I was a full time PJ for 24 years, over 30 years total counting my freelance experience. I never feel "threatened" by anyone with a camera. I am accustomed to always having a few to several dozen other shooters on hand at events.

I do a lot of event photography and even when I am the "official photographer" I NEVER worry about who else is shooting with whatever equipment as long as they do not interfere with me doing my job. I do my job and let the chips fall where they may. Protectionist attitudes certainly have no place in a free market system, IMHO.

If your work is good enough, it will take care of itself. I don't take jobs where I have to pay a fee or a mandatory donation in order to secure the work. I will support the organizations by placing ads in the programs or pay to display a banner at the venue for the season though. You should give back because it is the right thing to do, not a entry fee to secure a job.

Worrying about some GWC shooting from the sidelines is just a waste of valuable time. In this life you only have so much time, better to enjoy it making great captures instead of worrying about what everyone else is doing.

The other side of this is that the "other photographer" doesn't have the permission to openly advertise their services. When is the last time you ever heard an announcer say "We have an official photographer here but you can also get photos from some other guy walking around with a camera"? It doesn't happen. As the "official" photographer you get to take advantage of being able to post advertising anywhere and everywhere within the venue, in the registration packets given to participants, maybe your logo even goes on the event posters and flyers. You also get the benefits of announcers reminding people where they can find you, every few minutes. You get to have a booth on-site selling images on the spot while the emotions are still running high. You get the visibility of having the booth along with the impulse sales which is where 90% of the sales are going to happen anyway.
You get access to areas the other guy does not which means you get to shoot images he can not.

What's the "other guy" got going for him? His only way of advertising himself is one by one. He can't sell anything while he's there. How are people going to order photos from his website if he can't even advertise it so they know how to find him. Not to mention if it takes a week or two after an event to get the photos posted, the participants have already forgotten about it and his sales will be slim even if they do find his website.

It seems like the effort to grab just a few more sales is better spent at the event itself when you already have a captive audience and people are already in a spending mood.

OK after visiting the OP's website and the photos, I can see why the OP felt threatened. I think OP needs to really up the image qualities. Someone mentioned that just because you are there as an "official photographer" doesn't mean you will deliver the goods. If I am looking for pay for photos be it dogs, horse, kids etc. you better be damn sure I want choices!
So if you are good, don't feel threatened as your deliverables will show. If you are not, then being a cry baby and asking for "protection" is just a band-aid solution.

Ghost wrote:
OK after visiting the OP's website and the photos, I can see why the OP felt threatened. I think OP needs to really up the image qualities. Someone mentioned that just because you are there as an "official photographer" doesn't mean you will deliver the goods. If I am looking for pay for photos be it dogs, horse, kids etc. you better be damn sure I want choices!
So if you are good, don't feel threatened as your deliverables will show. If you are not, then being a cry baby and asking for "protection" is just a band-aid solution.


While I do agree with you that quality will eventually win the day, I don't agree with your cry baby comment. If I am the only recognized official photographer, that is how I expect it to be. There is a real reason that the average guy can't walk into an NFL game, take pictures, and sell them. The owners of the event are protecting both their interests and the interests of the photographer with whom they have a contract.

Every sale that the other guy makes is one that I don't make. And if he is selling $0.19 cent Wal-Mart 4x6 for $1, he is going to get sales even if he is selling crappy pictures.

Just to throw this in the mix - then I'll run like hell for the flameproof barrier!
Not so long ago the only people taking pics at youth sports events were - the parents. Then some opportunistic souls realized that since they were on the cutting edge of the digital revolution - hey - I can sell pictures at these events and the instant gratification will surely sell. And it did. Pretty soon the clubs realize - hey - this guy is making money off the kids - where's our slice? Then they decide that they can dictate who gets to take pictures and what their slice of the pie is. So now the club has a "franchise" the shooter has a "locked in" club and their all making money off the kids playing some sports. The club is happy - they get $$$ from the shooters, the shooter figures he will bump his price to account for the club fees and the parents - well - they ain't so happy with $10 4x6's and $20 8x10's and $75 packages for the "team pictures" that the club tries to tell you supports the club and benefits the kids. And - guess what? Now mom & dad can afford some of these pro quality cameras and they remember or rediscover how much fun it is and figure - hey - I'll take pictures of my kid at the games.... and here's where this story takes off.
The moral of the story is - maybe this business model has run the course...
Regards,
Jon

