Why do most editors ask for photos for free from photographers?

[Eric Lefebvre]

"Why do most editors ask for photos for free from photographers?"

Because people are stupid enough to give them pictures for free. They con the gullible masses with the promise of exposure and tear sheets and the hint of potential work down the road but that never materialisez ... why would they pay when they can just move to th enext idiot who doesn;t know any better? It helps keep their costs low.

The situation is getting worse and worse. a little while back (a little over a year ago) CNN FIRED 50 editors and photographres because THE PUBLIC WAS GIVING THEM IMAGES FOR FREE.

source: http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/11/cnn...ur-content

Here is a quote from CNN Senior VP Jack Womack"
"We looked at the impact of user-generated content and social media, CNN iReporters and of course our affiliate contributions in breaking news. Consumer and pro-sumer technologies are simpler and more accessible. Small cameras are now high broadcast quality."

"I, and my team of photographers receive requests on a regular basis from newspapers, magazines, and other media outlets to use our photos, with no intention of compensation; just "credit" and "exposure". Unfortunately, neither of these pay our bills and business expenses."

Credit and "exposure" means squat! Ask joe average on the street to name the name of just ONE photographer who's work was credited in the newspaper in the last MONTH and you'll just get a blank stare (unless they KNOW the photographer personally).

To quote Harllan Ellison:
"They want everything for nothing. They wouldn't go for 5 seconds without being paid and they'll bitch about how much they are getting paid and want more."

source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

If you haven't seen this video, it's a must see for anyone in a client/vendor situation ... especially for anyone who's just starting.

Another video worth seeing is "Scofield – 'Vendor Client Relationships'"
http://www.scofieldedit.com/content/proj...ationships

It's an awesome parody of the lcient/vendor relationship but in day to day activities like a couple trying to remove line items from a restaurant bill or a woman telling a hair dresser that she'll get a trim and highlights but can only pay for the trim and they should roll over the cost to the next time.

These situations are RIDICULOUS in every day commercial interactions but they are apparently the norm in business ... it makes no sense.

"One magazine even promised to give us an ad space on their magazine but that never happened."

If it's not on paper, it never hapenned ... ALWAYS get it in writting.

"I, and many in the photography business, find this to be a very appalling and unprofessional practice. Why do most editors think photography is of free or minimal cost to them?"

It IS free for them ... after all, people are stupid enough to give away their work for free right? As long as that happens then they'll keep expecting it. Unfortunatly there are too many fucking idiots that don't understand that they need to be paid anytime they do something.

Good photography isn't as appreciated now as it was once upon a time ... we've become a society that no longer strives towards excellence but towards mediocraty. A society where good enough is the ultimate goal.

What worries me is CNN relaince on publicly provided photos ... where is the journalistic training? Where is the impartiality (oh right ... it's CNN, I forgot)? Where is the profesional ethics? How can you insure that the images or reports aren't biased based on the senders own personal agenda?

Then again, it is CNN after all.