Anybody want to be a volunteer photographer for the fire brigade?

[jamesev]

You are still free to stop volunteering/photographing. I don't think slaves have the option to stop "slaving".

But I take your point. Only if they shared the copyrights the rest would be more palatable

hence the not far short

You have to provide your own kit at your expense.
Volunteer, hence no remuneration for your work.
You don't own your work so can't use it to further your photographic progression
you are required to attend locations


I'm yet to see any positive for the photographer apart from gettting out the house.

 

[gcgraphs]

Years ago when I worked as a gardener I used to tend the local Chapel grounds.

Did I get paid for it? No. Did I receive any remuneration for using my own gear and fuel? No.

What I did get was a great feeling for putting something back into the community.

Granted I wasn't "required" to attend but I didn't get a uniform either

GC

 

[Pound Coin]

On the plus side here though, having a uniform as a Fireman must help getting laid

Dave

Except Firefighters' uniforms are Yellow and Brown, which means every volunteering day would be a Black Day.

 

[StewartR]

I'm yet to see any positive for the photographer apart from gettting out the house.

Ahem.

On the plus side here though, having a uniform as a Fireman must help getting laid

 

[nandbytes]

hence the not far short

You have to provide your own kit at your expense.
Volunteer, hence no remuneration for your work.
You don't own your work so can't use it to further your photographic progression
you are required to attend locations


I'm yet to see any positive for the photographer apart from gettting out the house.

Well the experience you gain from it is also in the positive. If your work is publicly used/displayed you can always point people at it.
I am not sure why anyone with a portfolio would go for it but someone with no experience and portfolio can get some experience and no portfolio.

 

[StewartR]

So it wouldn't be ideal for someone starting out and wishing to build up their portfolio, as they wouldn't be able to use the shots.

not sure you can get a portfolio if you don't own the copyright?

To be fair, the use of images for the volunteer's portfolio isn't necessarily excluded. Lots of people get hung up on who owns the copyright, but the real issue is what rights you have to use the images. Obviously the copyright holder has carte blanche, but there's no reason in principle why the copyright holder can't grant a perpetual, irrevocable licence to use the images. That's not mentioned in the advert so I think it would be open for negotiation.

 

[Garry Edwards]

This is entirely insulting to the value of the time and skill and commitment of a photographer.
They even want to vet the quality of his work before "allowing" him to work for free.
" talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth"
They also "Require" the volunteer to be available on demand with out even paying a retainer or compensation for absence from employment.
I would also expect them to cover full insurance, or pay for its purchase.

It will be interesting to see if they get any "Takers"

However in the great scheme of things, I have no problem in doing voluntary photography, as I have done so for the local museum and the local church.
I have no problem in letting them use any photographs copyright free and for any purpose, though I retain the the Copyright myself.
As a retired professional I need to find such work "interesting" or I do not get involved. I certainly never feel "obliged" to do it.
This year I shall be volunteering to cover some major renovation work, which is taking the best part of a year to complete, for my local church, and supplying images to the Lottery fund who are paying most of the renovation costs.

I do voluntary work for a charity myself, don't get paid, don't even get expenses, I do it because I believe in the cause.

BUT what I do is work that wouldn't get done at all if I didn't do it for free, they can't afford to pay so my own contribution isn't affecting anyone else's income, and that's the big difference between doing free community work that is potentially helpful and doing a job that should be paid. If the fire service is struggling financially then they really ought to look at ways of saving wasted money and they could start with the perks that they give their senior managers - Range Rovers, Jags and so on. Several services have 'modified' these luxury cars by fitting them with hidden blue flashing lights, this allows them to be designated as emergency vehicles and the managers then aren't taxed on them. . .

Things are getting worse and worse in the world of professional photography, people seem to think it's OK to grab and use any image they like off the internet. TV stations, news websites and the dead tree press "allow" people to submit their photos, free of charge, in the hope that they will be shown. It's partly due to the people who allow themselves to be exploited in this way, partly due to the companies who want something for nothing

 

[Nod]

put two and two together in that particular way.

Putting one and one together is better IME.

 

[sphexx]

You won't be paid, other than out-of-pocket expenses.
You won't get to ride in fire engines.
You won't be called out to fires.
You won't keep the copyright of your images.
But you will get a uniform and an official ID.

Apply to the Royal Berkshire Fire & Rescue Service: https://www.rbfrs.co.uk/careers/volunteering/volunteer-photographer/
Or not.

I’m a bit puzzled by this. This is for promotional social images and so on but presumably the fire service take evidential photos of fires presumably with their own people or contact?