BubbaJon: I'm don't think that the business model has run it's course. I just don't think shooting youth action shots was ever much of a business model unto itself in the first place (unless your doing crazy huge events like Hammy). For me shooting action shots is only one component of a larger business plan. Not many of us are going to make a living off of $6-$10 4x6 photos after all.

Yes, tournament organizers should enforce the conditions of a signed contract. But realistically, it's kind of hard to expect an organization that is running a two day, 300+ team soccer tournament to run around telling people to stop taking photos. Maybe many of you will expect that, personally I don't. As a result if I'm busy running around preoccupied with everyone who has a camera and trying to determine which of those might be selling or giving images away, then I'm not doing what I was contracted to do. I've shot many high school and college football games including various tournaments. There are typically any number of newspaper shooters, team booster members, and one or two other event photographers on hand along the same sidelines as me. As a result maybe I'm just used to competition but frankly other than to know who is who, I rarely concern myself with what they are doing or feel threatened. I just go into these events knowing what I have to do and working my ass off to deliver the best that I can.

Seriously, as professionals we must take our heads out of the sand and stop this attitude of protectionism. More effort should be spent on building better relationships with parents, coaches, and board members. Bottom line is that digital technology has forever changed the face of photography and we can either continue to try and hold back the flood waters or simply ride the wave. And just for the record, just because you may be taking the most colorful, compositionally perfect images at the peak of action is no guarantee that you will sell those images. As has been previously discussed there really no predicting what parents will buy.

Anyway, my biggest gripe about this was the fact that I paid my entry fee to get in, was NEVER on the field, and their was NO signage that warned or prohibited anyone from shooting pictures or video.

I think there should ALWAYS have to be signage....

I was once escorted from a movie theater by police because I bought a bag from ritz camera into a movie theater (mall is attached to the theater and leaving it in a car was not an option). No employees said anything to me, no nothing...just halfway through a movie I was escorted out. I sure didnt see a sign saying "No bags from ritz camera" let alone "no cameras, cell phone cams, videocameras" etc.

and no, I was not filming a movie as I bought a 5D with no lens.

cpurves wrote:Question to Rocketball. If another parent sitting beside you asked you to shoot his daughter and he would pay you for the prints, what would you do?

My answer is, it depends.

If there was an official photographer present, it would still depend.

Many of the companies I've seen sell garbage and charge a small fortune for it, so in that senario, I would probably fill the parents request.

One the other hand, if the company was selling good images at reasonable prices, I would not. When I first started I probably would have, but not now.

I understand the "you have a day job that pays the bills". But in the end, IMO, the buyer wants the picture and really isn't interested in knowing that you have insurance, a good workflow, a marketing plan, etc. It's all a very important part of the business, and I'm trying to discount the necessity for it at all, but I really don't think those thoughts don't go thru the buyers mind.

Rocketball wrote:
cpurves wrote:Question to Rocketball. If another parent sitting beside you asked you to shoot his daughter and he would pay you for the prints, what would you do?

My answer is, it depends.

If there was an official photographer present, it would still depend.

Many of the companies I've seen sell garbage and charge a small fortune for it, so in that senario, I would probably fill the parents request.

One the other hand, if the company was selling good images at reasonable prices, I would not. When I first started I probably would have, but not now.

I understand the "you have a day job that pays the bills". But in the end, IMO, the buyer wants the picture and really isn't interested in knowing that you have insurance, a good workflow, a marketing plan, etc. It's all a very important part of the business, and I'm trying to discount the necessity for it at all, but I really don't think those thoughts don't go thru the buyers mind.

