Should I work for free?????

[sunnyside_up]

Be better and people will buy yours instead of freee????? hmmm


Blackpool fc may be poor on the pitch but they could afford a few quid for a pic in a news story?


This is what I took
http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?action=view&album=FOOTBALL_WOM/3575&image=154


This is what they used
http://www.blackpoolfc.co.uk/news/article/blackpool-fc-under-9-girls-share-trophy-2417090.aspx

and yes.. thats me taking it ..

I rest my case

Just out of curiosity, how would the paper have gotten hold of the image they used? Would 'buddy' who snapped the shot (likely on his/her phone) submitted it to them? Obviously even knowing that there was a photographer on site? I bet they were well chuffed though, bragging rights of 'I got published! I got published!' Whoever took that photo probably didn't care about getting financial recognition for it, but loved the pat on the back they got from all their mates. Wonder if anyone said to them they should push for getting paid for it...

I work for free sometimes, I do it when I have a lull in my bookings, usually take the opportunity to try something new; a new setup, product, idea... but this is work for me... and as a thank you, I offer the photos to my model (usually do kids, so it's Mum). But I'm no pro, and if it was my main income, I would probably think and do differently.

 

[shreds]

Cannot condone ever giving anything away for free.

It just increases the cycle of wanting it free next time. So local papers, BBC, ITV, National Trust etc etc, do not get anything for free. Why, because they do all actually pay for photos....you are just the schmuck who was stupid enough to think you might get more work out of it or wanted to see your piccy on the TV/paper but have just undermined ALL the other togs who follow you.

Tell you what, go into Marks & Spencer tomorrow, pick up a coat/food/whatever, take it to the counter and ask them to put it through the till for free for you. I can't say I expect too many replies that are successful tomorrow.

So whatever your misguided reasons for doing it for nowt, don't do it.

You need to respect all the other togs out there, whether they are doing it to put bread on the table or are merely doing it to fund a new lens. They don't need undermining by you.

 

[Canon Bob]

You need to respect all the other togs out there, whether they are doing it to put bread on the table or are merely doing it to fund a new lens. They don't need undermining by you.

A parallel scenario....
I want to watch a football match and I can either pay to see the professionals in town in action or stand on the touchline for free and see an amateur Sunday league side. By your reckoning the local side shouldn't let me watch them for free because it's undermining the professionals. Some play to make their living and some do it for recreation just the same as photography.

Bob

 

[shreds]

Even the Sunday side will probably have someone coming round selling raffle tickets or selling cups of tea at half time.

In respect of recreational photography, no problem with that, but why the need to then go and give the results away, due to an over inflated ego, wanting to see it in next weeks chip wrapper.

 

[Canon Bob]

In respect of recessional photography, no problem with that, but why the need to then go and give the results away, due to an over inflated ego, wanting to see it in next weeks chip wrapper.

I'm sure that there are many different things that motivate people to allow their photos to be published and ego may be one of them but there are many more.
I cover matches for 4 or 5 local (amateur) football teams and a rugby team. They have access to the photos and write up match reports which are then submitted to the regional newspaper for publication. Sometimes the report includes a photo and other times just text....that's presumably down to the editor. You could argue that it's the team's ego being satisfied by seeing their photo in the paper but it's certainly not mine. Whether it's a football match, a wedding or a bunch of blue tits in the garden, I do it because I enjoy it. I respect the pro's that have to produce the results but I don't think that the onus is on me to behave differently.

Bob

 

[petersmart]

Be better and people will buy yours instead of freee????? hmmm


Blackpool fc may be poor on the pitch but they could afford a few quid for a pic in a news story?


This is what I took
http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?action=view&album=FOOTBALL_WOM/3575&image=154


This is what they used
http://www.blackpoolfc.co.uk/news/article/blackpool-fc-under-9-girls-share-trophy-2417090.aspx

and yes.. thats me taking it ..

I rest my case

That is so totally pathetic!

Obviously the paper cares nothing about quality or anything else - are they a free newspaper? - could not believe they would publish such a crappy photograph!

