Am I wasting my time by volunteering FREE service?

[JJD.Photography]

I was planning on attending the Monster Jam (Monster Trucks) event here in ATL this coming Saturday. Once I read no "professional / cameras with interchangeable lenses" were allowed, I really didn't want to attend the show. I ended up writing the Monster Jam staff and offering my photography to them for free. Surprisingly I just received a relpy stating a photographer will be on hand, but a nice thanks none the less.

I would love to shoot different events such as motorsports, concerts, etc....

I am by far not a professional. Just love the hobby and all I would be asking for is recognition if the photos were used.

Am I wasting time thinking someone will allow me to shoot at their event at no cost being the no name I am :oops:

[polarbare]

Are you wasting your time? Probably because people that just want to trade free photos for access are a dime a dozen.. make that a dime a gross, and most of those events are already going to have paid photogs to shoot the event. If you really want to have access to those things start small, like, local bands in cheap bars or the local high school.

[MJPhotos24]

Let's talk about what a disservice you are doing to the photography industry by offering free for access in the first place...but I'll let Matt do the talking...

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1989

If you want to attend these events buy a ticket and be a fan - don't undercut hard working professionals just so you can see your name next to a byline that NO ONE cares about or reads except the photographer who took the thing. It's doing no good for the industry as a whole - instead try to land the job of shooting it by building yourself up and being hired for the event.

[jacuff]

I agree... starting small is better then trying to do large events for free. Get to know the photographers that are shooting those events.

Take football for example...
One of the the photogs shooting an NFL game on Sunday probably shot a college game on Saturday and a High School game on Friday. You probably can't get the credentials for the college or NFL game, but High School is easy. Shoot enough games along side them and they'll learn who you are. Do good work and that'll make an impression on them. As competitive as the business side of photography can be, a good network in your area is important.

[martines34]

There are a lot of institutions that do not want tripods or cameras especially "professional" looking cameras. I think the reason is that there are a bunch of hack photographers that have used tripods with spikes and are careless with the public passing through. Others have commercialized their images and have not gotten permission form the host institution.

Tread lightly. Call ahead. Don't go where you are not welcome. There is a whole world out there to photograph. Pick those places that welcome you and offer the host some of the images that they may want to use - sans charge.

If you are a commercial photographer then you are between a rock and a hard place. You have to make a living and your craft is your bread and butter.

[MJPhotos24]

There are a lot of institutions that do not want tripods or cameras especially "professional" looking cameras. I think the reason is that there are a bunch of hack photographers that have used tripods with spikes and are careless with the public passing through. Others have commercialized their images and have not gotten permission form the host institution.

Exactly the problem - the monopods/tripods were taking up to much room and obstructing other fans. This fan last year, who had the nerve to ask me how to undercut me and steal my job with the team, and yes they were that direct, brought in a HUGE tripod that got in the way of a lot of people. I swear the thing was for telescopes. They shouldn't be allowed, period, and next year making sure the team follows through with that rule.

The camera rule is "to protect our rights" as they say, and are right about. Many don't realize when buying a ticket or using a media credential you are handing over some rights. You could probably fight it in court, and win because of the U.S. laws, but it'd be after a LOT of money. We are moving in a direction that some day no cameras of any kind will be allowed, and even media credentials may be limited to "in house" shooters only. It's there venue and league, they can make up the rules as they go (though the dumb ones usually get fought by AP, Getty, and other news outlets).

[Mike R]

Let's talk about what a disservice you are doing to the photography industry by offering free for access in the first place...but I'll let Matt do the talking...

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1989

If you want to attend these events buy a ticket and be a fan - don't undercut hard working professionals just so you can see your name next to a byline that NO ONE cares about or reads except the photographer who took the thing. It's doing no good for the industry as a whole - instead try to land the job of shooting it by building yourself up and being hired for the event.

That article should be required reading by everyone who buys a DSLR.

A local paper had payed me for one shot, and through the school year, I sent them other shots, which they used (byline only) because it was a JV team at a new school (no Varsity yet) and I wanted to get the kids some coverage. Well when they sent a freelance reporter to a game, with a camera and 17-55 kit
lens, I sent the paper 2 shots but told them that since they thought it was newsworthy enough to send a reporter, that I wanted compensation if they used a shot. They ran the article without a photo rather than pay me. I no longer submit shots to them (sorry kids).