Whether or not another photographer's work is garbage or good is subjective. Just check out all the photos posted here for critique. So if you deem his/her work not worthy, you'll shoot and sell the images. But if you determine they're good enough then you'll decline? Wow! First of all how could you possibly judge the quality of the official photographers images? Are you going to go ask to see a few previews on his/her lcd? Not to be insulting BUT do you realize how pompous your statement sounds? What if the shoe was on the other foot. Now you're the official photographer. You think your stuff is great and that you're working hard to get great shots. But suddenly you see a 300mm f2.8 emerge from the crowd of spectators. There's another pro out there and he has decided that the images you sell are crap. He wants the parents to get a better product at a better price, at least that's his opinion. You can't have it both ways. As a photographer, you either respect the fact that someone else has a signed contract or you don't but you cannot have it both ways.

Rocketball wrote:


Many of the companies I've seen sell garbage and charge a small fortune for it, so in that senario, I would probably fill the parents request.



So you would bring your own hotdogs to an event and sell them to others if the hot dogs there were no good according to you.

So Rocketball (Scott) Don't take this message to be aimed specifically at you. This little rant is for all of the "I can shoot anywhere" crowd. ----

I checked your website - you already shoot at events and try to sell them. If you want to do this all the more power to you. BUT - Do it properly, approach the organizers, make your presentation, and quote the job.
The OP was concerned about someone sneaking in and stealing her business. Yes a lot of people with "good equipment" are there for themselves, but in the scenario you described you were there to take photos of everything and try to sell them. It looks like you mislead even us, your peers, about the scenario.

Both of the people I had trouble with this year were sneaky in that they professed to be taking photos for themselves. One for a rag that is only a photo selling site. No proper media organization comes to an event and takes over 400 photos. I did not have a written contract on that one and the organizers were afraid to say anything to him because he was a "press photographer"

The other one was like you - "I am just here to shoot for my friend." It became obvious after an hour that she had a lot of friends some of who needed a card to remember who she was. That show organizer values us as their "official photographer" and asked her to stop. From looking at your site you are the same as them. Yes you paid to get in and you think you have a right to do it. I paid to get in as well, a hellva lot more than you paid. I made my presentation to the club, I showed them I can provide the whole service that they need. I am a business and will be there for the long run. That is why I am protective of my business. I agree with Hammy and the others that our work should shine through and it does, but if I let one in as an interloper then more will come. So if you want to come to a show I am at - pay the vendor fee, advertise at the show. Print flyers to go to all the competitors. Have proper insurance and licenses and let's go head to head.

Please, please shoot on a level playing field. You might actually be devaluing your own work by using these sneaky tactics.

Again Scott, I am not going after you specifically but you are in a group that is affecting our business with your hobby and at times it hits a big nerve with us.

This is a good thread with all points of view being presented. This is my side of the story.

Cheers
Chris
www.photos.now.ca

It's business guys... You can spend all of your time whining and complaining about other people gathering images from your contracted forum, or you can accept that as many have mentioned, the business proposition of photography is changing. Yes, you may have a legal standpoint to assert your preferences, but these are likely to sit in direct contrast with the interests of those in the stands who like to take pictures, and have a relative or friend in the event.

The losses incurred from another shooter at your event are probably not that significant. As others have mentioned, their lack of marketing, and materials to guide would-be buyers to the cache of images just doesn't exist. So why do many pro shooters get all fired up when some hobbiest shows up with a pro body and white glass?

It's Darwinism at work... you have to adapt. I believe that it is impossible to hold back the tide of recreational shooters at any given event. And yes, you will likely loose a small percentage of sales as a result of his/her presence. But by raising a stink, and insisting that they be removed from the forum, you risk violating the very customer base who ultimately support your work. Is a few lost photo packages or 8x10's worth this risk?

We can't hide behind the skirt of entitlement any longer. The photography business is different today. Competitive elements exist as never before. The goal is to craft a package that creates a niche... and this "niche" must consider the impact of recreational shooters on the sidelines. It's just part of the business these days.

This thread has morphed from an episode at a dog event into most everything else; especially soccer. Bringing it back to the original venue:

Many (if not all events) held under American Kennel Club rules and regulations have a restriction on photography printed in the documentation for the event (premium list, judging program, and/or catalog).

