I have quite a few with their new dslrs ask me about the news stuff. I just have to take a deep breath, then I try and explain some of the things that have changed in the industry. All that public sourcing by newspapers and TV stations especially here in the USA, if some knew that they were actually putting photogs out of work, maybe they'd think twice about it.
You are kidding right? People who shoot "crowd sourced" images, are doing it to see their photos on TV or wherever. They don't consider that others do the same professionally or that they are taking away anything. If they did, I doubt it would change the 15 seconds of fame pride for seeing their name in print or on TV.
If money and professionals came into the proposition, then micro would be dead. Go back to the reason why there will never be a microstock "union" or anything organized to make demands and insure proper pricing. As soon as the artists try to bring pressure or remove images, others will fill the void at the same prices. There's no leverage to make any meaningful alliance work.
It's the same for free crowd sourced news images. We can complain and view it as taking away business, but it's a free world and people will work for nearly nothing. World competition on different economic levels and easy availability of good equipment has changed the entire photo market.
I find it interesting that anyone shooting micro would use the same argument (taking income from professionals) that the traditional film and DSLR stock shooters used when micro started and still promulgated on some other forums and articles.
The way to make good news/editorial photos is get shots that other people don't or can't.
0.01
0.29