Usher v. Corbis

I am getting really sick and tired of know-nothings opining about the Usher v. Corbis case, and the railroading he got by his agent. (By the way, PDN did a nice job reporting on it here, as did Haggart here.) Corbis, and every other stock photography agency at the time valued every analog image at $1,500 per image, because it was a one of a kind image that, once lost, cannot be recovered. Yes yes, the image that was shot a moment before and a moment after might have been similar, and, in some cases, were close to identical. However, it is precisely because SOME images are similar, and some images are significantly different and thus, over the life of the image, have a value much higher than $1,500, Corbis required its' clients to agree that $1,500 was a fair AND MUTUALLY AGREED UPON valuation to apply overall. Thus, since some that are similar might be worth less, and others that are not would be worth a whole lot more, valuing the work at $1,500 each was a fair figure.

(Continued after the Jump)

Further, Chris is in the NEWS business, and Chris was traveling with a Presidential candidate, where you are trying to work as the motorcade screams along at 50 miles-per-hour and you can't look up because you are trying to work with your gear, and when you board a plane you have to hand-off your valuable film to a courier to get it to the publication (or your agent) on deadline. In many cases, your AGENT is entrusted with processing the film, captioning it, and being the steward of your best interests.

It has been a foregone conclusion that Sotomayor would be confirmed, so there's little reason to squawk and pitch a fit thinking that it will impact her nomination. When you have 60 votes in the Senate that you own, it's fast-track time for whatever you want. The business of news photography does not allow for the careful cataloging of each and every image before delivering it to your agent, or your client because seconds and minutes of delay count. After or before the fact, it was Corbis' responsibility to have done that. For people who have suggested that he had poor paperwork and somehow thus deserved what he got, think again. Corbis' own $1,500 valuation they caused their clients to accept when analog images were delivered to them should have been the basis for the award, not $7. That's ridiculous. EVEN if you figured that every roll of 36 images that Chris produced had 30% in waste (blank, out of focus, missed moment, etc) Chris still got railroaded.

If anything, it was Corbis' responsibility to organize, track, and number all the images he had coming in during his time there. Their failure to do so showed their disregard for the photographers they were supposedly representing. It appears from everything I have read and heard, that Corbis was utterly derelict in their responsibility to Usher, and to other photographers as well. The final nail in the coffin was when Corbis' lawyers equated Chris' images to, yes, wait for it..... "nails", and suggested that his work is just a commodity.

I can't imagine a more solid argument for why any photographer represented by any major stock photography agency wouldn't pull every single image of theirs and use a service like PhotoShelter (as Art Wolfe/et al did) and manage their own affairs. Certainly nowadays it is so easy to do with digital, and then Corbis/et al could begin trying to sell all those empty filing cabinets. This doesn't make anything better or easier for Usher, but moving forward, know that, A) if you want something done right, do it yourself, and B) look with a cautionary eye at people who say they are your agent, because from photographers to actors, sports figures to musicians, those that wear the badge "agent" are more often than not not living up to that obligation.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Damn Uncle Sam

For years, I have been telling people that FIFTY PERCENT OF THEIR PROFITS GO TO THE GOVERNMENT.

No one listens.

I am not going to go out and do the math for every one of you out there, but that's the percentage. Get used to it. Plan for it.

One problem arises when you do do everything you can, and earn a good living, and then the person you've spent your life with dies, and because of bureaucratic red tape, you have to pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Enter Annie Leibovitz.

(Continued after the Jump)

After Ellen reports (Annie Leibovitz is in a jam) that most of Annie's financial problems have come about because when her partner Susan Sontag died and left Annie several properties, Annie had to pony up FIFTY PERCENT of their value in taxes in order to keep them. Had Annie and Susan been seen in the eyes of the government as a legal couple, Annie wouldn't have had to pay anything.

Now, this isn't the place for a debate about same-sex marriage, and so on, so don't bother with that in the comments. The state should recognize Annie and Susan's relationship in some way so as to not tax the living hell out of them AGAIN. The problem is that those properties were purchased with after-tax dollars (likely), and the government is treating the assets as if they were transferred to some unknown third party, and re-taxing them.

Damn Uncle Sam.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

What Does A Magazine Owe You?

I've been sitting here at my desk looking at a particular magazine. I won't say which one, because it's not relevant. But, I've been calling colleagues I know to get their take on it for awhile now. It's a mainstream magazine, and the photos are shot by a well known photographer, and the photos are horrible. They are poorly composed, the lead photo - a double-page spread - is soft, and other images have nasty color casts that could not ever be construed as an artistic style.

This photographer was on assignment for the magazine. Why didn't they just kill the story? Or, at least, the opener that was soft - the image was of a news event, and I know over a dozen photographers who have a far better image of the same thing happening that is sharp, and better composed. Yet, the magazine published a crappy photo.

Why?

(Continued after the Jump)

I called around, and talked to other photographers, and more than one photo editor about this. Sadly, I knew the answer, but these guys reaffirmed it. The photos played because of politics. They had to run these photos, and not get a better image from stock. But, isn't that what a "guarantee against usage" is supposed to be for?

For those of you that don't know, there's a term in the magazine business that is mostly applied to Time, Newsweek, US News, Business Week, and maybe Forbes, People, and a few others. Specifically - if you are assigned a shoot, and you get a $500 assignment fee, plus expenses, that assignment fee is a "guarantee against space". That means that if a magazine normally pays $500 for a 1/2 page, $1,000 for a full page, and $1,500 for a double-page spread, if your image ends up being used just a half-page, you still get the $500, but if you produce a great photo, and they use it as a double-page image, then you get the larger amount - $1,500. If the publication runs two of your photos 1/2 page, you then get $1,000. You get the idea.

In this case, the photographer did a poor job on the assignment, and it showed. Some of the images were lit portraits that no one likely got (and I use the word 'lit' very loosely), so, as bad as they were I understand that they had to run them. However, they could have atleast color-corrected the horrible color casts on them in post, but they did not, and this was not a printing error either. Those you can tell.

Why did the photographer get the play that they did? Yes, I know, politics. But that leaves the readers with a crappy image to contemplate. The magazine felt they owed it to the photographer, but they didn't, not when they had options, and they did. In the end, the obligation is to the readers who in turn patronize the advertisers, and thus, the lights at the magazine stay on, and the editors get paid, and so too, the creatives.

Did the photographer do anything wrong? Yes, a few things. First, I have it on good authority that they used a prosumer lens for the job, and also a prosumer camera with a filesize that could not support a double-page spread. Further, the photographer should have known better than to try to complete a component of an assignment that they have little current experience doing. If you're a boxing photographer, but, well, back in the day, you used to shoot horse races, don't think you can return to your glory days and still make a great image. If you disagree, then don't have your first horse race back be the Kentucky Derby - re-flex your muscle-memory at a few smaller events where everything isn't on the line until you get your sea-legs back.

The best photographers make an assignment look easy. This photographer, generally speaking, makes their assignments look easy, but in this case, bravado got in the way, and the assigning editors didn't have the balls to call shenanigans on the bad photos, and find replacement images, or just kill the story.

In the end, the magazine didn't owe this photographer anything other than the assignment fee and expenses, and they should have done right by their readers and used better images where they were available and this photographer failed.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Oh, We're So Sorry - Mea Culpa - We didn't mean that!