I now only donate my time to the Make A Wish Foundation and this year I'll be covering a major Cheerleading competition at a University for them. I will donate any shot they want for their publicity and nothing else, In return I'll have a display table set up, will be advertised in the program and will post the images for parents to purchase. I did this last year and it was profitable. It has also led to more work outside of their foundation.

[Sledhed]

just so you can see your name next to a byline that NO ONE cares about or reads except the photographer who took the thing.

and his momma!

[MJPhotos24]

Mike - there's definitely some places you can donate and shoot for free as there's some threads on that already (charity and such). Personally, I'd never submit to a paper for free because they are making money off it. Promotion for a new team or not, just won't happen because in the end they'll do exactly what you mentioned. They'll just not run anything and forget about the guy who submitted for free for awhile.

Local rag gave there reporters P&S's to cover events, some of the worst images you'll ever see in there, least could give them a how to class on some basics. One writer bought his own DSLR and demanded the paper pay him on top of his salary for images they used. It was a no go of course, and his stuff sucked horribly anyways. They're doing more and more all the time to get out of paying for images, even if it hurts bottom line in sales in the long run. A lot of short term minded people out there.

Chris - even momma won't take the time to read it sometimes!

[jrm27]

The interesting thing is that this argument isn't unique to photography. It is very common among musicians and working bands. As more and more bands try to get out and "make-it" club owners are finding that they can pay less and less to full-time bands, as the weekend warriors who have steady day jobs just want to play for free and fun. They invite their friends out to the club/bar, bar owner gets cover charges and drinks sales, and band gets "the chance to play". It's killing lots of music scenes. What once were great clubs that drew great bands are now horrible clubs drawing bands that might have no business of gigging out. Looks like it is happening everywhere...

[Mike R]

Mike - there's definitely some places you can donate and shoot for free as there's some threads on that already (charity and such). Personally, I'd never submit to a paper for free because they are making money off it. Promotion for a new team or not, just won't happen because in the end they'll do exactly what you mentioned. They'll just not run anything and forget about the guy who submitted for free for awhile.

Local rag gave there reporters P&S's to cover events, some of the worst images you'll ever see in there, least could give them a how to class on some basics. One writer bought his own DSLR and demanded the paper pay him on top of his salary for images they used. It was a no go of course, and his stuff sucked horribly anyways. They're doing more and more all the time to get out of paying for images, even if it hurts bottom line in sales in the long run. A lot of short term minded people out there.

Chris - even momma won't take the time to read it sometimes!

It took me 12 free shots to realize it. Now they can run their stories without photos.

Maybe I'll have parents flood the paper with letters asking why they don't have photos anymore with the stories about their teams, :lol:

[sspellman]

JJD-

There is a natural progression in photography. You start to learn the technique and business at small local events that are equal to your skills. As you gain more experience and build your portfolio, you can start to work with local newspapers and magazines to shoot regional events for a little $$$ and eventually progress up to national events, media, and $$$. This is the right way to build your skills, services, connections, clients, and work up to major events like the Monster Jam. Even giving your services away for free will not build your skills and services, or get you paid.

When you have the opportunity to be the photographer for Monster Jam, you want to prove that you have the skills, industry knowledge, and reputation to get the respect and $$$ of a professional photographer. You will also quickly find out that almost nobody that you work for for free will all of a sudden think your services are worth anything more.

Im sure that there are local truck/race events that would welcome your hobby.

-Scott

[MJPhotos24]

It took me 12 free shots to realize it. Now they can run their stories without photos.

Maybe I'll have parents flood the paper with letters asking why they don't have photos anymore with the stories about their teams, :lol:

Never know, papers are just weird sometimes. I like the guys at the local rag but get a weird vibe from them at times, probably due to telling there ex-employee off and think he made some stories up to make me look bad - even though they said many times how they don't believe half the stuff that comes out that guys mouth, strange. I never give anything free to them though, did back in the day to other papers and if I could do it over I would definitely make each and every one pay! It was worthless.