 

[DemiLion]

I’m a bit puzzled by this. This is for promotional social images and so on but presumably the fire service take evidential photos of fires presumably with their own people or contact?

Yep. That role is performed by fire investigation officers.

Edit - and it's generally carried out after the fire has been extinguished.

 

[Chipper]

I do photography for a BBL club because it pleases us both. I think the problem with this advert is the demanding stroppy tone that suggests that they are doing the favour and you will do as you are told. Perhaps they might consider rewriting...

 

[SydZ]

To be fair, the use of images for the volunteer's portfolio isn't necessarily excluded. Lots of people get hung up on who owns the copyright, but the real issue is what rights you have to use the images. Obviously the copyright holder has carte blanche, but there's no reason in principle why the copyright holder can't grant a perpetual, irrevocable licence to use the images. That's not mentioned in the advert so I think it would be open for negotiation.

Surely it would be better the other way round? Photographer retains copyright but grants the fire service a license to use them.

 

[Withers]

I'm a volunteer photographer for the National Trust. I agree that the language used in this advert is a bit hefty, but I work under many of the same conditions required here. I use my own gear (top end Canon DSLRs and lenses), had to attend a competitive interview where examples of my work were shown (to prove I can take a shot) and have signed a copyright release which gives the NT copyright over any images which I submit to them for their use. I am also "required" to (asked nicely if I could) attend events etc as needed. It's part of the job. My images get used for marketing purposes, social media etc and also to support the trust's conservation work by recording restoration work, for example.

I get round the copyright issue by shooting multiples of most images - especially those which I think may have promise, and keeping copies for myself (different image, different exif); I submit a selection of "best" shots from each shoot to the NT for their library - not all the shots I take; make myself available for as many events as possible, but not all; and work within a great volunteer team.

What do I get out of this? Well ... I've got some great shots which I might not have had otherwise, as I get privileged access to parts of the property that normal visitors cannot; I enjoy the interaction with the other volunteers and staff, so there's a social aspect; it makes me challenge my skills as there's always something new to shoot - often under challenging conditions/low light/crowded events etc ....... so being a volunteer photographer does have some advantages.

 

[Chipper]

Yes - I definitely get something from my work for the BBL team - no question. It is part of the 'job' but it's at the same time, not a job and the wording and tone on their website doesn't make me think I would like to take photographs for them for free.

 

[Phil V]

Sadly this is the culmination of two very common opinions you will find a great deal of in society and on TP too:

Should the taxpayer be funding public services to do 'interesting' jobs?

Why is it so wrong to 'work' for free if people enjoy doing it?

In the past, a fire brigade wouldn't be considered in the same way as a 'charity', they should be funded properly - but no one wants to pay enough tax to run the country (or trusts politicians to spend it properly). And there are too many people who enjoy their hobby and refuse to accept that if they give away images it impacts others business.

 

[latestarter]

Cameras have come on leaps and bounds and it doesn’t cost a lot to own a decent camera capable of taking a great pic. Plenty of people out there can produce a very good image, albeit as a hobby. Now the photographer who relies on his pics for an income really needs to up his game or just accept that there are others out there that will do it as a hobby and give their pics away for free. Times are changing guys, photography is not hard these days. If you want to charge for your picture then you are going to have to be exceptional because there are lots of people who can replicate that picture very easily. Yes as a hobby. Is it time for the pros, to up their game? Or indeed update their C.V.?

 

[StewartR]

Surely it would be better the other way round? Photographer retains copyright but grants the fire service a license to use them.

Why? What difference would it actually make? I think you're just proving my earlier point:

Lots of people get hung up on who owns the copyright, but the real issue is what rights you have to use the images.

 

[SydZ]

Why? What difference would it actually make? I think you're just proving my earlier point:

Does it?

Handing over copyright allows the service to use, and abuse, you images as they see fit. Editing and cropping them in ways you may not wish and there is nothing you can do about it. If they then credit you with such images it could hurt ones reputation.

Retaining copyright and allowing the images to be under license allows you to keep better control.

Of course if they then abuse the license you need either deep pockets or be willing you cease volunteering.

 

[StewartR]

Handing over copyright allows the service to use, and abuse, you images as they see fit. Editing and cropping them in ways you may not wish and there is nothing you can do about it. If they then credit you with such images it could hurt ones reputation.

Everything you say here is, of course, absolutely correct.

Two observations though.

1. If the photographer retains the copyright, but the fire service requires - as they surely would - an unrestricted licence to use, modify, publish, create derivative works, etc, then the situation is unchanged.