So, it's about 2am, and I am procrastinating falling asleep when I should be getting my beauty rest for day three of a huge annual report shoot that starts at 8am, but I have been tossing and turning about this all day, so now I am at my desk with another rant.

I am sick and tired of all these organizations that put out these terms that swipe broad (and unreasonable) swaths of photographers rights. I know that PDN didn't like it when Rob Haggart wrote The Biggest Scam in Photography - and called out PDN in the first sentence. Last year, about this time, we wrote - No Confidence Vote for the PDN/NGS Contest, (1/28/08), and then followed it up with a July posting - PDN/Billboard Photo Contest - Fair Terms, when they did have better terms.

Consider the following restrictions:

(Continued after the Jump)

1 - Send us your best concert photo you've taken in the last year. We have three categories:

A: Big Rock Star || B: Rising Star || C: Unsigned Artists

Result:
you will get the most amazing photographs of rock stars big and small. You can write an editorial article about how great the photographer did, and do an editorial story about how that picture was made. No releases necessary.

2 - Send us your best concert photo you've taken in the last year. And, as with the case last summer, here was a part of the rule:

If the photograph contains any material or elements that are not owned by the entrant and/or which are subject to the rights of third parties, and/or if any persons appear in the photograph, the entrant is responsible for obtaining, prior to submission of the photograph, any and all releases and consents necessary to permit the exhibition and use of the photograph in the manner set forth in these Official Rules without additional compensation.

Result:
Good luck trying to get a model release from some multi-platinum-selling artist! You will limit the entries to those which can be commercially exploited (reminder: exploit is not a bad word, it means "use to the maximum extent allowed). If the images were not being used in a commercial way, but rather, editorially, as noted in #1 above, then a release would likely not be necessary.

It is important to note that Daryl Lang, who wrote the response to Haggart, acknowledges that Haggart defends entry fees and so on, and Lang also rightly says "Contests help keep our lights on." While PDN's contests (here) like their 2009 music contest, which closed on Sunday, have good terms now like the requirement that you acknowledge "the right of PDN and Billboard to use the entry for publication in PDN and Billboard magazines, on pdnonline.com, billboard.com and in exhibitions and promotions related to the contest up to 18 months following the contest", and there are now no model release requirements, Xerox's (NYSE: XRX) MyShot08 contest, which we wrote about last year - Xerox - "MyShot" Takes Aim At Unsuspecting Students, was horrible, and, had to be re-written.

Like Xerox, and others, I am getting tired of the long list of organizations who hide behind the lawyers when the bad terms are called to light. Whether it's Xerox, PDN, Billboard, Microsoft, or NGS, people damn-well better be looking at the terms they paid their lawyers to craft. Don't people realize we are now all actually reading these things? I can't wait to see some photo contest entry term that says "entrant (herein after referred to as "Rumpelstiltskin") agrees to convey, for no additional monies, their firstborn child". To an aspiring photographer, often their early best work feels like their first born.

The latest is Facebook. Many of you sent me the suggestion of writing a post about their horrific terms where they got to keep, in perpetuity, all the rights they wanted to your photos, text, videos, and so on, even if you left their service. Heck, I went and looked, and www.FacebookStock.com was even taken, but not for what I thought it might be. Then, of course, The Consumerist wrote - Facebook's New Terms Of Service: "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever." , and, well, interestingly enough, for all the "share the photos, share the music, everything should be free" youth of America, that didn't sit too well. The term in question was:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

Now, of course, they're out with their Mea Culpa. Consumerist wrote another piece about this - Facebook Clarifies Terms Of Service: "We Do Not Own Your Stuff Forever", and of course, Mr. Facebook himself, Mark Zuckerberg, had to blog about this, and say - "On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information", when he writes:

When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn't help people share that information.

Ok, right. He then suggests, as the defense of the "forever" concept:

One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever. When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox.

If that were really the case, then I would have to sign the same type of agreement with my internet service provider, or my website hosting company. This is backpeddling at it's finest. Once again, blame the lawyers when you should have thought this through more in the first place.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Enter the Whiners

Over at one of my daily reads - SportsShooter.com, I was doing some reading there, and was reminded of the fact that the opinions of a student in school somewhere just isn't deserving the same amount of weight and respect as a veteran photo editor, or Pulitzer Prize winner. Unfortunately, students still wet behind the ears, who would never dream of walking up to a veteran in person and tell them think the veteran is out of line, think nothing of doing it online.

To that end, I wrote a post there, that I will re-write here as a standalone piece.

If your status is Student or Intern, you need to be more circumspect in who you suggest has written a critique you don't like and refer to it as "uncalled for". Sorry to be so blunt, but this isn't the Special Olympics, and not everyone gets a trophy and a pat on the back for their performance.

(Continued after the Jump)

Every photographer here wants to get "called up" to "the show", and play in the big leagues. They want to compete against the staff photographer who's won a Pulitzer. They want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the repeat POY winners, and call them "my colleagues".

A pervasive mentality has swept the high schools about 10 years ago, and it's crept into colleges and now many of those beginning their professional careers, of deserving of success. No one gets an "F", and if you feel that 2+2=5, well, then, that's ok if you feel that way.

You have to earn your way to the top - there are no short cuts, and the path has become more treacherous as staff positions become more and more scarce. Freelancing is even harder.

If you are a student - ask good questions, and then pay attention to the answer. If you respect someone enough to ask them the question, you should have done your due diligence in determining if the person you are asking knows what they're talking about. Don't ask a staffer what it's like to be freelance, or how to charge for a freelance gig. Almost all of them treat freelance work like gravy, while the rest of us see that work as meat and potatoes, and know what the market will bear, where to a staffer, it's walking around money.

If you've ever sat in the back of a room where judging was taking place, and had the privilege of watching and listening to the judges at work, you learned a lot. If your work was there, and you heard three people say "out", well, that's one thing. If two people said "out", and the third started arguing for it, then the other two will start trashing it, rightly or wrongly, with a politically-correct attitude or not, and you'll learn a lot about how the viewers/readers will perceive your photos when they're published.

Sitting around listening to your friends pay you compliments is worth very little, except that it's a nice stroke of your ego. When I have solicited the opinion of my friends on my work, I have said to them "don't say nice things, tell me what's wrong with it..." and when they would say they couldn't find anything wrong with a particular image, I knew I had a winner.

What a judge of your work or a portolio reviewer says something you regard as overly harsh, or out of line, with their years of experience it's likely that what was said, - many people - likely thought. You don't have to like what they said - heck, you don't even have to agree with it. Whether I like it, or agree with their comments, is irrelevant. And if what a judge or portfolio reviewer said was offensive to some, get over it. FAST.

If you've ever been sitting around waiting for a rain delay at a NASCAR track, in a ballpark, or waiting for a delayed press conference anywhere, you've heard photographers talk about other photographers work, and not in pleasant terms. The criticisms are straight, honest, and blunt, and they are often profanity laden. The same goes for photo editors. I know many a photo editor, and they know a good photo from a bad one, and they can see the perspective. This makes them good photo editors - they can send someone they know is a compassionate, quiet person, to a funeral, and they can send the aggressive guy who listens to Rob Zombie and Marilyn Manson to the event where they might be most comfortable. They can send the guy who can recite accurate sports stats while drunk to the ballgame, and so on, and so forth.