The interesting thing is that this argument isn't unique to photography. It is very common among musicians and working bands. As more and more bands try to get out and "make-it" club owners are finding that they can pay less and less to full-time bands, as the weekend warriors who have steady day jobs just want to play for free and fun. They invite their friends out to the club/bar, bar owner gets cover charges and drinks sales, and band gets "the chance to play". It's killing lots of music scenes. What once were great clubs that drew great bands are now horrible clubs drawing bands that might have no business of gigging out. Looks like it is happening everywhere...

I worked in the music business for awhile and booked a bunch of shows, remember giving a few bands there first paying gigs. One singer hugged me when I handed him money as they were not in the main billing of a five band show so were not expecting any pay. You are correct that the music business and photography business do have many similar traits, however, when a band goes out to play a show and not get paid by the club itself they are still (or at least SHOULD be) expecting to sell merchandise. Just like a photographer landing a gig to shoot a soccer tournament and the league doesn't pay them but they get to keep all the print sales. So there should be money to be had at those shows.

You are right though, many clubs are not paying the good bands that draw to come in and letting those who should probably still be in there garage play for there friends. The club is making bar sales and the door, and the bands are selling merch hopefully, but if they spent the money to get the bigger bands in there it would mean more profit - many don't see that though - the short term mind set again!

[weezerfan84]

The interesting thing is that this argument isn't unique to photography. It is very common among musicians and working bands. As more and more bands try to get out and "make-it" club owners are finding that they can pay less and less to full-time bands, as the weekend warriors who have steady day jobs just want to play for free and fun. They invite their friends out to the club/bar, bar owner gets cover charges and drinks sales, and band gets "the chance to play". It's killing lots of music scenes. What once were great clubs that drew great bands are now horrible clubs drawing bands that might have no business of gigging out. Looks like it is happening everywhere...

Music scene is just so filled with junk. MTV used to pick up fairly decent Indie bands, but what they've been picking up lately and promoting is utter garbage. The best way for a club or bar to pay a band is to offer them free drinks, and the bar rakes in more money that night on foot traffic. Saying you have a 4 member band and they each drink $30 worth the drinks. That's only $120 worth of actual alcohol sales, but the bar makes more money than that, because they buy liquor in 1/5ths and they measure to the mL. That 4 member band is going to bring in probably at least 20 people of foot traffic that is each paying a $5 cover. That's an extra $100 and out of those 20 people they will easily be able to make up the remaining $20 in alcohol sales. It's easily a win win for bars and clubs, which is why it's so prevelent today. The music industry is just so flooded today that if you don't know someone personally in the music business; you can bet your bottom dollar you won't make it. Trust me, those fairy tale stories you hear are not true.

[andrew748]

to the OP

no you are not wasting your time imo but i agree with the suggestion of down scaling your target event.

my personal experience:

i submit free photos of my borough to the local council for use on their website and in local council publications, i asked about payment and they said not a chance as they have no budget.
No biggy, the lady that runs the media for them is also a photographer and very pleasant and is trying to arrange a budget to make token payments to us who contribute.
anyway the point of the story is that while they won't pay me yet, they put me forward to other companies, charities and people who will pay me :)

so it works out ok :)

and in answer to what has been sarcastically said by others in this thread, my wife and my Momma love that my photos appear in various local publications, it doesn't put food on the table, but i like that the two most important ladies in my life are proud of me.

[Jubilee32]

Good points, Andrew

[Croasdail]

Let's talk about what a disservice you are doing to the photography industry by offering free for access in the first place...but I'll let Matt do the talking...

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1989

If you want to attend these events buy a ticket and be a fan - don't undercut hard working professionals just so you can see your name next to a byline that NO ONE cares about or reads except the photographer who took the thing. It's doing no good for the industry as a whole - instead try to land the job of shooting it by building yourself up and being hired for the event.

In principle, I sort of agree with this. But look at it this way. There is a nice restaurant I go to often because the food they make there is way above anything I can create myself. There are other restaurants I go to where the cooking is marginally better then what I regularly do, and I pay a marginal bill for the place. Others, I can do better myself, and I don't use.

