Photography convention

[NicoleScraps]

Week before last, they had a photography convention at the county library. It was sponsored by our local newspaper (we have a once weekly that serves the whole county, it is very rural here) and some lady who is the head of the photo journalism dept at WVU taught the convention (I think that is her credentials.) I was unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts but another lady that I know went. She tooks notes and made a photo copy for me.
Apparently these conventions will be held all over WV in the most rural area and being done because of a grant that was given to them. What they covered at the convention was very basic photography information in the beginning and then spend a good portion encouraging people to get out there and photograph potential newsworthy events then submit their photos to their local newspapers.
Uh, something about this does not sit well.
A. Is it really the best idea to try to encourage the average person to approach a house on fire or a car wreck to take photos. Yes, those were some of the examples listed that the newspaper were looking for.
B. Why can't the newspaper send their own people out to get the stories?
C. What do these "photographers" get out of the deal? Nothing. Just their photos in the newspaper.
I don't know, the whole thing really bothered me. Reading over her notes was like reading a sale pitch. "Here is how to take half decent photos so that you can go out and get involved in a dangerous situation that you have no business being near and submit them to your local paper for free."
Eh, I don't know.
What do you think?

[Eastree]

A. Is it really the best idea to try to encourage the average person to approach a house on fire or a car wreck to take photos. Yes, those were some of the examples listed that the newspaper were looking for.

See your third question :P

Basically, that's what they're hoping for: People getting excited to have their photographs published in the paper. The paper gets free photos to use, possibly getting people who submit them to agree to a total rights grab FOR them.

B. Why can't the newspaper send their own people out to get the stories?

Sometimes distance to a scene can take a long time, especially considering you mentioned it's one paper for the entire county. Basically, they'd either have people rushing across the county to shoot a house fire or vehicle accident, or they'd need photographers on call who live in a reasonably distributed manner.

Having regular citizens marginally educated about photographers' rights enough to know that they may legally photograph newsworthy events, but still leave them uneducated about rights grabs, value and worth of photographs, etc., means the news paper needs to worry less about having staff photographers.

C. What do these "photographers" get out of the deal? Nothing. Just their photos in the newspaper.

That's basically it. It's a rural area. There's a bit of credence added to people who are, or people whose work is, featured in the news in a positive manner. It's sort of like when I was in the background of a news report when I was in high school: People I really never even had spoken to were calling me to say, "Dude! I saw you on the news! That was AWESOME!" It's that kind of thing as well with this: "Margie's photo of that house fire was published in the paper! We're all so excited!"

I don't know, the whole thing really bothered me. Reading over her notes was like reading a sale pitch. "Here is how to take half decent photos so that you can go out and get involved in a dangerous situation that you have no business being near and submit them to your local paper for free."

I think that sounds like a reasonable assessment. I wouldn't want any Joe or Jane Shmoe trying to get up close to accidents, hoping to get that "close and dramatic" photo, and potentialy endangering themselves or others.

At the same time, if it had been more about photography itself, I'd like the idea of that convention.

[RichardTaylor]

(1) The average person may all ready be on the scene whereas the newspaper photographer may be on another job or non existant at the time.
(2) Always keep in mind a photograph is not worth getting injured or killed for.
(3) Did paper representative mention any renumeration?
If not, and the photograph is newsworthy and helps sell papers the it is worth $$$ (or pounds) - otherwise don't make it available to the paper.

It is not just the "sensational events".
Here the local newspaper is owned by an an Australian & International media magnate (think Fox)) will not send reporters/photographers to Australia Day Citizenship ceremonies (it is a public holiday). It is entirely volunteer day (except possibly the government official and politician). The organisers (Rotary) , musicians & band, and photographer (me) do not get anything except a breakfast barbecue and some experience and one sale over the last 2 years. I will not be doing any more.

[Jim Bryant]

You get nothing......the person is called citizen reporter/photographer. My motto is.......No pay, no picture!" If they want that photo bad enough, bet your butt they will pay for it.

[jamesev]

I guess, if they are doing conventions in the local areas they are trying to get as many happy snappers working for them gratis, and picture in the paper, well thats like a means to and end via flattery. They effectively have photogs 2 mins from practically any story in the area, and the old cliche of a million monkeys with a million typewrites.....

Plus zero liability as, until theres a financial transaction I supose any harm befalling the photog is, well their own fault.

Pretty much a win win for thr local newspaper for the price of a fe conventions...