2. If the photographer retains the copyright, they can use and abuse the images in ways the fire service may not wish, and it could hurt the service's reputation. I would suggest that the service's reputation is at least as important as the photographer's.

There are potentially some important issues here in the relationship between the service and the photographer, which are complicated by the fact that the post is unpaid. (If it were a paid post, the service would have copyright and that would be perfectly normal.) But the point I'm still trying to make is that the ownership of the copyright is not the source of, or the solution to, these issues - and focusing on who has the copyright does not solve them.

 

[Withers]

Does it?

Handing over copyright allows the service to use, and abuse, you images as they see fit. Editing and cropping them in ways you may not wish and there is nothing you can do about it. If they then credit you with such images it could hurt ones reputation.

Retaining copyright and allowing the images to be under license allows you to keep better control.

Of course if they then abuse the license you need either deep pockets or be willing you cease volunteering.

Fair point, but in my own experience, if the charity likes an image enough to use it for something, they like it as it is ie how I present it to them. They are not about to start pp’ing it all over again. It’s never happened to me anyhow.

With regard to cropping, I would say that the large majority of pictures I’ve had published or used over the years have been cropped in some way. It’s a simple fact of life with images provided for marketing purposes, especially those used in printed media. The image needs to fit the available space. So unless they ask me to provide something in a specific crop size, which does happen, then I submit them as a standard size and the editor fits them in as needed. I don’t feel this detracts from my images in the least. I also don’t believe anyone has ever looked at one of mine in print and though “OMG, what the hell was Withers thinking cropping it like that” . They’re out there being used and seen, mostly with my name credited, so I’m happy and my reputation is intact.

I know people who supply images for other charities and organisations and they all find the same. These include a dog rescue, a primary school, a football club and others. In every case images get used but never abused other than a slight crop to fit.

I’m not in the least precious about my images and accept that if a bit of editorial tweaking gets them seen, so be it. Better that than have them living forever in darkness on my hard drive.

 

[Andrew Smith]

At the risk of starting a flame war on what is a contentious topic, I passed these details to a friend who has last week submitted an application for the position. My friend thinks they could be looking for several volunteers reading through the limited documentation available. My friend has got photography qualifications but little experience (currently doing a non photographic office job to pay the bills) and sees this as a potential way to get some experience and a reference...... I will keep you informed as to what happens, my friend submitted the application on Thursday night and is now waiting to hear back.

 

[Chipper]

I contacted them and suggested that they amend their language; they said that they would... I didn't go and look and see if they did, though.

 

[Retune]

At the risk of starting a flame war

I see what you did there.

 

[sirch]

I see what you did there.

perhaps TP should have a reciprocal agreement with the Fire Service, we take pictures for them and they put out the flames on here

 

[Cobra]

perhaps TP should have a reciprocal agreement with the Fire Service, we take pictures for them and they put out the flames on here

 

[Gogster]

When I used to photograph concerts, I knew of photographers who refused to sign a release that gave away copyright to the artist, thus losing paid work.

Also, they appear to have updated the advert and removed "required."

 

[Dave *]

What about if you get injured attending a shout,will you have included private medical treatment? would you be expected to go into a building to photograph fire damage after the was put out. What about being asked to photograph a dead body when discovered?

If you read the linked article none of those are part of the position.

You don’t even get to ride in a fire engine...

 

[Andrew Smith]

My friend has had an acknowledgement e mail saying that the volunteer application has been passed to the relevant person who will be in touch in due course. I will report back any further developments.

 

[GordonM]

Damn cheek if you ask me. They want you to not only give up your time for nothing but also use to use ones expensive gear which the won't even insure. On top of that demand the copyright and not even pay. Then there is the question of travel expenses, does that include the purchase of a vehicle in the first place. What about third party insurance as you are working on behalf of the fire service? What about if you get injured attending a shout,will you have included private medical treatment? would you be expected to go into a building to photograph fire damage after the was put out. What about being asked to photograph a dead body when discovered?

What about asking for the use of their fire engine if you want to go shopping? same thing, and I know what their answer would be.

It just goes to show how far removed management, like in most large organisations, are from reality



It is only a mug that would work on those terms

Give that it’s clearly a PR role, questions about “injured attending a shout” “going into a building after a fire” and “photograph a dead body” are all irrelevant, especially the body - that’s specialist work for a police forensic team. As for ‘travel expenses’ covering buying a vehicle at the standard rates per mile used by government organisations your grandchildren would be driving around in a vintage Fiesta by the time it was paid for!