Problem is, if some professor is producing results that aren't marketably any different then you are producing at a higher cost - I am afraid it isn't the professor that is the problem. A "pro" feeling entitled to a higher earning despite the fact their work isn't measurably better or more consistent is the problem.

Finally to the SS post - softball is not a money making event for any Div. 1 school. It is a title 9 sport that is costing them money. Don't get me wrong, I love these sports. But to think that the SI person is going to pay even close to what they would pay for a sport like basketball or football is crazy. The images have much less marketing value. Half the "other" sports wouldn't have any images posted on college sports sites if they were not student or someone else donated.

Fact is, I am a reasonably good cook. Perhaps following this logic, I should charge my friends for dinner when I have them over because I need to protect some marginal chefs job.

If your good, you'll get paid. The market will determine if your stuff is worth more than free.

[Borbor]

In principle, I sort of agree with this. But look at it this way. There is a nice restaurant I go to often because the food they make there is way above anything I can create myself. There are other restaurants I go to where the cooking is marginally better then what I regularly do, and I pay a marginal bill for the place. Others, I can do better myself, and I don't use.

Problem is, if some professor is producing results that aren't marketably any different then you are producing at a higher cost - I am afraid it isn't the professor that is the problem. A "pro" feeling entitled to a higher earning despite the fact their work isn't measurably better or more consistent is the problem.

Finally to the SS post - softball is not a money making event for any Div. 1 school. It is a title 9 sport that is costing them money. Don't get me wrong, I love these sports. But to think that the SI person is going to pay even close to what they would pay for a sport like basketball or football is crazy. The images have much less marketing value. Half the "other" sports wouldn't have any images posted on college sports sites if they were not student or someone else donated.

Fact is, I am a reasonably good cook. Perhaps following this logic, I should charge my friends for dinner when I have them over because I need to protect some marginal chefs job.

If your good, you'll get paid. The market will determine if your stuff is worth more than free.

To follow that logic, one need to open a restaurant and serve food to strangers for free.

That's the logic. Charging friends for dinner when one have them over isn't the same as offering free photography to a company / event with whom one have zero affiliations with just because one felt the need to get access.

[MJPhotos24]

Mark - you are correct in terms of when it comes to the quality of the image. There may be a "pro" producing poor images and in that case the value really is no different than anyone else producing the same or slightly better/worse images. I can name a couple "pros" who produce less than great stuff but have that entitlement attitude and think they should be getting paid the same as say an SI photog (note I can name them, don't associate with them). You pay for results and the old saying "you get what you pay for" comes into play, but free to outlets that are making money off your work is not the answer in any way, shape, or form.

Now, I have to disagree with the softball opinion. Division 1 photographers get paid the same for a men's basketball game which rakes in the money as they do for softball on the back fields. I know a few University photographers and the pay rate is no different for any sports with the exception of football which is usually higher. The difference is they may have there photographer shoot 10 b-ball games and only 2 softball so at times they may have to send a student or someone out if something is happening and they didn't schedule there regular person or the regular didn't get certain players if they didn't play or what not. Value is no different when it comes to quality - you pay for quality b-ball shots and you pay for quality softball shots.

As for dinner with your friends, how do you feel when they stop over every other night asking for another free dinner, then they start stopping for lunch, and why not some breakfast before work? All free of course, you'd feel a bit different then. Photography is no different, may lose out to a guy once for him giving it up free (even though yours is far better) but when it starts to really cut into you bottom line is when it hurts.

BTW - any friends coming over for dinner better bring a 12 pack or some chips, something....darn freeloaders!

[PixelMagic]

Let's talk about what a disservice you are doing to the photography industry by offering free for access in the first place...but I'll let Matt do the talking...

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1989

If you want to attend these events buy a ticket and be a fan - don't undercut hard working professionals just so you can see your name next to a byline that NO ONE cares about or reads except the photographer who took the thing. It's doing no good for the industry as a whole - instead try to land the job of shooting it by building yourself up and being hired for the event.


So... is "Matt" one of these people?

I'd bet that he keeps close track of his photo credits.

[SuzyView]

I have lived in this same area for 8 years now and have gotten involved in many school and local non-profit organizations. Because I shoot for my kids and know some of the organizers, I showed them my work and they asked me to shoot for them, knowing they could not pay me. I was elated. I have been published many times over due to that work.

