re-named or w/o the credit attatched because he forgot (or maybe even thought it was in the file name but wasn't), or possibly he did give it to the people doing the layout and they forgot to put it in? The answer is a simple no. Got to know why before saying it's ethically wrong, because questioning anyones ethics that you don't know is wrong.

AND, just to throw this out there - the two local papers out here do NOT have photo credits for small pics on the top of pages, but all the other bigger photos do. They don't put it by the photos on top or inside anywhere. I don't know why, maybe they just "take away" from the appearance of the top or something, but I've never seen one for those for some reason. I'll have to ask the photo editor next time I see him.

Lastly, newspapers do sell prints but talking with a newspaper photog a few mins ago on the phone he said they only can do this of there full time photogs. The photo department handles it and if it's not an on staff photog they cannont sell the photo. Maybe some papers do, and then they would be ethically wrong if they did that on purpose knowing it's wrong. They should always refer an interested parent/player/business/whoever to the freelancer, unless that freelancer agreed to let them sell photos like that to a 3rd party, and I don't know any who would!

[softball29]

EDIT: I've changed my response a bit here after thinking a little more on the subject.

Softball, down boy! Like I said before, I do think papers should pay because it's good business and they should run it as a good business. I've shot for USA Today for 3 years now, they never let a photo go unpaid because the books are run so good. That's how it should be and said that I think they should pay because it's good business, HOWEVER, I also see his standpoint on it.

99% of most papers have books that are kept well and should always pay. It's newspapers more than anything I would say this about.

As for my comparison to how I got started, that's all it was - comparing to a similar situation, didn't say it was the exact same. Teams are money making businesses, like papers are. You can compare it to selling & marketing anything - music, art, food, etc. - you give them a taste and once you know they want more you tell them what you need for them to get more. They give it or don't, either way it's your terms. I've done marketing and promotions in the music business and sports for about 9 years now, sometimes you have to give away money to make more in the long run.

See, that's the thing with papers though -- you give them free stuff and they get the taste, yes. BUT, if you then want to give them a taste that costs them $$$, they don't like that a free thing was taken away. Therefore, they aren't afraid of moving on to someone else. The supply/demand is different at papers than marketing and promotions (which I've also done)

As for internships, they don't always get college creds. I've seen several times where people didn't get creds because it didn't fit the requirements by the college, YET, people still did them for experience. That's why I was comparing it to that. I did an internship of sorts with a college paper shooting, didn't get a lick of credit or pay, but got some experience shooting sports I don't normally do. That again was when I was starting out.

I'll agree with some of the internship stuff. But, at least when you are doing stuff for them it's a known internship, not just submitting stuff with the hope or promise of having an internship there in the future. Remember, newspaper turnover is pretty high. If people are gone, that internship could be, too. Which is why credit/money is important.

As for the photo credit. I think "ethically wrong" is taking it a bit to far. I've had plenty of published photos with no credit, or even wrong credit to some other photographer. Not sure how your, or his, paper does it but others I've shot for give photographers a code, for example mine at one company is MJ1 and that's in the file name of the photo I put there for them. Another is (and I have no clue what the exact code is) only numbers - the last few of the file name. I send them a file with my name in it and they rename it to fit how they want. So this paper may have renamed the file for use but not put down who took the photo, though it'd be nice - big whoop. SHOULD they credit his pic, yes of course, you put credit where credit is due. But is it ethically wrong that they may have forgot it, or say the photo editor gave it to the printer re-named or w/o the credit attatched because he forgot (or maybe even thought it was in the file name but wasn't), or possibly he did give it to the people doing the layout and they forgot to put it in? The answer is a simple no. Got to know why before saying it's ethically wrong, because questioning anyones ethics that you don't know is wrong.

If it's a photo at the top of the page or something, I can see that. Most papers don't put credit there. BUT, if it's a stand-alone shot or with a story, credit of some sorts must always be given. It's wrong on so many levels not to.

At our paper, we had a couple photos were credited to the person and the name was misspelled. We ran a correction on it.

Sure, someone can forget to put a name, put a wrong name or something -- that's understandable. Most shops would run a correction. But just not to do it? I find that to be ethically and morally wrong, in my opinion.

AND, just to throw this out there - the two local papers out here do NOT have photo credits for small pics on the top of pages, but all the other bigger photos do. They don't put it by the photos on top or inside anywhere. I don't know why, maybe they just "take away" from the appearance of the top or something, but I've never seen one for those for some reason. I'll have to ask the photo editor next time I see him.

I responded to that above, jumping the gun, I guess. The top photos I can understand in a way. Layout design isn't set up to really have for that. However, most places that use the small photo up top also you said photo inside or somewhere else, thus allowing a spot for credit. BUT, too, at my place when a photo like that is used and if it isn't used anywhere else, the photag is still paid for it -- so most don't seem upset for lack of credit for that small shot. After all, it's only like a column and a half and not too tall!

Lastly, newspapers do sell prints but talking with a newspaper photog a few mins ago on the phone he said they only can do this of there full time photogs. The photo department handles it and if it's not an on staff photog they cannont sell the photo. Maybe some papers do, and then they would be ethically wrong if they did that on purpose knowing it's wrong. They should always refer an interested parent/player/business/whoever to the freelancer, unless that freelancer agreed to let them sell photos like that to a 3rd party, and I don't know any who would!

Apparently, it must be place to place. The key is the wording in the freelance contract and if the person is selling his rights to the paper. I believe that might be true at my place, to be honest. I don't see photo orders, but I know our photags have asked us in the past for the freelance photag's file (because it comes to us, not them) because an order has been made. I believe by our contract, it's fine.

I'm sure each paper is different because I've freelanced for a paper and they've sent people to me who wanted photos.

But if what your friend says should be true all around, I'd love to see something on that because I've long been an advocate that papers shouldn't sell freelancers shots (no matter what a contract says) -- especially as little as they usually get paid. Just doesn't and hasn't ever seemed right to me. Seems like they are providing us a service and we should be providing a service back to them if a photo is wanted to be purchased.

Finally, I never meant this to be some sort of hammering or anything like that, so please don't take this as me trying to be offensive. I've enjoyed the spirited discussion. Always good to see the insights of others.

[MJPhotos24]

I guess it really depends on the paper and who's in control, and also on the photog themselves in how they give it away free. If they move on to someone else after letting them know you should get paid then so be it, it's still your terms and they didn't meet them. So you just move on to something else.

As for the internship, was saying it viewed as, not was an actual internship. Comparison gone wrong or something.

The photo at the top of the page, I thought he said it was a little photo like that, not a main photo or anything. If they are just not giving credit because they don't feel like it that's pretty stupid, and is wrong. But like so many things we always gotta know why before we can say wrong/right.

I definately don't think it's right for papers to sell freelancers work, even if they word the contract that way. As a freelancer I would not allow them to do it, all the papers I've ever supplied photos to I made them agree to my terms that they could not sell prints or give to a 3rd party. It was always for that one time use only, and I didn't sign anything from them because I know it wouldn't benefit me.

Spirited discussions are always good on forums, even if it's arguing but bringing out good points (not bickering). It's kind of like an online class you try to make someone back up why. Answers more questions and makes people think, well usually :)

I wrote this kinda quick and probably is choppy, so hopefully makes sense.