I wonder if they let Wonga advertise for free on their shirts?
.

 

[kelack]

It's not a paper, it's Blackpool FC's official site

That sucks though Tony. I find that sometimes my football club will use a camera phone pic as a placeholder as they can upload it straight away and then when I ftp mine over about an hour later, they will update it with that

 

[dinners]

Interesting thread folks and I can see both sides of the debate.

Here's an example:

I received an email from a photo editor asking whether I would provide images for this book....

http://www.bookdepository.com/Birds-Western-Palearctic-Hadoram-Shirihai/9780713645712

http://www.amazon.it/Birds-Western-Palearctic-Hadoram-Shirihai/dp/0713645717?SubscriptionId=AKIAIPY377N5GLCZS65A&tag=gettex0b-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0713645717

He had seen a collection of Siskin photographs (on my Flickr) and it was a few specific juvenile Siskin images that he was enquiring about. All he wanted was half a dozen low res images after which they would get back to me about higher res files. I sent some small, very low res images but in my email I made a point of asking about remuneration should they want to proceed. They replied to say this is something they would discuss if they decided to go ahead and use my images. I never heard anything back after that but obviously they know they're on my Flickr. As far as I could tell this edition of the book is to be published in 2016

Had they asked to use my images (already taken) for free - I may have let them.
Had they asked me to go out and shoot the shots for them for free - I'd have said no.

When I poked about on the net I came across this from an earlier date. It's essentially an invitation to supply images for the book.

http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=1322

http://www.birdguides.com/i/articles/001322/BirdingWorldApr08.pdf

 

[dinners]

and yes.. thats me taking it ..

I rest my case

That's a great example albeit a sore one.

I'd be putting my advert on my back

 

[Canon Bob]

I'd be putting my advert on my back

I be sticking an expletive on my back....then see them use it

 

[colda]

Cannot condone ever giving anything away for free.

There is a certain irony of this comment alongside your image of Banksy's work

 

[colda]

Work for free - no certainly not, that would be stupid

...but for many photography is not work, quite the opposite, and like many people that pursue hobbies it's great to get recognition and that's where the point of conflict lies. For many of those whom photography is their work, then the 'intrusion' of people working for free/cheap is indeed an issue (likewise for those that entered the arena of photography for financial gain), indeed there's a big part of a political thing that's currently going on where it's claimed that peoples earnings in general are kept low because others are coming along and prepared to do work for much less. Rather than compare the non-financially motivated photographer to a trade they would be better compared to an artist, as an artist there is generally a need for as much recognition as possible (it's an ego thing), this may or may not lead to a desire for commissions (if it did that 'artist' usually jumps into the commercial camp very quickly), it would be considered very unfair to hold back an artist desire to publish and be noticed

So, perhaps the question is wrong, maybe a better question (with a more obvious answer) could be: "Should I allow people/organisations to exploit my art for their own commercial gain?"

Personally, I have a studio, I'm signed to a photographic agency, I get paid for my work but also produce a lot of images for free where doing so pleases me

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Here's a scenario that I'm in at the moment, following recent events a local race team have asked me to be their photographer at forthcoming races, part of the role also includes publicising them ie, submitting articles to local papers. For this they are prepared to pay me. So yes I am getting paid by the team, however not by the papers.
Now from reading through this thread (and also some of the comments made on my own thread) it seems I would be breaking some kind of unwritten photographers code by submitting the images to the paper without receiving payment, however if I don't I am breach of the agreement I have with the team.

 

[KIPAX]

Here's a scenario that I'm in at the moment, following recent events a local race team have asked me to be their photographer at forthcoming races, part of the role also includes publicising them ie, submitting articles to local papers. For this they are prepared to pay me. So yes I am getting paid by the team, however not by the papers.
Now from reading through this thread (and also some of the comments made on my own thread) it seems I would be breaking some kind of unwritten photographers code by submitting the images to the paper without receiving payment, however if I don't I am breach of the agreement I have with the team.

