MicrostockGroup

Yea I'm working a list with non-profit organisations and their funds, to publish it precisely in this forum.

I had to do many times with this kind of organisations and every time they were backed up by serious investment. Emphatic... some people are so pathetic.

First of all:

There is no name of 'major TV network' so this case is not clear enough. Why not use name of that network so we all know who is in need for free photographs?

Nothing is for free on this planet - so why they want free photos? Maybe you can get some second of their advertising commercial time so you can then sell that to those who need it!

Anyhow it is very big BS.

For several years I've done occasional photography for a local fitness magazine.  I had to set up appointments with people they were featuring and travel around to shoot at various locations.  Then there was processing time, etc. 

Their fee was just $25.  So low it almost never covered my expenses and certainly didn't produce any kind of profit but I was new and wanted the exposure and by-line.  Plus I thought eventually as my skill increased they'd pay me more.

Here it is three years later and they are asking me to travel long distances and take hours out of my day for the same $25 fee.  I told them I wasn't going to shoot photographs for a fee that didn't even cover my expenses anymore.  I thought since they've come to rely on me and I've done a great job for them that they'd pony up some more cash.   Of course they didn't.  I guess they think they can find another beginner who'll work essentially for free. 

I mean, come on, they buy one or two custom photographs a month.  Everything else they use is cheap stock.  I guess that's why they are a small player and will probably stay a small player.

Anyway, has the exposure and by-line earned me anything?  No.  Not a dime.  Bad investment on my part.  Lesson learned.

Co-incidentally, the Today show ran a feature on the portrait photographer who shoots the guest hosts of Saturday Night Live.  I'm sure there was no compensation for displaying the images.  The fact that it is the same network muddies the issue, but when a news or info-tainment program does an editorial feature on a subject, frequently that subject is not compensated.  If that subject is a photographer and the point of the feature is the work it would not be unheard of to display images without compensation.  Similarly if a photographic artist is promoting a book or gallery exhibition they are not compensated to come on a tv program to promote it. 

Yes, of course. Essentially he was being sent on assignments, at a time and place of the magazine's choosing (as opposed to existing images from his library). A staff photographer would not only be paid but would normally have equipment provided too.

for something like this, i would do an exchange for both property and model release to make it worth your while, in addition to the meagre $25 'processing' fee. this is truly an insult to photographers since this is assignment work and you can't add these photos to your portfolio.