[tremis]

For photogs not working for a legitimate media outlet are charged 150 bucks right?
They offered $75 bucks for your product. You and I and everybody else in the world knows this is not even close to an acceptable offer so you decline and pay them the 150. If you cant make enough revenue at the event to cover all of your costs (the 150, the travel, ect) then you shouldn't really do it. If a different league doesn't charge as much for you to business at their event, then that's the way to go, unless they don't have the customer base to support you doing business there.

There's been some comments that the typical photographer is already operating at a loss. I wouldnt mention that guys. If your trying to win an argument with someone, it's never a good idea to admit you are a fool until after you've won the argument.

[GeoffByrne]

Originally Posted by raehl

I'm going to go ahead and say something I probably shouldn't. But it seems a reality check is warranted here.


How many of you photographers are shooting for Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, ESPN, AP, Reuters, etc?

Or even APG or Faceful?


All of those major pro leagues ONLY issue free media passes to PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS. If you are not shooting for a major media publication, you ARE NOT A PRESS PHOTOGRAPHER.

Let's replace NPPL in this situation with the NFL:

"Hi, I would like a media pass for the Packers game."
"Ok, which publication are you with?"
"I am from packerphotography.com. I take pictures and then sell them on my website."
...I'll let you guess what the NFL says at this point.


If you are not a press photographer, those leagues will not give you a pass at all. So, if you're REALLY suggesting that NPPL handles their media like major sports leagues do, you better get your press pass, or plan on staying home.


Here's the reality of the situation. The leagues get minimal to no value by having the vast majority of photographers there, unless they get copies of the pictures, or you're one of the handful of photographers who is taking the pictures that will end up in actual media (no, your photography website does not count.)


And dealing with photographers takes time and resources. The league would be foolish to spend their time and resources so that YOU can then sell photos. You want the league to put forth the resources for you to be there, then you pay the league. If you don't want to pay the league, then the league is better off not having you on the field at all.


Like anything in else in life, just because you want someone to pay you to do something doesn't mean someone wants to pay you to do it.


- Chris

Ok, so let's put aside the fact that none of us probably have the credentials to shoot for any major sports outlet.

Actually to hell with it, do as you wish and see where it gets you. Best of luck with your endeavours.

[IplayforRelentless]

Originally Posted by tremis

For photogs not working for a legitimate media outlet are charged 150 bucks right?
They offered $75 bucks for your product. You and I and everybody else in the world knows this is not even close to an acceptable offer so you decline and pay them the 150. If you cant make enough revenue at the event to cover all of your costs (the 150, the travel, ect) then you shouldn't really do it. If a different league doesn't charge as much for you to business at their event, then that's the way to go, unless they don't have the customer base to support you doing business there.

There's been some comments that the typical photographer is already operating at a loss. I wouldnt mention that guys. If your trying to win an argument with someone, it's never a good idea to admit you are a fool until after you've won the argument.

You're getting this confused. They aren't paying us, we're paying them.

[tremis]

No, I'm not. You pay 150 for the privilege to shoot the event. If you give them all of your product, they knock off 75 bucks from the cost. That's the net equivalent of them paying you 75 for your product.

ETA: Which by the way is grossly ignorant of them to value your product at that.

[IplayforRelentless]

Oh, I see what you're saying now. I think I'll send an email to NPPL when I'm fully awake, but I'd still like to see them address this publicly so everything can get cleared up.

[Mike Grenade]

You don't make a bad point about press photographers, Chris, but there's still nothing that justifies having to give work away. I can deal with fees, we're used to that now, and it's even understandable. As you say, non-press photographers don't add much value for the league, and fees act something like a deterrent against photographers lacking commitment. But to require copies of the work to be used as promotional material after the photographer has paid just to be there really crosses a line. It doesn't matter if they're making money, it's the principle of the thing.

Another problem is there's not much to the paintball media. There are few outlets, no outside press, and few (if any) that will pay for work.

FWIW, the OP has been published in SI, WSJ, and regularly shoots major league sports for a wire service.