Keep asking. See what organizations are local and go from there. Make sure you have a website with some galleries you can show and have some equipment ready to go.

[MJPhotos24]

So... is "Matt" one of these people?

I'd bet that he keeps close track of his photo credits.

Huh? Matt's getting paid for all his work, not trading free work for photo credit which that refers to. I bet he does keep track as most professionals do to make sure no one is using there images unpaid - i.e. stealing their work. It says it right there in the sentence you put in red, noone is checking but the photog who took it.

[MJPhotos24]

I have lived in this same area for 8 years now and have gotten involved in many school and local non-profit organizations. Because I shoot for my kids and know some of the organizers, I showed them my work and they asked me to shoot for them, knowing they could not pay me. I was elated. I have been published many times over due to that work.

Keep asking. See what organizations are local and go from there. Make sure you have a website with some galleries you can show and have some equipment ready to go.

But would you be working for free knowing they are making money off your work and in turn would have the money to pay you? There is the difference, charity work and shooting for free for those who actually can't afford it is a lot different than shooting for those just trying to get freebies.

[Croasdail]

Now, I have to disagree with the softball opinion. Division 1 photographers get paid the same for a men's basketball game which rakes in the money as they do for softball on the back fields. I know a few University photographers and the pay rate is no different for any sports with the exception of football which is usually higher. The difference is they may have there photographer shoot 10 b-ball games and only 2 softball so at times they may have to send a student or someone out if something is happening and they didn't schedule there regular person or the regular didn't get certain players if they didn't play or what not. Value is no different when it comes to quality - you pay for quality b-ball shots and you pay for quality softball shots

Guess my point was that the budget for these teams isn't the same, so the schools often look for alternative outlets to get their images for these events. Not implying your charge x for this sport, or y for another. That would be a confusing mess. That said though, I do get a higher rate at the ACC Basketball tourney for my shots then I do when a major just beat up on some mid conference team - but that is because of usage and placement. Anyway.

[SuzyView]

But would you be working for free knowing they are making money off your work and in turn would have the money to pay you? There is the difference, charity work and shooting for free for those who actually can't afford it is a lot different than shooting for those just trying to get freebies.

I work for organizations that are really not doing well, very few of the people get paid. But it is a good way to start a portfolio, don't you think?

[S.Horton]

Let's talk about what a disservice you are doing to the photography industry by offering free for access in the first place...but I'll let Matt do the talking...

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1989

If you want to attend these events buy a ticket and be a fan - don't undercut hard working professionals just so you can see your name next to a byline that NO ONE cares about or reads except the photographer who took the thing. It's doing no good for the industry as a whole - instead try to land the job of shooting it by building yourself up and being hired for the event.

This happens in many industries.

Years back, we used to lose business in consulting to people who hired high school kids to attempt custom software.

Today, while staffing for a new group, it was not relevant that those selected actually knew anything, the cheapest was preferred.

I learned long ago that the world's not fair, but it looks like quality doesn't even matter any longer.

You're cheap, you're in.

[MJPhotos24]

Guess my point was that the budget for these teams isn't the same, so the schools often look for alternative outlets to get their images for these events. Not implying your charge x for this sport, or y for another. That would be a confusing mess. That said though, I do get a higher rate at the ACC Basketball tourney for my shots then I do when a major just beat up on some mid conference team - but that is because of usage and placement. Anyway.
Yea, for other uses you are 100% correct in the "lesser" sports getting a lower wage. I believe I am putting them more towards the regular usage colleges use them for (and pay there regular person for), which is directly for the college, there's not much difference between the events there. Newsworthy though it may depend on the level of event as sports generate more than others. In Matt's instance though it seems it'd be for the college usage, where they'd be using the images all over and thus you should be paid more.

I work for organizations that are really not doing well, very few of the people get paid. But it is a good way to start a portfolio, don't you think?
Definitely, but the question was for those that are not struggling and making money off the photographer without them getting anything. I will shoot for free with no problems with an organization that is struggling or a charity. I plan on donating my services for a local animal shelter in the future to take promotional images because that money they would pay me would be better spent on feeding and caring for those animals. I also have volunteered before to shoot for low budget publications that barely survive, there's a lot differences in my mind to that type of place than an established newspaper, magazine, or company that is just trying to get freebies and not have to pay.