In the northeast at least, the show-holding club does not get a percentage of the photographer's sales. Nor did the AKC at its recently-held Invitationals (at least one of those photographers was actually paid by the AKC for covering the NOI). Some photographers take out an ad or make a donation to the club and most photographers give the club a set of the most significant photographs.

Chris,

I'm not sure how you can assume I was misleading anyone by what you see on my website. Just because there are a lot of images from many different teams doesn't mean I was there shooting everything, and selling behind a "pros" back. With exception of the college and pro sports images, everything diplayed on my website was shot with permission and is legit.

I do shoot a lot of events, but I think I do it correctly, with permission, agreements, and even as fund raisers for organizations, and do not shoot when another "pro" is present that's trying to earn a living.

As a matter of fact, the event I was referring too in my original post was from 2005, and those images aren't even on my web site.

Anyway, I understand you were not necessarily focusing your statment totally at me, but you did make assumptions of me that are not factual or correct.

I agree with much of what has been posted. My original intent was to bring another point of view to the dicussion that does not get heard very often.

Call me a hobbist if you wish, but I do respect what you guys (and gals) do, even envy it often. I am not so nieve to think there aren't people out there that will cut your legs out from under you for a few dollars, but that's not me. I can promise you that. One day in the near future I hope to make my living doing this, and I know first hand how small is world really is. I learned at a very early age not to burn any bridges, and I'm not going to start now.

Scott

Rocketball wrote:
With exception of the college and pro sports images, everything diplayed on my website was shot with permission and is legit.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you have the legal right to sell college or pro sports photos. Sales of college photos may impact eligibility, while sales of pro photos are in direct violation of the rules you agreed to when you went to the game (read the back of your ticket). Every sale of a photo of an image of a pro athlete is restricted by the player's union, their agent, their team, and the league.

If a college represented in your shots were to find out, that would be bad.

If a pro team represented found out, that might be very bad. At the minimum a C&D letter, at the most an audit of your sales and charges filed.

John

John Patrick wrote:
...Every sale of a photo of an image of a pro athlete is restricted by the player's union, their agent, their team, and the league.
...
If a pro team represented found out, that might be very bad. At the minimum a C&D letter, at the most an audit of your sales and charges filed.

Would you mind explaining what charges could be filed after the event is over.

John Patrick wrote:
Rocketball wrote:
With exception of the college and pro sports images, everything diplayed on my website was shot with permission and is legit.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you have the legal right to sell college or pro sports photos. Sales of college photos may impact eligibility, while sales of pro photos are in direct violation of the rules you agreed to when you went to the game (read the back of your ticket). Every sale of a photo of an image of a pro athlete is restricted by the player's union, their agent, their team, and the league.

If a college represented in your shots were to find out, that would be bad.

If a pro team represented found out, that might be very bad. At the minimum a C&D letter, at the most an audit of your sales and charges filed.

John


These same rules apply to photo press credentials as well. Photojournalists covering a pro (and most prominant Div I college sporting events) are aloowed to use the images for strictly editorial use. You are not allowed to use it for any commercial use whatsoever including promoting your own skills or business unless you have expressed written consent from all the entities involved. I once had a stringer at the paper I worked at who shot a D1 football game and used the images in a promotional calendar for his studio. The school and NCAA was all over him and the paper almost lost their credentials permanently. The key is if those involved don't know you are doing it, no problem, but when they do discover you are doing this, the hammer will come down hard.

butchM wrote:I do a lot of event photography and even when I am the "official photographer" I NEVER worry about who else is shooting with whatever equipment as long as they do not interfere with me doing my job. I do my job and let the chips fall where they may. Protectionist attitudes certainly have no place in a free market system, IMHO.

butchM, thanks so much for posting a realistic reply to this thread. I think using the word "protectionist" hits the nail right on the head: if you're comfortable with your own skill, eye, and marketing talent, you have nothing to fear from the "free" or low-cost people. I also feel that IF it is a private event AND the organizers have CLEARLY posted No Photography signage, the etiquette is obvious. Barring those conditions, all bets are off. Period.

