Surely this is SOMEHOW (not ethically) wrong ...

Re: Surely this is ethically wrong ...

Hey, king, we're journalists. We used to doing something extra and not getting paid for it.

 

Re: Surely this is ethically wrong ...

this is exactly what i was talking about last week. no way i let the sid write the feature.

why let media relations shoot the photo?

if you pay for the photo, you give the parameters, describe the exact type of shot you want, where you want it to be, etc. you're in control.

if you're letting the pr department give you a promotional shot, you have no control over what you get. if it's crap, you can't tell them to do it over.

bottom line: beggars really can't be choosers. though i'm not quite on board with the ethical argument... unless the photo they provide somehow makes an editorial statement in some way.

 

Or how about the reporter takes the photo himself?

It's not an action shot, so it shouldn't be too difficult to take and it would keep you from having to ask the SID's photog to shoot for you.

 

To save time:

Ethical problem: No.

SID's job to get photos of people from his teams without an extraordinary extra effort on the part of the photographer: Yes.

It's a gray area. If it's a matter of the photographer pointing his camera and shooting one more pic, then I really think that's part of the territory. Any addition to the degree of difficulty changes my answer.

And note, King: He'd be shooting it at your request, but it would also not be exclusively yours if you don't pay extra for it. The school can use it however they want, and any other publication can get it from the school as well. That's the tradeoff nobody has mentioned.

If you want it exclusively for your publication, different story.

 

This just isn't the problem it's being made out to be.

The sports information department's job is to secure publicity for the school's athletic teams.

The photographer is contracted by the sports information department and assumes the same goals.

It's not even your problem if the SID doesn't want to slip the photog a little extra for the shot. This is what the photographer is SUPPOSED to do -- provide art for us.

 

I've done this a lot, actually. Of course, it's a different animal when you're running a section or a newspaper versus simply being a beat writer.

If you're trying to MAKE someone who's not in your employ to do it for you, there's a problem. If your boss ASKS them for a feature shot, no big deal. If they say no, run filler.

 

f_t, if the photographer is working for the sports information department, he is, in fact, supposed to be working for you, the media outlet.

I wouldn't think twice about making the request -- not demand, but request.

If the request is denied, I'd remember. In that case, to me, it's just like the newspaper that wants you to pay them for a file shot. They don't have to give it to you gratis, but I'd do it for them, and I'll remember if they don't.

 

Just ask the SID: "Can you get me a photo of the coach and her family?" That's it. At worst, he'll say no, have your photog do it.

 

I have found that photographers employed by schools/teams/businesses etc. fall into two camps -- those who are happy to do anything you ask and those who bitch and moan and say that they have a mugshot of the player online -- can't you get that? (Hey and it's 1 inch tall, thanks!)

So if they are happy to do it, great. If they bitch about it, tell them never friggin' mind.

 

That's one of the first things I'd like to make clear to any SIDs looking in. Writers too, because more than one has said to me, "The shot you want's on the Web; just right-click and save it."

Those 70-dpi head shots don't do it for us. We can't use them any larger than 3 picas.

They need to be linked to larger head shots, preferably 200 dpi.