I have quit a few papers around me.. some pay some dont.. the ones that dont pay.. hmm eg basketball ..the club want pics in the paper.. the paper wont pay... so exactly like your scenario I explained this to the club who said.. we will pay you the same fee as the paper... so for basketball and a couple of other sports I get paid by the club (or wheover) and they then supply the papers

for me.. i have been paid the going rate for pics in the paper.. dont see it matters who actually paid..

so i would say your doing thing right... but thats my pinion

 

[PaulF]

This is a common debate and one that rarely has a satisfying conclusion, more so for the pro's.

Let me say that I am an amateur with no intention of selling my images.

In reference to the OP and the video which is aimed at pro's or those wishing to become a pro, in that situation then no, no one should really be working for free in the hope that future work will follow. Exchange of services would be ok in the right circumstances, you scratch my back I scratch yours type of thing.

The thread seems to have moved onto amateurs giving previously shot stuff away for free, as these debates tend to. And, that is a different thing all together. An amateur will most likely have no expectation that giving an image to a newspaper/website/facebook etc will lead to payment any more 'work' in the future as that is not really what they are looking for.

The photography industry is seeing it's value reduce but it's not alone in that nor does it have any right to be immune when so many other industries are facing the same issue. The industry I am in has seen similar over the last decade or two. I chose to develop my skills to move into the more commercial side.

Here at TP we all may be contributing to the devaluation of other industries. We have an excellent tutorial section on TP, does that section in some way devalue the book publishing industry, and as a knock on the photography industry - less books published or at a reduced price - less images required for said books or at reduced rates. Take a look in the tutorial section, you will find some who shout no one should give an image away for free no matter what but are happy to provide tutorials for free. The same effect could be argued for most of the 'talk' sections, ask on help on how to process an image a particular way and some one will help, which is a good thing. But, are you taking work away from the people who provide training in those area's, just a thought.

 

[colda]

Here's a scenario that I'm in at the moment, following recent events a local race team have asked me to be their photographer at forthcoming races, part of the role also includes publicising them ie, submitting articles to local papers. For this they are prepared to pay me. So yes I am getting paid by the team, however not by the papers.
Now from reading through this thread (and also some of the comments made on my own thread) it seems I would be breaking some kind of unwritten photographers code by submitting the images to the paper without receiving payment, however if I don't I am breach of the agreement I have with the team.

This is assignment photography so you are doing this assignment for the race team who need to publicity and they are paying you so yes, you should submit to the papers for free. An alternative situation would be prospective photography whereby you attend the event and take images in the hope that you can then sell them on to the papers (or whoever)

It could be argued about usage but really, if that's a concern then you should iron that out with the race team, I would assume that they are working with you in good faith that's beneficial to you both

 

[DemiLion]

Here's a scenario that I'm in at the moment, following recent events a local race team have asked me to be their photographer at forthcoming races, part of the role also includes publicising them ie, submitting articles to local papers. For this they are prepared to pay me. So yes I am getting paid by the team, however not by the papers.
Now from reading through this thread (and also some of the comments made on my own thread) it seems I would be breaking some kind of unwritten photographers code by submitting the images to the paper without receiving payment, however if I don't I am breach of the agreement I have with the team.

Nothing wrong with that at all, however...

what you are now doing is PR work which attracts a premium, especially if you are the one required to submit the images and doubly so if you write the accompanying text.

Think in the region of 5-10x newspaper rates.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

I have quit a few papers around me.. some pay some dont.. the ones that dont pay.. hmm eg basketball ..the club want pics in the paper.. the paper wont pay... so exactly like your scenario I explained this to the club who said.. we will pay you the same fee as the paper... so for basketball and a couple of other sports I get paid by the club (or wheover) and they then supply the papers

for me.. i have been paid the going rate for pics in the paper.. dont see it matters who actually paid..

so i would say your doing thing right... but thats my pinion

This is assignment photography so you are doing this assignment for the race team who need to publicity and they are paying you so yes, you should submit to the papers for free. An alternative situation would be prospective photography whereby you attend the event and take images in the hope that you can then sell them on to the papers (or whoever)

It could be argued about usage but really, if that's a concern then you should iron that out with the race team, I would assume that they are working with you in good faith that's beneficial to you both

Thanks both for clarifying that, as I am just starting out I would hate to make my life difficult in the future by alienating the community now and as to usage, part of the agreement is that they are able to use the images for their own website and other non-commercial usage (I am controlling print sales). I am also retaining the copyright and ability to use in my portfolio.

