Working for free

[Nexus]

I guess this is a question more for the Pro Togs we have here on OCUK, as I'm a bit torn on what to do.

So I've done lots of shooting of things that are considered 'Event' work. I've also done a number of shoots for free because they are non-profit, for charity or are close friends who I've not minded lending my time to.

As a result of the images I took at a friends event, I've been contacted by somebody who was in-attednence who would like me to do some work for them. So it turns out that the person represents a premium fashion label and would like me to shoot their AW launch where I'll be photographing the catwalk and the guests. It's not something I've shot before, but it does kind of sound exciting.

The caveat is that it will be unpaid; their line is that that its a charity event. The reality is though that the ticket sales are going to charity, but they are launching their new collection, so ultimately any images I take for them are going to be used commercially to promote the business, when they could clearly afford a Photographer. Their offer to me is simply that because of who they are, it would look good on my CV.

I've tried reading up on this as much as I can and most Photographers are dead against it. Plus given its a fashion launch, there will no doubt be many press represented Photographers there shooting for their own publications. So in a sense, having no experience of the etiquette of that, it feels like I'd be getting out of my depth. I feel like I'd also be like an outcast if I'm there shooting for nothing while everyone else is getting paid.

Obviously it would be a big name to have on my 'Photographer CV' but from what I've read by other Photographers, exposure is largely pointless and frequently a heavily debated topic as to whether it actually brings you any, as nobody knows or cares who the Photographer is really.

The other issue I have is that I already work freelance in a creative industry as my main job, Photography is then like my sideline between projects. As such, event photography isn't really where my heart lies, I'm more interested in portraiture and in-paticular the creative side of that. Ultimately though, thats an area even harder to make money from. So in essence, I'm really not sure whether it would really be that beneficial to me if my focus lies elsewhere. I suppose because most of my income comes from my other job, I can be more selective, rather than having to do a particular area.

What do you guys think?
Worth doing, even though they are effectively screwing you over?
Or tell them to lump it?

 

[Nexus]

Sounds like they're just trying to take you for a ride and hoping you'll be swayed by the big name.
You can bet your backside they'll be paying all the other staff.

Yeah thats exactly what I figured. There is a fancy venue, catering, bar staff, door staff, set building team, lighting, DJ etc. I highly doubt they are all doing it for free as well!

Although I've done a few bits for people for free in this case my answer would be a flat no.

Ultimately while the 'charity' line is obviously being spun, it sounds like that person has some personal financial interest and monetary gain to make by this charitable exercise and potentially any photography you do for free could add to that.

Indeed, thats my main issue with it. I would imagine by me handing over the photos I take, they would likely use them on their website/blog along with submitting them to the press and their PR team would also give them away where necessary. I get absolutely nothing, other than knowing that my photo was used in a magazine, while they use it to promote their business and drive further sales.

The OP though shouldn't follow their example!

On the other hand you could always get a contract dream up stating they can use the photos for internal use (displaying on their walls/internal presentations) and directly relating to the event. Then hover over the fashion press and charge then if they use it for something else...

I've not really pressed much further yet as to licensing with the images, but I would think for both parties thats the kind of thing you need to sort out from the get-go.

What exactly is the deal there anyway in terms of responsibility?
Say I licence them only to the company and they then just submit them to a publication who uses them. I assume the publication has to pay out, but do they then chase up the company, or not bother? Obviously though I believe this is all taken care of in the IPTC meta-data which a Picture Editor should be referring to before publishing anyway to see if they are permitted to do so. Otherwise, you could possibly be burning your bridges, even though you have effectively become known as a photographer who will work for them for free.

 

[Nexus]

They have offered expenses though I should add.
But realistically, not really much I can charge for there.

 

[Nexus]

Well thats the thing thats played on my mind. Many say that by doing it for free, they may ask you again, but since they already know you work for free, they aren't going to want to pay you. But I suppose there is always the chance it might lead to other things, but there is simply no way of knowing.

Obviously they don't want to pay me for this, but its only through word off mouth and reputation that I went from shooting something for a non-profit organisation to a major brand asking, which I guess isn't an opportunity that pops up very often if you were just looking for experience and chasing it.

I don't want to be screwed over, but I also can't help feeling that saying I worked for them and have images from their show on my website would look pretty good.

 

[Nexus]

Well I've heard back after probing a little further.

So it turns out I will be the only Photographer, aside from a female one who will be backstage (as all the models are female & will be fairly nude). So while there won't be a pit of Photographers at the end of the catwalk, I would assume that any people from magazines/blogs etc who are seated will probably still have cameras with them to publish snaps.

I've been told that when my images are submitted to the press, I'd be accredited with them.

On that basis, if I have my bank details etc and licensing details in the IPTC metadata, is it likely I'd get paid by the press standard NUJ rates based on usage when the picture editor makes the decision whether to use them?

 

[Nexus]

All this "wish noobs with dslrs would stop doing working for free" is laughable to me .

I'm aware that this is a pretty fiercely debated topic.

I have read the opinions of some Pros who aren't particularly worried about it an don't see it as stealing their business. Where as obviously some take the view its devaluing the entire trade.

As I believe has been pointed out a couple of times in this thread though, if I don't do it, they will simply offer it to somebody else unpaid. The fact is, they don't intend to pay anyone for this.

I'm actually still undecided as to whether I'm going to go with it yet though, but need to make a decision soon.

 

[Nexus]

You know what guys, I think I might go for it.