SoloHiker wrote:
I also feel that IF it is a private event AND the organizers have CLEARLY posted No Photography signage, the etiquette is obvious.


I don't have a problem with that at all. Private is private. When I do work a private event, I won't waste my time policing GWCs as I am more concerned with doing my job, If the organizers are concerned, they can work that end of the situation

Besides, it can hurt them more with unauthorized sales of images that myself.

I'm sure you'd feel just a bit threatened should they choose to walk into your place of employment and declare that they can do you job just as well and willingly do it for free.

That's not a fair comparison at all. The amateur/parent aren't interacting with anyone who has been working with you, the designated pro. The other parents didn't choose to work with you, they're just watching the event. Now, if this amateur made some offer to the event organizer to undercut you or something, then you should be angry.

Contact him and talk. People often make mistakes and simply need to be told. This may be the case.
If he shows attitude can you have him banned from future games?

butchM wrote: "Besides, it can hurt them more with unauthorized sales of images that(sic) {than?} myself."

That sounds like you get paid the same, and/or paid by the event organizer, no matter how many pictures sell or don't sell. Perhaps similar to full time staff editorial assignments, where you are sent to cover an event, and whatever pictures the assigning editor uses or doesn't use, doesn't really matter.

I'll bet that there are some respondents to this thread that have much more at risk. They are the designated photographer, but the event organizer is paying them nothing. In fact, the opposite is true. The designated "pro" photographer actually paid the event organizer to be there, in exchange for special access to the event and the privilege of selling pictures to the participants.

If PWCs are afforded the same access that the pro photographer PAID for, that reduces the potential market the pro was counting on when the payment amount was conceived. If the PWC, while standing in the privileged access area, not only take pictures for themselves, but also take pictures of their friends, neighbors, teammates, and at random, and furthermore give them away, than that further erodes the potential market value of the fee that the pro photographer paid to cover the event.

I've witnessed several situations where the pro photographer paid as much as $2,500 out of pocket, up front, for the rights to photograph a single event with less than half that number of participants. There is most certainly something at stake for that photographer when PWC's are given the same floor/stage/sideline/trackside access that the pro had to pay real money for.

Where there is something at risk, the feeling of being threatened might be more pronounced. Even if the quality of the pro's pics is solid, people by nature would often rather receive something for nothing, and more often these days, with the improvements in technology at a lower price point, the pics from the PWC are good enough, especially when free.

It is difficult for both the pro and the event organiser to boot PWC's off the special access area. No one wants to engender the ill will of the participant's parents. Most people identify with the inalienable right of access parents have with and to their children. Most people stand behind the ideas of freedom. So it is always a tough and uncomfortable call to ask an enthusiastic hobbyist who is also a Dad to leave the sideline and go back into the bleachers, while saying nothing to the other Dads on the same sideline who don't happen to have DSLRs pinned to their faces.

In random answers to this thread, there is a hint of a high falutin' attitude akin to "as a pro, my pics don't stink, therefore no other real pro should worry about who's got a camera nipping at their heels." To that I have to wonder how much experience that pro has in today's climate of event photography.

It cost's big bucks out of pocket up front, not only to pay the event host, but just to show up with shooters and computers. Hotel, airfare, car fare, and food for all the staff, plus their day rates... the event software license fees, web hosting, and office time post processing deliverables... the convention center bill for the power drop used to plug in the computer, plus the phone line drop to process credit cards... it adds up to the kind of costs that threaten bankruptcy to the event photographer, that is quite a different experience than a PJ running in with a back pack, a 70-200, and the surety of a check in the mail by the end of the week.

I can still see why an event photographer would feel threatened. One of the very best photographers that I've ever had the honor of meeting gave up event photography because of the cannibalization that PWC's handing out freebies eroded his market with. He had the official "exclusive" rights to a horse park for equestrian events. His pictures were gorgeous. His reputation for quality was impeccable. His equipment investment was unmatched. His permanent booth onsite was built more attractively than custom homes. His attention to detail in the prints was beyond reproach. His single shot timing of the horse's peak action was uncannily superior to a swiss metronome.