So, if you want to pour a double-espresso, or work the photo booth at Wal-Mart or the olde-tyme photo shop at a resort town, then feel free to whine when your feelings get hurt. If you want to step up your game, and earn a shot at "the show", then you'll not take your critiques personally, and instead, you'll respect the opinions of those who have been around and know a thing or two about good photos, and maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Greed, Capitalism, and Free Markets

Is greed good? Were I to quote a Hollywood icon from the movie Wall Street, the words "Greed is Good", I would be showered by many with criticism. It's all about altruism, peace, love, and free stuff, right? So, instead, I will point you to several insights about greed, and suggest that, perhpas, the word "greed" has been made out to be a villain.

Greed is one of the seven deadly sins. Wikipedia has:

Greed is the selfish desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism.

Yet, I believe that to apply the extreme position that greed applies "...especially when this denies the same goods to others", is an editorialization on the definition.

Greed - the desire to have more than one needs - is relative. To suggest, for example, that a priest or monk only has what they need, and nothing more, is to then suggest that anyone not "of the cloth", is therefore greedy.

If I, for example, have a two bedroom house, and three children, some may say that all I need is a roof over my head. I, on the other hand, would want a bedroom for me and my wife, and one for each of my children. Is that greedy? Do I need a bedroom for each child? That's relative to your perspective.

My city offers public schooling, but I am of the opinion that that education is poor, (and independant studies back me up on this), so I am sending my children to private school, and paying for that. Is that greedy? Here is something free, but I want something better. Some one argue I don't need that.

Where do we draw the line?

How often do I need a new car? New clothes? A new camera? New computers? How many assignments a month do I need, and how many do I want? Do I need to make a profit off of every shoot, or is it just that I want to?

The first video worth a listen to is from decades ago, with Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman:


More videos after the jump.

(Continued after the Jump)

Next up: Milton Friedman on self-interest and the morality corporations pursuing profits.


Milton Friedman debates Naomi Klein (by creative editing):


Charlie Rose takes this look at Friedman for almost an hour:


And finally, a bit of hollywood's take on Greed, thanks to Michael Douglas:

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Talent On Loan From God

I listen to a great deal of radio, from NPR, to Bob Edwards, to Air America, to Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern. I spend a lot of time driving around, and those are among the many things I listen to.

One of the things I chuckle about is when people get all up in arms when Rush Limbaugh says "talent on loan from God", which is one of his catch-phrases. "What do you mean - your talent is from God? How pompous!" Or some variation of that sentiment.

(Continued after the Jump)

Yet, when actresses, sports figures, or the like stand before a microphone, often times you hear "I'd like to thank God...", recognizing that their skills are a gift from God. When Limbaugh says it (usually with tounge-in-cheek bravado) he is actually acknowledging that whatever talent he has is God-given, and it's on-loan, so that whenever he dies, it returns to God.

I am often asked by liberals why I listen to Limbaugh. From conservatives - why I listen to Air America, and so forth. It's to see things from as many perspectives as possible.

I believe that all our talent is not only God-given, but also scheduled for a return at the right time. Some of us use our talent, hone and refine it, and others waste it away. Some make a difference with it, others use it for all the wrong reasons. All of it is on-loan therefore, and it is up to us to build upon it.

What are you doing with yours in 2009?

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Stock Industry Declines, Long Live Assignment Work

I can honestly tell you that 10 to 15 years ago, I was making images that, as I was contemplating the work being done and efforts made, I was considering it nearly the same as putting a few dollars into my retirement account. "My stock is my retirement" I said more than once. Thankfully, I also have a real retirement account with real dollars growing in real time that will pay my real bills when I get older.

Fortunately, there will always be assignment work - that much I can be sure of. As faces, styles, trends, and subjects age, new products announced, new and fresh images will need to be made. Clients can easily be convinced that they don't need "all rights forever", when you tell them "you (and your boss) won't want to use this portrait after two or three years. You'll be tired of seeing it, so why pay for a license that extends beyond what you really need?" That tact - an honest and true assessment of the real likelihood of the situation - is a very convincing one. True too as buildings are built and need to be photographed, news breaks and needs covering, and plights and despair need documenting.

Stock photography, on the other hand, as operated by corporations bent on record profits every quarter, is in decline. That does not mean that photography is in decline, just one aspect of it. Segments of markets decline over time. Consider albums to cassettes, to CD's, yet music and musicians live on.

(Continued after the Jump)

Dan Heller does an excellent job (almost all the time) of writing treatise after treatise on the business of photography. Long and detailed insights are a worthwhile read, yet every time I write a piece that's a bit lengthy, I get comments privately that the piece is too long, or needs to be broken up. Studies have shown that articles in USA Today, Time, and so forth can't be too long for todays reader, as they will tune out. So, this is more of an overview and light commentary than anything else.

Alamy reports in their latest quarterly statement that revenues are down, which will no doubt be offset by their increase in the percentage of each sale they take from you. a21 filed for bankruptcy, and Jupiter is being acquired by Getty for a fraction of what they were worth just a year or two ago. And, Getty is worth a fraction of what it once was, hence it is now in the hands of private investors, and the shoe will likely drop on staff cuts in January, as the ramp-up to a breakup follows in the coming year.

To continue the slashing of overhead, as PDN reports, "Newsweek, NPR Cutting back", and they are not alone. PDN also reports on New York Newsday with this piece about everyone having to reapply for their jobs - no doubt at a lower salary, and NPPA suggests that the department will be slashed by two-thirds from 20 to 7, and in the PDN piece there's a link there to a previous piece about other cuts. Staff jobs everywhere continue to be slashed, and you can expect cuts from Tribune, and others, as bankruptcy looms and cost-cutting devastates once robust newsrooms.

So, what to do?

Rely on yourself. Freelance, my friends. If you fail, you will have no one to blame by yourself. Is it hard? Absolutely, from time to time. But once you get the ball rolling, it is highly rewarding. There are short-cuts, but they are losing propositions. Using someone elses' work and pawning it off as your own, licensing images as work-for-hire without really knowing what they will do with the photo places you in such a disadvantageous position that it is 99.9% of the time, a really really bad idea because, invariably, you get the short end of the deal. Having a poorly done website is the same as walking into a business meeting with a conference room table full of suits, wearing jeans and a t-shirt, and expecting respect. You won't get it, or, you won't get a chance to demonstrate your genius which, if you could have, would have overcome your wardrobe selection for the day. No one will click on the "Contact Us" link if your website looks like crap. These, and the many other short-cuts are all along the path to failure, littered with the evidence of highly talented photographers who failed to heed the warnings of solid business and marketing practices as being an integral and critical part of longevity in this business.

To succeed, you must arm yourself with the knowledge you are currently lacking. Step 1 of a well-known 12-step program is to first admit you have a problem. So too, in this instance, you must admit there are certain things you don't know. You don't have to admit them in a circle at a meeting - just to yourself, and then commit to learning what you need to. "Know what you don't know", I say often to people when speaking on this subject. Get my book, or ASMP's, or Dan Heller's book. Read any of the books on the right-side of this article, and head off in the right direction.

