Conscientious

similar to BBC policies:

Contributions to the BBC

6. By sharing any contribution (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) with the BBC you agree to grant to the BBC, free of charge, permission to use the material in any way it wants (including modifying and adapting it for operational and editorial reasons) for BBC services in any media worldwide (including on the BBC's site accessed by international users). In certain circumstance the BBC may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*.
taken from: BBC-Terms of use http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/

"who in his right mind would sign away all rights to his or her photos?"

Well, of course, you know the answer to this - for many amateur photographers being in print would be reward enough. The reason it's upsetting is it devalues the work of professionals (and serious amateurs). Which is plenty of reason, but requires a different approach to solve...

I agree it most certainly "devalues the work of professionals and serious amateurs." It is just another example of the media getting something for nothing. Video has become quite big on most newspaper websites recently. Most newspaper photographers are now required to carry HD video cameras and expected to shoot video along with shooting stills. Oh, and guess what, they do NOT get an increase in pay for the extra work they have to do now.

I find it hard to see how using a photo, taken by someone who happened to be there, "devalues the work of professionals and serious amateurs". I don't think that's the case at all. Are we not to show images such as, for example, the camera phone photo from the 7/7 subway bombing in London merely because it wasn't done by a professional? How does showing such an image devalue the work of a professional? Someone needs to explain this to me.

Of course, I also see how professionals feel threatened by this development, and there is ample reason for that. News corporations appear to be quite savvy: They cut back money for professionals and require them to do all kinds of extra work, while at the same time giving no money whatsoever to amateurs who just happen to be there. That's a bit closer to the issue I was talking about here.

What I do find hard to see is why someone who just happened to be on the scene with a camera, is required to sign away his/her rights. That's just unacceptable, especially in cases like Boston.com - which clearly is not a non-profit.

Joerg - In my line of work, I come in contact with a lot of professional photographers. In bidding for advertising, corporate, or sometimes editorial jobs, they encounter art directors/art buyers, photo editors, etc. who will "nickel and dime" them over a price for their services. In one recent instance that I was told, a well known photographer who was chosen for an advertising job lost out to an inexperienced young photographer who said he would shoot the job for next to nothing. The agency did not really like this kid's work but they went for him because of the price. This happens a lot. I have heard many art directors refer to professional photographers as "hacks" and say "any monkey with a digital camera can take good photos these days." I am all for anyone to be able to take a photo and have it published, but if amateur and aspiring professional photographers continue to work for nothing, or next to nothing,or give up their rights to the images, it devalues the work and the profession.

Living in Boston and reading Boston.com regularly, I found it offensive to me as a photographer when I was tempted to submit photos to them a while back, that they wanted all rights to my photography and weren't even going to offer me any lube before they f*cked my rights away.

but like someone above said, joe or jane doe with their pocket digicam or cellcam is happy to give their work away for free.. which devalues the working photographers that used to get paid to be there.

You're not addressing the point that I was making in this post. I'm not talking about editorial or commercial photography or agencies here. This post is about what people like to call "citizen journalists" - people who happen to take a photo of some newsworthy event.

As for the editorial world, you will probably find a better forum - and tons of discussions about this issue - over at "A Photo Editor". I don't think I'm competent enough to debate this issue.

I want to say this, though, and I'm sure some people will start foaming at the mouth now: If that editor thinks that an "inexperienced young photographer" can deliver the same kind of quality work as someone who has a lot of experience then that leaves a whole lot of conclusions to be drawn, most of which are not very flattering for the editor I think. But as I said, there are lots of smart people commenting on this over at "A Photo Editor", so that might be a better place for such a discussion.

Joerg, Evan Murdock answered your question "who in their right mind would give away their rights to a photograph they took..." Plenty of people do it because they want to see their images in print. What I and the others were trying to say is that "citizen journalism" should exist, but unfortunately the citizens that submit their photos and give up their rights to a media organization are indirectly hurting those who do it for a living by not knowing how to conduct business with these companies. We did not miss your point as you mentioned, we just expanded upon it.

Chuck, I think this has to be phrased very clearly, and as you can see from my earlier comments I don't think it was. The work of citizen journalists does not devalue the work of professional journalists - but people giving away their work for free hurts those that have to make a living from the same kind of business.

Exactly. Thanks Joerg.