[Little_PB_Newb]

Originally Posted by raehl

I'm going to go ahead and say something I probably shouldn't. But it seems a reality check is warranted here.


How many of you photographers are shooting for Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, ESPN, AP, Reuters, etc?

Or even APG or Faceful?


All of those major pro leagues ONLY issue free media passes to PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS. If you are not shooting for a major media publication, you ARE NOT A PRESS PHOTOGRAPHER.

Let's replace NPPL in this situation with the NFL:

"Hi, I would like a media pass for the Packers game."
"Ok, which publication are you with?"
"I am from packerphotography.com. I take pictures and then sell them on my website."
...I'll let you guess what the NFL says at this point.


If you are not a press photographer, those leagues will not give you a pass at all. So, if you're REALLY suggesting that NPPL handles their media like major sports leagues do, you better get your press pass, or plan on staying home.


Here's the reality of the situation. The leagues get minimal to no value by having the vast majority of photographers there, unless they get copies of the pictures, or you're one of the handful of photographers who is taking the pictures that will end up in actual media (no, your photography website does not count.)


And dealing with photographers takes time and resources. The league would be foolish to spend their time and resources so that YOU can then sell photos. You want the league to put forth the resources for you to be there, then you pay the league. If you don't want to pay the league, then the league is better off not having you on the field at all.


Like anything in else in life, just because you want someone to pay you to do something doesn't mean someone wants to pay you to do it.


- Chris

I think you're missing the point that none of us (though I just cover local at the moment) are just shooting them to "put them on our website". We're hired by the teams to cover the event for them. Let me put it this way..you're planning a wedding, and you already paid for your location, planners, banquet, etc. And now you need to go and hire a photographer. They give you their bace price of say $2500, but once you hire them, the banquet hall staff tell the photographer they need to pay $2400 to go in and shoot photos at your wedding..

See how long you still have a wedding photographer.

[outkast kid]

Originally Posted by raehl

You want the league to put forth the resources for you to be there, then you pay the league.

- Chris

I'm sorry but what exactly does the league actually put forth for me as a photographer? Last time I checked I was taking the weekends off, leaving friends, family and work to travel, all the while paying for said travel. I was putting my equipment inside the net. Where does the NPPL spend any money for me to walk through that netting and point a camera at their bunkers?

There are some wickedly good photographers who just don't have the time to shoot for a paintball news wire. Judging 'professionalism' based on where a photographer's images end up is a poor way of doing things. Seems more like the NPPL is only interested in 'professional' photographers because it means free promotion through those news wires.

I was debating shooting DC, my mind's been made up. Having to pay a league and submit my images when it costs said league absolutely nothing for me to be there is ridiculous.

[potato]

Way too much *****ing coming from the unprofessional photographer crowd. Although surrendering creative content is questionable it doesn't relate to this situation. This is a paintball event which emphasis should be placed on the PAINTBALL not the special treatment of those not in the industry trying to make a quick buck or those who are trying to subsidize their trip. You are not that high up on the food chain and are in definite need of a reality check. There is no great service being provided that couldn't already be supplemented by press photographers especially that warrants outrage of an increase of only 75 dollars.

If shooting teams at an event isn't sustainable (it never has been) and you can't make it in the black than either do it and be humble or don't do it, but do not use it as leverage for your argument. Their really isn't any real intrinsic value to having photographers at an event if they're only capacity is to fund their vacation by hocking photographs to teams. In fact it would only appreciate the value of paintball photography if there was more stringent admittance to who could shoot and the photographs were curated to meet the image the league is trying to present.

There once was a time when ONLY press photographers could get on the field. I think that should be reinstated and over time scaled back to the this current policy. Guaranteed you wouldn't see this much complaining.

The NPPL and PSP has gone lax on photographers probably as a measure of goodwill but it's really getting out of hand and needs some control.

Originally Posted by raehl

I'm going to go ahead and say something I probably shouldn't. But it seems a reality check is warranted here.


How many of you photographers are shooting for Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, ESPN, AP, Reuters, etc?

Or even APG or Faceful?


All of those major pro leagues ONLY issue free media passes to PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS. If you are not shooting for a major media publication, you ARE NOT A PRESS PHOTOGRAPHER.

