David Strhavka-new norwich signing

[AMurrell]

Went down to Colney this morning, which is Norwich City's training ground, and by chance, the new signing (being unveiled later this week) David Strihavka was training and meeting the players. I managed to take photos, and now, they are being put around on these sites:
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.canaries.co.uk"]www.canaries.co.uk (http://www.pinkun.com)
www.edp24.co.uk (http://www.edp24.co.uk)
www.eveningnews24.co.uk (http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk)
www.pinkun.com (http://www.pinkun.com)

Should be published in the papers tomorrow. let me know what you guys think of photo.
Cheers

[Billo78]

Can we see the photo? Couldn't find it when I looked at 2 of those sites so I lost interest.

[jcpoulin]

Kind of disfunctional posts....If you ask to comment on pictures...than post the pictures. Not your local papers. IMO

[dahis]

Managed to take these photos? It's the same pic used all the time.

Exposure is wrong, dof is wrong, what sport does he play? No football in there is there?

Is that the closest you could get? Looks like he was walking towards you, could have waited until he filed the frame a little better.

I would not have sent one out like that.

Well you did ask !

[joetothphoto]

So are you getting paid for these photos or did you just do this for free?

[AMurrell]

got paid £25, they should be in EDP and Evening News tomorrow. already on websites listed above
pics were a bit of a rush, because I found out player was who it was (new signing) so it was a very quick check on settings and pics were taken. what settings would you have used here then.
Colney is a place which is quite open with regards to fans watching (better than others) but do not especially like cameras being used for purposes such as these, so that is why there was difficulty. With pic that was further away, it is right over the other side of the training pitch, so that is why the quality of it is a bit worse. I don't know if you have ever been there Joe to know what i am talking about?
These have been published more for the news (quality new international signing for norwich) as opposed to the quality of pic i think

[joetothphoto]

So you've been paid once for a pic that is going to be used multiple times? Are all the websites and papers connected? 25 seems kind of low for that much useage.

[AMurrell]

there was a bit of trouble about it. club aren't too happy that i took pics that were going to be used for press, but they said they would agree to let me sell it to archant, providing they could use it, as they had a story to run along with EDP, but no pic. so we agreed to use it on their site, and they let me sell it to Archant. I got told by EDP/Evening News that £25 was the going rate that they give for pic like this.
Will photocopy cuttings from tomorrows papers and stick them on here as soon as I can

[simonSE15]

not a bad photo IMO, good enough for news obviously, as youve got it published. who cares what the club think?

agree with Billo & JCPoulin that you should post the pic if you want comments tho.

[Incomplete Pete]

Blimey, £25 for a live photo of a new signing across a variety of publications? At least you didn't give it away for free, that's a start!

Alright photo, overexposed though and a touch soft.

[joetothphoto]

Exactley! That should have gotten a few hundred pounds for all that coverage. he didnt give it away for free but the bar is obviously pretty low for payment.

Joe

[cpo13]

To look at this from a slightly different view - what on earth are Norwich doing using this on their official club web page (first link Aaron lists)? I would have thought that for a story about a major international signing for a Championship club, the club would get a photo set up properly at the training ground for use on the official club web page rather than using a photo taken from distance by someone outside the club?

[workingtog]

People, the pic was used in a local rag.
£25 is it. Thats the going rate. Papers do not pay extra for web use.
I would say that you were on the clubs property?
So they have a perfect right not to want pics taken.
Some clubs will not let you have access to training.
If they allowed use by archant only, then thats the deal.
It aint has though they`ve signed someone famous for christs sake.
Even if a club like Man Utd sign a player for 20m, the local paper will still only pay £25.
They would get the thing free from PA.
What planet are you guys living on??!!!!
This is Norwich! Its really not a big thing. Might be a big player to Norwich but not to planet football.
Norwich may or may not have a press call on it. (New player poses in stands with scarf type of pic.) In which case the club photographer will be there and the pics will be used or not used as part of a retainer deal.... usually.
But.... if someone was there at the training ground under false pretenses taking pics.... well thats another story. Not a good idea to upset the club. That may cause the club to be a bit more cautious letting in pro snappers.
Keep getting into misunderstandings huh aaron??... Wembley pass, Norwich pictures!!!!
As for the pic? Its man in sweatshirt..... Why does it need a comment?
Its like asking for a comment on a pic you have taken in a passport photo booth.
sorry, but you did ask.

Btw simon....
Good call, for sure don’t give a rats ass what the club thinks....
Its not as if you`ll be wanting to do any more photography there again will you?
And who cares that the club may start to restrict access to snappers who play by the rules.

[Incomplete Pete]

£25 still sounds pretty minimal for usage by the Archant Group's publications. Local or not, that still doesn't sound like much to me.

