OK, time to come back to Kansas Dorothy. For those who say credentials should be only for working media - I get it. In the world of Oz that's how things would work. In today's world, however, there is value to those credentials. And, to the people who control said credentials there is often more benefit in 'gifting' them to other people than in reserving them solely for working media. You don't have to like it. But your dislike of that won't change it. It's like rock bands giving back stage passes to groupies. Groupies have no professional reason for being back stage but they're given special privilege because the band gets benefit. Credentials have value and cost very little to the issuing agency - unlike seats in the stands. So, in this wonderful world of back scratching we live in, credentials will continue to be given out as currency for favors past or future.
And why? Because while the working pros would prefer the issuing agency and rest of world think of credentials as being solely for the working media the truth is the rest of the world (including many issuing agencies, SIDS, ADs, etc) doesn't necessarily share your opinion. Someone mentioned recruits being on the sidelines - a perfect example. They have no professional reason to be there. But the college is using a credential in a way beneficial to them. They do not care that it causes media discomfort.
So yes, I get the idea of why it upsets you. And I don't disagree with you - but your not going to change that practice. Simply because the people that issue them get benefit by giving them to others. They already have plenty of media coverage and giving credentials to others does not reduce the amount of coverage they get. So from their perspective there simply is no downside. Yep, it makes your job more difficult but what do they care? They work for the organization (school, team, whatever) not for your media outlet. And the credentials are THEIR property, not media property. So they are free to do as they please with them. Just my opinion.
Joe Zimmerman wrote:
The big flaw in this method is your portfolio is eventually going to be useless. EVERYBODY wants to shoot the big games and be on the sidelines. You see more and more people talking like this. "I'll give away my photos to the team because I want to build my portfolio". Sure you build a nice portfolio but by the time you're done and want to start earning money to pay off that 20 grand in gear they will be onto the next free shooter looking to build his portfolio. There are papers right now getting rid of their shooters and using interns who work for free for school credit. Well were are they going to work when they get out of school once all the papers use interns? There they are wanting to get a job taking photos for media organizations and they are contributing to the demise of their own future. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
I shoot high school varsity stuff and I'm making little money but I love working at this level and have no real interest in shooting college or pro stuff. I work for myself and cover what I want when I want. I wouldn't mind shooting some football during the day once and not have to deal with the Friday night lights in dungeons, but that's really the only reason I would want to shoot higher levels. But I wouldn't do it for free. I can see a slight difference in that if you can get in to shoot without having to give up anything to the event holder then I don't believe that is hurting the industry. Once the organizations start getting a whiff of the free stuff it will get harder and harder to get money for doing it. The other way is like the old saying people use (not just in photography mind you). How do you make a million in photography. Start with 10 million....Show more →
I don't see this as making my book worthless just because everyone wants to make the big shots. Of course you have to still make the shots that make you stand out.
I also do not see this as shooting for free. Sure, no money was exchanged, but that doesn't make this shooting for free. Working on your brand and building book often times requires you to work on your own time for no money. For those of us that don't have jobs at a paper, but do want to some day, still have to build book.
Now, most pro's say shoot at the pop warner level or the high school level to build book, and I do that to. They often don't have issues with you doing that level of work with out pay if you are trying to build book. Of course this is only if no other pro is there trying to make a living off that market. So I personally don't see the difference if the opportunity comes up to shoot a college football game or a pro golf match. In both cases that I outlined I was not taking away from anyone that was going to make any money. I shot the one because of connections, and the other for charity. Along the way I made excellent book photos. Win win for me at no cost to the value of the market.
Those pics in my book opened the doors to several opportunites that I am now taking advantage of.
I am currently seeking local papers etc to shoot for so I can experience other events to shoot and in turn build better book. It has always been my goal to work in some sort of media position. We just have to remember that we all had to take advantage of some opportunity to get there.
john_a_g wrote:
OK, time to come back to Kansas Dorothy. For those who say credentials should be only for working media - I get it. In the world of Oz that's how things would work. In today's world, however, there is value to those credentials. And, to the people who control said credentials there is often more benefit in 'gifting' them to other people than in reserving them solely for working media. You don't have to like it. But your dislike of that won't change it. It's like rock bands giving back stage passes to groupies. Groupies have no professional reason for being back stage but they're given special privilege because the band gets benefit. Credentials have value and cost very little to the issuing agency - unlike seats in the stands. So, in this wonderful world of back scratching we live in, credentials will continue to be given out as currency for favors past or future.
And why? Because while the working pros would prefer the issuing agency and rest of world think of credentials as being solely for the working media the truth is the rest of the world (including many issuing agencies, SIDS, ADs, etc) doesn't necessarily share your opinion. Someone mentioned recruits being on the sidelines - a perfect example. They have no professional reason to be there. But the college is using a credential in a way beneficial to them. They do not care that it causes media discomfort.
