Won't work for free.

f/2.8 said:
That isn’t correct. My neighbours son was investigated by HMRC. His mate has a pizza shop and his delivery driver was sick. My neighbours son helped him out for 3 days making a grand sum of £46.

Someone reported him to HMRC and they actually investigated it.
Click to expand...
False equivalence - HMRC have a specific rule for £1000 turnover for a hobby business - buying and selling on ebay or a bit of photography or knotting. So unless you'd consider delivering pizzas a 'hobby' it's irrelevant.
 
nandbytes said:
That's really petty! Doesn't the "someone" have anything better to do?
Click to expand...
Some people might argue that a good citizen should report what they think is naughtiness when they see it... :tumbleweed:
 
nandbytes said:
A good citizen would know it'd cost the country more money to investigate and not turn up anything in return
Click to expand...
Other opinions are available. :naughty:
 
f/2.8 said:
That isn’t correct. My neighbours son was investigated by HMRC. His mate has a pizza shop and his delivery driver was sick. My neighbours son helped him out for 3 days making a grand sum of £46.

Someone reported him to HMRC and they actually investigated it.
Click to expand...
Phil V said:
False equivalence - HMRC have a specific rule for £1000 turnover for a hobby business - buying and selling on ebay or a bit of photography or knotting. So unless you'd consider delivering pizzas a 'hobby' it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

As I would 'see' it, in regard to the HMRC approach.....the £1000 turnover limit is by statement & inference is aimed at the small trader/self employed. Whereas doing pizza delivery for cash in hand is more akin to the black economy i.e. undeclared working.

But who dobbed him in, is a question.......?
 
nandbytes said:
For £46?
A good citizen would know it'd cost the country more money to investigate and not turn up anything in return
Click to expand...
I agree but how did the person who reported it or hmrc know it was only £46
 
stumac said:
I agree but how did the person who reported it or hmrc know it was only £46
Click to expand...
May the person didn't know it was £46 but how much did they think a stand in pizza delivery driver could make in 3 days. Surely not a fortune that'd be worth reporting!
 
nandbytes said:
May the person didn't know it was £46 but how much did they think a stand in pizza delivery driver could make in 3 days. Surely not a fortune that'd be worth reporting!
Click to expand...

Maybe it was more of a report on the pizza company than individual deliverers.
 
DemiLion said:
Sadly that just shows a lack of understanding of media/press photography. There used to be a lot of value in sourcing weather pictures to the BBC (£150 or so per splash) before they started the 'Weather Watchers' begging system. Some people made the majority of their income from it.

There's still decent money to be made from the newspapers for weather images - especially for weather extremes. A mate of mine in East Anglia does rather well from it.

So no, it isn't different. It just means that you don't realise that you are undermining someone's income.
Click to expand...

History is littered with changes that have meant some people's income is undermined.
 
j crossley said:
In regards to the pizza delivery driver, I doubt that we have been told the full story.
Click to expand...
Pound Coin said:
Maybe it was more of a report on the pizza company than individual deliverers.
Click to expand...
Yes and yes. As numerous TV reportage programmes have illustrated, such jobs are often associated with a variety of criminal activities.
 
nandbytes said:
May the person didn't know it was £46 but how much did they think a stand in pizza delivery driver could make in 3 days. Surely not a fortune that'd be worth reporting!
Click to expand...
If you step back it becomes obvious. It’s not about one guys £46, if an employer is willing to illegally employ one person, how many others are there? It’s worth a cursory look at any employer who’s happy to break the law.

Clearly the inspector dropped it when it was obvious it wasn’t a wider issue, but they could have discovered a hiding of £200k turnover using only non registered employees. And we’d all want them to find that surely?
 
Phil V said:
If you step back it becomes obvious. It’s not about one guys £46, if an employer is willing to illegally employ one person, how many others are there? It’s worth a cursory look at any employer who’s happy to break the law.

Clearly the inspector dropped it when it was obvious it wasn’t a wider issue, but they could have discovered a hiding of £200k turnover using only non registered employees. And we’d all want them to find that surely?
Click to expand...
And not just contravene employment law but how many other laws might be circumvented
 
Phil V said:
If you step back it becomes obvious. It’s not about one guys £46, if an employer is willing to illegally employ one person, how many others are there? It’s worth a cursory look at any employer who’s happy to break the law.

Clearly the inspector dropped it when it was obvious it wasn’t a wider issue, but they could have discovered a hiding of £200k turnover using only non registered employees. And we’d all want them to find that surely?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed but OP said the employee was reported by someone for making little bit of extra cash from a side job, not the employer.
 
@jonbeeza
The weatherman thing is a bit different to me - its often a shot just showing the day's weather and has no value other than that, and many folk love to have a shot shown on telly even where they are clearly just a phone snap. Nothing wrong with that
[/QUOTE]

Everything wrong with that.
If you have made even a little bit of effort to get your phone out of your pocket and take a snap why shouldn't you be paid?

Even if you can earn £20.00 from getting a photo used wherever, its still better than nothing.
Nothing is nothing, there isn't even any respect or kudos to be had as so often your photo is only being used because its free.
Free can often outweigh good.

How many of us given the choice would take a free pizza over a £10.00 one, if the choice was an OK pizza for free or a really nice one for £10.00?

I used to be on the picture desk of a publication, often our budget would run low and we would resort to using some free images. We knew they weren't perfect. They were just free.
We had no respect at all for the photographer.
It wouldn't put him on our watch list.
We wouldn't call him for work.
It was just use and burn. Exploit them and fill the space in the title.
Often these photographers would think they were 'in' and keep sending submissions, always crappy submissions. We used to block them without even telling them.
Cynical, but thats life.