If that's the case, then thank goodness I don't work with the local rags is all I say!

[ozzie289]

£25 is as much as you`re going to get from a local rag.
I would say nearly 100% of local papers subscribe to PA, usually through their parent publishing house (such as archant) which means access to the PA library. So why would they use other images? Doing that means an additional cost. Once they have paid a subscription fee, they get access to all the images they want at no extra cost.The exception would be an exceptional image. This image does not fall into that catagory.
Once you`ve sold the image, then you have to chase them for payment. Send an invoice. Ring them up asking for payment. Send them a copy invoice. Call them again when the cheque does`nt arrive. All for £25 or less!
From a pro snapper point of view, local rags suck. It aint worth the effort.
It`s a tough world out there in freelance land!

[andrewc]

Well Aaron, you've got a 5cm x 6cm uncredited photo on the back page on the Evening News.

Co-incidentally, I have pictures in the same issue - 3 on the central spread :)
2x 14 x 15cm and 1x 8 x 11cm. Again uncredited, but mine were free as I'm publicising my drama groups production rather than a news item.

[workingtog]

Pete,
Just checked your site.
Have you got permission from sportsbeat and others to show their images on smugmug?
I think you might find you are not allowed to show them on sites like that.
You could get yourself and the agency you were working for into a spot of bother from DataCo.
The agencies I string for would go berserk if they saw images on sites like that.
If you`ve got permission, sorry for butting in, just asking, just in case.
I think I`m right in saying you wont have copyright. Sportsbeat would lose their license if they handed copyright over. And I think I`m right in saying it`s not even shared copyright. Its a DataCo thing.
Tough I know, but better safe than sorry.
And its possible to buy a print from your site. Oh dear!!

[Incomplete Pete]

Yea, everyone I work with is cool with it, besides, 90% of the stuff on there is my own copyright anyway.

Interestingly, unlike most people on here it seems, I've never come into contact with DataCo about shoving some of my shots online. I must be passing blissfully under the radar, or my work's so crap they're not even bothering!

[steve75]

Controversial post as always from mister murrell....... anyway, i don't want to make the same mistakes ao imma hijack this thread and ask some advise, as i think it will benefit many others including Aaron.

Tomorrow evening i am attending a game at my local club, Weston Super Mare FC - they are a non-league club playing their 1st pre-season friendly against Plymouth Argyle, naturally i will be taking my camera and have already called the club to check if they have any restrictions on photographers and pro gear, they don't and said it's not a problem. Now, i'm taking these pictures for my own use - i'm not intending to sell any pictures as i fully expect the local paper to have someone down for the game or the club may well even have their own photographer, but...... i am considering the fact that, 'if' for some reason the paper doesn't have anyone there for the game and their is no one else there shooting on their or the clubs behalf, would it be considered highly unethical for me to sell the images to the paper? I presume i should contact the club before attempting to sell any images? I'm not trying to blag anyones official 'togs vest - just trying to get some images for my own portfoilio but if there is opportunity in there somewhere....... anyway, any words of wisdom will be greatfully recieved!

did all that makes sense or was i rambling?? :o

Steve

[AMurrell]

andrewc, it was also in the EDP. Back page, full size photo covering a major portion of page. Should be able to put copy of cutting on here later tonight.

[andrewc]

Well congratulations on getting published, but I can see the view from the other photographers who I can see are having their livlihoods (ie more than just a hobby) getting eroded away from underneath them like a polar bear sitting on a melting iceberg. If its your ambition to sit on an iceberg as well, then their advice is well worth heeding.

Also, how the hell do you pronouce his name?!?

[ozzie289]

Steve75......
If you`ve got permission from the club to go pitch side I would say its ok for you to wire to the papers. Maybe ask the club first?
If the local rags dont have a snapper there then you have as good a chance as anyone of getting pics used based on the quality of yours v theirs!
Not too sure what the non league situation is as regards to image usage.
But unless the rules have changed, Football League and Premier League images may be used for EDITORIAL use only. Web sites using images in an editorial context have to have an end user license.
As far as this game goes, it being pre-season friendly, I doubt you would encounter any problems.
Hope that helps.

[AMurrell]

well to be honest, there wasn't much wrong with me doing what I did with regards to undercutting other photographers. I was the only guy there with a camera, except with a couple of other fans with a mobile phone camera, and no-one else. And i accepted the price what Archant suggested. So I can't see much wrong with what i did. Except for the obvious point of Norwich not especially being keen on guys like me using cameras and selling photos. But this matter was resolved in the best interest of all parties involved.

