|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
Les, I understand your comments but it's not the case here. This is a sad movement throughout media in the USA - moving away from professional shooters and trying to entice people that don't know any better to give away their product for credentials or the myth of 'getting your foot in the door'. Again, if you talk to any pro that shoots any type of freelance work for publication - not one will tell you to sign away your photos for unlimmited use for just an hourly paycheck. But that's what organizations are trying to do. ESPN isn't on the ropes here. And rest assured, I ran this by some other pros in other areas of the country (i.e. not competitors). They were all in agreement - it was a bad deal. Because they wanted unlimited usage for free. And ESPN knows better. Again, we were all in agreement in that if a lesser hourly rate was given it would make sense since they've never worked with me before. They wouldn't be on the hook for more money if they didn't use the shots. But if they were good enough for publication then they should be paid for. In a similar type of situation, Texes Tech was willing to provide shooters with a credential but TT got all the photos. They're trying to get work for free - praying on people's desire to shoot big time college football. So, to say it yet again - the problem with the offer isn't that they were going to pay me less per hour than standard but that they wanted to drop entirely the more lucrative half of the pricing structure. That isn't about them being on a tight budget. And the only 'door' agreeing to work for such terms gets you in is the door that says your a naive person willing to cut way below market value - just like the ignorant photogs that agree to the Texas Tech offer.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
|
![]() Quote:
In my example of my wedding photographer (Independent Contractor)we had a contract. He would provide one set of pictures of our wedding. But, he kept the negatives as the negatives were his intellectual property. If we wished to have additional pictures, we would contact him and he would arrange for the additional pictures at an additional cost to us. Which in my opinion is quite correct. The negatives were his product, not ours. This is the style of business arrangement you are following. Have I got it right ? Les Last edited by lesmore49; Sep 21, 2009 at 1:16 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East of Toronto
Posts: 8,800
|
![]() Quote:
Last edited by Bynx; Sep 21, 2009 at 1:43 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]() Quote:
In the end, if you don't value your work enough to get paid what it is worth, no client will value it either. And, let's be clear - on an assignment like this, for a company like ESPN, I'm dealing with the very lowest levels of ESPN - quite possibly an intern. As stated earlier - if this had been an action shoot, things might have been different. But it wasn't. And yes, it was much more than I make on my other photography assignments - but only in an hourly concept. It would have been 1-2 hours of payment only. And, after taxes..... Fortunately I don't have to rely on photography to put food on my table (otherwise my son and I would be eating very poorly....). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
Also - as to reputation. The sports shooting community is a small one. And you do NOT want a reputation as someone who signs away rights to photos without proper compensation. Employers get used to that in a hurry and it makes it tough for others to get paid. Employers aren't always interested in the best - they're often interested in "good enough" and when the prices are a lot lower for one photographer they'll often go that way. Then when you try to charge more, they'll simply move on to the next new photographer. And without those usage payments, the hourly rate isn't enough to live off of (because, of course, you're not working 30-40 hours at that rate). So yes, you can get a bad reputation pretty easily.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East of Toronto
Posts: 8,800
|
![]()
I guess I look at photography as "too much fun" to worry about much. I do stuff for free all the time. Even to the point of it costing me money. Of course thats because its just Im not living off its income. As I said it was just for this one assignment and wouldnt make a habit of getting screwed. When all is done and said, none of us are in your shoes to know all the details, which you are still relating so for you, you made the right decision. I know in the past Ive given photo files to a news reporter that were used on the tv nightly news. It was not for compensation and I thought it fun to see my stuff on tv. Now if that reporter ever asked me again, then it wouldnt be for free. This has been a fun thread giving another side to photography, that of economics. Its something I never think of, but after the comments made here, perhaps I will. There is something somewhat similar going on with me. My local town has a photo contest every year. They get somewhere around 600 submissions of 8 x 10 photos. The catch is that all photos become the property of the town to do with as they wish giving the photographer only credit. In this case people are giving their time and money to "donate" their photography on the chance of winning a small inexpensive prize and seeing their work hung in the local Rec center. Is this worth doing?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Posts: 94
|
![]()
I don't understand how this is any different from any other company trying to reduce costs and maximise profitability. ESPN (or MyCo whomever) will find someone that accepts their terms. They may not get the same quality (your level of expertise etc) but they'll get what they want for the price that they are willing to pay - this is basic economics and happens across any industry. And other pros in other parts of the country have nothing to do with it. Supply and demand is all it is.
Yes, I agree that it isn't in your best interests to accept this deal, but maybe for someone else it is. Don't we say that competition is good, lowering the prices of goods and services is good for the consumer isn't it? Matt |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]() Quote:
So, do I blame ESPN for doing this? Heck no. As a business you always want to control costs. And if there are a number of semi-pro photogs out there that are willing to accept a bad deal just to have ESPN on their resume, if I was doing this hiring at ESPN I'd probably do the exact same thing. So, on the one hand I make the appeal to hobbyists to not let their ego get in the way of people who need jobs to earn income because it ISNT a level playing field when you don't pay all your bills from your photography. On the other hand - to people that truly want to be sports photographers, you need to be long-sited. If there is a constant stream of would-be sports photographers willing to work at drastic pay cuts, what do you think is going to happen when you're "inside the door"? What's going to happen is there aren't going to be jobs because there is a bevy of would-be photogs behind you willing to work at those reduced rates and companies aren't going to want to pay you. The reality is - there are going to be a LOT less sports and photo-journalism jobs out there. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if we don't start seeing a lot more frame-grab photos from HD video in a few years. THere will still be a place for still photographers for high-end work. But websites and newspapers, I believe, will determine those frame grabs are "good enough" to justify downsizing the staff. All of this is just my personal opinion. I do think it's an interesting discussion. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Posts: 94
|
![]()
It is an interesting discussion, and one that I think you have shown to be a bit different to some other industries by the 'amateur' aspect to it. Maybe creating software is a bit the same.
I wish you all the best, maybe ESPN will come back with a better offer. Matt |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|