Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Did the research and found a subject that was in demand, but not available. Took shots, and had one used a few times. Today I see that the national newspaper that has used my image in the past has preferred a Google (presumably streetview) photo to mine. The Google shot is not atrocious, but not  wonderful. Fit for purpose (web)  I guess.

 

Is this the beginning of the end for mundane street shots?  I wonder how much they charge?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there shoud be nothing to worry. People that take such a image from a google streetview would anyway never pay many dollars for a image. I dont think that a company with good name wil just put a google streetview on their website, magazine or whatever.

 

Mirco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

". I dont think that a company with good name wil just put a google streetview on their website, magazine or whatever."

 

yes they will

 

km

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's the national newspaper I think it is, that's $3 you won't see again.

 

Steve

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IME newspapers (in Canada, anyway) will go for the cheapest (preferably free) option available, especially when it comes to "soft news" images such as street shots, travel images, etc. Quality and even accuracy of captions are often secondary considerations these days. A sad sign of the times in the newspaper business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was copy editing for People magazine, they paid some paparazzo $1,000,000 for a picture . . . it was sooo important that I've forgotten what the subject was.  :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's the national newspaper I think it is, that's $3 you won't see again.

 

Steve

 

Indeed, one less Greggs coffee.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

". I dont think that a company with good name wil just put a google streetview on their website, magazine or whatever."

 

yes they will

 

km

 

+1

 

As I have previously mentioned, the BBC use Giggle streetview at times (mainly for local news).  If it suits their purpose, they'll use it - whoever they are.

 

Is it the beginning of the end for xxxyyyzzz?  Not quite yet, I think, but the day probably isn't that far away.  There will always be the unique view that an automaton cannot take, but the current/foreseeable economic climate in the West probably won't have the luxury to fund it for much longer.

Edited by losdemas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen them used for a while now, even with the bad join in the middle of the image sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was copy editing for People magazine, they paid some paparazzo $1,000,000 for a picture . . . it was sooo important that I've forgotten what the subject was.  :wacko:

I remember those days Ed;I was a contributor to People and the weeklies but never the million dollar photo since I'm not a paparazzi.

I did fetch about $3500 for a 1/2 page cover of Lady Di though.

 

Linda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People mag must still be paying out money for pictures, Linda? But after that one-million killing, the celebs seemed to take over their own marketability and made their own deals with the big mags for exclusives. I think that's right, although I have not even glanced at People since I left on Christmas Eve five years ago. When living in Rome, I once lost a bet to an Aussie celeb journalist friend, and I had to work for him as a paparazzo for a month. I actually had a lot of fun being wild and brash and pushy.  It's all so long long ago.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Season, season, season. Too much seasoning can ruin a dish, but seasonality ensures photos sell despite Google street view...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to get a lot of traffic accident shots on my way to work. I'd get quite annoyed when a shot from a terrible Traffic Scotland motorway camera was used. I spoke to my brother who works for Traffic Scotland and he says

 

"Yeah the BBC phoned up asking for a screen grab, so I sent them it" 

 

It's quite frustrating, but there's just some people who will do anything not to pay for an image, regardless of how well it shows the scene or story. The STV have actually created a news app and they are farming twitter pictures and adding it to their app. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ex-best customer (educational publisher) has dropped everything and everybody in favour of geograph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ex-best customer (educational publisher) has dropped everything and everybody in favour of geograph.

I rather unwisely put up a few images there a  while ago. They're the images of mine I see most of, on estate agents' sites, content farms and the like, all for not a penny. Geograph even stopped me putting up a copyright notice. No more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ex-best customer (educational publisher) has dropped everything and everybody in favour of geograph.

 

After searching on there for my home town, I can see the reason why I won't be walking around there again taking snaps. I just don't understand why any photographer would openly give away their images for a credit line. 

Time to get diverse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering the same thing as the OP after seeing yet another Google street view image in the British Daily Mail (on-line version) and I think the average news reader doesn't give a damn about quality anymore, and certainly don't care where an image comes from.

The advent of phone cameras seems to have further eroded quality expectations and the plethora of people on Facebook who have their very own '(insert own name) Photographer Page' is amazing, particularly when you see the apparent success from people with these pages who have really poorly lit and composed pictures of everyones kids/pets and even weddings after having a digicam for a month, or am I just being jealous or elitist?

I must admit, I was quite pleased to see my own pictures on Google Earth via my Panoramio account getting lots and lots of hits (I had 1,500+ images on there) after I went digital after 30 yrs as an amateur film shooter.

 

The pictures had received over 4 million clicks before I finally managed to delete my account with them!
Why delete?
All those clicks ever got me were stolen pics, with one picture on over 300 sites according to Google image search!

Up until very recently the only way to delete a Panoramio account was by e-mail request and I sent about four requests which were completely ignored.
Eventually a way to delete accounts appeared on their site without notification.

Anyway, does the question still stand from Bryan?
How much do Google charge?

 

 

BTW: If anyone is curious how to get lots of negative karma... just remind the hero worshippers of Nelson Mandela about his historical terrorist past and you'll get plenty.

 

Edited by mickfly
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.