So yes, I get the idea of why it upsets you. And I don't disagree with you - but your not going to change that practice. Simply because the people that issue them get benefit by giving them to others. They already have plenty of media coverage and giving credentials to others does not reduce the amount of coverage they get. So from their perspective there simply is no downside. Yep, it makes your job more difficult but what do they care? They work for the organization (school, team, whatever) not for your media outlet. And the credentials are THEIR property, not media property. So they are free to do as they please with them. Just my opinion.
john_a_g wrote:
OK, time to come back to Kansas Dorothy. For those who say credentials should be only for working media - I get it. In the world of Oz that's how things would work. In today's world, however, there is value to those credentials. And, to the people who control said credentials there is often more benefit in 'gifting' them to other people than in reserving them solely for working media. You don't have to like it. But your dislike of that won't change it. It's like rock bands giving back stage passes to groupies. Groupies have no professional reason for being back stage but they're given special privilege because the band gets benefit. Credentials have value and cost very little to the issuing agency - unlike seats in the stands. So, in this wonderful world of back scratching we live in, credentials will continue to be given out as currency for favors past or future.
And why? Because while the working pros would prefer the issuing agency and rest of world think of credentials as being solely for the working media the truth is the rest of the world (including many issuing agencies, SIDS, ADs, etc) doesn't necessarily share your opinion. Someone mentioned recruits being on the sidelines - a perfect example. They have no professional reason to be there. But the college is using a credential in a way beneficial to them. They do not care that it causes media discomfort.
So yes, I get the idea of why it upsets you. And I don't disagree with you - but your not going to change that practice. Simply because the people that issue them get benefit by giving them to others. They already have plenty of media coverage and giving credentials to others does not reduce the amount of coverage they get. So from their perspective there simply is no downside. Yep, it makes your job more difficult but what do they care? They work for the organization (school, team, whatever) not for your media outlet. And the credentials are THEIR property, not media property. So they are free to do as they please with them. Just my opinion. ...Show more →
Well that is the most intelligent assessment of reality that I have read. Good on you John
john_a_g wrote:
Someone mentioned recruits being on the sidelines - a perfect example. They have no professional reason to be there. But the college is using a credential in a way beneficial to them. They do not care that it causes media discomfort.
I fully understand why this is done. I have no problem with an event host/school issuing sideline access to whomever they wish ... it's their event/venue, they can do whatever they deem proper ... I'll work within the limitations they set forth ....
I was referring to the sense of entitlement some seem to have when it comes to media credentials .... it's like any other requirement set for any other job ... if you don't meet the requirements ... you usually don't get to do the job ...
It boils down to this ... when I'm on the sideline ... I'm the eyes for the thousands of readers that buy the papers I am representing ... Although it is gratifying to work such events ... I'm not there to satisfy a personal accomplishment ... it's how I pay the bills, raised my kids and make it through this world ...
hleidich wrote:
I have enough skill to be competent and use the proper etiquitte so I do think there are legitiment reasons someone besides the "working media" might want access.
I understand your situation ... but my question is ... where was your local paper? Did they not cover the event for your school? ... and if not ... why did you not negotiate with them to represent them at the state tournament ... they could have acquired the credential for you ... then YOU would have been "working media" ...... keep in mind that the hosts of events like this set the requirements for credentials they issue, not those of us receiving the credentials ....
Steve Ickes wrote:
By the way, I see on your web site that you were in Hershey for PIAA wrestling. Wish I had know would've looked you up. Let me know next time you're in the Harrisburg area, we'll meet up.
Yeah, I was down again Saturday for the PIAA AAA Individual tournament ... very long day ... semi-finals at 8 a.m. and championship finals at 8 p.m. ... chilled out at a friends house in Mechanicsburg and watched the AA finals on tv during the break ... had I known that was your neighborhood ... I would have given you a call ....
RCGuy wrote:
Are you also dismayed when the pro-photographer gains credentials for his/her own "self-fulfilling" need? (that being the self fulfilling need to make a buck)
No I'm not dismayed that a pro-photographer gains credentials to do a job they are paid to do. Beyond hopefully enjoying their job, pro photographers are actually WORKING on behalf of someone else. Are you seriously comparing a pro photographer with a credential working for a client with a hobbyists who is shooting pictures purely for fun?
There is a difference between a self-fulfilling need to do your job vs. a self-fulfilling need to stroke ones own ego. You REALLY don't get it do you?
