At 07:13 AM 1/16/99 -0700, Constance J. Sidles wrote:

>In the case of the Seattle Press, this is a community
>newspaper strapped for cash. Its previous owner struggled for
>years to keep it going, then sold before going bankrupt.

Do they pay their editorial staff? Their on-staff writers?
The folks who *print* the paper? The folks who *sell* the
newsprint upon which the paper is printed. You say it was
sold before going bankrupt. Did the buyer buy it hoping to
be able to make a profit (i.e. PAY HIM/HER SELF)?

Keep in mind I don't NEED your credit. I have credits from
folks who pay me, just as they PAY THEMSELVES.

Why is it that the shooter is asked to donate so that others
can make money?

Isn't that the owner's job? :)

>The new owners will also struggle.

My eyes water over. Truly, I mean this.

And my photos stay here, at home...and I'm dry-eyed as I contemplate
this fact, too.

> As retail businesses
>consolidate into megacompanies with offices distant from
>local communities, they stop advertising in community
>newspapers. When that happens, the community papers die.

>I don't know about Portland, but Seattle community papers are
>almost all on the edge of going out of business.

I don't know about Seattle photographers, but the vast majority
of photographers in other parts of the country can't make their living
selling their work.

Why should starving shooters further starve themselves to help
community newspapers stay in business? Capitalism is about investing
capital in WHAT YOU OWN, and shooters don't own the venue, publishers
do.

They should dig into their pockets or go bankrupt.

By dealing with those willing to give away their work, they guarantee
that in general they'll get inferior photography (and writing, since I
suspect writers are screwed the same way). Which in the end ensures
the public will discern their inferiority and stop reading the rag,
and the rag will go titty-heavenwards.

Or does the rag pay its writers? If that's the case, a pox upon them.
I write (for money) and shoot (for money) and any suggestion that my
writing should be paid for while my shooting should be donated will
only result in my dropping my camera for a M16 followed by an offer
to donate my shooting...

>Since I value
>the alternate viewpoints they frequently espouse and their ability
>to give voice to people who are seldom heard in the big dailies,
>I do think it's worthwhile to submit my - and my students' work -
>for free. Though I would certainly accept a check.

Go for it! Help them dudes make a successful business while
donating you work?

>Also for the record, sometimes my kids do get paid.

They should ALWAYS get paid unless they are explicitly donating to
a cause the believe in

(BTW, probably 1/3 of my published photography has been for free or
for direct costs, i.e. shipping and dupes. I don't do it for commercial
rags, though, only not-for-profit small-scale ads. You'd do your
students a favor if you taught them to recognize the difference).



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net