Assignment work - for those that remain in business - will be around for a very long time. In a race to the bottom, stock licensing will continue to decline not just on a per-license basis, but also in the revenue per image category, as categories continue to be flooded with imagery, watering down the marketplace even further. While my day-to-day operating budget has never been based upon revenues from stock, I do re-license my images. Earlier this week, an existing client extended a license from a PR rights package to a marketing use, generating $1k in additional revenue from the assignment. This is not unusual. But remember, it came from an assignment.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Professional Photographers vs. "Hobby" Status (i.e. Working for Free)

I spent some time Friday night yelling. First, I went outside, with my bullhorn, and facing east, started yelling at the top of my lungs. Then, I turned Northwest, and I continued to yell. You don't want to know what I was yelling, but I was yelling at London, and I was yelling at Seattle, because that was where David Hobby and Chase Jarvis were at the time, and I was yelling at them for their posts about working for free. (Strobist - Four Reasons to Consider Working for Free; Chase Jarvis - Will Work for Free?).

After these posts gained traction and the genie was out of the bottle, Chase posted a comment on David's blog that is worth echoing - "Some readers get it too (although a good chunk of the discussion online today misses the point)."

Too late.

(Continued after the Jump)

Yes, friends, 99% of the people that read David's blog will miss the point. that same 99% will use this blog postings' approach and theory to bolster the "work for free" concept. The problem is, my yelling was in vain, yet their message came across to the tens of thousands of people reading their blogs. And the message that came across was 'it's ok to work for free to build up your portfolio!' That's what people took away from what they wrote. By midnight, David had 211 comments - and that's moderated. Who knows how many he opted not to publish, and how many were in the cue for consideration, since it was 5am in the UK and he was likely fast asleep.

Let me make myself – and the intent of this series PERFECTLY CLEAR – this is not about discouraging you from trying to “break-in” to the business. I am not a bitter pro-photographer fearing the encroachment on "my domain". To the contrary, I have, since shortly after I started, been committed to helping people become successful photographers with a sustainable business. I have traveled the country giving seminars for little or no money trying to help people do it right. I wrote a book and donated the advance from it to photo foundations to help people and to avoid any suggestion that when I say “buy my book” I was just trying to sell books to make me money. There is a right way to “break in”, and a wrong way. There is a responsible way, and an irresponsible way. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people mis-read what David was trying to say, and are now on the verge of not only doing it the wrong way, but in a very irresponsible way too. You can do it responsibly. You can succeed as a professional photographer even if you are not one now and have a “day” job. That is what this blog is all about, and, as you'll see as you read through this series, I include links to numerous other blog posts I have done on the subject.

So, here’s my feelings about ‘working for free’. I should start with putting forth examples of work I have done for free, and pro-bono, just so we're clear here.

Free:

• I photographed my sisters wedding for free, about 15 years ago.
  
• About 13 years ago, I was doing an assignment for the DNC, photographing a fundraiser with the Vice President, and the lab ruined the film (I have a letter to proove it!), and only 1/2 of the film shot was usable. I ended up doing that one for free (in the end.)
  
• I am Native-American, and when my tribal council came to Washington for the grand opening of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, while the Smithsonian hired me to be an official photographer for the event (resulting in my image being their Christmas card that year), I shot images of my tribal leaders participating, and shipped them a CD for use in our tribal newspaper, gratis.
  
• I got corralled into donating a family portrait session to my daughter's school for the charity auction. Despite my gut feelings, I agreed to it, and I should have listened to my gut. That won't happen again, it was a bad idea.
• I made a portrait of my office manager's family last year.
  

Pro-bono:

• About 10 years ago, two people I didn't know took their savings and rainy day money and started a magazine. It was a great idea. We sat down and I put together a schedule of what the assignment fees should be, once advertising started coming in, since it was a free magazine distributed around town, and they were comfortable with those rates. To begin with, they couldn't pay. I agreed to contribute to the cause, and I shot assignments for them, pro-bono. Despite a valiant effort, they folded after about 18 months, but I was paid for all the expenses associated with the shoots, which averaged $200+ at a bare minimum.
  
• I volunteered several years back, with one of my best corporate clients - to become a sort of a partner. Since I was billing upwards of $20k a year for them for various clients, I committed "if you have a client you've deemed worthy of doing pro bono work for yourself, I would be happy to discuss how I might be able to partner with you to do pro bono work for a worthy cause of yours...".
  

And, that's about it.

So, I recieved not one but three calls from David who was under the weather in the UK. We had a nice conversation, and he offered several good examples of working without pay. In an early call, I commented to him "yeah, you cite valid examples where it might work (more on that later), but almost all your readers will think that you've painted with a broad brush and won't comprehend the discretion and the distinctions you've drawn. They'll just hear 'we can't pay you to shoot that concert, but we can get you a credential and will give you a photo credit...' and they will think you encouraged that 'for portfolio purposes', when that's not what you meant." Then, in a later call, he noted "the comments run the gamut, and yeah, there are people who took off in that 'shoot the concert for free' direction", which supports Chases' point - "a good chunk of the discussion online today misses the point."


Let's take David's example in his blog of shooting for free for the food blog. David is right - that food blog will NEVER hire a photographer. First, if David was looking to do some awesome portraits, or get into food photography, he could contact the chefs and restaurants, and ask them if he could do their portraits. When they ask "for what?" and he says "oh, just because I want to", the chef isn't going to let some guy come in with lights and all and take up the chef’s time for no good reason other than because the photographer wants to. The chef might say "ok, but I want to use the photos myself", and, at first blush, that sounds ok, but what the chef is really saying is "ok, but in return, I want to use the photos on my website and in my brochures, menus, and advertising", and then that doesn't sound so good. Enter the food blogger. If David were to contact the blog author, and make the offer to shoot the subjects the blogger is writing about, for free, then the chef is getting something for free (publicity), the blog author is getting great images for free, and David is getting experience and portfolio content for free. Here's the downside - were that blogger to become an writer/blogger/editor at Food & Wine, their mindset is that now they're thinking photography is free - if they can just find the free-workers amidst the money-grubbers.

Sportsshooter had an interesting piece - Free is killing me, as did the Houston Chronicle - (Biochemist gave away work, others got Nobel Prize), where some sad sap gave away his knowledge for free to two others, who, in turn, won the Nobel Prize with it. The guy now drives a courtesy van for a car dealership in Alabama. Maybe he can become a photographer?

Let's take the supposedly altruistic "make a difference" mentality. Try this one on for size - kids with cancer. Of all the victims of cancer, none are more of a heart-crusher than kids who come down with cancer. If you got a call from, say, "Cure Kids' Cancer Now" to go up with the kids to the State Legislature to testify before the states' healthcare board, would you do it for free? 

Ok, so, if you did, how would you feel if, at the end of that event, two different people approached you and gave you their cards, and said "I know you're sending the photos to the head of Cure Kids' Cancer Now, and we're getting a copy of that disc, but if you could just send it directly to us that would be best", and the company names on those cards read "John Smith, Executive Vice President for Government Affairs - Pfizer", and "Joe Smith, Senior Vice President for Marketing - AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals", and then you went to your contact and asked about this, and he/she said "oh yes, this presentation was all about getting these kids' cancer medication covered by their health insurance, and those two companies have the best medication to treat these diseases, and they fund our organization."

