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

[Gabriel]

The only reason that image exists is because we invested time, money, and energy to create it. Photography is not free for the photographer, so why should it be free for the client?

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.

One magazine even promised to give us an ad space on their magazine but that never happened. Even offering a price for photos would be much better than not offering something.

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?
NOTE: I did ask is very same question on the News and Journalism section of Yahoo Answers and I never received a response. I wonder why.

[Picture Taker]

Because they can.

There are enough people who are happy to provide photos in return for a photo credit that they don't need to pay.

Standards have dropped to the point that almost any DSLR owner can produce work that is "good enough" just by using the all-auto-no-brain mode.

I speak from experience as one of the ego whores who performs services for free under many circumstances. First of all, although my journalistic photography is on a professional level (in my judgement and in the judgement of two editors I work for regularly), I earn a living doing something else. My income is sufficient to support my photo habit. I say that I shoot for free, but in reality I am usually shooting for some charity, organization, or event, that I am involved with and wish to publicize or promote. I look at it as them doing me a favor. I do occasionally take assignments for things that are close to my house or for events that I will be attending anyway.

Second of all, I accept concert gigs in exchange for a couple of comp tickets, so that's not really working for free. I get to hear someone I want to hear anyway, have the freedom as the house photographer to roam freely (and discreetly) through the venue, and often get to meet the artist. I usually only give the promoter or organization a few images, so my commitment to post-production work isn't too great.

I also provide free services to a Motorsports park in exchange for free access to any event I want to see, whether I am working the event or not. It is cool to get inside the fence for photography, so I think it's a fair exchange.

I recently was asked to cover an event on a weekend, because the staff photogs were either off or assigned elsewhere. Since I would not have otherwise gone to this event, I said I would do it for pay. I was told by the editor, "We don't have a budget to pay outside photographers." Since the paper now has a circulation of almost 30,000, I told him that he needs to re-evaluate that stance. He said that he is trying to do something about this, but not until "next year." I don't know if that means January or July, but in the meantime I will not help them solve their budget crisis. I am really the only outsider who submits regularly, so that decision will affect me as well as their local coverage.

I will continue shooting on these terms. Shen it serves ME to work for free, I will do so. Usually it is mutually beneficial. I won't take assignment from any website, magazine, or newspaper, for an event that they are simply trying to avoid paying somebody.

I also don't work privately for free. I never have. I realize that this sort of thing takes food off of a photographer's table. Obviously if I take the job, a pro doesn't get it, but I am not contributing to the culture that devalues professional services.

[Steve P]

Same with music. People seem to think that the musicians are just doing it for fun and deserve no compensation, that any music should be free for the taking anyway it can be done.

There are now simply tons of people who have no respect or understanding of any professional or artistic endeavor. Free entitlement to anything they want seems to have become what people expect now.

I suppose since every man, woman, child, zebra, elephant, mongoose, and every other living creature on the face of the Earth now has some form of camera, the respect for those who do it really well is just gone. Many people no longer even know what good photography is. As "Picture Taker" stated, many people are now happy with good enough, or even below that, and will take that for free over paying the cost of quality work.

steve

[Patagonia]

There was a time when people respected each other and were proud to pay fees to those who gave a service.
Well, those days are over for good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFHJ41ktt3Q

[Fred]

I have a similar situation to Picture Taker in that I am a UK photographer much involved with railway photography - a specialist field in many ways. My work is published in railway magazines - defined by the market as "hobby magazines" - where the budgets are low and photographers are paid but at a very low rate. In this market many photographers have turned to digital where it is easy to produce acceptable quality images for publication although those who came from a film background are noticeable by their better composition and production skills.

Allied to the magazines are preserved lines (over 300 it is reckoned) which rely to a great deal on volunteers and voluntary contributions where photographers supply material for commercial use (e.g in advertising and publicity material) in return for privileges such as access to the railway to non-public areas. This is a win-win situation in a way for those involved but it does deny a market to the professional photographer looking to earn a living.

Sadly the problem identified by the questioner is that as more and more magazines look to on-line publication they find a ready source of material from "amateurs" looking to increase their market who use the magazines as a "show case" thus not expecting a fee in cash terms.

As magazines transfer to on-line selling those left behind as print magazines will find that budgets are increasingly limited and - again - the pool of amateurs willing to supply allows them to look for free photographs.

In my humble opinion it is only such publications as newspapers where Trade Unions still have a presence that fees are paid to contributing photographers; the pool of amateur photographers willing to supply "free" images is sufficient to allow the rest to pay no fee - or expect not to.

[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.

[Tim]

They ask because so many photographers are willing to work for free.