free???

http://www.matmackenzie.co.uk/photography-is-not-free/

Thought some of you might enjoy this and He makes some good points

Seems to me he's putting hard working journalists out of work, blogging content for free which would otherwise have to be paid for by some form of media!

A fair point, but what about the dear old Beeb? The background to our local weather report is a photo sent in by a member of the public, and NOT paid for. The weather presenter is getting paid. The "Met" staff are getting paid. The studio crew are getting paid. So why not the person who took the shot?
Geoff

Because people like to see their work published on tv. The beeb if they didn't do this wouldn't use any photography. Same as local papers getting readers to submit images for a photo page. What is annoying is when people submit news images that are worth money are just given away freely to news institutions, look at all those videos of the riots people posted to youtube which where then used for free worldwide... Or mobile phone images uplaoded to twitter & again used freely...

What the photography business really needs is an easy way for general public to post images to photo agencies or monetary exploitation, make people aware of sites like demonitix etc...

One way to solve this problem would be for the governments to make a law that would make it mandatory for the medias to pay for the pictures/videos they use in the papers/television. If you can't find the rightful owner, the money could go in a "pot" for charity...

I like the idea pentaxian450 posted above, although I think it would be very problematic to put into practice. Personally I think photography and who profits when, where and how can be a complex issue.

The internet and digital has opened and closed doors for photographers, I think if photographers offer something really special people will be willing to pay, and I doubt that these photographers would give their work away for free. Perhaps there is just more supply than demand in relation to photography?

It must be a nightmare trying to break into the world of professional photography. Everyone has access to a half decent camera, well, good enough to take family snaps and put them online. Would I be willing to pay for a photograph, yes, I have done. It's a copy of something I liked, a jetty going into a lake by Colin Simpson whoever he is, and I have a nice frame which I can re-use when I get bored with it and replace it with one of mine I'm pleased with, for "free". I don't think I would have given "the most expensive photograph in the world" a second glance, but there again I may just be a philistine.

Photographers here in the UK have just fought against the government doing this here in the UK under orphan work law. Good idea in theory unfortunately most commercial enterprises could use any image claim a google search & then not have to pay unless caught, not a really good situation for photographers.

More about it here or google clause 43 orphan works

Anyone who has followed cabstar's suggestion and link, should also take a look at the problem of computer "Abandonware".
Roughly, this is stuff that the publishers no longer support, but where they have retained the copyright.
Geoff