Two of my photos from last week's fire are in this week's edition of the Holyoke Sun. I freely share my photos at Flickr, but even before they were printed, journalist and friends were telling me I should get paid for my work. I've always been happy to share, and it's a nice ego boost to see your photography on the front page of a local newspaper.
Fellow blogger Max Hartshorne, who has writing talent I would kill for, posted a story that got me thinking about my photography, and why nothing good stays free for long.
Max posted: "It sounded like such a good idea: develop a print magazine using reader-contributed stories and photos. And let the readers vote on which articles would make it into print. Sort of like Digg."
That doesn't sound like a very good business model. What if all submissions that month are crap? And they are going to be crap. Because anyone who produces good content will quickly run into someone who helps them monetize it, and they won't be giving away their content anymore.
Digg. com has suffered from this effect. When it first started it was great. Lot's of interesting stuff. Then some of the good contributors created their own sites. During the last election cycle it was flooded with political opinion stories. How many ways can someone say they don't like Bush, A lot apparently. Diggs rankings have Subsequently fallen dramatically.
This leaves me with the realization that as my photography, and writing skills improve I will be increasingly solicited by people who want my content for their publications.
Funny thing, while writing this story, fellow Crusher Thomas posted a comment on my crush page. Thomas says: "I like your eye for photos and news. Several years ago in the mid 1990's I published a local news paper in the Holyoke, Chicopee, Springfield and nearby communities. Wish I had known you then. You do good work friend."
Thanks Tommy.
6 comments:
I agree... there is a direct correlation between remuneration and creative output.
I'm all for Creative Commons usage, and as long as it's for a non-profit, they can use anything I might produce. But for profit... they have to throw you a bone... no matter how meager.
I can't tell you how irritated I am at news organizations, notably local and cable news, that advertise how they want viewer supplied content. It's just a cheap and lazy business model. Giving your work away just reinforces this... and forces the professionals out of work or to accept less than their work is worth, to compete.
Yikes! That's a fairly serious charge Joey. I could be harming the careers of people doing good work by sharing.
I think I'm going to change my Flickr CC license to "Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives" for all new content.
Congrats on getting the photos published on the front page. I am slightly confused though, your flickr images are free, well, where free to use? I feel that contributing to a print publication, even one photograph warrants compensation for your efforts and the rights to publish your work. The use of images, copy rights, and compensation for work is a very touchy subject with me. Even more so now that laws are changing along with the photography industry. I agree though, the way you produce some journalistic quality photographs, you definitely do a fantastic job of bringing your readers some great content. Remember, professionals don't work for free, neither should amatures.
I agree with Joey that if it's for non profit have at it; but no matter what you should be asked permission first, and credited for it or linked if it's online. I'm assuming the Sun did the right thing and contacted you first.
A few months ago there was a local website that used one of my videos, even publisized it on masslive forums to bring traffic to their site, and didn't credit me even after I contacted them about it. I thought that was kind of slimy; I'm sure their not making money at their site, but it's just a matter of etiquette to at least link to the source or mention where you got it.
As for the Sun, you actually did get some kind of compensation as far as free publicity, since the photo was credited to you. If you think the photo is worth more than that it might be a court matter, as I'm sure will happen at some point if 'borrowing' from the blogosphere starts getting out of hand. Until then, I guess all we can do is blog about it...
Either way, you should at least get a free subsciption to the Sun..!
I sent in a few articles with 4 or 5 photos to the Sun and I was happy when they publlished them. I just wanted to include my cafe address and website, gonomad.com
It's like if I donate to WFCR, and they say my cafe's name, well, it's worth it.
Sometimes getting more people to know who Van Dog is will bring more people to the blog and there other projects might spring as a result of them seeing. My friend Paul Shoul watermarks his photos, huge bloches that make the photos look terrible. He said now people contact him to buy the images, that they can't steal.
No, Its not like that Tony, I actually have a good relationship with the people at the Sun. I reminded them that I share my photos on Flickr since I knew they didn't have any correspondents at the scene of the fire.
The Sun is already a free publication with back issues posted on their website in pdf files.
Thanks for all the great advice guys.
Post a Comment