In contrast there were photographers whose work were were desperate to see and always looked out for submissions from. Every single one of those would be paid good money and if we had a paid commission the work went to them.
 
nandbytes said:
Yes indeed but OP said the employee was reported by someone for making little bit of extra cash from a side job, not the employer.
Click to expand...
So someone none of us know, may have said something that might have been true about something that may or may not have happened? :wideyed:
 
I think the problems is people not understanding the amount of time doing post processing can take.
Perhaps you should have explained this to him in the begining.
 
nandbytes said:
Yes indeed but OP said the employee was reported by someone for making little bit of extra cash from a side job, not the employer.
Click to expand...
Yes but that’s not the point that makes HMRC move.

As can be witnessed by the outcome. Neither the employer or employee was prosecuted for a clear breach of the law.
 
Does taking snaps of a couple of motorbikes for sale and a few engine parts make you a professional?
Post processing for a for sale advert? Really?
 
jonbeeza said:
What reminded me of the above, was the cheeky weather man this morning. he said, "please keep sending in your photos".
Click to expand...

They do that knowing people are usually more than happy to have their work displayed on the small screen. It will get far wider coverage that way than they would otherwise. Not as it is to make money they are probably justifiably proud when it happens.
 
I think a lot of members on my have had in the past asked to do some photos as a favour or free at some point in their time while owning a camera.
I have done two weddings, one as a favour to my wife's friend and the other as a guest at a family wedding as the 2nd unofficial tog, however only if I want to as I was told to enjoy myself first.
The wedding of my wife's friend was strange as they only wanted a few photos for their friends and family, however their friends and family wanted lots of photos and a few did actually ask how much for certain images. I did the whole event for free and images were free for everyone, that was my choice.

The second wedding was great fun and a lot of family & friends liked my images over the two pro's that did the event, however my images were still free.

In response to the OP's question, it depends upon the relationship with the chap with the bikes, if he is a friend of a friend, a mate, or friend etc. If a mate then there is perhaps an unwritten bloke rule that it is a favour and you will get a favour back in the future, or if you do printing or anything you have to pay out for then mates rates should apply.

As the bikes are for sale then smartphone is good enough for online selling platforms as no one really cares that much about the image as the price is the key. There are plenty of smartphone apps which can be used to tweak the phones images.

Each occasion we are asked 'do you mind taking some photos' we must decide what is the input we are comfortable doing for free, and in this question posted by OP is quite right in that too many favours have been given away to date. So a polite no is not unreasonable.
 
Tysonator said:
I think a lot of members on my have had in the past asked to do some photos as a favour or free at some point in their time while owning a camera.
I have done two weddings, one as a favour to my wife's friend and the other as a guest at a family wedding as the 2nd unofficial tog, however only if I want to as I was told to enjoy myself first.
The wedding of my wife's friend was strange as they only wanted a few photos for their friends and family, however their friends and family wanted lots of photos and a few did actually ask how much for certain images. I did the whole event for free and images were free for everyone, that was my choice.

The second wedding was great fun and a lot of family & friends liked my images over the two pro's that did the event, however my images were still free.

In response to the OP's question, it depends upon the relationship with the chap with the bikes, if he is a friend of a friend, a mate, or friend etc. If a mate then there is perhaps an unwritten bloke rule that it is a favour and you will get a favour back in the future, or if you do printing or anything you have to pay out for then mates rates should apply.

As the bikes are for sale then smartphone is good enough for online selling platforms as no one really cares that much about the image as the price is the key. There are plenty of smartphone apps which can be used to tweak the phones images.

Each occasion we are asked 'do you mind taking some photos' we must decide what is the input we are comfortable doing for free, and in this question posted by OP is quite right in that too many favours have been given away to date. So a polite no is not unreasonable.
Click to expand...
With that second one the old, he’s an invite to a wedding oh you are bringing your camera aren’t you. I recall a wedding I was invited to about 18 months ago, the B&G were somewhat shocked and surprised that I didn’t have my camera(s) with me. They hadn’t booked a photographer on the assumption.
 
Hi Phil V,
the second wedding I was asked if I would like to bring my camera along, however the brief was that I enjoy the wedding and only take photos if I really wanted !
OK, we all can read between the lines of I hope you do take photos, and really I did not mind as there was no pressure on me to perform.

As an amateur photographer I do not have to worry about doing a wedding for mate, friend, or family member as it is not taking my time away from a paying customer. That seems to be IMO the underlying issue with us amateurs, ie we would like to do the shoot to improve our skills and knowledge and even show off, however do not take us for granted ! ! !
 
I agree with people saying that you should've stated the fact that you won't work for free and that you want a certain amount of money for your work. Of course, some things can be done for free, like an additional Smartshow 3d video with best of your clients' wedding photos as a free bonus, but the key word here is 'bonus'. The work itself is paid for and you speak about it out loud beforehand.
 
nandbytes said:
That's really petty! Doesn't the "someone" have anything better to do?

Also if you report something it has be investigated however small it might be.
Click to expand...

The person that reported him knew it was a small amount of money, when they reported him they actually only mentioned 2 days, they must have been unaware of the third.
 
f/2.8 said:
The person that reported him knew it was a small amount of money, when they reported him they actually only mentioned 2 days, they must have been unaware of the third.
Click to expand...


Idol chit chat from friends to friends, family to friends can end being a chinse whisper conversation.
In times of hardship people do get bitter about others working when they are out of work !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top