Newspaper Recognition-Photo/Photographer

[Fred L]

From where I sit and have seen, virtually all the moonlighters are not working for wages that could support them and their families. They choose to do this BECAUSE they have a steady job with benefits and decent earnings. One does not have to work for slave wages, it's a choice. If they had to survive on what they're getting paid, they would starve.

I agree re: starting out but you need to have respect for the profession and the photographers before and after you and not bring wages down by working for peanuts and free is indeed a four letter word in this case. No one except the companies win in this case.

[Kodachrome25]

For the record, the following statement is not directed at the OP, I am not within my right to make the judgement call, don't know the guy but sure as heck know the paper biz after a 23 year career as a photographer...

I suppose one of the main draws for enthusiasts pining for credit lines is that they feel like it validates their otherwise mediocre work, and back when a credit line meant something it very well could have. But now all it means is a floodgate for free, that you are the go-to person for that so-so 2 column page 6 photo that is free..."oh, him, yeah, just give him a credit line, he likes those".

And there is another nutshell to be cracked, if one moonlights, and I never have, when does the not at all talented photographer who hopes they will strike it rich get the message that they should probably move on to something else instead of fooling them selves?

This whole moonlighting and give away for a credit thing clogs the perceptive lanes on the news desk for some truly talented people and erodes the value of a photograph that is actually worth something while telling the hack that they ought to seek out even more venues so they can parade around their name under their craptastic work.

It brings it all down, we the public lose on the narrative that it takes more than a full time position to achieve but a full life to. We have lost the "Robert Franks" and other deeply penetrating life time image makers to this that is the bar being dropped into the gutter...

One day, people will care and they will ask, because Instagram, blogs and reams of "Show your street photos" a body of meaningful work does not make.

[Fred L]

I don't believe you or anyone else (myself included) is taking shots at the OP. It's just a state of where our industry is headed and some reasons why things are the way they are. If it gives people second thoughts, good. Of course some won't care and will keep on keeping on and things will continue going down the toilet.

I've seen some very good/excellent friends/photographers lose a good chunk of their income due to moonlighters so I take a very dim view of those who work for peanuts.

To the OP, I hope things work out but if no credit is forthcoming, move on. They need you more than you need them.

[StoneNYC]

They don't call them moonlighters anymore, they call them Instagram-ers...

The best example is this image (pardon the small format digital but it's part of the discussion)

It's honestly an iconic image, the "photographer" was a guy on Instagram with his cell phone. Looking at his Instagram (IG) it seems that he does have an eye and gets it right about once every 20 images or so. But my point is, he was given credit, because everything is digital now, I don't mean the photo, I mean the credit, no one cares about a NAME anymore, it's all about a link to your "feed" account, so it was easy for the reporters to credit him because they simply added the link. The idea of adding names as a credit is going away, and in the new world, if you aren't digitslized, you don't exist...

Anyway iconic image (and yes I think it's worthy of being called iconic) and the article (one of many) follows the image.

Hurricane over Manhattan



Article: http://petapixel.com/2012/07/18/incr...new-york-city/

"Photo-Credit" http://instagram.com/p/NOuYQYgpx4

As my step dad would say, "even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while..."

[jp]

Newspapers generally don't want top notch photographers/photos. I think most small newspapers, good photography they wouldn't know if it hit them on the head. They send out reporters with a P&S and something is better than nothing. Get the English done right and the ads right, and all is well in news. Good photography has gone the way of fact checking, it happens once in a while but isn't consistent. Photos on news website and in print are small. It's easier to shrink a photo to get the text to flow right than to condense a story. Editors and layout people aren't generally photographers. See how many different headlines and photos can fit on the front page turn to page B17 to read more. If it's in your hometown, you can get nicer photos that your friend's friends took and put on facebook. It's a shrinking business and there's no easy way to regrow the top line; selling papers to photo snobs won't do it. Cutting costs keeps them in business.

[StoneNYC]

There is one easy way to beat these guys at their own game. Make sure images are registered formally for Copyright protection. Signed delivery with the paper with terms and conditions specifying copyright notice and credit line. If they are used without it - file in Federal Court for copyright infringement. Pretty much an easy one and statutory damages for unauthorized use makes it pay. You won't get any more photos in that paper tho.

Where we live Ogden newspapers of North Dakota owns the local papers and they are so cheap they don't even squeak - in case some folks think the noise is a benefit. They tried using an image without a credit line and ended up paying full freight. First 'we never pay' - then the local editor informed corporate HQ they did, indeed - pay for my images for one time use and 10X the normal rate at a minimum. Then how about you lower the rate and we only pay what we want - so I responded with a nice note saying I would go Federal Court for Copyright infringement - and had a check for the full amount delivered by courier within 24 hours.

It can be done but if you don't treat this as a business you get shafted. Some newspapers are worse than Getty Images. Laying off Pulitzer Prize winning photographers in favor of handing point and shoot cameras to writers to 'get art' to fill holes. They don't think readers see the difference and keep wondering why subscriptions decline.

Go after the paper but don't be surprised when they won't use anything from you.