Let's replace NPPL in this situation with the NFL:

"Hi, I would like a media pass for the Packers game."
"Ok, which publication are you with?"
"I am from packerphotography.com. I take pictures and then sell them on my website."
...I'll let you guess what the NFL says at this point.


If you are not a press photographer, those leagues will not give you a pass at all. So, if you're REALLY suggesting that NPPL handles their media like major sports leagues do, you better get your press pass, or plan on staying home.


Here's the reality of the situation. The leagues get minimal to no value by having the vast majority of photographers there, unless they get copies of the pictures, or you're one of the handful of photographers who is taking the pictures that will end up in actual media (no, your photography website does not count.)


And dealing with photographers takes time and resources. The league would be foolish to spend their time and resources so that YOU can then sell photos. You want the league to put forth the resources for you to be there, then you pay the league. If you don't want to pay the league, then the league is better off not having you on the field at all.


Like anything in else in life, just because you want someone to pay you to do something doesn't mean someone wants to pay you to do it.


- Chris

If Raehl is defending this thread in the NPPL subforum there's also probably a good reason for doing so.

[Auctionjunkie!]

NPPL MEDIA PASS POLICY CHANGE GOING INTO AFFECT IMMEDIATELY

In response to improving the experience for both players and audience at our events and to elevate the game play of the tournament we are implementing changes to our media pass policy. This change will go into affect immediately and apply for the upcoming event; DC Challenge being held at PEV'S Paintball Park in Aldie, Virginia. The new policy will allow us to better control who is on the field taking pictures and maintain a level of professionalism NPPL is known for. This new policy will also make room for the up-and-coming photographers to experience shooting at a higher level yet give NPPL the control to maintain the strictiest oversight of the games. We look forward to serving both the media and players and elevate the tournament experience for everyone. Thank you for your patience as we continually strive to improve the league for you the players and spectators.



NEW POLICY:

Media Pass Policy Per Event:

Who is eligible for All Access Passes (This pass gets you into all Fields):

1. Legit Media photographers/videographers or freelancers shooting for or from a Magazine or online magazine. Must Register Online(send request on line with company info and proof of business)

2. Photography Companies (non media) purchase a 10x10 will recieve 2 All Access Passes. Must Register Online(send request on line with company info and proof of business)

3. Non - Media personnel who want to support the industry can pay; $500 per event, to shoot chaperoned, includes VIP Passes.

4. Photography Companies (non Media) WHO WILL NOT submit a DVD of images after event; new price $150. Must Register online ( send request online with company info and proof of business)

5. Photography Companies (non Media) WHO WILL submit a DVD of images after event; new price $75. Must Register online ( send request online with company info and proof of business)

Who is eligible for Non Main Field Access Passes:

1. Photography Companies (non Media) Photographerss WHO WILL NOT submit DVD of images after event; new price $150. Must Register online ( send request online with company info and name of person to come)

2. Photography Companies (non Media) WHO WILL submit DVD of images after event; new price $75. Must Register online ( send request online with company info and name of person to come)

3. Must have previous experience shooting national events or take indoctrination

4. Team Photographers/videographers with permission from opposing team. Price: $75

Suspension from shooting at events Policy:

1. Paid $75, but didn't submit DVD after event.

2. This person will be suspended for the following event.

3. This person must pay full price of $150 to shoot at event following suspended event.

Temporary Pass:

1. Price $50- Non Center Field access for 3 games only - for students / non experienced photographers.



* Nppl reserves the right to remove any personnel with a media pass off the fields and barred them from shooting the remainder of the event, if we find the person is disrupting or aiding a team to cheat while on the field. There will be NO REFUND issued. You will also be barred from shooting the remainder of the season and will have to be reviewed by our board to determine if you will be eligible to shoot any more NPPL events.

This policy goes into affect immediately, starting with our upcoming event: DC Challenge.

