TV network asks Pulitzer Prize-winning photog for free photos, triggers Twitter backlash

The death of professional photography came to an end about 8-10 years ago when mass-photography evolved through phones, point and shoot cameras, etc. Everyone now expects all images published in social media and on the Internet to be "fair use" and it's impossible to enforce. This is on top of copyright laws that are too expensive to pursue in Federal Courts.

Such is the way art evolves. Music is the next victim.

W.
 
image.png image.png

Unfortunately most people simply want the notoriety. I at first thought the CBS account was a fake since it has relatively low numbers of followers/followees but I guess that could just branch of CBS (someone that works there and job is to scour social media). Professionals will always look for the dollar and there's nothing wrong with that. I know I wouldn't hand over anything for free.
 
I think there is a chance that the general public may eventually wise up, as long as people keep being outspoken about it. On Reddit for example, reposters and freebooters are getting called out more and more (and in some cases heartily downvoted) thanks to the efforts of a few to make some noise about the injustice of it. The voices of a few about free imagery/video may also start to catch on in a similar way in the public conscience.

I just replied to John Quinn on Twitter. That type of attitude always irks me. Some people think it's wrong for a journalist to cover disasters and other bad news? Or that they shouldn't be paid for it? And that he thinks it's morally wrong, yet he's willing to directly help CBS profit from said disaster? *shakes head*
 
Dan Robinson said:
I think there is a chance that the general public may eventually wise up, as long as people keep being outspoken about it. On Reddit for example, reposters and freebooters are getting called out more and more (and in some cases heartily downvoted) thanks to the efforts of a few to make some noise about the injustice of it. The voices of a few about free imagery/video may also start to catch on in a similar way in the public conscience.

I just replied to John Quinn on Twitter. That type of attitude always irks me. Some people think it's wrong for a journalist to cover disasters and other bad news? Or that they shouldn't be paid for it? And that he thinks it's morally wrong, yet he's willing to directly help CBS profit from said disaster? *shakes head*
Click to expand...

Yeah, your last point is especially true. He may not be profitting himself off a disaster, but he's contributing to another (bigger) corporation monetizing. I am glad people are speaking up, but I have a dim hope for a radical reversal of media mentality. Many, yourself included, have much more insight and experience with how to work the market and I hope you can revive the dying professional field out there.
 
I try not to let it bother be but I can't help it, when I see TWC or WN say "Send us your pic's would love to share them." I guess so! But people do it all day long. I've gone to both their facebook pages pleading with people to stop giving away their work!! I'm sure it falls on deaf ears. Sad part is a lot of the time they are from people not using their real name so most are not even going to know who they are.
 
This is interesting. A few things I'd consider in selling my photos vs free credit photos. One is whether or not I need to make a living on those photos. Most people that send in photos to media are just happy to see it on the air. I sent a pic in just because I like weather and it was relevant, but not unique at all - funny thing is I missed it on-air and a friend pointed it out.

Next is how much those photos cost to acquire (equipment, travel, experience/school, etc) and then price them accordingly or license them to a broker. I see a lot of conversation here and elsewhere on not to sell your talent short, but I don't see many suggestions as to ideal brokers to use, license fees one should expect and how to handle media requests. This sort of thing is important for amateurs to become semi/pros! Maybe there is a post on here about that?

Lastly, suing someone for copyright infringement is not possible unless you register your image with the Lib of Congress. But, if it pops up somewhere that is worth suing, it's probably worth it $$.
 
Taylor Stone said:
Next is how much those photos cost to acquire (equipment, travel, experience/school, etc) and then price them accordingly or license them to a broker. I see a lot of conversation here and elsewhere on not to sell your talent short, but I don't see many suggestions as to ideal brokers to use, license fees one should expect and how to handle media requests. This sort of thing is important for amateurs to become semi/pros! Maybe there is a post on here about that?
$$.
Click to expand...

After having a couple photos get 20k+ views on Facebook only 4 months after buying my first DSLR, I started to wonder about this as well. Almost anyone now can go buy a camera, HDR+clarity the living shit out of it, and get a million views on Facebook. Standards are extremely low these days for quality photos and it's pretty easy to get your stuff out there. As Taylor Stone mentioned, most of these people are not trying to make a living, and just want to see their stuff on their local weather channel. These people don't realize that they are depreciating the value of the professional photos out there, and that they are letting huge corporations gain significant profit from their work. This brings me to my point; how can we blame them when the process of licensing your photo/video is pretty confusing and unclear for the average joe? I'd like to see a thread outlining the process. I'm friends with a photoj for the KC Star and even he admits it's very daunting and time consuming to constantly be in contact with various media outlets all trying to get your work (this is especially true while chasing), so for me, it's not even worth the trouble.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we'll see the public change any time soon. Heck, I had a professional photographer with me on Canadian day and she gave her photo away to TWC for free even after I told her she shouldn't do that. She thought it was really cool they wanted to use it. *facepalm*
 
Playboy to no longer publish nude images.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34511999

When I first heard this, I thought it was some kind of joke, but it fits right into the theme of this discussion. Photography has been totally ingested into social media. It's kind of scary when you think about it. Printing companies, photographers and the thousands of related jobs are vanishing. Social media outlets only require a hand full of employees in most cases. I'll bet anything that Copyright laws will be changed in the near future to incorporate this change and some type of extended, non-commerical "fair use" rule will be allowed.

W.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top