ot: 'freebie' /rant

ushere wrote on 8/11/2013, 10:09 PM
we're in election mode downunder....

it was bad enough prior to this but the increasing call by newspapers and commercial tv stations for photo's and videos from the public is really getting my hackles up!

partly prompted bt this some time ago http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/03/this-might-not-work-chicago-sun-times-fires-all-its-photographers-to-replace-them-with-iphones/

it would seem all news agencies and outlets are now actively pursuing the public to send in any (interesting) photos they take of nearly anything (accidents, pollies, cute babies, etc.,) - in return for them printing / screening such items the submitter will get a credit - NO mention of any financial reward, copyright ownership, etc.,

it's no longer user pays but user supplies too. /r

Comments

_Lenny_ wrote on 8/12/2013, 5:53 AM
I agree. BBC News does this all the time. 'Please send us your photos and videos of [insert event here]".

When you check the full terms and conditions, the BBC can do pretty much as it sees fit and the owner has no recompense, albeit on a non-exclusive license.

Trouble is, people take a lot of gratification just for having their images shown. They don't realise they could - and SHOULD - be charging for them.
wwjd wrote on 8/12/2013, 8:37 AM
SHOULD they?

In the past MEDIA was a rareity. With the internet, EVERYONE is a BBC... if they want to be. And all these digital cameras turn media into plentiful freebies.

So, yes, in the past, take some time, take some wonderful shots and SELL them because not everyone was doing it,. But TODAY, every camera phone can is on the scene and there are a billion pictures. Getting yours up under the evening weather is very cool and forgotten tomorrow.
But, who is gonna waste money BUYING pics when so many GLADLY Send them in free for that 1 second of fame?

Things change. Adapt or go extinct.
farss wrote on 8/12/2013, 8:51 AM
[I]" Things change. Adapt or go extinct."[/I]

Yes and no. There's still people making good money selling images. They spend a lot of money on kit and a lot of time just waiting to get the right shot. TV has rarely paid big money for their work but the print media has because the shot on the cover can sell a lot of magazines or papers.

I think what Joe Average should be advised of is if they're lucky enough to get a one in a million shot then they should be auctioning it off to the highest bidder The rest is probably something a broadcaster wouldn't have used anyway.

Bob.
johnmeyer wrote on 8/12/2013, 9:39 AM
That video of the plane crash in San Francisco a month ago didn't appear until at least two days after the event, and then it only ran on CNN. The guy who filmed it obviously knew that he had captured the crash. I suspect he shopped it around until he got some money.

So, as Bob says, if you have the one-in-a-million shot, you can still get money.