This happens in many industries.

Years back, we used to lose business in consulting to people who hired high school kids to attempt custom software.

Today, while staffing for a new group, it was not relevant that those selected actually knew anything, the cheapest was preferred.

I learned long ago that the world's not fair, but it looks like quality doesn't even matter any longer.

You're cheap, you're in.
Yep, as mentioned before it is not just photography this happens in. Photography has it's own little twists to it, but it happens a lot.

[NeutronBoy]

This sounds all a bit like 'protectionism' to me. Not to flame anyone, but it is a big world and there are many people with many different talents out there. I am sure that it makes life extremely difficult for the pros to get jobs, but that's the way it is.

Try this simile on for size:
I worked in the nuclear power field for over 25 years and am very highy trained - I have two Senior Rector Supervisor certifications (very difficult training) from commercial plants and have worked as a safety inspector for over 15 years. I systematically saw well running reactors getting shutdown because people who don't understand nuclear power will lobby to get things closed, and it happens in spite of the professional opinions of well informed industry people.

You may argue, well that's different. But no, it's not. Somebody with (what I think is) an illconceived and uninformed opinion impacts my industry, my living, my ... everything. Everywhere you go, everything you do, somebody else is going have a personal insight or need or desire that is contradictory to what you, the professional, thinks is correct. You have to learn to live with it or develop an ulcer. You can not get in a huff and throw your chest out and stake a claim to the 'pro' territory. What the nuclear power industry has VERY slowly learned is that Public Relations is key, and I suspect that should be the same for photographers. You have to make your case (to those with the $$, not the nubes) that your services are superior and worth the fee (as I am sure they are).

I think that in some cases, unions get started to prevent things like this from hapenning. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it has been the result.

It also doesn't help that things are just so much easier for the average person to go out and shoot a picture and get lucky on a shot. When I started in the hobby (and that's what it is for me), it was with fully manual cameras, and I was too poor to pay for processing - I did it myself. It took a whole lot more thought than it does today (and I'm glad I had the opportunity). Now, to an extent, people can worry about composition and let the camera do the hard work of exposure. We all know that it doesn't end there, but the uninformed can get now easily that lucky shot (sometimes).

This is not a flame but I tend to side with the guy wanting to excercise his right to enjoy his hobby. If his results are crappy, you will get that return call. If not, well ...

[morthcam58]

JJD -- do you have kids in school? Like you, I'm no pro, just a hobbyist -- quite by accident I ended up taking pictures at the high school drama productions. I take shots at the dress rehearsals, stay up late editing and Photoshopping as needed, then deliver a disc of 100 or so shots that one of the moms takes in to Ritz or a drugstore and makes up 4x6s that they sell for $1 at the shows -- I usually print up some 8x10s of the best shots and give them to sell for $5.

There's no professional photographer losing a job here, nobody would be willing to pay his rates. But I get to have fun with photography, and a bunch of parents, grandparents, aunts/uncles etc get pictures of their kids in action that they could never get with their P&S from the audience. Everyone wins (and my daughter's friends all think I'm cool, that's not easy when you're 50 and bald).

[Sean]

Are you wasting your time? Probably because people that just want to trade free photos for access are a dime a dozen.. make that a dime a gross, and most of those events are already going to have paid photogs to shoot the event. If you really want to have access to those things start small, like, local bands in cheap bars or the local high school.

This is where I am starting out. I have a show on Jan 15th for a buddies band, and I am taking some shots there. I'm doing it for me, and will offer my business card to the venue if they take an interest in it. However I won't GIVE my photo's to them, I'd sell them. It's for ME, and if someone else would like to use them, I'll be glad to SELL them to them.

I have read and read in this forum, and I think I get the primary idea of when to offer pro-bono vs. pay vs. free-for-experience. I'll never offer to a company, newspaper, client any photo's for free by my own volition.