If you're curious about the contrary value of this type of situation - the New York Times wrote - "Claritin's Price Falls, but Drug Costs More" back in 2003, as drug companies forced Claritin to be removed from prescription drug status, to over-the-counter status. For a drug as simple as Claritin, switching it to become a drug that's no longer covered by a healthcare prescription plan, one healthcare company alone "Wellpoint itself has certainly benefited from the switch. It used to spend $90 million a year for its members' Claritin prescriptions and doctor visits." That's a $90 million dollar savings from one simple drug, for one company. How much money do you think those pharmaceutical companies would be making if the expensive kids cancer drugs were paid for by insurance? And, they're going to use your photos to help make that happen. They'll profit, you won't. You should get your $1k in photo and usage fees out of the millions they'll make when the drugs are covered. Thus, beware the client who comes across as altruistic and fully deserving of your free work.

I think it's of value now, to return to the New York Times. Early last month,they had a piece - "When to Work for Nothing", by the author of the book "My So-Called Freelance Life", and it has worthy insights. She closes with "When you agree to work free, you reinforce people’s misguided ideas that the self-employed are independently wealthy hobbyists. Don’t degrade your profession by letting a cheap client take advantage of you." I know that what David and Chase were talking about was NOT the concept of agreeing to do assignments for free. I KNOW THAT.

The problem is, as I said in the beginning of this piece - the message that came across was "it's ok to work for free to build up your portfolio!" That's what people took away from what they wrote, and Chase acknowledges that most of the commenters are missing David's point. It's like the difference between murder and manslaughter. In both cases, someone is dead, but in the case of manslaughter, it wasn't intended. Yet, it still happened. 

Neither David nor Chase intended to encourage people to do free "assignments". Yet that is what almost everyone that read their pieces took away, as evidenced by all the comments to that effect, and that is why I was yelling towards London and Seattle at the top of my lungs - unintended consequences.

Here's a well-spent 3 minutes with Harlan Ellison to wrap this up. I am purposefully putting it at the bottom of ALL THREE pieces to improve the chances that you watch it at-least once:

---

THE REST OF THE SERIES:

PART 1 - Professional Photographers vs. "Hobby" Status (i.e. Working for Free)

PART 2 - Working for Free – Interns and Apprentices

PART 3 - Working For Free - Commentary and Responses to Selected Comments

RELATED LINKS:

From several perspectives, I've written extensively on this subject. Here are several links to those pieces:

A Triumph of Hope Over Experience
A Collection of Inconvenient Facts
Free Not Working for Thee?
Businessweak - Amateurs vs. Pros?
Just Say "No" Just So Oversimplified
Speculative Photography - An Introduction

We also wrote all about working for free for places like US Presswire - US Presswire - Introduction.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Working for Free – Interns and Apprentices

(This is the second in a three-part series)
One of the messages that arose in David’s comments, and was echoed with a contrary perspective on Vincent Laforet’s blog (Work for Free?) was the notion of working/interning for free. This gets into some sticky situations with those little things called laws.

(Continued after the Jump)

Next year marks the 10th year I have run an intern program in my office. During that time, we have had over sixty people come through the business, and every full-time intern has been paid for their contributions to the office. There have been a few part-time interns, and a few of them have had a specific requirement by their schools that they were precluded from being paid. I believe that having someone come into my business and working full-time for free sends the wrong message to them, so we just don't do it.

Thus, I take a contrary position to the sentiments shared in David’s blog comments about interning for free, and I am not alone on this subject. Vincent wrote on his blog - "I’m very very much against working for free. In fact I don’t like people working or interning for me for free. It’s just not good business. Period." What struck me was one commenter on David's blog wrote ""i've been working for David Tejada for free for a little over a year now. it's the best decision i could have made...and working for free with a servants spirits is one way to open doors." FOR A YEAR FOR FREE? Are you kidding me?

First, Tejada should be careful. People working for free is a big U.S. Department of Labor violation (i.e. against the law) unless it's done within strict educational guidelines (and that means in conjunction with an accredited educational instutution, where the person is an actual student at that institution, and the institution is coordinating the learning with the place where the intern is working).

Second, this is a good article titled "Hiring interns for free labor is a no-no" from back in the beginning of the Summer - "Summer interns are ripe for exploitation. They're desperate for real-life experience to help them land a permanent job, at a time when the economy is slowing and positions are scarce. Many are willing to work for free or below-market rates, just to get a foot in the door." The article quotes a lawyer, Rosemary Gousman, from a Murray Hill, N.J.-based regional managing partner at Fisher and Phillips, a labor-law firm. ""Unless you're part of a formal school program, if the intern is doing anything other than strictly shadowing one of your employees, they need to be paid at least minimum wage,". Heck, even in China, the last bastion of Communism, working for free to get your foot in the door is against labor laws (Working for free against labor law, 4/18/06).

Chase commented on his Facebook status that he’d gotten an email from Seth Godin on this (if you don't know, that's a big deal). So, I did a little research on Seth’s approach, and what I found was surprising to me, and more importantly, Seth may get into a little hot water with what he wrote if he's not careful.

Seth too, is making an offer that, on its surface might be attractive, but may very well run him afoul of the same labor laws listed above. Seth invites (Instead of getting an MBA, consider spending six months in my office) for free. Yes, you get to work for Seth for free, and he equates it to an MBA. The problem is, he’s not an accredited institution. Yes, what he offers has value, but not a sheepskin. Will the Department of Labor come a calling? Likely no. If the intern/apprentice/free-worker decides they are unhappy, they will likely have a case and can then file with the Department of Labor then against Seth seeking back wages. On top of that, Seth requires you to cover your own expenses while there, so you are actually paying for the privledge of working for Seth. Word to the wise Seth – be darn sure you get a labor lawyer to look over your paperwork, otherwise you could run afoul of more than a few laws.


Here's a well-spent 3 minutes with Harlan Ellison to wrap this up. I am purposefully putting it at the bottom of ALL THREE pieces to improve the chances that you watch it at-least once:

---

THE REST OF THE SERIES:

PART 1 - Professional Photographers vs. "Hobby" Status (i.e. Working for Free)

PART 2 - Working for Free – Interns and Apprentices

PART 3 - Working For Free - Commentary and Responses to Selected Comments

RELATED LINKS:

From several perspectives, I've written extensively on this subject. Here are several links to those pieces:

A Triumph of Hope Over Experience
A Collection of Inconvenient Facts
Free Not Working for Thee?
Businessweak - Amateurs vs. Pros?
Just Say "No" Just So Oversimplified
Speculative Photography - An Introduction

We also wrote all about working for free for places like US Presswire - US Presswire - Introduction.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

Working For Free - Commentary and Responses to Selected Comments

(This is the third article in a three part series)

Since so many people have come into this discussion on David's site, I thought I'd highlight the sentiments of several posts, and respond to them/what they've written.The reason for this is that there are many perspectives to this, and almost all of them are either flawed, or fatally flawed. So, I'll show quotes, and then provide a response:

(Continued after the Jump)

"...4 or 5 bands have called and asked for pricing and ... and I said "...its on me", ... it would be a great way to get a couple done to get into that market...."

Yes, you'll get into that market being known as "free". The record labels will use your work in all sorts of marketing, PR, and advertising, CD labels, and so on and so forth, for free. More profits to the music labels - don't you think musicians have screwed themselves enough over time and given the farm away to the music companies? If you're not sure, read this blog post I did and listen to how Elton John fought to fix his early career mistake.

"Free is good (for now)! I just did a free shot for a young actress who is trying to make ends meet as many starving artists do...It was great to practice my Strobist techniques and not feel super pressured. It was a valuable experience for for me because the lighting was challenging."