However playing devils advocate for a moment, are we not then supporting the 'papers view of "why should we pay for photos, when others are prepared to save us the cost by paying for them for us". Just a thought. TBH I'm with Kipax in as long as I get paid by someone

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Nothing wrong with that at all, however...

what you are now doing is PR work which attracts a premium, especially if you are the one required to submit the images and doubly so if you write the accompanying text.

Think in the region of 5-10x newspaper rates.

Thanks Mark, maybe something to negotiate for next season dependant on how this year goes Currently I calculated my day rate based on the NUJ calculator

 

[KIPAX]

However playing devils advocate for a moment, are we not then supporting the 'papers view of "why should we pay for photos, when others are prepared to save us the cost by paying for them for us". Just a thought. TBH I'm with Kipax in as long as I get paid by someone

theres a fine line and I decided a while ago that if I wanted to be pure about things then I would probably starve ... some papers dont pay for certain typs of pics.. its a good compromise... the papers are the real winners.. but then again it could be argued that the club are using the papers to there own end... lets say theres a badminton and a basketball game on.. the papers will report and show the basketball because they got the pics and the badminton wont get a look in... so they paper got played into choosing..

 

[colda]

Thanks Mark, maybe something to negotiate for next season dependant on how this year goes Currently I calculated my day rate based on the NUJ calculator

If you are getting that then you are doing well

There has been a lot of changes in the industry and now newspapers buy from agencies on an 'all you can eat' for a set fee basis the returns to photographers have become minimal, to give you some idea my first sale was in 2007 and it was 3 small images lost deep in the pages of sunday supplement, for that I got paid £300, this was before the reformed agency contracts. My last sale was a few years ago (2012) I got £40 for a quarter page image on page 3 (or 4) of the Evening Standard, the only reason I got so much was because the paper opted to pay double so they didn't have to add a byline, hence why I don't submit images to my account these days, having friends that are still in the game I often see comments of pitiful payments from agencies under £10 is very common and some break under £1. Local papers are owned by big organisations and generally don't have a budget to buy photography directly (except in breaking news cases)

 

[shreds]

There is a certain irony of this comment alongside your image of Banksy's work

Oh, I know. Good innit!

 

[DemiLion]

... My last sale was a few years ago (2012) I got £40 for a quarter page image on page 3 (or 4) of the Evening Standard, the only reason I got so much was because the paper opted to pay double so they didn't have to add a byline, hence why I don't submit images to my account these days, having friends that are still in the game I often see comments of pitiful payments from agencies under £10 is very common and some break under £1. Local papers are owned by big organisations and generally don't have a budget to buy photography directly (except in breaking news cases)

£10 is likely to be a 50/50 split from an online publication in something from like the Star or Express.

Otherwise I'd suggest that they or their agency are syndicating via the likes of Rex, which is just daft.
Similarly the £1 jobs a probably from tripple+ layer agency syndication overseas.

 

[Peter69]

definitely work for free.

Do you do plumbing - come work at mine for free

 

[shreds]

definitely work for free.

Do you do plumbing - come work at mine for free

But if that happened, you would think there was a catch, or the plumber was so appalling that his work would be sub-standard.

 

[big soft moose]

definitely work for free.

Do you do plumbing - come work at mine for free

yeah , ive got a ball peen hammer , some duct tape and a can of WD40 and I know jacks*** about plumbing, but how hard can it be - I'll do yours free to build up my portfolio....

 

[Furtim]

yeah , ive got a ball peen hammer , some duct tape and a can of WD40 and I know jacks*** about plumbing, but how hard can it be - I'll do yours free to build up my portfolio....

....and with the latest 'push-fit' technology, there's a fair chance you'll do a reasonable job too.