I think there are a lot of presumptions made since the NPPL press release isn't very clear;

No where does it say I cannot give them watermarked images.
No where does it say what the images will be used for or their reason for wanting the images.
No where does it say that all images "from the event" must be given to them.
No where does it say that the submitted images cannot be edited.
No where does it say that the submitted images must be at the quality they were taken at. (Shot at 18 megapixel but submitted at .1 megapixel.)
No where does it say they must be in JPEG format.
No where does it say that the files submitted cannot be password protected or encrypted.
No where does it say the "DVD" must be in data format and readable or strippable by the NPPL for whatever presumed use.
No where does it say the DVD of images must be given to the NPPL. (I can take it that a DVD must be sent to the teams that hired me.)
No where does it say the time frame to submit the DVD.

Have I helped them out? Probably but if they are going to create "policies" just for the sake of making them then they better use someone with more than a 3rd grade level in English and have an attorney on standby. Since a "purchase" is made for access then a full list of conditions must be given without the chance of the NPPL committing fraud. As a consumer there are many rights and protections available. I seriously think that this was not fully thought through and the poor verbiage and multiple misspellings are proof of it.

Dan

[ionshooter93]

Originally Posted by Auctionjunkie!

I think there are a lot of presumptions made since the NPPL press release isn't very clear;

No where does it say I cannot give them watermarked images.
No where does it say what the images will be used for or their reason for wanting the images.
No where does it say that all images "from the event" must be given to them.
No where does it say that the submitted images cannot be edited.
No where does it say that the submitted images must be at the quality they were taken at. (Shot at 18 megapixel but submitted at .1 megapixel.)
No where does it say they must be in JPEG format.
No where does it say that the files submitted cannot be password protected or encrypted.
No where does it say the "DVD" must be in data format and readable or strippable by the NPPL for whatever presumed use.
No where does it say the DVD of images must be given to the NPPL. (I can take it that a DVD must be sent to the teams that hired me.)
No where does it say the time frame to submit the DVD.

Have I helped them out? Probably but if they are going to create "policies" just for the sake of making them then they better use someone with more than a 3rd grade level in English and have an attorney on standby. Since a "purchase" is made for access then a full list of conditions must be given without the chance of the NPPL committing fraud. As a consumer there are many rights and protections available. I seriously think that this was not fully thought through and the poor verbiage and multiple misspellings are proof of it.

Dan

[no_caffeine]

NPPL still exists? News to me..

What isn't news to me is how media is being handled. Last NPPL I shot was NPPL Boston 2007, it was an absolutely nightmare and debacle from there on out never wanted to shoot NPPL again.

[GeoffByrne]

[danbob1088]

Originally Posted by potato

Way too much *****ing coming from the unprofessional photographer crowd. Although surrendering creative content is questionable it doesn't relate to this situation. This is a paintball event which emphasis should be placed on the PAINTBALL not the special treatment of those not in the industry trying to make a quick buck or those who are trying to subsidize their trip. You are not that high up on the food chain and are in definite need of a reality check. There is no great service being provided that couldn't already be supplemented by press photographers especially that warrants outrage of an increase of only 75 dollars.

How does surrendering creative content not relate to this situation? The issue IS the loss of creative content. That practically invalidates the rest of your argument.

Special treatment isn't really the issue here. I don't think very many photographers think they need to be treated special. Fair is more accurate, and people are expressing that they'll vote with their feet. While the NPPL has every right to make this change, its going to hurt them in terms of publicity (even if its minor...which lets face it, doesn't help when you have only 51 teams signed up for your next event across all divisions).

If shooting teams at an event isn't sustainable (it never has been) and you can't make it in the black than either do it and be humble or don't do it, but do not use it as leverage for your argument. Their really isn't any real intrinsic value to having photographers at an event if they're only capacity is to fund their vacation by hocking photographs to teams. In fact it would only appreciate the value of paintball photography if there was more stringent admittance to who could shoot and the photographs were curated to meet the image the league is trying to present.

Their is an intrinsic value to having photographers at your events. Lets say the PSP has lots of photographers (they do). Now lets say the NPPL simply doesn't except for the press photographers, who spend most of their time on the professional field. Now those teams that are deciding between leagues have one more, albeit small, factor to use in deciding. Can I get photos of my national event at the NPPL, after spending all that money to go? Nope, damn. But wait, the PSP does...and that format is pretty exciting...