As to that starving artist thing, I wrote a few pieces - The Proud Starving Artist ; 10 Ways to Remain a Starving Artist. Romanticizing being a "starving artist" isn't really a good thing. It's nice when you're sipping a chai tea latte with your beret in the local java house listening to beatnicks recite their slam-poetry wearing Birkenstocks and having not showered in 8 days, but other than that, it's a bad idea. Doing a trade-for-prints/trade-for-CD deal is what c-grade models and photographers do who almost never become pro-level photographers, unless maybe you're in Los Angeles, where there are thousands of models.

One commenter said it well in response to the concepts outlined above:

"In my world for example, the idea of TFP (Time for Photos) is a joke. "Models" don't value your skill and think the equation is stacked in their favour. Photographers don't grow in the one area that matters most - the confidence of knowing what they do is inherently valuable."

"Before reading this, I had actually thought of the idea of shooting portraits for my neighbors for some Christmas portraits on my time."

This isn't such a bad idea, especially since having good neighbor relations is a good thing. BUT, next might be the invite to the wedding/mitzvah, and the suggestion "hey, why don't you bring your camera, we'd love to have some photos, and since those that you did of the family were so great, we thought we could save some money - did you know how expensive these things are? - by just asking you to bring your camera." Now, you're working that day, and some wedding/mitzvah photographer in your community is out a few grand. And, when you say "gosh, that was a few years ago, I charge for these things now..." the lame response will be "come on, we're neighbors, and you're going to be there anyway." Yes, being there as a guest is one thing, as a working photographer it's completely different. Make absolutely certain that you tell your neighbor that this is a one-time deal, or, better yet, knowing what your neighbor does for a living, ask for an exchange of services.

"This is exactly the push I need to go ahead and do something I've been thinking about doing, but was worried about the hit my perceived value as a photographer would take."

Yes, your perceived value will take a hit. I PROMISE. More importantly, your own feelings of self-worth and self-respect may take a precipitous dive, and it will have a (possibly sub-conscious) effect too.

"This is a great back door business plan that I for one plan on implementing."

90% of all businesses fail in the first two years. This business plan all but ensures you'll be among that 90%. Since unemployment is at a 34 year high (Half-million jobs vanish as economy deteriorates, 12/5/08), you might want to head down to the unemployment line and see about filing in advance of your plans' failing.

"I had also thought of approaching the local humane society not too long ago (have you seen most of the pics on petfinder.com??) ...taking photos of dogs and cats that nobody owns -- man, talk about NO pressure!"

Ok, I think this idea falls into that of one of the few that might work. However, this suggests that you might want to go into the field of pet photography (a lucrative one) (check this link - for information on how it can earn you $110k a year shooting twice a week), but that would be a part of that/a photographers' "giving back to the community" efforts. Or, the local humane society should/could have an arrangement with a place like PETCO (Pet Photography At PETCO) that would be a part of PETCO's giving back.

"Recently, I offered to shoot one of my company's employee celebrations for fun, and the results were very rewarding -- I got access to shoot a major corporate event (300+ people) for a Fortune 500 company, got recognized for my photos on a national level throughout the company w/ over 25k hits on the site the pictures were hosted on, and even got an award and free photo printer for my effort. All for only wanting some event-shoot practice. Not bad, considering I could have just gone and shmoozed instead like everyone else (I hate shmoozing.)."

A free photo printer? Let me guess - it was probably one of the dozen printers that the company got for free when they ordered the last batch of CPU's from Dell or HP? "I got access" ? Weren't you going to go there already? As someone who has shot for over 1/2 of the Fortune 500 companies, I can tell you that I've earned $1k (and more) shooting company picnics, holiday parties, and so forth. It's not glamourous, but it helps pay the bills. That is, unless you have someone willing to do it for a clip-art-inkjet-printed award and a free printer. And who insured your personal gear against spilled sodas or any other accidents? Sorry to sound so grumpy here, but this is just a bad idea.

"Exactly what I've been doing. I have a lucrative day job but I can't do it forever...I've been picking and choosing photography projects ...and get me some much needed experience...and I've been doing them for free. And loving every minute of it!"

That lucrative day job that you can't do forever? Guess what? You can't do photography for free forever either if that's what pays the bills, regardless of if you're "loving every minute of it"! It's called "You could be doing 'self-assignments', where you go out and try things out in your evenings and weekends."

"Every job I've ever gotten through photography has been through word of mouth or from someone seeing my work personally... and all because I usually did something for free."

This would then, have people passing the word "hey, that's the guy that will shoot for free. /Congrats! You’ve become the guy that works for free. Expect to hear from buyers who know: “Call him - maybe you'll just need to buy him lunch!"

"I've been doing some portraits for friends for fun, helping people get new facebook pictures and getting to experiment with lighting, new techniques, new gear, and so on...Plus when you start putting up shots on facebook, you start workin' the connections and offers may start coming in, friends of friends wanting shots done too, but like you said, that's just gravy."

Here's a video piece I did on this subject (From Intern to Executive - Your Corporate Photo ) that talks about doing this, and it's something to bill for. Otherwise, the offers will be for or come from people who want things for "fun" and "for free". Yes, then friends of friends will want them - again, for free. This type of work, for many people, is meat-and-potatoes bill-paying work, not the "gravy" for someone with a day job.

"I always cringe a bit when I hear the notion of doing solid work for free because, if done in mass, the law of supply and demand indicates that number of paid gigs will be suppressed and exacerbate the current recession."

Agreed.

"I am by no means a great photographer, although I can create images that help sell my clients goods. One of the reasons that I was able to build up a client base was my own feeling around the essence of the work, that I was being hired to perform a service and not creating "art". My intuition in this has built my business, as keeping the costs low for my clients has enabled them to increase their advertising placements, as the per ad cost was lower, which in turn has led to more work for me. "

Hmm… Not sure about your general answer here, since this dude might actually be making a good living, given his geographic area and what his costs are. He might be like those furniture studio shooters in the South who have so refined costs that everyone is making money, but it sure isn’t “art”, but it does take imagination and effort! Yes, more low-paying work for you, and in turn, the business has more money to buy more ads (at going rates, of course) and grow their business since they don't have to pay you much. What you're talking about - perform a service - is akin to the commoditization of photography that has taken hold of the stock photo industry. Your intuition is off, and I am guessing you're not interested in turning it on and straightening it out. Why bother? The businesses you are doing cut-rate work for are more likely to prosper at your expense. That's akin to the sentiment 'I take a small loss on every job, but I make it up in volume.' I wrote A Triumph of Hope Over Experience, where I write "Remember when the client said 'I don't have much money, but if you'll do this one at this price, I will make it up to you with the next one'?" When they can afford a great photographer (since you state 'I am by no means a great photographer'), they won't call you, they'll call a great one, and pay them accordingly.

"I'm also volunteering my services for my church. Easy stuff - little events, staff photos, etc - but with a 1000+ member church, somebody's bound to ask somebody for a photographer sometime, and I'm hoping somebody remembers my name."

I see the value in this point - if it's done from a marketing standpoint. Perhaps you should ask for a trade in the church bulletin, where pictures of the last coffee klatch after services has a "Photos by John Smith - www.JohnSmith.com", and a small ad that parishioners can read on the back page of the bulletin during the pastor’s rambling sermon, "for family portraits, or wedding photography like that in this bulletin, consider John Smith - www.JohnSmith.com".

"I am an amateur who is now the company’s in house photographer...I got this because I shoot some corporate-charity work for fun, the company and charity liked the pictures, then I was asked to photograph a Director (which I decided to do for free), and on the back of that I became our in-house photographer...I suspect many people could blow me out of the water photographically, but the guys I beat off the role for the company pictures might have been ‘pros’ but they were also ‘poor’."

Nice. You're essentially admitting that you've cost a professional photographer assignments, contributing to, as you put it, they're being "poor." Corporate charity work is lucrative work, and many a photographer earns a living doing just that type of work. Then, you're doing a free portrait of a corporate Director, thus costing another photographer a portrait assignment.

"Two days ago I made the same deal, since I love having my day job (IT freak) and my night work (Photo freak). I am passionate with photography and I prefer working without constraints (meaning that 99,9% of my projects are self funded) , this attitude gave me the opportunity to gain "access all areas" and make backstage photos,"

Fortunately, one of the things about location photography is that you can't outsource it. "IT freaks" on the other hand? They're a dime a dozen and being outsourced faster than you can say "f8 and be there." When India's night work takes over your day job, and you're left with empty server racks and a personal budget that limits your bandwitch/Internet connection to dialup, don't bother trying to get into the field of photography, especially trading to "gain 'access to all areas'" and so on, since that's already been ruined by others (The Business of Rock & Roll Photography - 5/30/08).

"I'm a young amateur photographer, still in school, and I'm just about to start doing this: take photos of the people I want to for free to have fun and build a portfolio I can be proud of. Money? Later. Reading your writing made me more secure about what I'm about todo."

Excellent. One more amateur student photographer emboldened to care not about money. That's a nice "starving student/starving artist" badge of honor, but about 6 months after graduation, when Sallie Mae comes a callin' for the beginning of the payback for the student loans that got you that degree, money will become much more important to you. Then again, when you have to buy a home and start a family too, "evil-money" will rear its' ugly head. That security you feel for what you're about to do is only because mom and dad are/were paying your bills during school and you can afford to work for free. That's nothing to be proud of - a portfolio built upon free assignments that may well have cost others the monthly rent.

"this summer and fall shot Metallica, Mastodon and Status Quo amongst others. Still free (well kind of, free for myself as my day job would have been the client), but now I'm published in major magazines with a credit for shooting Metallica."

"will work for photo credit" is one of the more asinine mentalities that is pervasive today. This is the type of post I told David he'd be encouraging, and thankfully, it made it past his moderation for all to see. Last July I wrote - Spec Comparative to Salary, where I detail that for many years, I was hired by Rolling Stone and it’s sister publication Us Weekly to cover concerts and celebrities on Capitol Hill and at the White House. Then, along came a “photographer”, who also had a design business where he did some of the graphics for concerts in town. He would then frequently shop them around, because he wanted to see his photos in Rolling Stone. After a year or so, when one of the annual festivals came around and I called about my regular assignment, the editor said “I am not assigning it this year, we’re getting spec work from {so and so} and we won’t be needing you.” Poof – away goes a $250 guarantee against usage, plus expenses, plus my ability to generate revenue off those images. Had I said “oh, I’ll do it for spec, just get me a credential”, I would be not only subsidizing a media conglomerate with between $250-$600 in expenses, where they would only ending up paying the $150-$175 for the use of the one image, meaning that, in a best case scenario, I would loose $600 minus the $150 for the “privilege” of shooting the assignment, IF they used mine. He continued to work this way, and among his poor decisions, was one to drive over a hundred miles each way to a concert near Richmond, Virginia, for free.

"I agree with what you say. I'm recently graduated from a photography school here in Paris and since graduating have been shooting like crazy, mostly for free. What do I get from it? Experience. I'm still learning, every single shoot without fail I do I come away with some lesson learnt. My book improves on an almost monthly basis, I'm making contacts, working on an exhibition series and know that once the economy turns around I'll be in a much better place than had I sat on my ass waiting for the phone to ring with paid assignments."

That’s some great school in Paris where you DIDN’T get experience!!
In order to get clients, you don't "sit on [your] ass waiting for the phone to ring with paid assignments", you market yourself to people who are willing to pay. Yet, contributing to the mentality of shooting for free as a good thing means there will be far fewer paying assignments to go around. Those contacts you're making? They're contacts that know you as "free and cheap", and not someone worthy of investing in valuable/assigning an important and lucrative assignment photography. C'est la vie.

Again, more broad-brush mis-interpretations of what David and Chase intended when they wrote their pieces. Not much more to say about that:

1) "I'm an amateur photographer and as such see that I have no choice but to work for free if I am to progress in photography. To hear that you as a pro feel it beneficial is refreshing. "

2) "As a student who plans on entering the business in the next couple of years, I Find your post to be very inspirational...This post has been another nudge in the right direction, and personally I give much more weight to what I read on this blog and Chase's as well..."

3) "Between your comments and chase's about really shooting WHAT you want and worrying about the immediate cash payback later on is very inspirational...Personally, since I'm just a beginner, I NEED the cash, but it's always important to not forget why we take photos: cuz we love it."

Then there's:

"PIXELS are FREE!!!!!!! I just shot 13 guys from High School , all for FREE to help them out in a "Man Pageant" . The Pageant is to help raise money for a high school junior with Lukiemia. I did all their individual portraits in a tuxedo , shot on black. Then I designed the poster for the show. I had my printer donate them for FREE. They are selling them to raise more money. Tonight is the show and yes I'm shooting it like a fashion show. I will post the poster on flicker for everyone to see. FREE PIXELS & WARM FUZZY FEELINGS. PRICELESS"

No, actually, pixels are NOT free, but thanks for contributing to that mis-information campaign that clients always promote,(ie: "can't you just copy the files to a CD and give it to me?" No, I can't, unless you can handle huge raw files on your office computer, which you can't.) Further, cameras/camera shutters have a lifespan of a few hundred-thousand frames. Divide the number of frames you shot for the 13 people by the cost of the camera, and you'll see they weren't free. Digital cameras have a lifespan of about 18 months. Two $3k cameras during that time equates to a depreciation of about $333.33 a month. This doesn't factor in the massaging (otherwise known as ‘post-production’) of those pixels in that computer of yours with Photoshop. That's not to say that doing work for a pageant for a junior high school with the proceeds going to a cure for Lukiemia isn't a good thing, it is, and while you likely did not take work from a local event photographer (but you might have), to say what you did was "free" is, in point-of-fact, inaccurate. What's "PRICELESS" is your misguided beliefs about what it takes to be in business. Oh, and what's also "PRICELESS" is the amount of money you can deduct from your taxes for your charitable deeds - zero.

"in today's digital world, your up-front costs are close to nothing. 10 years ago, shooting for free meant eating the cost of film, processing and maybe 'Roids unless the client paid your costs. Today, all a free shoot costs you is your time."

See above - no need to repeat myself.

"I just recently asked a local Congressman if I could do some free potraits. I don't have a lot in my portfolio, and would like to do something like that. I just have to wait for him to get out of session in DC. Then, everything is a GO, they loved the idea."