[Jeff]

This is mostly a response to the linked article:

Unfortunately full time paid photographers for all but the bigger events...sports, weddings, local news will be a specialty job. Just like computer repair men & blacksmiths, etc. If you're nephew will fix your computer for free, would you pay someone else? Only if he couldn't fix it. Then you'd probably buy a new one. If you can't do blacksmith stuff you'd have to pay someone.

I think one thing that's being overlooked in this conversation is the difference between "Pro Quality" images and "Good Enough" images. Media has changed, you don't need, in most cases, hi-res images for huge posters, just little jpgs for a website or local newspaper. So why pay for quality you'll never need. (aside from a well composed image)

I do however have a problem when someone donates an image and the recipient then uses it for more than it was intended. If the deal was that it can be posted on a website and they print it in school brochures, catalogues, magazines, the school paper, then yes, they've gone too far.

[Croasdail]

ok, lets be real honest here - with reference to non pros saying the need money for the shots taken at a university. If you are a sports fan, and a photography buff, how much would you be willing to pay to have THE best seat in the stadium. How much do you think the average fan would be willing to pay to sit on the floor in front of row 1 at the Dean Smith Center, or Cameron Indoor, or the Staples Center? Now, the schools are giving you these seats, and often lunch too, and access to their media room for FREE. Not charging you a red cent. You get to keep the images - they are yours. But should you be asked by the school for a couple or a few images for their web site, you are now going to scream bloody hell that you are being taken advantage of.

Fine, the schools could play the same game right back. How about the schools charge you a fee eqaul to what those are paying to be in the first row seats. In the case of Duke, that would come to somewhere around a 10K annual donation, then a few thousand for your season tickets. Then you could turn around, and charge the school for every shot they want to use.

College sports survives a lot on donations in many forms. I have no problem giving a little to the programs as well. They provide me a venue to take photos that I then sell view the media outlets. And I have on occasion given their sports departments images they use on websites and press guides.

Do you want to have to pay to play like the networks do to cover those events? Think really hard before you think you are getting ripped off. If we are not careful, it could head in that direction real quick.

[S.Horton]

This sounds all a bit like 'protectionism' to me. Not to flame anyone, but it is a big world and there are many people with many different talents out there. I am sure that it makes life extremely difficult for the pros to get jobs, but that's the way it is.

Try this simile on for size:
I worked in the nuclear power field for over 25 years and am very highy trained - I have two Senior Rector Supervisor certifications (very difficult training) from commercial plants and have worked as a safety inspector for over 15 years. I systematically saw well running reactors getting shutdown because people who don't understand nuclear power will lobby to get things closed, and it happens in spite of the professional opinions of well informed industry people.

You may argue, well that's different. But no, it's not. Somebody with (what I think is) an illconceived and uninformed opinion impacts my industry, my living, my ... everything. Everywhere you go, everything you do, somebody else is going have a personal insight or need or desire that is contradictory to what you, the professional, thinks is correct. You have to learn to live with it or develop an ulcer. You can not get in a huff and throw your chest out and stake a claim to the 'pro' territory. What the nuclear power industry has VERY slowly learned is that Public Relations is key, and I suspect that should be the same for photographers. You have to make your case (to those with the $$, not the nubes) that your services are superior and worth the fee (as I am sure they are).

I think that in some cases, unions get started to prevent things like this from hapenning. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it has been the result.

It also doesn't help that things are just so much easier for the average person to go out and shoot a picture and get lucky on a shot. When I started in the hobby (and that's what it is for me), it was with fully manual cameras, and I was too poor to pay for processing - I did it myself. It took a whole lot more thought than it does today (and I'm glad I had the opportunity). Now, to an extent, people can worry about composition and let the camera do the hard work of exposure. We all know that it doesn't end there, but the uninformed can get now easily that lucky shot (sometimes).

This is not a flame but I tend to side with the guy wanting to excercise his right to enjoy his hobby. If his results are crappy, you will get that return call. If not, well ...

I think that industry got burned by fanatical reactions which key leaders failed to recognize as irrelevant.

Sometime in the 90's, competency and success as the basis for credibility and promotion to leadership was replaced by "looking good" and "soft" qualities. I'll mute why I think that's true to avoid violating forum rules. ;):rolleyes: