In response to all the recent cuts made to their photography staffs by news media organizations:
In short, there is a great deal of difference between the output from professional photojournalists and other photographers (especially amateurs.)
Eliminating staff photographers, especially those that routinely produce high quality images, can negatively impact the quality of the images used by a news outlet. Using "amateur" images, in turn, undermines the reputation of the news organization utilizing them.
A news organization using amateur or low quality images are themselves seen as amateur or lacking in quality.
It's this last point that news organizations can't seem to grasp.
(Hat Tip: PetaPixel)
Showing posts with label photojournalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label photojournalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Sports Illustrated Lays Off Photography Staff
The latest in staff photography lay-offs is a bit of a shocker. A newspaper laying-off staff photographers is one thing, but Sport's Illustrated getting rid of it's staff of photographers?
The images the magazine uses it one of the few things that separate it from the sports section of the local newspaper. Without the iconic images, SI is just another news source. Worse, it's a news source dealing with stale news when compared to the daily newspaper.
SI's plan apparently is to replace the six staff photographers they just fired with freelancers (with the possibility of hiring the laid-off photographers on a freelance basis.) The problem for SI is there is no guarantee that the laid-off photographers will agree to work as freelancers. There is also no guarantee that any other freelancer used by SI will be able to reproduce the quality of the current staffers.
Another problem is that many of the freelancers available will also be producing images used b SI's competitors. The magazine could very well wind up looking like every other sports news outlet.
There is something to be said about branding, and this move could hurt Sports Illustrated's brand.
This could very well prove to be an extremely shortsighted move on the part of Sports Illustrated management.
The images the magazine uses it one of the few things that separate it from the sports section of the local newspaper. Without the iconic images, SI is just another news source. Worse, it's a news source dealing with stale news when compared to the daily newspaper.
SI's plan apparently is to replace the six staff photographers they just fired with freelancers (with the possibility of hiring the laid-off photographers on a freelance basis.) The problem for SI is there is no guarantee that the laid-off photographers will agree to work as freelancers. There is also no guarantee that any other freelancer used by SI will be able to reproduce the quality of the current staffers.
Another problem is that many of the freelancers available will also be producing images used b SI's competitors. The magazine could very well wind up looking like every other sports news outlet.
There is something to be said about branding, and this move could hurt Sports Illustrated's brand.
This could very well prove to be an extremely shortsighted move on the part of Sports Illustrated management.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
All Your Photos Are Belong to Us
I finally get you use the old Zero Wing reference.
Personally, I think it's really appropriate as the original phrase makes about as much sense as the latest move from Time, Inc. UK
The company has initiated a new contract for photography freelancers that goes into effect January 1. Any photography working on assignment for one of the 60 niche publications owned by Time Inc. UK will have to surrender all rights to those images to the company. (The weekly Time news magazine is not effected by the new contract terms, at least not yet.)
This is just the latest trend in big companies showing little respect for professional photographers. Yahoo's CEO annoyed photographers with her comments, Getty engaged in blatant copyright theft as well as other actions that annoyed contributors and various media outlets have laid off part or all of their photo journalists staff.
Now, Time, Inc. UK is telling freelancers they are going to treat them like employees in regards to copyright, (as a general rule, the work product of employees belongs to the employer) but treating them as an independent contractor for all other purposes. Meaning the photographer must take care of expenses, taxes, etc.
What professional photographer will be willing to work freelance if they have to take all the risks and except all the expenses if they then have to tuen over all rights to the images produced?
That's the worst of both worlds.
I think all this stems from the prevalence of camera phones. With everyone taking pictures with their phones, all these CEOs have a mentality that there is nothing unique about being a professional photographer.
They're wrong.
It's the same distinction between someone that plays baseball with the boys on the weekend and someone playing for a Major League ball club. There is a reason those weekend warriors don't get paid $20 million a year and some professional baseball players do.
The professional brings a level of talent and a dedication to the profession that separates them from those that don't.
The most annoying thing is that many of the companies involved are media companies that make money by producing a professional level product. (Magazines and stock photos). How do they expect to continue doing that if they don't treat the people that actually take those photos as professionals?
Personally, I think it's really appropriate as the original phrase makes about as much sense as the latest move from Time, Inc. UK
The company has initiated a new contract for photography freelancers that goes into effect January 1. Any photography working on assignment for one of the 60 niche publications owned by Time Inc. UK will have to surrender all rights to those images to the company. (The weekly Time news magazine is not effected by the new contract terms, at least not yet.)
This is just the latest trend in big companies showing little respect for professional photographers. Yahoo's CEO annoyed photographers with her comments, Getty engaged in blatant copyright theft as well as other actions that annoyed contributors and various media outlets have laid off part or all of their photo journalists staff.
Now, Time, Inc. UK is telling freelancers they are going to treat them like employees in regards to copyright, (as a general rule, the work product of employees belongs to the employer) but treating them as an independent contractor for all other purposes. Meaning the photographer must take care of expenses, taxes, etc.
What professional photographer will be willing to work freelance if they have to take all the risks and except all the expenses if they then have to tuen over all rights to the images produced?
That's the worst of both worlds.
I think all this stems from the prevalence of camera phones. With everyone taking pictures with their phones, all these CEOs have a mentality that there is nothing unique about being a professional photographer.
They're wrong.
It's the same distinction between someone that plays baseball with the boys on the weekend and someone playing for a Major League ball club. There is a reason those weekend warriors don't get paid $20 million a year and some professional baseball players do.
The professional brings a level of talent and a dedication to the profession that separates them from those that don't.
The most annoying thing is that many of the companies involved are media companies that make money by producing a professional level product. (Magazines and stock photos). How do they expect to continue doing that if they don't treat the people that actually take those photos as professionals?
Monday, July 14, 2014
ACLU Lawsuit over Suspicious Activity Reporting Program
Hat Tip: SLR Lounge, Wired
The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit over the Federal Governments Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Program.
Two of the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit are photographers.
I'm a bit conflicted when it comes to the lawsuit. Neither of the photographers actually did anything "wrong". It was the subject matter of their photographs that brought them to the attention of the Federal Government.
The first was taking pictures of a Natural Gas Storage tank, and the second was taking pictures of oil refineries. Both are obvious targets for terrorists. The Federal Government does need to monitor these types of installations for suspicious activity.
The problem seems to stem from the lack of common sense when it comes to determining what activities are actually suspicious.
Standing on public property and taking a picture of something that is a local landmark is not suspicious activity. This includes the natural gas storage tank above due to how it was painted.
Standing in the open, on public property and taking photos at night (with a tripod) also fails the common sense test when it comes to "suspicious activity". Is a terrorist really going to go through all that trouble and stand in the open for a long period of time while taking pictures of a target?
Hello? Cell Phone? (Or telephoto lens used where the photographer can't be seen.)
This seems to be the problem with the program. The people responsible for reporting suspicious activity have no clue as to what that actually entails. They don't seem to be asking themselves whether it is activity an actual terrorist would be engaged in before reporting it to the Federal Government.
If it's not something a terrorist would be doing, is it really "suspicious"?
The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit over the Federal Governments Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Program.
Two of the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit are photographers.
I'm a bit conflicted when it comes to the lawsuit. Neither of the photographers actually did anything "wrong". It was the subject matter of their photographs that brought them to the attention of the Federal Government.
The first was taking pictures of a Natural Gas Storage tank, and the second was taking pictures of oil refineries. Both are obvious targets for terrorists. The Federal Government does need to monitor these types of installations for suspicious activity.
The problem seems to stem from the lack of common sense when it comes to determining what activities are actually suspicious.
Standing on public property and taking a picture of something that is a local landmark is not suspicious activity. This includes the natural gas storage tank above due to how it was painted.
Standing in the open, on public property and taking photos at night (with a tripod) also fails the common sense test when it comes to "suspicious activity". Is a terrorist really going to go through all that trouble and stand in the open for a long period of time while taking pictures of a target?
