Jacoby Ellsbury on the road to Boston

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #14705035
Photographer doesn't work for free for said outlet - outlet has no images coming in free, how do they obtain them? They buy from their usual image servers and pay for them (photographer or agency), so really someone is not getting paid because of it. It's the old argument if nobody works for free they have to start paying, problem is of course you will never get everyone to stop working for free - there are WAY too many people who do it for ego to see their name in print instead of trying to practice good business.

Choice, there is always a choice! I shot a game tonight with a bunch of guys shooting free, two of these idiots have cost me somewhere around a grand so far this year giving stuff away to clients I work with, or undercutting taking jobs that they came running in last second to do it free. Both use the same tired argument of getting their name out there - success, they're names are on several editors "DO NOT WORK WITH" list including ours. It all comes back to the same thing, good vs bad business practices.

Don't think it matters one bit on your location, if the local team won't work with you because they have a different set up or you cost too much then you go to the next and the next, you hear no a lot more than you hear yes no matter how established you are. Can't get into that league, OK what else is out there, move on and find a niche while pushing for what you want without hurting your name or the business. Sometimes of course you have to start at the lowest rung and climb your way up, just like most industries, photographers though always seem to think they bought a camera, had kinko's make a card, so they should be getting into all the events the pros shoot.

So yea, there's always a choice, it may not be the choice you want to make - it seems many think youth and high school sports are below them, but you pay your dues or find your own clients without snaking your way in. Doesn't mean you don't try to land clients who already have photographers, competition is not a bad thing, but you do it in a manner that is at the least professional.

All of this is much easier said than done.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14717370
All of this is much easier said than done.

EXACTLY! But too many people think the ONLY way to get to shoot professional sporting events is to give their work away for free, so even though yours or the OP "intentions" may not be to take work away from a "professional" photographer, by their actions those who do give their work away for free eliminate the need for clients to have to pay for images.

SportsOnFilm wrote in post #14717584
EXACTLY! But too many people think the ONLY way to get to shoot professional sporting events is to give their work away for free, so even though yours or the OP "intentions" may not be to take work away from a "professional" photographer, by their actions those who do give their work away for free eliminate the need for clients to have to pay for images.

I don't give away work, I'm a photojournalist and writer. I'm not taking work away from anyone. I simply understand how hard it can be starting out.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14717370
All of this is much easier said than done.

Nothing in life worth having comes easy!

You're either part of the problem or the solution, even if it's an uphill and darn near impossible fight you still put up your gloves.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14717934
I don't give away work, I'm a photojournalist and writer. I'm not taking work away from anyone. I simply understand how hard it can be starting out.

This is a direct contradiction of what you've said in past threads where you stated you did this or that free, for a third party.

Didn't this conversation come up in the OP's original thread asking about which lens to rent? Then how X lens cost too much? Then how he was buying a 300?

Or was it just the first one, I can't remember?

ajaffe wrote in post #14722513
Didn't this conversation come up in the OP's original thread asking about which lens to rent? Then how X lens cost too much? Then how he was buying a 300?

Or was it just the first one, I can't remember?

I don't know, maybe... but is that relevant here?

Glad you waste your time looking up users' old threads...

kenjancef wrote in post #14724497
I don't know, maybe... but is that relevant here?

Glad you waste your time looking up users' old threads...

I replied in that thread and actually suggested you buy instead of repeatedly rent. Glad to know you went down the path you said you wouldn't go down! I hope everything works out for you.

Wow, this thread sure took on a life of its own. Its amazing how it could go a from sharing a few shots of Jacoby to where its at now.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #14722343
Nothing in life worth having comes easy!

You're either part of the problem or the solution, even if it's an uphill and darn near impossible fight you still put up your gloves.

This is a direct contradiction of what you've said in past threads where you stated you did this or that free, for a third party.

If I've been paid by a publication to shoot a sporting event and the university SID wants a shot for the website, yes, I've given it to them free of charge. I've already been paid once and I'm there BECAUSE the university has given permission. I don't see the problem. And I don't charge family.

If you have the time to waste, you should browse the old threads.

