"

Excellent point.  If they have to hire someone like this, you probably aren't exactly going to get preferential treatment.

jason messer wrote:
this is what hes going to look like.....



.....

Note the one guy in the back with the umbrella, heh heh.

Daren wrote:
I liked the 'debate' about banding together and the plumber analogy, but there is something missing here. Photography sometimes isn't just a business, but can also be an art form. And as such need not be subjected to the same rules of capitalism.

If pros are so worried that amateurs might take away their business then they should compete by taking better photos, not trying to exclude anyone by creating an us/them mentality.

If someone wants to take photos for a good cause, or any cause, then why would that in any way erode the business of the professionals? It either means the amateurs can do just a good job or better images are not valued. The only way to change the latter is to increase art appreciation, invest in education programs that value art above gladiator sports... We're back to Wikipedia now...

Well said.

You know, it sounds like they're trying to give someone who would never have a shot at something like this a unique opportunity.

If it's legit.

TorchGlow wrote:

This is WikiNews, not Wikipedia, so I'm guessing they have zero budget. (reach not among top 100,000 according to Alexa)
The contact point from the ad appears in WikiNews as an accredited user. I suppose an imposter could post an ad with his email in the text, but why?

I like the line from the ad:

"Your sole responsibilities are:
    - Showing up with a decent camera.
- Shouting every so often a celebrities.
    - Uploading the photos (which we keep the copyright of)."

Shouting or shooting, maybe both?

I'm curious if WikiNews is really granted press credentials for the Oscars, maybe it's from the bleacher seats...

Sounds to me like a news reporter who is getting paid to cover the gig and is supposed to provide the photographer for his article, who is trying to get something for nothing...namely a photographer who is starstruck and dreams of glory.  Also he probably feels the photographer who would want to do it may be just hungry and aggressive enough for fame themselves, to break a lot of the rules to get that "once in a lifetime shot".  Then the news guy gets the money and the photographer get the fame.

digital Artform wrote:
Oscars red carpet? Pretty cool gig for whoever gets it

Sounds like a shitty gig to me. You stand there all day getting pushed around by the other photographers that work for getty, wireimage and so on..you're not even getting paid for this. And it doesn't even sound like you'd get your foot in the door for future projects. I'm all for jobs that get you exposure and photocredits. but this just sounds like a one way street that leads to nowhere.

Daren wrote:
I liked the 'debate' about banding together and the plumber analogy, but there is something missing here. Photography sometimes isn't just a business, but can also be an art form. And as such need not be subjected to the same rules of capitalism.

If pros are so worried that amateurs might take away their business then they should compete by taking better photos, not trying to exclude anyone by creating an us/them mentality.

If someone wants to take photos for a good cause, or any cause, then why would that in any way erode the business of the professionals? It either means the amateurs can do just a good job or better images are not valued. The only way to change the latter is to increase art appreciation, invest in education programs that value art above gladiator sports... We're back to Wikipedia now...

The commercial photography business and the fine art business are two completely seperate businesses.  In fact, they focus on selling different things entirely.  The fine art business relies on selling prints and getting grants to survive.  The commercial industry relies on selling photography services. 

Its not that pros are worried that amateurs will take away their business, its that amateurs have already taken away a large piece of the photo-industry.  Many low end clients do not understand the value of hiring a professional photographer.  In the past it was up to photographers to educate the client about why they should use a professional.  Now the client just posts on Craigslist and never learns about it.  In the end both the client and the photographer lose.  The photographer gets little to no compensation and the client makes their brand look unprofessional because their images are clearly unprofessional. 

Those who rely on other sources of income and can therefore give away their services are obviously a threat to those who earn their income from photography, as they can lose money on every single job but continue to take jobs because they are not actually running a business.  What this has meant for the industry is that the low end of the market has disappeared, eliminating a sizeable portion of the total market.  Im sure many of you dont care as you are hobbiests on here to connect with models or share pictures, but to professionals it does matter.  In the end my business is not affected because I market to a different market segment, but I recognize that it is a shame to lose a whole portion of the market to hobbiests.  Further, as a result of people giving away services and being unaware of the business practices in photography, we now have a great many clients who are trying to dismantel the usage model and a congress who is trying to steal the copyrights with The Copyright Modernazation Act of 2006.  You dont want me to show up at your work and tell your boss that I will do your job for free and I dont want you showing up at my work and doing the same.

johnkphotography wrote:

You cant be serious!  This is a terrible deal.  You get nothing, they get the copyright and you take the job away from a shooter who would be paid a semi-livable wage otherwise.  I know this sounds like great exposure for amateurs, but its a sad reminder to profesionals about the bullshit that companies are trying to pull.  I think Wikepedia can come up with the $500 day rate for a professional photographer.  I hope they get what they pay for; which is nothing.

Toohey Brown Photograph wrote:
.. this stinks...sounds European...

what??????????

Mitsukai wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'd go and take the pictures, but when it came to uploading them I'd try to sell them to someone else instead. [/quote 

That would be as sleazy as the original post...

Annique Delphine wrote:

what??????????

Europen publications pay people to find discarded or pirateable images that are "B" pile photos...these they find acceptable for their readership...

Toohey Brown Photograph wrote:

Europen publications pay people to find discarded or pirateable images that are "B" pile photos...these they find acceptable for their readership...

No way Jose

Annique Delphine wrote:

Toohey Brown Photograph wrote:
Europen publications pay people to find discarded or pirateable images that are "B" pile photos...these they find acceptable for their readership...