 

[Phil V]

The issue with the 'working for free' debate is that hobbyists don't see it as 'work', the problem arises because they're absolutely right. If photography is something you do 'for pleasure' then it's illogical when people tell you to 'stop giving your work away', all people are telling them is that they want to put limits on their hobby. Which is patently stupid.

Maybe we need a new definition?

 

[Ady N]

Don't get me started on people turning up at events, doing full coverage and posting online as free downloads because it's their hobby. Makes no odds that said commercial events published there was an event photographer and said event photographer had spent months helping with event promo only to have sales diluted by hobbyists that don't give a flying one about any arrangements. And then said hobbyists have the front to contact the event organizers to say - hey look at our great pics of your event, would you like us to attend in the future!!!! But hey, it's a public place and anyone can take pics.

I have noticed a lot of 'togs' offering London marathon runners selections of pics from Sunday - once heard a tale about Marathon Photo pursuing that sort of activity but can't remember the facts or outcome................

 

[DemiLion]

Marathon Photo wouldn't stand a chance on that. It's one of the few sports events that really is open to the general public and a free for all.

Marketing/commercial images on the other hand...

 

[Brazo]

yeah , ive got a ball peen hammer , some duct tape and a can of WD40 and I know jacks*** about plumbing, but how hard can it be - I'll do yours free to build up my portfolio....

You say that but...

When you first started out I assume you weren't the all encompassing pro that you are now? Surely you (and every other pro) must have made some mistakes, turned in some poor work early on etc etc?

I am considering doing some paid work in the mid future and having just done two recent shoots (for free!) they have been invaluable in showing me that I have a lot to learn and there's no way I could charge for my output at present. I consider myself to be learning, not about photography per say but about all the other business elements, people management and delivering under pressure.

 

[simonbarker]

When you first started out I assume you weren't the all encompassing pro that you are now? Surely you (and every other pro) must have made some mistakes, turned in some poor work early on etc etc?

I bet they even charged less for their work when they started! How long will we continue to let people undermine pro togs?!

 

[Pookeyhead]

I went through all this with painting for a living. Thing is, no one owes you anything. People give stuff away, work cheap or free or whatever. You have to adapt.

To be honest I don't like to see people struggle but it really isnt my problem. Because they own a camera it doesnt give them the right to get cash. The market is changing. Get better or get out.

We're telling you over and over again.. Kipax has also given you examples... being better has sod all to do with it. Why are you having difficulty with this? The problem is that people like you who give crap away are devaluing PHOTOGRAPHY... not MY photography... or anyone else's.. but PHOTOGRAPHY itself. So quit with this "get better then" argument, because it's irrelevant. I'm fairly certain I am better than you... by some margin, but certain markets.. the bread and butter ones that keep you ticking over between the big jobs are becoming utterly unconcerned with quality. Kipax's example is typical of what I'm talking about. If people like you are willing to give away crap images for free, then they'll not pay for better ones.

You're promoting a culture that sees photography as something with no value. Just because you feel your images are worthless, it doesn't mean everybody feels the same.

The fact is.. if you asked for a nominal fee this culture would not prevail. If they say no when you ask for money, so what? As you keep telling us, you're not a professional. So why do you do it? What do you get out of it? What advantage does giving your stuff away for free afford you? Kudos? Bragging rights? What? Why do you do it?

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Whilst I agree with your points about giving stuff away for free. I think that the erosion in the value that people place on photography runs a lot deeper and changes in culture and technology have contributed to the current state of affairs.

If I look back to my childhood, I remember being taught that if you want something of decent quality then you have to pay for it. Alongside this I remember if you wanted photos you first had to part with money to buy the film and then pay again to develop them and at the time, compared to earnings, this wasn't cheap. Photos were then displayed and shared in albums.
Fast forward to today, most people will take photos on a mobile device and never look at them again let alone print them and look at large versions, meaning that the appreciation of quality is reduced. Because there is less appreciation and the improvements to technology and software like instagram, people think that "snaps" taken on a phone are good enough and because people's expectations are lower, editors are content to publish sub standard work.
Unfortunately in society everybody wants the same or similar for less money, in some cases photographers are no different, buying grey import equipment to save on costs, or shopping round for the best UK prices, something that is now easier due to the Internet.