There was no possible room for improvement in his work. But there was plenty of room ringside for the PWCs to shoot. There was plenty of room in his prices to be undercut. There was plenty of room for affordable technology to make "good enough" attainable in average hands. There was yet enough room for him to call it quits... to the loss of everyone, sadly. So the idea that quality rises above all did not in this case manifest itself to be a reliable peg to hang a hat on.

butchM wrote: "Besides, it can hurt them more with unauthorized sales of images that(sic) {than?} myself."

That sounds like you get paid the same, and/or paid by the event organizer, no matter how many pictures sell or don't sell. Perhaps similar to full time staff editorial assignments, where you are sent to cover an event, and whatever pictures the assigning editor uses or doesn't use, doesn't really matter.

I'll bet that there are some respondents to this thread that have much more at risk. They are the designated photographer, but the event organizer is paying them nothing. In fact, the opposite is true. The designated "pro" photographer actually paid the event organizer to be there, in exchange for special access to the event and the privilege of selling pictures to the participants.

If PWCs are afforded the same access that the pro photographer PAID for, that reduces the potential market the pro was counting on when the payment amount was conceived. If the PWC, while standing in the privileged access area, not only take pictures for themselves, but also take pictures of their friends, neighbors, teammates, and at random, and furthermore give them away, than that further erodes the potential market value of the fee that the pro photographer paid to cover the event.

I've witnessed several situations where the pro photographer paid as much as $2,500 out of pocket, up front, for the rights to photograph a single event with less than half that number of participants. There is most certainly something at stake for that photographer when PWC's are given the same floor/stage/sideline/trackside access that the pro had to pay real money for.

Where there is something at risk, the feeling of being threatened might be more pronounced. Even if the quality of the pro's pics is solid, people by nature would often rather receive something for nothing, and more often these days, with the improvements in technology at a lower price point, the pics from the PWC are good enough, especially when free.

It is difficult for both the pro and the event organiser to boot PWC's off the special access area. No one wants to engender the ill will of the participant's parents. Most people identify with the inalienable right of access parents have with and to their children. Most people stand behind the ideas of freedom. So it is always a tough and uncomfortable call to ask an enthusiastic hobbyist who is also a Dad to leave the sideline and go back into the bleachers, while saying nothing to the other Dads on the same sideline who don't happen to have DSLRs pinned to their faces.

In random answers to this thread, there is a hint of a high falutin' attitude akin to "as a pro, my pics don't stink, therefore no other real pro should worry about who's got a camera nipping at their heels." To that I have to wonder how much experience that pro has in today's climate of event photography.

It cost's big bucks out of pocket up front, not only to pay the event host, but just to show up with shooters and computers. Hotel, airfare, car fare, and food for all the staff, plus their day rates... the event software license fees, web hosting, and office time post processing deliverables... the convention center bill for the power drop used to plug in the computer, plus the phone line drop to process credit cards... it adds up to the kind of costs that threaten bankruptcy to the event photographer, that is quite a different experience than a PJ running in with a back pack, a 70-200, and the surety of a check in the mail by the end of the week.

I can still see why an event photographer would feel threatened. One of the very best photographers that I've ever had the honor of meeting gave up event photography because of the cannibalization that PWC's handing out freebies eroded his market with. He had the official "exclusive" rights to a horse park for equestrian events. His pictures were gorgeous. His reputation for quality was impeccable. His equipment investment was unmatched. His permanent booth onsite was built more attractively than custom homes. His attention to detail in the prints was beyond reproach. His single shot timing of the horse's peak action was uncannily superior to a swiss metronome.

There was no possible room for improvement in his work. But there was plenty of room ringside for the PWCs to shoot. There was plenty of room in his prices to be undercut. There was plenty of room for affordable technology to make "good enough" attainable in average hands. There was yet enough room for him to call it quits... to the loss of everyone, sadly. So the idea that quality rises above all did not in this case manifest itself to be a reliable peg to hang a hat on.

