pics from protest on guardian roundup

[TennesseJones]

A couple of my pictures of TUC march in London this weekend were put on the Guardian website round up, which has cheered me up on a rainy wednesday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/gallery/2011/mar/28/cuts-protest-flickr-pictures#/

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yours are two of the best pics there, but what did the Grauniad pay? Because unless they paid, preferably NUJ rates, it wasn't 'kind': you were ripped off. And if you were ripped off, it takes bread out of the mouths of professional photojournalists, and contributes to the demise of paid photojournalism.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MartinP]

Well done.

I do note that your Flickr pics are marked with the copyright symbol and "All rights reserved" - so I do hope the Grauniad asked you before using them ?!

PS. for the confused, the alternative spelling of the title of the newspaper comes from an old (English) joke about the frequency of typographical errors in the Guardian, in the old letterpress days....

 

[TennesseJones]

Thank you Martin.

Looking back through what I did, I agreed by placing them in a particular flickr group that they could use them for the Guardian, so they behaved entirely correctly and exactly as they should have done.

And of course I appreciate and understand Rogers point, but really I was just excited and grateful that they liked them enough to share them, and then did so. A great experience for me.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

If you have seen any TV, newpapers or news websites over last few days you will also have seen pictures of the London cuts protest – a pushed-over bin set ablaze, a trashed bank, a graffitied Trafalgar Square Lion ...

But was this your experience? If you were on the protest, have photos and want to show your side of events add them to this group.

We'll feature some of our favourites on guardian.co.uk and maybe in the newspaper version of the Guardian as well. By posting your pictures in this group you agree to let this happen (though copyright remains with you at all times).

The above is what they are stating on the Flickr group "Cuts protest in London, 26 March 2011"

We are seeing more and more of this "getting pictures for free" which is killing Photojournalism. This has a certain irony considering the group content.

 

[MartinP]

Having chatted to friends who took part in the main demo, and unfortunately not being present myself as I live in the wrong country, the link here gives a typical experience of the group who entered one of the large shops. There was also a number of the "usual" aggressive lot who did the wrecking of stuff, but even the police said those individuals didn't have much to do with the actual demonstration.

I suppose you could say it was a normal demo and a normal authority reaction.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well done.

I do note that your Flickr pics are marked with the copyright symbol and "All rights reserved" - so I do hope the Grauniad asked you before using them ?!

PS. for the confused, the alternative spelling of the title of the newspaper comes from an old (English) joke about the frequency of typographical errors in the Guardian, in the old letterpress days....

Desr Martion,

Aslo of curse "Guradian".

Thry are mucj better bowadays.

Cfeers,

T.

 

[gdmcclintock]

The New York Times also wants photographs for free. If you submit to the Times, they claim the right to use your work in perpetuity in any way they see fit. Copyright is meaningless in this case.

 

[gdmcclintock]

The legalese has nothing to do with refusing "to get involved with tracking rights on reader contributions". The legalese gives the Times the right to appropriate readers' contributions "without limitation" for sale to "any third party it designates".

 

[gdmcclintock]

If the Times accepted reader contributions for one-time use, then I would have no problem with it. But they don't. They want to appropriate the work forever, including the right to distribute (presumably for money) to any third party.

It the Times loses money on everything, perhaps they should just go out of business.

 

[jaredangle]

The New York Times also wants photographs for free. If you submit to the Times, they claim the right to use your work in perpetuity in any way they see fit. Copyright is meaningless in this case.

This seems to be the trend with some local papers (like my local AnnArbor.com, who just layed off some of their photojournalists, including one who is also the photojournalism instructor at my college) and websites like CNN with their iReport. Instead of fielding the usual number of photographers, they can lay off a few, saving a few bucks, and just letting people who live where the news is happened, who don't care about the value of the photo since it's a one-time thing, submit the photos instead.