No way Jose [/quot   

Si...at events where film images are processed and given right back to the photographers (pro tennis, golf, etc.), the shooter will fast forward through their stack of images and throw out all but the very best. Kids would then dive into the trash can and pull them out, then turn them over to a rag European mag rep...ask Arnoldo Magnani, famous Milanese papparazzo. Ciao, baby

Kali Doom wrote:
I like how they call it a contest.

That should tell us something...good work you have...

Toohey Brown Photograph wrote:
Si...at events where film images are processed and given right back to the photographers (pro tennis, golf, etc.), the shooter will fast forward through their stack of images and throw out all but the very best. Kids would then dive into the trash can and pull them out, then turn them over to a rag European mag rep...ask Arnoldo Magnani, famous Milanese papparazzo. Ciao, baby

Bene...got it. I agree then. This sounds so euro..like totally

jason messer wrote:
this is what hes going to look like.....

This is a great picture by the way. Look at the clown brownnosing Hoffman while everyone else is actually doing there job. He looks as though he is about to bust a nut! He probably just made some whitty little humorous comment about whoever is on stage and out of frame, to Hoffman who didn't even bother to look in his direction but give that empathetic "yeah yeah kid" courtesy laugh.

He's probably hoping Hoffman will turn to him (and actually pay any attention to him) and say something like.... "So kid, do you do any celeb portraiture?" Yeah right.

LOL... just an observation. And yes... I love that some dingleberry brought an umbrella with what looks like a single strobe setup!! He musta knew he would be at the back of the bus.... Ha

Michael Kirst wrote:

This is a great picture by the way. Look at the clown brownnosing Hoffman while everyone else is actually doing there job. He looks as though he is about to bust a nut! He probably just made some whitty little humorous comment about whoever is on stage and out of frame, to Hoffman who didn't even bother to look in his direction but give that empathetic "yeah yeah kid" courtesy laugh.

He's probably hoping Hoffman will turn to him (and actually pay any attention to him) and say something like.... "So kid, do you do any celeb portraiture?" Yeah right.

LOL... just an observation. And yes... I love that some dingleberry brought an umbrella with what looks like a single strobe setup!! He musta knew he would be at the back of the bus.... Ha

eh...im thinking the opposite.  dustin hoffman made the comment.  it looks like the photographer is REACTING to him.  just my take.  all the guys are there shooting.  not even paying attention to dustin hoffman right there close to them.  why?  becuase they are after the shots that WILL GET THEM PAID.

and as for the umbrella.... notice the same guy youre bagging on talking to dustin hoffman.  see the thing on top of his camera?  thats a pocket wizard.  and the strobe just might be his. so instead of straight on harsh light from an oncamera flash.  hes getting softer, more broad light from his strobe. 

use your head.

johnkphotography wrote:
You cant be serious!  This is a terrible deal.  You get nothing, they get the copyright and you take the job away from a shooter who would be paid a semi-livable wage otherwise.  I know this sounds like great exposure for amateurs, but its a sad reminder to profesionals about the bullshit that companies are trying to pull.  I think Wikepedia can come up with the $500 day rate for a professional photographer.  I hope they get what they pay for; which is nothing.

This post, and several like it show the paradign shift that is occurring in the media industry.  I don't disagree that this photographer is or any other has a right to be paid for their work.  But the comment shows a lack of understanding of the paradigm shift that is occurring.

Wikipedia specifically as it's primary purpose wants to collect new content it can hold the copyright on without paying for it.  It wants to then provide this content to people who otherwise would be required to buy content from created by people who were paid a semi-livable wage.

So, yes, you understand exactly what is going on.  And you see around you that some people embrace this ususrping of your presumed right to own and profit from intellectual property.  While you say no to this offer, about 65,000 others have said yes to giving their content to Wikipedia.

Based on a web search I did, Wikipedia's last year budget was about $750K.  They sell no product or service, nor do they accept any advertising.  It's purely a philantropic venture that exists only due to donations.  But with such a small annula budget, it is reaonable to accept that they literally do not have the budget for $500/day for a photographer.

So they have offerred to do TFP with a willing photographer.  Just say you don't do TFP and ignore them.  The TFP has a clause that allows them to have copyright on the pictures (such as a work for hire clause).  In exchange the photographer gets press credentials as well as credentials from the organization doing the show.  He gets (camera) face time with a large number of celebreties and gets published in an international publication that has incredibly high readership.  And he gets photo credits for this.  It sounds like good TFP to me.

But yes, the business model is for the contributor (photographer) to do the work for free and give up copyright.  And it is becoming very successful.  Existing photographers will adjust or die.  Sort of like dollar a minute long distance rates.

Rossi Photography wrote:
Sounds like a cool gig and all but...

"Compensation: None, but you will be credited with every photo permanently on one of the world's top sites."

You'd think one of the world's top site's would be able to pay something.

Well wikipedia is part of a non-profit organization.

Holly D wrote:
I love how no one has actually pulled up the research for this posting and all claim that Wikipedia has so much money to spend.

Yeah, well I did, and I use wikipedia all the time.  I appreciate the work they do, and wrote saying I'd be glad to photograph this.  They don't so much retain copyright as put it in the public domain.

I would dearly love to get paid for something like this.  Photography is my only source of income.  So many people just take, and don't think about giving back.

Ken

lotusphoto wrote:

you said it gooder than me..

i'm a carpenter and work off of craigslist, i no longer give free estimates, i tell people, i'l show up to work, but i dont give advise, i found someone called me, as well as 3 other carpenters and asked how we'd do the job, then the went to home depot and used our knowledge so they could hire a day laborer..

craigslist is cool, but half the people who go their are looking for free when they could be paying their share

gooder isn't a word