Focus Locus,

When and if I accept an event contract, rest assured I AM getting paid up front. I have long passed the stage in my career where I shoot strictly on speculation of a profit.

If others choose to be at risk, so be it. If they choose a business model that puts them at risk of showing a profit based on exclusivity. Too bad for them. That is the nature of business. We live and work in a FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. In such a system there is no room for exclusion. Period.

I broke into this line of work decades ago, and have learned from the hard lessons of life, as to what works and what doesn't. I have confidence in my abilities and work accordingly.

I also will NOT deal with any organization/entity the desires to operate outside of the free market system. This country did not get where it is today, because of protectionist attitudes.

If you look at history, when these protectionist philosophies have come into play, that is when we have experienced severe problems.

I don't, and won't "pay" a host to do my job. I will voluntarily, with financial means, support the organizations I work with through advertising and donations. My choice, not the host's.

There are NO guarantees in this life, especially in business. For every potential of profit, there is an equally potential risk. If you work events and fear competition, my experience is ... risk nothing .... profit little.

I may be old school in these thoughts and philosophy, but it is what I live by.

In this day and age where multitudes can afford a top of the line DSLR and a couple of decent lenses, they too believe they can be pros. Many fear that competition. I say, the more the merrier. I am confident enough in my abilities and my business sense not to fear competition ... I thrive on it.

Focus Locus,

When and if I accept an event contract, rest assured I AM getting paid up front. I have long passed the stage in my career where I shoot strictly on speculation of a profit.

If others choose to be at risk, so be it. If they choose a business model that puts them at risk of showing a profit based on exclusivity. Too bad for them. That is the nature of business. We live and work in a FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. In such a system there is no room for exclusion. Period.

I broke into this line of work decades ago, and have learned from the hard lessons of life, as to what works and what doesn't. I have confidence in my abilities and work accordingly.

I also will NOT deal with any organization/entity the desires to operate outside of the free market system. This country did not get where it is today, because of protectionist attitudes.

If you look at history, when these protectionist philosophies have come into play, that is when we have experienced severe problems.

I don't, and won't "pay" a host to do my job. I will voluntarily, with financial means, support the organizations I work with through advertising and donations. My choice, not the host's.

There are NO guarantees in this life, especially in business. For every potential of profit, there is an equally potential risk. If you work events and fear competition, my experience is ... risk nothing .... profit little.

I may be old school in these thoughts and philosophy, but it is what I live by.

In this day and age where multitudes can afford a top of the line DSLR and a couple of decent lenses, they too believe they can be pros. Many fear that competition. I say, the more the merrier. I am confident enough in my abilities and my business sense not to fear competition ... I thrive on it.

SoloHiker wrote:
butchM wrote:I do a lot of event photography and even when I am the "official photographer" I NEVER worry about who else is shooting with whatever equipment as long as they do not interfere with me doing my job. I do my job and let the chips fall where they may. Protectionist attitudes certainly have no place in a free market system, IMHO.

butchM, thanks so much for posting a realistic reply to this thread. I think using the word "protectionist" hits the nail right on the head: if you're comfortable with your own skill, eye, and marketing talent, you have nothing to fear from the "free" or low-cost people. I also feel that IF it is a private event AND the organizers have CLEARLY posted No Photography signage, the etiquette is obvious. Barring those conditions, all bets are off. Period.




Solo & Butch - I have to believe that neither of you rely on your photographs for supporting you. If you do, then you need to take a short business class so that you understand how it should work. The first time you see someone selling pictures that only you have the legal right to sell...AND you are having a hard time making ends meet, you will change your mind.

Yes, a professional's images should be better quality and you should be able to out-market the amateur, but neither of those will assure you 100% of the market. If your marketing and professional images have convinced an event organizer that you deserve the exlcusive rights to sell images of his event, then that is what should happen.

This is no different than the NFL or NCAA except as a matter of degree. The organizer of the event has the right to control image sales in most cases. As a professional, I make use of that right to earn a living.