Having media does make you gains. Might not be much, but its something. While you do need to regulate it, I simply don't see the structure required to designate and distribute media passes being that intensive.

If Raehl is defending this thread in the NPPL subforum there's also probably a good reason for doing so.

Why?

Half the argument is in comparison to media on levels so much grander than our own that it is simply folly to bring into the discussion, by either side (I know Chris's comments were in response). Put MLB, NFL, etc. all away. Arguments are being based on an industry substantially larger and more popular than our own. We are a niche 'sport'. How many photographers are press photographers exclusively now anyway, in our game?

I'm perfectly fine with paying for a media pass. My big issue is the proposed loss of creative content and no clear definitions (as shown below) of to what we'd give them.

More edits: my biggest issue is that $150 for a media pass comes from almost nowhere. Now define the difference between "photography company" and non-media personnel. $500? I've paid for $150 for a media pass before, but I did it and knew what was expected of me and was taken care of VERY well by the league. This is $150 for what? Getting on the field? **** I got steaks for lunch, a booth, all day water and gatorade, lunch, etc., and all access to pretty much everything for that $150. The NPPL proposal speaks to someone who is not professional in the least, with no real business savy and terrible attention to detail.

I agree: regulation is good, even needed. But this is not the way to do it.

Originally Posted by Auctionjunkie!

I think there are a lot of presumptions made since the NPPL press release isn't very clear;

No where does it say I cannot give them watermarked images.
No where does it say what the images will be used for or their reason for wanting the images.
No where does it say that all images "from the event" must be given to them.
No where does it say that the submitted images cannot be edited.
No where does it say that the submitted images must be at the quality they were taken at. (Shot at 18 megapixel but submitted at .1 megapixel.)
No where does it say they must be in JPEG format.
No where does it say that the files submitted cannot be password protected or encrypted.
No where does it say the "DVD" must be in data format and readable or strippable by the NPPL for whatever presumed use.
No where does it say the DVD of images must be given to the NPPL. (I can take it that a DVD must be sent to the teams that hired me.)
No where does it say the time frame to submit the DVD.

[jarude]

Originally Posted by raehl

I'm going to go ahead and say something I probably shouldn't. But it seems a reality check is warranted here.


How many of you photographers are shooting for Sports Illustrated, Fox Sports, ESPN, AP, Reuters, etc?

Or even APG or Faceful?


All of those major pro leagues ONLY issue free media passes to PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS. If you are not shooting for a major media publication, you ARE NOT A PRESS PHOTOGRAPHER.

Let's replace NPPL in this situation with the NFL:

"Hi, I would like a media pass for the Packers game."
"Ok, which publication are you with?"
"I am from packerphotography.com. I take pictures and then sell them on my website."
...I'll let you guess what the NFL says at this point.


If you are not a press photographer, those leagues will not give you a pass at all. So, if you're REALLY suggesting that NPPL handles their media like major sports leagues do, you better get your press pass, or plan on staying home.


Here's the reality of the situation. The leagues get minimal to no value by having the vast majority of photographers there, unless they get copies of the pictures, or you're one of the handful of photographers who is taking the pictures that will end up in actual media (no, your photography website does not count.)


And dealing with photographers takes time and resources. The league would be foolish to spend their time and resources so that YOU can then sell photos. You want the league to put forth the resources for you to be there, then you pay the league. If you don't want to pay the league, then the league is better off not having you on the field at all.


Like anything in else in life, just because you want someone to pay you to do something doesn't mean someone wants to pay you to do it.


- Chris

Well said.

[OhIoCoNtRActKilLa]

I don't know why anyone bothers to compare paintball to another sport. It is MUCH too different to do so. It's worthless to even build an argument around that.

[raehl]

Originally Posted by danbob1088

Their is an intrinsic value to having photographers at your events.

No there isn't.