 

[Andrew Smith]

Just to bring this thread up to date, the person concerned had an interview and the next day was offered a volunteer photographer position subject to references. Now awaiting the result of a DBS check then it’s induction. RBFRS have recruited several volunteer photographers and consider the scheme to be a success.

 

[Derek897]

Interesting thread,
I'm a Firefighter in Ireland. the language used in the initial ad. Is very typical of the language used within the fire services in general.
Chances are. Little consideration was given to the fact that it was going out to the general public, resulting in the typical fire service verbage.

I have no intention of getting in on the paid / unpaid debate and taking work from others.

My take on it , is that the volunteers will be asked to attend training days, recruits passing out. Joint exercises with other sectors of the emergency services, rtc extraction days/ competitions, the type of stuff that looks impressive, in the hope of generating more interest and help aid recruitment, public awareness and highlighting the diversity of, the services rendered.

I dont think there is any question at all about
Being called to shoot at a shout, just wouldn't happen.

Whether it should be done on a volunteer basis is another question, as is the copyright issue, but that may well be easily sorted.
It may just be a case they want to be able to use the images in training presentations, without having to look for permission.
I cant see any need for them to want or need sole use.

Looking forward to hearing the outcome.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

MY point is whenever these threads come up it always goes the same way.


All I am saying is whilst some of you seem to believe that every time someone takes on a photography job for free the implication is that they are taking paid wok away from someone. You also do the same when you don't employ people to do work around your house.

A little different, I'm not expecting anyone else to come and do it for me for free.

 

[munch]

A little different, I'm not expecting anyone else to come and do it for me for free.

Where do you draw the line? every job somebody does as a volunteer/ for no money is taking money away from somebody who could get paid to do it.

The national Trust survives on volunteers, but every job they do could (should) be done by somebody who is paid.

Everybody who does DIY around the house is taking money away from tradesmen.

I recently turned some bits for the local heritage Railway, didn't get paid for it, but enjoyed the challenge. That was taking work from somebody who could have been paid to do it, where do you draw that line?

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

I recently turned some bits for the local heritage Railway, didn't get paid for it, but enjoyed the challenge. That was taking work from somebody who could have been paid to do it, where do you draw that line?

But did you get to wear a uniform and sit in a fire engine?

 

[StephenM]

Where do you draw the line? every job somebody does as a volunteer/ for no money is taking money away from somebody who could get paid to do it.


Everybody who does DIY around the house is taking money away from tradesmen.

I'll plead guilty now to dressing myself in the morning and depriving a valet of work, and putting a nurse on unemployment by feeding myself. The notion that taking a DIY approach to anything is taking away someone's employment is badly flawed.

 

[munch]

I'll plead guilty now to dressing myself in the morning and depriving a valet of work, and putting a nurse on unemployment by feeding myself. The notion that taking a DIY approach to anything is taking away someone's employment is badly flawed.

I don't see how it is. I could afford (and for two rooms in my house I have empolyed) a decorator. but I quite actually enjoy doing the decorating. So where is my way at looking at things flawed.
What about the example of the National Trust? Where the last property I went too, there where two employed gardeners and about half a dozen volunteers all working in the gardens. Surely by some peoples anology about taking away other peoples jobs, they should all be paid.

 

[Graham W]

Where do you draw the line? every job somebody does as a volunteer/ for no money is taking money away from somebody who could get paid to do it.

The national Trust survives on volunteers, but every job they do could (should) be done by somebody who is paid.

Everybody who does DIY around the house is taking money away from tradesmen.

I recently turned some bits for the local heritage Railway, didn't get paid for it, but enjoyed the challenge. That was taking work from somebody who could have been paid to do it, where do you draw that line?

Is there any particular reason you're choosing to ignore the response (#72) to your comment?

 

[munch]

Not ignoring the point (#72), just saying that I get fed up with every time any of these threads comes up, it revolves around “taking money from a paid photographer”. Not every photograph taken for commercial use needs to be done by a paid photographer. Some of the comments made to support that are no different from some examples I used. (Some purposely stupid to try and prove the point)

 

[Furtim]

I don't see how it is. I could afford (and for two rooms in my house I have empolyed) a decorator. but I quite actually enjoy doing the decorating. So where is my way at looking at things flawed.
What about the example of the National Trust? Where the last property I went too, there where two employed gardeners and about half a dozen volunteers all working in the gardens. Surely by some peoples anology about taking away other peoples jobs, they should all be paid.

This is the same National Trust with over £1 Billion in reserves

 

[munch]

Yes that same one. Does that change anything though?