Hello? Cell Phone? (Or telephoto lens used where the photographer can't be seen.)
This seems to be the problem with the program. The people responsible for reporting suspicious activity have no clue as to what that actually entails. They don't seem to be asking themselves whether it is activity an actual terrorist would be engaged in before reporting it to the Federal Government.
If it's not something a terrorist would be doing, is it really "suspicious"?
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
There is a Difference Between Taking Pictures and Being a Photographer
This is in response to an article on the Amateur Photographer website.
A U.K. based media chain is in the process of eliminating many of its staff photographers. There plan to rely heavily on pictures sent in by readers or taken off of Social Media sites. A huge kerfuffle arose as a result of an article that appeared in the Guardian defending the move.
The articles stated that newspapers (especially the weekly newspapers run by the media chain involved) should only employ freelance photographers. They had no need for staff photographers, and could get by largely using photographs from other sources.
The professional photography community excoriated the author.
The very idea that a news organization can rely on outside photographers is ludicrous. How are they supposed to guarantee that anyone photographs a subject if they don't send a photographer to take photos?
Not having a staff photographer forces a newspaper or media chain to rely on dumb luck when it comes to having pictures to run with a story, especially for events that are scheduled in advance. Relying on dumb luck is not a sound business model.
The idea that "everybody taking pictures" means that the professional photographers are redundant when it comes to new is also extremely demeaning to professional photographers.
There is a difference between someone that takes photos and a professional photographer.
A Professional photographer knows how to do more than simply record events as they occur.
Saying that staff photographers are redundant because everyone takes pictures is akin to saying that staff reporters are redundant because everyone can write a report.
This is ironic since the author of the article defending eliminating staff photographers happens to be a journalism professor. If the ability to write a report was all that was needed to be a reporter, the author of this idiotic article wouldn't have a job. His job relies on there being a different between writing a report and being a profession reporter.
It is telling that he fails to recognize the distinction when it comes to the other branch of journalism.
There is also a certain amount of risk involved in this move. Media outlets can only guarantee an image's copyright status when dealing with the photographer on a personal basis. Relying on images sent in from unknown individuals or taken off of social media prevents this.
Ask Getty why this matters.
A U.K. based media chain is in the process of eliminating many of its staff photographers. There plan to rely heavily on pictures sent in by readers or taken off of Social Media sites. A huge kerfuffle arose as a result of an article that appeared in the Guardian defending the move.
The articles stated that newspapers (especially the weekly newspapers run by the media chain involved) should only employ freelance photographers. They had no need for staff photographers, and could get by largely using photographs from other sources.
The professional photography community excoriated the author.
The very idea that a news organization can rely on outside photographers is ludicrous. How are they supposed to guarantee that anyone photographs a subject if they don't send a photographer to take photos?
Not having a staff photographer forces a newspaper or media chain to rely on dumb luck when it comes to having pictures to run with a story, especially for events that are scheduled in advance. Relying on dumb luck is not a sound business model.
The idea that "everybody taking pictures" means that the professional photographers are redundant when it comes to new is also extremely demeaning to professional photographers.
There is a difference between someone that takes photos and a professional photographer.
A Professional photographer knows how to do more than simply record events as they occur.
Saying that staff photographers are redundant because everyone takes pictures is akin to saying that staff reporters are redundant because everyone can write a report.
This is ironic since the author of the article defending eliminating staff photographers happens to be a journalism professor. If the ability to write a report was all that was needed to be a reporter, the author of this idiotic article wouldn't have a job. His job relies on there being a different between writing a report and being a profession reporter.
It is telling that he fails to recognize the distinction when it comes to the other branch of journalism.
There is also a certain amount of risk involved in this move. Media outlets can only guarantee an image's copyright status when dealing with the photographer on a personal basis. Relying on images sent in from unknown individuals or taken off of social media prevents this.
Ask Getty why this matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)