This is the second time I've read this comment by you and honestly and respectfully it makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
Steve Ickes wrote:
No I'm not dismayed that a pro-photographer gains credentials to do a job they are paid to do. Beyond hopefully enjoying their job, pro photographers are actually WORKING on behalf of someone else. Are you seriously comparing a pro photographer with a credential working for a client with a hobbyists who is shooting pictures purely for fun?
There is a difference between a self-fulfilling need to do your job vs. a self-fulfilling need to stroke ones own ego.
Interesting point. Let me ask you this Steve? Do you know of any instance where a sports shooter from another area was 'in town' and a friend arranged for a credential too shoot a local sports team? They're not on assignment on that particular night. Does that ever happen in your neck of the woods? Is such a thing OK because they're professionals but not on that particular day/night?
Or has any shooter here lobbied their editor for an assignment simply because they wanted to shoot it? A couple years back I sold my editor on doing a story on a local teacher in an MMA event simply because I wanted to shoot the event. Is that crossing the line? Or is it OK because my work was published in a newspaper?
Just trying to get an idea of where the 'line' is? And whether or not a media shooter can cross such a line or if they cannot cross it because they are media.
I think this is an interesting subject, and I appreciate your thread and your posts. But I'd be curious what your interpretation is of these 2 scenarios.
Jon Uhler wrote:
I am currently seeking local papers etc to shoot for so I can experience other events to shoot and in turn build better book. It has always been my goal to work in some sort of media position. We just have to remember that we all had to take advantage of some opportunity to get there.
Jon
I guess this is more along the lines of what I expected to see from photographers wanting credentials. Your goal is to "work in some sort of media position". I'm surprised at the number of people stating that they simply want access for fun.
Honestly, this isn't a who deserves what kind of debate although I see it descending into that. I probably even got sucked into that debate myself. I really didn't pose the original question in order to judge or hang anyone out to dry.
Personally, I realize that credentials are distributed at the discretion of the organizer. I also know that sideline passes are often used as gifts and rewards. I had a friend who won a radio contest that provided him and a guest with sideline access to an NFL game.
I do tend to forget that just because we're "sports photographers" here in the FM forums that everyone's motivation is not necessarily the same and as such really cannot fault an amateur photographer for WANTING the experience of sideline shooting.
I also have to applaud those individuals who unselfishly shoot for the respective high schools and colleges. We may not like you trading files for access but let's be truthful: the vast majority of high schools and smaller colleges are not deemed newsworthy and therefore never typically get photo coverage. Many of you are putting in a lot of your own time in order to provide a service to the schools. Granted, we as professionals believe that any photographer should be getting compensated for their time, that's just not always going to be the case. I do have to wonder though whatever happened to the student photographers that used to shoot all the yearbook stuff?
john_a_g wrote:
Or has any shooter here lobbied their editor for an assignment simply because they wanted to shoot it? A couple years back I sold my editor on doing a story on a local teacher in an MMA event simply because I wanted to shoot the event. Is that crossing the line? Or is it OK because my work was published in a newspaper?
Sure ... happens everyday in every newsroom in the country ... writers and photographers lobby with their editors and publishers for the best assignments all the time ... however ... I think you may be confusing the issue ... it is the DUTY of a journalist to cover events and issues that are important to their readers/viewers ... if in the course of your duties you get to work an assignment you appreciate or enjoy, should not be construed as "crossing a line."
There is nothing wrong with enjoying your job ... but your personal enjoyment of the assignment at hand should not be the foremost reason for working the assignment ... or the prime reason you should be granted access to an event ....
john_a_g wrote:
Interesting point. Let me ask you this Steve? Do you know of any instance where a sports shooter from another area was 'in town' and a friend arranged for a credential too shoot a local sports team? They're not on assignment on that particular night. Does that ever happen in your neck of the woods? Is such a thing OK because they're professionals but not on that particular day/night?
Honestly, I don't know if this happens in my "neck of the woods" or not. Although it may happen I've never done it so I really can't speak to that specific example. I have had non-photographers ask me if I can get them on the sidelines. I simply tell them that my credentials are requested by the media organization I'm working for so have no control over it.
Or has any shooter here lobbied their editor for an assignment simply because they wanted to shoot it? A couple years back I sold my editor on doing a story on a local teacher in an MMA event simply because I wanted to shoot the event. Is that crossing the line? Or is it OK because my work was published in a newspaper?
You might be pitching the assignment for selfish reasons but inevitably you're still working for your employer. You wanted to shoot it but ultimately they decided it was a good piece for the paper. Have you ever just approached your editor and said "Hey I know you're not running a story on it but Ineed you to get me a credential for this event because I've never shot it before and I think it might be fun."?
Just trying to get an idea of where the 'line' is? And whether or not a media shooter can cross such a line or if they cannot cross it because they are media.