 

[steveo_mcg]

Like it or not the bread and butter work is gone, its another disrupted industry. Add it to the buggy whip, the record, film photography some vestiges will hang on and people will pay a premium for the very best but the mass market has moved on.

 

[Canon Bob]

.....The problem is that people like you who give crap away are devaluing PHOTOGRAPHY...

But wouldn't charging for the same crap devalue it even further, David?

You're promoting a culture that sees photography as something with no value...

To a hobbyist it doesn't have a value, it's a cost (in common the the vast majority of hobbies).

The fact is.. if you asked for a nominal fee this culture would not prevail.

I suspect it's too late for that.

So why do you do it? What do you get out of it? What advantage does giving your stuff away for free afford you? Kudos? Bragging rights? What? Why do you do it?

Like anything else (possessions, time, advice) it's the individuals choice whether or not they give it away or sell it. There's a sub-forum on here entitled "Freebies offered".....is that so different?

Bob

 

[Ian D J]

I do my doodles for free simply because I enjoy doing them and I get some joy knowing people find them funny (or at least I hope so!), it's always been something I was able to do since I could hold a pen as a kid. In doing so, I am continually fine tuning my own drawing skills as well as discovering new ways to make them look better, along with using modern technology to help me along (especially with the colouring in part as I'm left handed and it puts a lot of strain on the wrist).
And then if and when the time does come for me to want to go properly freelance as an illustrator, it might be next month or it might be when I'm properly old and smelly, I would feel like I have that confidence to pull it off. But, for now, ideas do come naturally to me when I'm not under any pressure to meet a deadline for a paying client and that's why I am having fun with it all as things stand.

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

I'm not a professional photographer and I have not given away images - a glance at my Flickr stream will confirm why!

The question for professional photographers is "Can I make a good living from selling my images?" If the answer is no, then it's time to look at a different way of making money.

The argument about images being given away, regardless of how good or bad they are, is irrelevant. Technology and society changes - we have to accept that. In my working career I have had to change direction a number of times. As technology evolved my earning power was eroded as computer hardware became a cheap commodity. I didn't want to change, but there was no realistic alternative.

It doesn't matter whether the change is right or wrong - it's happened and we cannot reverse the trend - "free" photographs are here to stay. If you can make a living in the photography business, that's great, but keep an eye on changes and trends and be prepared to adjust your business/job to make sure you are not left behind in this changing world.

If I was a professional photographer I would not be relying on persuading others not to work for free, in order to maintain my income and preserve the profession.

Chris

 

[big soft moose]

You say that but...

When you first started out I assume you weren't the all encompassing pro that you are now? Surely you (and every other pro) must have made some mistakes, turned in some poor work early on etc etc?

I am considering doing some paid work in the mid future and having just done two recent shoots (for free!) they have been invaluable in showing me that I have a lot to learn and there's no way I could charge for my output at present. I consider myself to be learning, not about photography per say but about all the other business elements, people management and delivering under pressure.

True but by the time i started out i was reasonably competent and had the kit to do a reasonable job , I wasn't using an entry level body with a kit lens

 

[StephenM]

To a hobbyist it doesn't have a value, it's a cost (in common the the vast majority of hobbies).

I'm a hobbyist, and photography (in general, without the definite article) has a value to me. I've paid money to buy photographs. Likewise, my photography has a value to me (both in intangible and tangible terms) and to others who have paid for my photographs.

It's probably a hopelessly naive view, but I would have thought that if anyone actually wants to use a photograph (for anything) then it has a value to them. The question then becomes whether the photographer should give away something of value. It then becomes part of a bigger picture as to whether giving away something of perceived value (to the recipient) encourages them to think that perhaps it's not really of any value anyway; or that if they can get something for nothing, why should they ever pay? Anyone who actually tries to charge them must be trying it on, surely?