It is the rinse and repeat story of, "I have to shoot for free to gain exposure and maybe the INSERT NAME HERE will hire me once they see how good of a job I do. I am not hurting anyone doing it so no big deal."

Same story. Same results. Same help in the killing of an industry that one wants to be a part of without recognizing it.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14724806
If I've been paid by a publication to shoot a sporting event and the university SID wants a shot for the website, yes, I've given it to them free of charge. I've already been paid once and I'm there BECAUSE the university has given permission. I don't see the problem. And I don't charge family.

Your statement is flawed though in the sense that if the ADpt doesn't pay for the rights then expects them, what happens then?
For instance, photographer A offers two packages.
Package A is one game with one time web use rights for $300 and the option to repurchase licensing on a case by case basis.
Package B is one game with unlimited editorial rights with no limit on amount of usage for $500.
You cannot expect the photographer to honor package B's terms when the client only paid for package A.

madjack wrote in post #14724778
Wow, this thread sure took on a life of its own. Its amazing how it could go a from sharing a few shots of Jacoby to where its at now.

Because people have an opinion on everything. And some people spend their life angry or upset or disappointed. It's sad, really. Nobody has the 'right' to a certain job. Nowhere does it say you get to have the job you've always dreamed of. As for taking job from people who do it for a living, cream usually rises to the top. If someone's work is of equal quality and they want to give it away, there really isn't anything you can do about it but come on a website like this and have the conversation we've been having for the past few pages.

ajaffe wrote in post #14724835
Your statement is flawed though in the sense that if the ADpt doesn't pay for the rights then expects them, what happens then?
For instance, photographer A offers two packages.
Package A is one game with one time web use rights for $300 and the option to repurchase licensing on a case by case basis.
Package B is one game with unlimited editorial rights with no limit on amount of usage for $500.
You cannot expect the photographer to honor package B's terms when the client only paid for package A.

They have a photographer who does all the team shots, stock stuff, etc., before the season. I'm talking about website photos for particular games or matches, one's that the staff guy doesn't have time for. I'm not really sure I understand your point on rights. That's not really how it works in this particular situation. It's either going to be a stock photo or a photo that I actually took at the game. If I'm there already, why wouldn't I lend them the photo? I'm technically a university employee, so there's no selling the rights in this case.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14724865
They have a photographer who does all the team shots, stock stuff, etc., before the season. I'm talking about website photos for particular games or matches, one's that the staff guy doesn't have time for. I'm not really sure I understand your point on rights. That's not really how it works in this particular situation. It's either going to be a stock photo or a photo that I actually took at the game. If I'm there already, why wouldn't I lend them the photo? I'm technically a university employee, so there's no selling the rights in this case.

That is how it works in the photographic world, so I am confused by your confusion.

Are you being paid to shoot those games? If not then go no further as you will have answered my question.

If you are being paid, what do your services entail? Just all of your images on a disc for $XXX without negotiating any usage terms?

If so, then without delving into a cost of doing business discussion, does that fee reflect the fact that you are giving up all of your image copyrights?


Being an employee makes no difference if you have terms in your contract that dictate the work you perform is not work-for-hire or that you maintain copyrights.

ajaffe wrote in post #14724930
That is how it works in the photographic world, so I am confused by your confusion.

Are you being paid to shoot those games? If not then go no further as you will have answered my question.

If you are being paid, what do your services entail? Just all of your images on a disc for $XXX without negotiating any usage terms?

If so, then without delving into a cost of doing business discussion, does that fee reflect the fact that you are giving up all of your image copyrights?


Being an employee makes no difference if you have terms in your contract that dictate the work you perform is not work-for-hire or that you maintain copyrights.

As I said in a previous post, I'm being paid by a publication to photograph games, events, etc. This is a university-owned publication. Why would I then turn around and asked to be paid twice, when the university already has rights to the photos in the first place. I retain copyright of the images, but they have usage privileges. Not that the copyright is worth much since 99 percent of the images are of NCAA athletes and that's a whole other story. I'm not really sure why everyone is so interested in everyone else's business' practices. Ultimately, as long as it's paying my bills and makes me happy, it's none of their damned business.