DonJuanMair wrote in post #17439458
ESPN wanted to use the one picture i took, but they didnt want to pay, yeah itll be nice having my pic over the internet and on tv, im pretty sure i would get no work from it. Do you think i should let them use it?
Personally, I would say no if I were being asked. Yes, it is nice to see my work published / on TV but that is tempered in a case like this by them not wanting to pay. I mean, yes, it feels good that they want to use it, but that is balanced by the fact they don't feel it is good enough to actually PAY for, which kinda kills the buzz. I only get the good buzz when they are happy to pay as well, as it shows they do actually value the image. So, I would tell them they can use it if they are prepared to pay, and you might actually get paid. So many people are happy to give their images free as they just want to see their work on the telly, so the "we can't pay" line is standard practice with many potential purchasers like this, as they know they will usually get it for nothing. When refused though, they can often find some money in the budget after all, if they really want to use the shot. Or they may just find someone else who will give them a similar shot free.
The other issue is that if we all stopped giving our shots away then things would go back to the way it used to be, when they expected to pay, and we can all go back to making a few bucks / quid as amateurs and pros can make a decent living without being beaten to sales by good amateurs working for nothing. Of course this is unlikely to happen, but it is something that stops me just handing out freebies (other than to charities or certain other causes if they ask nicely).
In the end, it is entirely down to how much you want to see your work on the telly. If it will give you a happy warm glow then go for it and give them the shot, it is your shot and you are perfectly at liberty to give it away if you wish and nobody can criticise you for doing so.