Hell, I think NPPL is being incredibly generous in offering $75 for a copy of your work, because another set of event photos isn't worth $75 to the league. If I were them, I'd pay ONE photographer a couple hundred for the one set of event photos they need and make the rest of you pay the full $150. Given the choice between having $75 and ANOTHER set of event photos, I'd take the $75.


- Chris

[TzeentchianGod]

Tournament organizer wants to charge non-press photographers? No problem
Tournament organizer wants to create a price scale based on experience? No problem
Tournament organizer wants free images and free use of those images to promote itself? Nope.

Earlier Jung spoke out of both sides of his mouth, chiding people for wanting stuff for free, and then defending the NPPL for wanting images for free. Giving a discount to shoot the event is not the same as properly licensing a photographers work for your own promotional use.

Chris, you don't put much value in photographers or their work, and that's fine. Neither did I until I started to learn photography. There is far more work that goes in to the creation of a good photograph than most people realize. Its hard to communicate that work to a non-photog, and therefore convince them of its value. Again, that's fine.

But when you spend "a couple hundred for the one set of event photos," you get what you pay for. IOW, you'll get ****. If you're happy with ****, and think you can adequately promote your events with ****, then more power to you! FYI, it's exactly this culture from event organizers and other industry that has caused all of the, IMO, great photographers to flee the sport. Their talent and work are gone, and it's an uglier sport for it.

To those complaining about the cost of the NPPL media passes, you can either make it work as a business model or you can't. If enough can't, and the NPPL sees a detrimental effect, they will have to reduce that price to lure those photographers back. As was talked about above, teams on the fence between the NPPL and another league might base their decision in part on whether they will be able to hire a freelance shooter to capture their experience for them. If not, if that never happens, the NPPL will likely not see any loss in business and the media pass will not go down. It might even go up more, testing the limits of the market. <shrugs> That's just business, folks.

In this way, you gotta vote with your feet. If you don't like the price, don't pay it. If you can make that price work, and as a result you have fewer "amateurs" getting in the way of your shots, then win/win, right?

The price to shoot, however, has nothing to do with handing over your images for free. Seeing one of my images used in NPPL promotional material, watermarked or no, and not getting paid for that is theft. Any court in this country will agree. You either have my permission to use my work or you don't. I can't be everywhere or see every piece of NPPL promotional material, so I am better off not giving them access to my photos in the first place. Its better than wasting time being diligent that the NPPL hasn't pilfered my work. Is that fair of me? Sure, the NPPL has done exactly this in the past, so gets none of my trust (one of the side effects of maintaining that brand, folks).

As I see it, there are two separate issues. The cost to shoot, and the desire to not give images away for free. The cost to shoot is a simple cost/benefit analysis. You can either afford to do business or you can't. Expecting a photographer to give their images away for free is unacceptable. And is reason enough to reject any pricing structure proposed. For me, at least.

[raehl]

Originally Posted by TzeentchianGod

Chris, you don't put much value in photographers or their work, and that's fine.

That's not true at all. I pay photographers all the time, and I specifically pay photographers to take photos at the NCPA National Championships.

But I hire the photographers I want. All the photographers I don't hire, regardless of talent, have no value to me.

It's not that I don't think photographers are not valuable.

I just don't think 30 photographers is more valuable than, say, 2.


And nowhere did I see NPPL say photographers had to give away their images for free. They did offer a reduced rate for a pass if you were willing to share copies of the photos you took.


- Chris


* Side note: I only pay a few hundred dollars for photographers, but that's not for exclusive control: They're still welcome to shoot for and sell photos to teams, or whatever else it is photographers do to make a buck.

[Little_PB_Newb]

exactly, you pay photographers to shoot the series, NPPL charges.

[outkast kid]

Originally Posted by raehl

They did offer a reduced rate for a pass if you were willing to share copies of the photos you took.


- Chris

This statement is incredible. The league is not offering a reduced rate, its blackmailing photographers into getting free photos and money on top of that. Again I ask what the **** do I owe the NPPL for being able to walk on to the field? The league is already in the toilet, all this is doing is driving away potential media prospects that would further promote 7 man paintball. There have already been several committed photographers for DC who have canceled their flights. How is that making the league more successful?