Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/05/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B.D. I agree with everything you say. Every time I'm asked to speak at a school about photography as a profession, I tell them exactly what you are saying. But many young kids still see photojournalism as a glamorous profession where you get paid to travel and do what you love. That photographer who busts her hump on a story might get more photos seen if enough people go to a gallery or web site, but she doesn't get paid any more and the recognition doesn't put food on the table, buy memory cards, or pay her health insurance. I advise the kids to only go into photography if they absolutely can't do anything else and live. Tina At 08:33 PM 5/7/2006, you wrote: >And there's nothing new, Tina, about the fact that photographers - and >reporters - are not paid extra for the work they do as paid employees when >that work is reused. Yes, there's a lot of work out there for which people >don't get paid - there always has been. Do you think that Eugene Richards >makes squat doing his documentary work? If you do, you're living in fantasy >land; he makes his money doing advertising work and other commissioned work >to support his real work - same with almost any documentary photographer you >can name, and it's essentially always been that way. The thing that has >definitely changed is that there are far, far fewer staff photo jobs these >days, particularly at magazines. But many papers do have slide shows, photo >galleries, displaying work - and in the past that outlet didn't exist. A >photographer could bust her hump on a story, over a period of months, and >end up with, if she was really lucky, a half-dozen photos in the paper. Now >she can have those photos in the paper, and have a gallery, perhaps with >sound, on line. > >Being a photographer - if we're talking about freelancers - has always been >a really tough way to make a living, and teaching, or having some other way >to supplement the photo income has always been a smart idea. > > >On 5/7/06 7:07 PM, "Tina Manley" <images@InfoAve.Net> wrote: > > > At 05:28 PM 5/7/2006, you wrote: > >> Actually, I'd like to suggest that the advent of the web has caused a > >> blossoming of PJ work, and has given photographers at virtually every > >> size > >> newspaper opportunities they really never had before to do > interesting work. > >> > >> B. D. > > > > And they are being paid a living wage to post on the internet? Who > > is paying them? Do they retain the rights to their photos? There are > > thousands of blogs - some of them have wonderful photos from great > > photographers who are posting them at their own costs with the hope > > that someone will see them. How long can they continue to do that > > without pay? There are also web sites for most newspapers, which > > many times post the articles but no photos. If there are photos, are > > they copyrighted by the photographer? It's an exception if they > > are. It has become accepted practice that photojournalists are not > > paid extra for web use. Ask any newspaper photographer. There are > > more photos out there than ever before, but nobody is getting paid > > for them. The microstock agencies are proliferating like fleas and > > selling all rights to all photos for pennies. It's not a good time > > to be photographer unless you have another source of income like > > teaching. > > > > Tina > > > > Tina Manley, ASMP, NPPA > > http://www.tinamanley.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information