Press pass for sports

In this case, the staff photographer was out for an extended period due to health reasons.

rogerv wrote in post #18917970
Many former newspaper photographers are former newspaper photographers because publishers know that there are so many people out there with "expensive cameras" who will willingly fill the hole with their images just for the thrill of "being in the paper."

exACTLY

Again, staff photographer was out for health reasons. As in, Not Available.

You provided a service that obviously has value, for free, to a for profit business. The owner of that business just made more profit. This is the reason companies eliminate these positions. Why pay for it when I can get it for free? Someday the staff photographer will have no job to return to.

If anything, shoot it for a fee and donate it to the employee that is most likely facing medical copays.

Since this is a small town, the other option would have been no photos in the paper. Which is what had been happening earlier in the season

I understand the concerns raised but we had gone through the first few meets of the season with only a mascot emblem being shown with the stories, or a generic staff headshot of one the coaches for each story. As I mentioned, a small town newspaper, the paper's photographer is a retired teacher who has been experiencing some health issues. No idea what he was paid for his work. But, the kids, parents and other community members like to see their son/daughter/grandson/​granddaughter/neighbor etc in the small local paper, which only runs 4 days per week. So when the sports editor approached me after one of the coaches had suggested it ( I give the coaches photos for them to make a end-of-year slide show at their banquet -yes, for free) I said I would be happy to send a few and he could use them if he felt they were of good enough quality. I don't regret it and would do it again if asked.

As someone who has had a Sister, Father and both Grandfathers that all worked for the local newspaper, with my Father being a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer, I can assure you, newspapers are a for profit business and should be willing to pay for content. Having said that, there are other outlets for the sharing of photos than the for profit newspaper. When my kids were in Band I set up a web based site where I and other shooters gifted pics to our band community to view and share. I applaud you for thinking of the kids, but this is a dick move by the newspaper IMHO. If the paper's reporter was out, would written content not get published? If the pressman was out, would the paper go to print? Unfortunately very little value is placed on the photography profession. An image can tell a powerful story, and is every bit as valuable as the written word. I wish more would understand that.

I have worked professionally (part time) in the past, but now I shoot for free. I only shoot club-level events though, and give photos to entrants and their family, plus small NFP clubs. I do this very deliberately because, having been forced to retire from my 'day job' following many years of huge stress that almost killed me, I am dead-set determined that my photography is my hobby only. I do not want to have client expectations, deadlines or find myself attending events because I'm expected to be there. I go if I want to, shoot what I want the way I want, and leave when I want to. This has worked extremely well and I find this approach therapeutic as well as enjoyable.

Nevertheless, I have occasionally been approached by media reps wanting to use my images in reports. Initially, in order to help these small clubs promote their events, I have given in. More recently however, I have begun to ask these media outlets to pay for use, but instead of paying me, to donate the money to the club. If the publication doesn't want to pay, they don't get the image(s).

So far, so good. But now a new dilemma arises. A couple of clubs want to continue promoting their events by using my images and are applying gentle pressure on me to allow it. I plan to continue saying no (if the publication won't make a donation) and then we'll see if any issues arise with the clubs. I am going to stick to my guns because I truly don't want any commercial pressure.

One example happened recently, when I shot a car rally. A club rep asked for photos to accompany an article in the local press. I turned them down and suggested they contact the 'professional' photogs who were there. She seemed happy to do so.

I should add that I don't necessarily see these requests as endorsing my skill. It is a truism that the queue for the free stuff is always the longest one!

texkam wrote in post #18918321
As someone who has had a Sister, Father and both Grandfathers that all worked for the local newspaper, with my Father being a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer, I can assure you, newspapers are a for profit business and should be willing to pay for content. Having said that, there are other outlets for the sharing of photos than the for profit newspaper. When my kids were in Band I set up a web based site where I and other shooters gifted pics to our band community to view and share. I applaud you for thinking of the kids, but this is a dick move by the newspaper IMHO. If the paper's reporter was out, would written content not get published? If the pressman was out, would the paper go to print? Unfortunately very little value is placed on the photography profession. An image can tell a powerful story, and is every bit as valuable as the written word. I wish more would understand that.

I don't know the full staffing of the local paper. The gentleman who had been ill was the only photographer that I have ever seen at sports events for the paper. He has done it for a number of years, probably as some type of part time gig, I don't know. The only other person I have ever seen take any photos for the paper was an older lady and have never seen her at sports stuff, mostly just at "news" type events so maybe she is not interesting/comfortabl​e shooting any sports.

As far as the story running, yes, they did run stories but with the generic team mascot image as the header or with a school yearbook shot of one of the coaches. I am there taking photos of my daughter and the team (for the coaches to use) anyway. So, not like it was something that I was not going to be doing. I also host some photos on Smugmug for viewing. I can appreciate the concerns of photography being devalued, but it had already happened in that without the photos, they just didn't print any photos with the story

texkam wrote in post #18918207
You provided a service that obviously has value, for free, to a for profit business. The owner of that business just made more profit. This is the reason companies eliminate these positions. Why pay for it when I can get it for free? Someday the staff photographer will have no job to return to.

Publishers hold on to their shooter or shooters with some level of desperation. Why? Because photo journalists get such a wide range of shots night and day far and wide. They also provide extensive accurate data. Images and cut line names sell papers and gather clicks.

Except for the smallest papers news shooters are not replaced by amateurs. When the money for a full time photo journalist runs out underpaid and overworked young reporters are thrown into the image breach.

I don't know whether their photographer has returned to work or not. I will have to check and see if there are any photos from him recently.

After review, it appears that they have gotten some photos from a guy who is basically a professional freelance photographer/writer who lives in town. He mostly does travel writing/photography and public speaking, so a well experienced guy. I have no idea if they pay him or not.

AZGeorge wrote in post #18957107
Publishers hold on to their shooter or shooters with some level of desperation. Why? Because photo journalists get such a wide range of shots night and day far and wide. They also provide extensive accurate data. Images and cut line names sell papers and gather clicks.

Except for the smallest papers news shooters are not replaced by amateurs. When the money for a full time photo journalist runs out underpaid and overworked young reporters are thrown into the image breach.

If the paper can replace the pro's work with images the same quality and reliability, the problem isn't the ones "donating" their images. If the gap between professional and ametuer isn't that much, the ametur's works is of equal quality, that images are reliably available, and they are captioned correctly.... either the paper has a very low standard, or the pro just isn't that good.

To the earlier comment that there are too many people with good quality cameras, the camera has absolutely nothing to do with publishable photos. The camera doesn't make you a photojournalist.

Most newspapers just use hobby photographers who are happy to be there, often they are new to photography so they are a happy to give their work for free and happy to see their name credited.

A newspaper would rather use a 3 out of 10 shot for free than a 9 out of 10 shot that costs money. Hobby photographers usually get fed up when their camera breaks and can't pay the repair with the money they have made from photography.

A newspaper should apply for you after all they are getting free images. It's pretty easy to get into 95% of sporting events using a local paper or agency that will give you a % per sale.

Croasdail wrote in post #18959525
...the paper has a very low standard...

or the customer (not newspaper specific)... youll run across this a LOT with people who look and someone's gear and say "thats a fancy camera you have" and think in their mind theyll be good enough. even if their work ISNT good enough. theyre just ignorant of good photography and the professional service you (need to learn) to apply...

I think the size of the town/newspaper does come into play, especially out here in the rural great plains.