[joetothphoto]

The problem is that most people don't know what the suggested rate is by the NUJ for useage and if you accept the price you are no better than the person getting nothing for their images. This business is 5% photo and 95% business sense. Now what you have done is solidify the price of 25 quid for that much useage. If you honestly think you can eek out a living for 25 pounds for several papers and website using the image then more power to you. I am not be grumpy but straight to the point. This business, in my opinion, is in dire shape because people undercut working pros who try to feed a family.

People need to do their research and know what their time and work is worth. I have been to that training ground and I know it is a bit of a drive away so take that, processing, wiring time into consideration and you will soon see that 25 is nothing. You are more than welcome to contact me off line and I am sure I can explain more in detail.

http://www.feesguide.org/

http://www.londonfreelance.org/photo/digital.html

[simonSE15]

Btw simon....
Good call, for sure don’t give a rats ass what the club thinks....
Its not as if you`ll be wanting to do any more photography there again will you?
And who cares that the club may start to restrict access to snappers who play by the rules.

I didnt realise he had form I thought it was a one off pic that he wanted to cash in on.

[workingtog]

So Simon, what you`re saying is,
IF Aaron HAD`NT got form...... then it was ok to go along with the attitude
of WHO CARES WHAT THE CLUB THINKS as you put it??? But seeing as he has then
it was a bad call?
No, actually, whether he`s got form or not is irrelevant, its a simple case
of you respect what the club thinks because we need the clubs as much as
they sometimes need us. Its not a good idea to give the club grief and maybe
cause them to consider have training off limits to all. Its a trust thing.
You wonder why pro`s get a little hot under the collar sometimes.
There are a lot of things that annoy the hell out of us trying to do our
job, but the best way to improve our lot is polite nudging and reasoning.

[Y.N.W.A.]

For my 2 bobs worth. Lets play by the rules. The "Pro" with his contacts will or should be in the best position for taking the shots, his contacts would have told him what was going on. The club photographer in this case could have been detained or elsewhere as no official photographer was present a freelance got a shot for which he was paid the princely sum of 25 pounds. Unfortunately for the "Professional" the digital camera has made it so easy for the "Non professional" to snipe at was his field.

[dahis]

I think it was a closed session where there should have been no cameras, amateur or pro.

The club were rightly angry and will undoubtedly be more strict on their tollerance of photographers this coming season as a result.

[Y.N.W.A.]

Sorry I had to log out.
In this case the person who took the picture I would assume has a 9 to 5 job. The Pro does most of his work in other folks leisure time, at sport,weddings and other social gatherings and in 2007 a lot of people carry cameras with them. If the person that had the picture published worked out just how much it has cost him, in time, petrol and other expenses 25 pounds is now not princely but p*** poor.
One thing not helping the Pro, is that all News Papers are now asking readers to send in pictures of any news worthy event that they should see.
Gentlemen it's a hard game now and its a rough and tumble world so lets make the best of it and leave the the news gathering to the "Professional" When you 9 to 5 ers think about it, you would not like people trying to put you out of work.

[Stacas]

It doesn't matter what sort of session it was, open or closed...if the club were that worried about protecting the identity of certain players, then they would've ensured that no one could get close to the training ground, even on public property surrounding Colney. I think, in this case, Aaron did a good job at getting a shot that various local publications were interested in, although I disagree strongly with the financial side of the deal that was agreed upon.

Sven at Man City last week - shot on a 400mm f/2.8 + 1.4x - from behind a fence surrounding the training ground...

http://www.stacas.co.uk/potn/OFS_Sven_ManCity_01.jpg

http://www.stacas.co.uk/potn/OFS_Sven_ManCity_02.jpg

http://www.stacas.co.uk/potn/OFS_Sven_ManCity_03.jpg

Security guards were present, but made no effort to move us all.

With regards to the money, £25 for all that usage is far too low, regardless of the fact that it was only a local paper deal. You should be looking to see at least £40-£50 per pic from the smaller papers, and £80 per pic from the regionals like the EDP. Overall, I don't think you should've settled for anything less than a minimum of £300 overall. Remember, if they want the pic, they'll pay...don't lower your price and standard just to ensure something gets used, as this is where the problem lies.

[joetothphoto]

Stacas - thanks for bring up that point, the price he was paid was way too low.

Joe

[simonSE15]

So Simon, what you`re saying is,
IF Aaron HAD`NT got form...... then it was ok to go along with the attitude
of WHO CARES WHAT THE CLUB THINKS as you put it??? But seeing as he has then
it was a bad call?
No, actually, whether he`s got form or not is irrelevant, its a simple case
of you respect what the club thinks because we need the clubs as much as
they sometimes need us. Its not a good idea to give the club grief and maybe
cause them to consider have training off limits to all. Its a trust thing.
You wonder why pro`s get a little hot under the collar sometimes.
There are a lot of things that annoy the hell out of us trying to do our
job, but the best way to improve our lot is polite nudging and reasoning.