I think this is an interesting subject, and I appreciate your thread and your posts. But I'd be curious what your interpretation is of these 2 scenarios.
It can be a fine line for media, no doubt. Do media ever cross the line? Does a working photographer ever take advantage of their position for self-fulfilling reasons? Probably but I think anyone in any job seeks to use their position from time to time for their own personal gain.
In addition to the question about getting credentials for a visiting sports photographer (who is not on assignment) I would ask what is your opinion of the Sportsshooter Academy? The people accepted are shooting NCAA Div I sports. Those normally require credentials to shoot. Participants are shooting for their own benefit not on assignment. So, should that practice be abolished? Or is it OK for the Academy to take participants to these events and use credentials this way? Again, I'm still trying to find where the "line" is for a valid use of a credential and an invalid use.
john_a_g wrote:
Do you know of any instance where a sports shooter from another area was 'in town' and a friend arranged for a credential too shoot a local sports team? They're not on assignment on that particular night. Does that ever happen in your neck of the woods? Is such a thing OK because they're professionals but not on that particular day/night?
If your question is ... do working pros ever receive a credential they don't need or particularly deserve for a specific event .. sure do ... there are abuses in every line of work .... is this evidence that anyone requesting a credential should automatically receive one ... or that a double standard equates to proof the system is flawed ... nope ....
john_a_g wrote:
Another scenario to Butch and others:
In addition to the question about getting credentials for a visiting sports photographer (who is not on assignment) I would ask what is your opinion of the Sportsshooter Academy? The people accepted are shooting NCAA Div I sports. Those normally require credentials to shoot. Participants are shooting for their own benefit not on assignment. So, should that practice be abolished? Or is it OK for the Academy to take participants to these events and use credentials this way? Again, I'm still trying to find where the "line" is for a valid use of a credential and an invalid use....Show more →
I really don't see this as a valid comparison. Sportsshooter Academy is a workshop held for professional photographers by professional photographers. It's professional development for existing and aspiring photojournalists and sports photographers. There is an application and acceptance process. This is in contrast to handing out a credential to someone who just wants to have fun and show some pictures to their friends.
Steve Ickes wrote:
I really don't see this as a valid comparison. Sportsshooter Academy is a workshop held for professional photographers by professional photographers. It's professional development for existing and aspiring photojournalists and sports photographers. There is an application and acceptance process. This is in contrast to handing out a credential to someone who just wants to have fun and show some pictures to their friends.
So, is it the application/acceptance process that makes it OK?
Or is it the fact that they're aspiring photojournalists?
If it's OK that it's aspiring photojournalists who (according to the academy website) "... want to expand their experiences, add to their portfolios...." why isn't it OK for aspiring photojournalists to get credentials another way who also want to "...expand their experiences, add to their portfolios..."?
What is it that makes it OK for one person who is not doing the shooting in a professional capacity to get a credential but it's not OK in another. If the motives of the shooter are the same (gain experience, expand portfolio) is it OK then?
Or, is it valid for any learning based photography program to gain credentials for students in their class?
The 'line' is getting fuzzy for me again.
Skyvan posted some quotes from credentials arguing that credentials should only be used for people on assignment:
EXACTLY! It's for the working media, in fact it even says so on the back of the credentials
from a Dodgertown Classic Credential:
"...using a credential represents that such Bearer is acting on a specific assignment for a newspaper, or for a press, news or photographic service."
from a UCLA basketball credential
"This working credential is issued as a courtesy to an accredited agency for the sole purpose of providing stadium venue access to an individual who has a legitimate working function in connection with the event."
So are we now saying credentials should be for:
those on assignment
those who are working pros not on assignment but want to expand their experience
students who want to learn
or just students who want to learn and are accepted into the sportsshoter academy
or students who want to learn and are accepted into some other program being held by a professional?
Again, an interesting discussion and I look forward to seeing how we define who a credential can be given to and for what purpose it can be used.
john_a_g wrote:
Another scenario to Butch and others:
In addition to the question about getting credentials for a visiting sports photographer (who is not on assignment) I would ask what is your opinion of the Sportsshooter Academy? The people accepted are shooting NCAA Div I sports. Those normally require credentials to shoot. Participants are shooting for their own benefit not on assignment. So, should that practice be abolished? Or is it OK for the Academy to take participants to these events and use credentials this way? Again, I'm still trying to find where the "line" is for a valid use of a credential and an invalid use....Show more →
Your images can & are used by the big 10 schools online. So technicaly as a student at SSA, you are working media as well.
Rick Denham wrote:
Your images can & are used by the big 10 schools online. So technicaly as a student at SSA, you are working media as well.
Good to know. if you're a student are you being paid by the Big 10 for the usage of the images? Or are you turning over rights to the images in exchange for the credential?