Their brief/contract is pretty basic and specifies that the photos are to be used on their website and social media.

Thus I can shoot it, then create a licence document and embed it in the metadata that they are licensed for those purposes. Thus if they do submit it to any major newspapers or magazines, I would think any picture editor worth their salt should then pay me at the standard rates if they run with them.

So while its working unpaid, it does seem like it might be fun, good for my portfolio and there is still a chance I might make some money from it.

 

[Nexus]

Nope, quite simply. Did quite a lot of work like this when I was first branching into offering photography as a service hoping that something would come of it, for good exposure etc etc.

Ultimately, it very rarely does, why should they benefit when you won't?

I wouldn't bother, really.

Jake

Did you not pick up experience and images for your portfolio though which ultimately were of use to you when touting your professional services?

 

[Nexus]

They can easily strip your exit details from the file and just wave a copy of that signed contract when you inevitably complain about copyrighted usage. Signing that contract is as good as signing your rights over those images away as they could pretty much justify using them for anything with those usage terms.

As said previously EXIF info can be stripped in a click of a button and the images being used on the website are obviously for promotion purposes.

I've not actually signed any contract. Infact, its not really even a contract, I probably worded that wrong, its a brief which explains exactly what they want. It doesn't even look like I'm required to sign any contract.

Metadata can be stripped from Photoshop when doing an export for the web, but the default setting is to leave most of the data intact. Ultimately if they are doing a bunch of resizing for their website or blog, then that was the area I was always getting taken advantage of from anyway. With submissions to print though, I would imagine they will just send them the full resolution images untouched, so wouldn't be going anywhere near the metadata before a Picture Editor sees them. Further still, if I supply the images with web ready versions, I would imagine they probably won't need to do much tinkering anyway.

They want a DVD disc, so I'd supply with it my printed licence document which would reflect that the brief was to create images for their website blog and social media pages. Thus if they strip my metadata, they have ignored my copyright. If I send the disc recorded post, I also have proof they have it. It would have course mean having to check all the magazines myself to find whether my work has been used or not and then claim for payment, which isn't ideal.

Ultimately it would take a conceited effort to remove the IPTC Core, which is totally wrong if they have no contract with me.

On the 'it maybe fun' side of thing well that's all well and good but I personally don't see any fun in being taken advantage of and unless you want to be a catwalk photographer there's is nothing to gain in experience terms.
I speak from a painful experience of doing something very similar, you will simply not make any money from doing this for free.

I'd actually say its more Events work, as while there is the catwalk part, there will be shots of the guests and the venue as well which is far more typical of that idiom.

I promptly told her to get stuffed (in a more polite way obviously), no way in hell was I going to work to the early hours, and then drop them off to her before I go to work, not for free, funnily enough she never contacted me again, until I saw her out and about over 2 years later and she said "oh we'll have to do another shoot soon!" with a big plastic smile, I smiled back and told her to wait for me call

I think that was the last straw for me really

And this is another thing, doing the job for this company, they will give you a deadline which you have to adhere to, so you have to re-arrange your life, your evenings, everything else...for nothing. Unless you want to specialise in catwalk photography, its pointless.

The thing is though, if they aren't going to pay me, or make me sign a contract, its only their expectation, much like the story of your girl. I owe them nothing.
I've come to them off the back of a recommendation of a gig I did for somebody already involved in the company, so who has seen my work. Luckily for them I'm largely confident in what I'm doing and have professional gear. I could just as easily turn up with a Canon 1100D and a 18-55 kit lens and they would be non the wiser.

As above though, I'd say its got quite a bit of Events to it.

 

[Nexus]

Some people do gigs for free but send smaller photos to the client and charge for larger and print versions.

I do this, I just do it to listen to the bands and have a laugh taking some photos...

I've also got a friend who does the same. He shoots 2-3 gigs a week at usually the same venue. I'd always assumed with how much he was shooting and the standard of his work that he was getting paid for it, but turns out he isn't and said there really isn't much money to be paid from that type of photography.

 

[Nexus]

Having spoken with the organiser today, I actually now get the impression that its not quite a big a deal of an event as I had originally thought, despite the fancy location. Its actually being organised for charity by one of the individual stores, rather than say the brand's head office launching the collection, which I'm sure they would have no doubt had a paid photographer for.

There also won't be any kind of raised catwalk and there won't be any stage lighting, so it was suggested that I obviously use flash.... which given if it had been a pro catwalk, is apparently not allowed. In terms of myself, that means a bit more time experimenting to get the lighting right and consistent.

To also demonstrate how its a bit less professional than anticipated, the organiser apparently had me and a videographer penciled in as midway down the catwalk, side-on. I pointed out that this was not the best angle to be taking photos from, and you typically need to be shooting from the end of the catwalk where they stop to pose. So now they are rearranging some seats to do so!

Well whatever you do, I would suggest drawing a up a little contract to say what you'll be delivering and where they can use them.

Yeah I already have a proper photography licensing contract that I've used before when I've made sales. So I will tailor it to exactly what the shoot brief was, which was to provide them with images of the event for the website and social media. So the licence will demonstrate that, along with explaining something along the lines of it being ok to submit to press, however there is no free usage and as such any publications will have to contact/pay me at standard NUJ rates for the type of page/size its used on.

What I think I might also make sense, is before I even send them the finished images, just submit some to Picture Editors at the fashion magazines. If that is what they are going to end up doing anyway, I've got the jump on them in ensuring that I get paid when its used.