You are of course right that it's a bad call to annoy the club if you want to gain access in future. But I agree with other posters who have pointed out that if the club wanted to control the image put out of their player they shouldve stopped Aaron taking the photo in the first place and got their own snapper to get the "official" shot. I shoot mainly concerts, not sports, and security generally stop people taking SLR cameras into the venue without a photo pass. Football clubs should adopt the same policy if they have a problem with people taking photos of players.

[dahis]

They do have the same policy.

What do concert promoters do when someone does sneak an slr in and get some pics after the 1st three songs? (Well that's all the time I've had before now as a press tog covering concerts)

What happens when concert pics make the press under those circumstances?

Maybe security enforce body searches of everyone? Maybe press passes are restricted to just a few 'prefered' togs

Got an Idea, maybe we working pro football togs all come down to pop concerts, take our pics and flog them to the national and local press for, how about £15 a pop. Maybe we could all give some away for free too.

[simonSE15]

They do have the same policy.

What do concert promoters do when someone does sneak an slr in and get some pics after the 1st three songs? (Well that's all the time I've had before now as a press tog covering concerts)

What happens when concert pics make the press under those circumstances?

Maybe security enforce body searches of everyone? Maybe press passes are restricted to just a few 'prefered' togs

Got an Idea, maybe we working pro football togs all come down to pop concerts, take our pics and flog them to the national and local press for, how about £15 a pop. Maybe we could all give some away for free too.

Dunno why you're getting upset at me Ive never taken a football photo in my life. I assume football is like music anyway in that editors have preferred agencies that they tend to use. If someone gets a music photo without a pass they have every right to do what they want with it - doesnt mean it will get used. If there were better photos of this player available surely they wouldve been used instead. I think the club is at fault as much as anyone in this instance.

[dahis]

I think it was a closed session where there should have been no cameras, amateur or pro.

The club were rightly angry and will undoubtedly be more strict on their tollerance of photographers this coming season as a result.

Wel wel wel

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=38560

Thanks a bunch :evil:

[ozzie289]

jeeeez, never saw that one coming eh dahis?
Fancy, someone annoys a club and they then shut down training to the press.
Wouldya believe it! Shame about any pro`s wanting access though. Never mind, the pic earnt 25 quid. Well worth it dont ya think?
Not saying it was just this one instance that caused this decision, but its the drip drip effect. As previously stated, not a good idea to upset clubs on their own property. Be nice, be polite. That way we co-exist and both benefit.

[dahis]

Let's hope people learn a lesson then eh Ozzie.

[AMurrell]

oh don't start all this again. perhaps if you had cared to look into it properly, the club have only closed off thursday and friday sessions before a saturday game, and all sessions if there is a midweek game.
I wasn't aware of the various restrictions that were in place, and was just excited about the prospect of getting my first paid published photo. I have thanked and apologised to Peter Grant the manager, and the press officer, and if I had my time again, I wouldn't have done it. I have been to training sessions since, and haven't even bothered to take my equipment.
And all the stories in the press are saying about fans photos going on message boards, and formations being leaked to opposition teams, which is far more serious to the club than one photo being sold to the press
Perhaps you will care to look more into the situation next time?

[joetothphoto]

Aaron, No one is saying this is all your fault. But when you took that picture you fell into the category of citizen journalist. Although the story talks about other incidents that Peter Grant was upset about. Your pictures could have impacted the signing of that players. Consider you're at a training session and aren't there in a journalistic sense and you get pictures of an injury that affects Norwich's chance for promotion. No one else would have known about the injury, but you sell the pics - the opposing team now might have an edge. It might seem unlikely but it could happen. That is what Norwich and few other teams are trying to avoid. Now if you were working for the EADP and had the pics and the paper ran the story that is one thing. But you must understand the broader picture of what is going on with journalism including photography. There are too many citizen journalists, that quite frankly have no business reporting or shooting certain issues - they just want the quick fame (if any) that goes with a byline.

Yes, seeing your work in print and being paid for it is exciting, but you shouldn't sacrifice your name in order to earn a quick buck. The industry will inevitably get worse before it gets better. I would hope for the sake of your education you try to learn and understand what is going on from a business standpoint as well as the shooting side of things - otherwise you'll be selling your gear to make the rent very soon.

In my opinion Norwich are a great club to shoot at from a media perspective. I would hate the see that change because of people trying to make a quick buck.

[dahis]

Looks like it has already spread Jo.

Saw this today on Barnsley's website.

[Tall_Paul_2000]

Look on the bright side.....at least Norwich are still allowing photographers into their games:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=38566