The problem is the old ways are "too slow" by the time you submit all of that paperwork etc, they've moved on, they want it NOW it's always been that way for news but now it's even more immediate and the deliver methods don't have a good option for many working professionals. You basically need to be a Paperazzi to make money selling "news" photos now...

[StoneNYC]

Big question is a simple one. How much was he PAID for licensing the use of his image? No bank I know accepts credit line or tear sheets for house payments or equipment finance loans.

The OP asked about CREDIT but only the other posters are talking money...

I'm just focused on the OP's concern.

Although I wholeheartedly agree, I would prefer money over a line credit, at the end of the day it would be nice to have one... After 7 years of acting, my IMDb is scarce of anything credited (even when producers told me I was) so, it at least makes you FEEL better. Even if it's a false feeling, there's PROOF of your own work... And that can be somewhat comforting when you're living in your cardboard box in the alley... :/

[Kodachrome25]

The idea of adding names as a credit is going away, and in the new world, if you aren't digitslized, you don't exist...

Yeeeah, kind of...

By and large, I and several others I know are not exactly "digitized" and do very much exist, do well. Being digitized is not a sure fire way to success, being the real deal visually speaking and making the right connections with a lot of hard work will likely lead it to it though. What many fail to realize is that if you follow current trends, you are already behind. You have to be ahead of that curve and also do it in a way that really shows you don't give a crap what others think, you are being true to your self. But above all else, you have to be earth shatteringly good, so I suppose that is the really good thing to come of this, the weak will die off, mediocrity is truly a path to starvation.

But the Insta-hype....there is really no way of monetizing this as the creator of the work and in order to find the credible work as the consumer, it is like finding a .10 carat diamond in the Sahara, a flood of WTF awaits you. I think a lot of photo enthusiasts underestimate how utterly off putting the flood of images is to the average consumer, non-photographer. And from a journalistic standpoint, a lot of this stuff is double and triple dipped in "Special Sauce" filtration or worse, it's true origin and intent is lost in translation, because the translation it self is designed solely as eye candy for those precious hits.

Last year, I asked the owner of the Atlantic what he thought would keep truly brilliant visual narrative afloat, the long term in depth reporting stuff. He said private grants and funding, almost nothing else. So we now live in an age where the next set of lifetime story tellers will only be able to keep on by getting grants. It's tough out there, but in some ways that is good, because I only want to see the best work and I only want to see it in places that have gained my respect.

[Darin Boville]

To be frank, I don't find most professional photojournalism to be worth much. I can't see how most of what I see either adds any real value in addition to the text or helps to sell more papers than an amateur photo. I'm not talking New York Times stuff here, just the usual small town paper stuff.

I suspect before digital papers hired people to be "photojournalists" for the simple reason that photography was 1) hard to do reliably, and 2) hard to find photographs shot by anyone other than the guy you hired. That's it. No issue of quality or whatever. Most editors (and most readers) and perfectly happy with a simple, obvious illustration of the text. Article about a parade? Parade shot. Article about business owner. Portrait of business owner at business. Simple template stuff, spiced up with goofy wide angles or low perspective.

If a photo is 1) not hard to get reliably and 2) easy to find free ones (and #2 mitigates any weakness in #1) then why bother with a staffer?

There are exceptions, including the new photographer at my own local paper (seems from the work to be a Strobist kind of guy, most welcome) but I travel a bit and see lots of small town papers. Usually nothing a high school kid couldn't do just as well.

To a large degree the demise of professional photojournalism is the fault of photojournalism itself. (and it will, of course, just get worse.)

--Darin

[Kodachrome25]

The OP asked about CREDIT but only the other posters are talking money...

I'm just focused on the OP's concern.

Although I wholeheartedly agree, I would prefer money over a line credit, at the end of the day it would be nice to have one... After 7 years of acting, my IMDb is scarce of anything credited (even when producers told me I was) so, it at least makes you FEEL better. Even if it's a false feeling, there's PROOF of your own work... And that can be somewhat comforting when you're living in your cardboard box in the alley... :/

As was I.

I have exchanged some PM's with the OP this morning, polite and respectful of each other but told him what I am going to tell you.

It costs money to print a paper, the ad revenue of papers like the one the OP submits to and the one I worked for is so great, that the paper is still free to the reader, in 2014. So back before amateurs were tripping over each other for a precious photo credit, the fact that the paper bothered to spend the money printing your photo meant something, it meant that you could very well be paid if you had negotiated it and in my case as a teen in the mid 80's, I *did* negotiate a fee of $15-$25 for "Enterprise Art".

You could take that tear sheet with your credit line and use it to get paid work, for a lot of non-graduates, that was a very real option for breaking in. The reason for this is that editors, art directors and art buyers took it seriously, someone spent money printing your photo, YOU were chosen....

Now they do not and if anything, it often works against you because anyone in the world of photography knows the true meaning of a credit line in 2014, it's a placard under your copy of the photo that makes you feel good in that nostalgic way back when it actually meant something, no one else cares, everyone assumes you gave it away and that says a lot about you to them.