Paid Experience: MediaStorm introduces Pay Per Story scheme

He already hits me up for $200 a yr.

I resent being nickeled and dimed after being a patron of the "art' for so long... but often folks get big headed and forget their foundations...

Grandfathered in would be acceptable...

Charging for stories & photos on the web

Just a general point not specifically aimed at the story above.

Once the charging model becomes widespread it will create a 'two tier' internet with those able to pay for content having different internet experience to those who cannot afford to pay.

I'm not just thinking about western nations here (like so many do when they think of the internet) but those in poorer countries where information and photos are harder to come by.

Something for nothing culture

You're damned if you do. You're damned if you don't.

Having attended some talks recently, notably the V11 agency and Getty Reportage, it was striking that how to earn a living as a photojournalist was posing some serious issues with traditional models and business plans in taters centred around the web.

The older ones were talking about meeting mortgage payments, the younger ones about paying the rent. The older ones had kids, the younger ones, not.

So, what does society want from photojournalists? Free images. We live in a free information culture and for the most part, yippee! I'll teach my dog to sing and Mr Cowell will earn me a crust overnight.

However, on a more sober note, it's bringing photojournalism down to its knees and yet we persevere with some antiquated, antediluvian idealism from college (?) that we as photojournalists are obsequious to our art form, that this line of work will pay the bills, give us a fulfilling career and allow us one day to retire.

This is now a perfidious pretext on which to base ones livelihood. Beware this deleterious free-for-all approach as it is Plato's Cave and thus in extemis to us all.

Pay per story

I think this is an innovative idea, and I personally am most certainly willing to contribute a small price to view. My fear is that some companies will follow suit and start to get greedy by raising the price. As I see it, what is the difference in paying for music through iTunes, this is the same concept is it not? I understand the previous comment by Roger Blackwell regarding poorer countries being adversely affected in their access to the arts however, making this is a difficult debate.

A different business model

Essentially it is no different to the concept of "buying a paper from a news stand" but using different technology.

As it represents a more sustainable model for photojournalists, I support it, but whether the general public will be prepared to pay, only time will tell.

To me, a more workable model for monetising the internet and redressing the imbalance would be to use the subscription tv model. If internet users want to have access to news websites, they have to pay an addittional monthly fee as part of their internet package. This would be collected and remitted via the ISPs. If the user did not pay and subscribe for these sites, then access would only be allowable through use of credit/debit cards. Simple.

Brainstorm?

IF I want to suffer more, I can always watch similar documentaries on TV for free. There's always something depressing on, or I can listen to Shostakovich.

This is why I ask myself why anyone would want to risk imputting their card details into a computer for what, in a month, will be either free anyway, or irrelevant- made so by the next atrocity, or scene of pain and loss and deprivation, oh, and that essential feature -violence, yawn...

I can see the point of being able to download copies of books to read, yes, and books of images I can view on my monitor and/or TV, yes, because we gaze with interest and collect fanatically any images that increase our level of consciousness-its why I "take " pictures at all....

But for such a service to succeed it must be available on Windows as well as Mac, and it must be available globally to dial-up customers too.

And to suceed it has to be better than Flickr and other sites, and that is going to be difficult for anyone to do.

Is this the way of things? Hope not.

It's a sad day indeed if documentary projects are only going to be made if there is a monetary reward at the end. Of course people need to pay their bills, but by only looking at the bottom-line a lot of issues, causes and worthy stories are at risk of being left hidden.

Stagggered

As a working photojournalist and documentary photographer I am frankly amazed at the number of comments against this and against charging for work. Has photography fallen so far that even BJP readers think we should give work away for free? Or do those readers have the benefit of a 'regular' job and live for photographic credits only.