Let's see - a little research tells me that, If you're zip code is 61115, and you're speaking about your Congressman, and that would be Rep. Donald Manzullo. I see from your profile photo, you are posing with a 4x5. You know those cameras aren't cheap - but they're also antiquated and used by just about no one these days. That portrait, used by Manzullo, will be a part of his brochures, website, and campaign ads and so forth. You can see here that in the 2007-2008 cycle, he raised $1.3 million dollars, with $79k coming from the healthcare sector, $56k from insurance groups, $56k coming from the banking industry, and top contributors like United Technologies ($14k) and AFLAC ($10k) all ponying up, thanks, in no small part, to the smiling face of the good Congressman you depict in your free photo. Congressmen (and Congresswomen) pay all the time for professional portraits, but now there's one less paying portrait, and more money in his/the Congressman’s coffers to help out the banking industry, since he is on the House Financial Affairs committee. Well done.

" I have been a free photographer for some time now....As soon as I quit trying to earn money I had offers and requests coming at me from all directions. It has always been my intent to use my abilities to bless others and help those who could use my photographs to benefit the world or their business.... So often money is the measure of success and I really need to to work on getting my thinking away from that."

"...As soon as I quit trying to earn money I had offers and requests coming at me from all directions...." OMFG. Of course you did, just like a drunk girl in a bar who hops up onto the slippery oak bar-top with a low skirt and no underwear and says "if you see anything you like, I'll be in the back offering it for free..." and then she has a line-up for the back room. No surprises there. You're not "bless[ing] others" in the photo community, it's your approach that is a curse on the photographic community and the scourge of much of what is good and right with the mission of photography. What would you say to the 500k+ folks who lost their jobs last month?? And where are those new cameras, computers, printers and supplies coming from??

"I am a photo student and we get the "this would be a great experience for you and will help you build your portfolio...and we will even...(just wait for it)...give you a photo credit," offers all the time. We get them from people who can and should pay, but someone usually takes it for free. "

Yes, there will always be someone willing to do it for free. Check into "How to Do It Without Ruining it for Others" for some insights. Just because the bar girl above is giving herself/’something’ away for free, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It appears your perspective is that you're not interested in doing free work like that, and that's a good thing.

"You can see why this can very easily get very complicated - and dangerous. Some people - such as Chase Jarvis - know how to navigate these things. And make sure that if that “free” awesome assignment somehow become a hit - he’ll be able to profit in it - and not get caught feeling left out. "

Yes, Chase, and a handful of others, do know how to safely navigate these waters. Chase, et al, are the ocean-going vessels out in the stormy seas, and the vast majority of people reading and LEARNING from David's blog post are the cabin cruiser/rowboats out on choppy seas, ill-equiped to weather the storm or navigate the waters. Yet, with bravado, they will set sail, Gilligan and the rest of the crew.

Here's a well-spent 3 minutes with Harlan Ellison to wrap this up. I am purposefully putting it at the bottom of ALL THREE pieces to improve the chances that you watch it at-least once:

---

THE REST OF THE SERIES:

PART 1 - Professional Photographers vs. "Hobby" Status (i.e. Working for Free)

PART 2 - Working for Free – Interns and Apprentices

PART 3 - Working For Free - Commentary and Responses to Selected Comments

RELATED LINKS:

From several perspectives, I've written extensively on this subject. Here are several links to those pieces:

A Triumph of Hope Over Experience
A Collection of Inconvenient Facts
Free Not Working for Thee?
Businessweak - Amateurs vs. Pros?
Just Say "No" Just So Oversimplified
Speculative Photography - An Introduction

We also wrote all about working for free for places like US Presswire - US Presswire - Introduction.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

And The Battle Rages On

There is a lot going on in the great and nebulous cloud in the sky, and not all of it is good. Yes, some taste the sweet nectar of power, and are driven to corruption for their own personal gain. Some try and fail to succeed, and blame the system. What is key, as I sit and contemplate how this applies to the future of photography and it's many aspects, is that there must be a mutual effort to be made - one is the success of one both personally and professionally, and the other is the success of this ever-changing field of photography. The two are not mutually exclusive, lest you subvert the good of the whole for your own gain.

There are those that are the lap-dogs of the status quo, unwilling to take a principled position, or fight the good fight. They take the easy road, without confrontation or sincere criticism, simply interested in making it just one more day.

Then there are the turncoats. They profess to be the do-gooders, the righteous, and are indignant that anyone question them. They may do some good, but all-the-while they are seeking their own expanded power base, and are undermining those they profess to want to help. In the end, there's a net deficit to the collective good that is laid at their feet, and they kick it away, saying it wasn't their doing, knowing all-the-while that anything that stands in the way of their success is to be climbed over, not realizing that it will be their undoing.

On the other hand, there are the titans of industry, who profess to know more than the little people, and who believe that the masses are to be lead, like lemmings, to whatever shifting destination they desire, and which serves their own greater good. Yet they lead, to a degree, not a body of passionate "soldiers", but of a somewhat conscripted army ill-equiped to fight, and then blame the solders for their own demise, unwilling to accept any blame for failure to ready those soldiers for battle.

Then there are the outposts of resistance. Those that are deemed to be the gnats and flies, to be swatted away. The David to Goliath, the John Conner to SkyNet, Luke and Leia to the Empire. History is repleat with stories of the swattable interlopers affecting change and making a difference.

Unbeknownst to many, these outposts are out there, fighting the good fight, each and every day for the profession they love. The rag-tag group of people of singular focus on what is good and right. They are well educated, and they have their mission clear. Attempting to silence one only grows the resistance that much stronger. A modern day Knights Templar if you will (with a more positive outcome some 700 years later, one can only hope.)

The battle indeed rages on. You may not see it, hear it, or feel it, but you hopefully will be the beneficiary of the wins, and insulated from the losses. While there are many things to be thankful for, to paraphrase Robert Frost, "there are miles to go before you sleep". Reflect in your quiet moments of all the good things in your life, but know that all the while, those that are working to undermine you are not pausing to reflect - they are gathering their strength for coming battles. This may be metaphorical, but its effects, if ignored, will be real.

(Comments, if any, after the Jump)

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

The Fashion Police - White House Edition

When, several years ago, I was assisting a friend in getting his first Capitol Hill press pass, as we arrived to proceed into the building, I handed him one my disposable razors I keep in my car, and in said "you need to run this over your face." "Why?" he asked? "It's a simple matter of respect", I noted. To this day, he gives me a hard time with that phrase, and we're such good friends that he didn't take offense at my counsel. (and he did get his credential.)

Yesterday, when I turned up at the White House for my planned coverage of Barack Obama's visit, I was dressed in a suit. That's just me, I guess. Others were not similarly attired, but there were a half-dozen other still photographers wearing ties. I recall with great respect then Agence France Presse photographer David Ake, 15+ years ago, always came into the White House well dressed, and he recieved the respect due a properly attired photographer. Today, Ake is the head of the Associated Press' photo operation here in DC, and he remains well dressed.

(Continued after the Jump)

Re-enter my good friend and colleague, David Burnett. David is a classy guy - top of his class in so many ways, and his class can surmount jeans, except when it's a random challenge by a press operation that has lost much of it's knowledge-base because of the few days left in it's existence. David recounts on his blog - Common Sense, Not Very Common, (11/11/08), writes:

So last Thursday, at what will no doubt be President Bush’s last cabinet meeting, Paul Richards of AFP and I were singled out of the crowd of a dozen still photographers, and refused entry to the photo opportunity in the Cabinet Room. Like Paul, I have been on the road for months doing the campaign. We were both surprised, unhappily, when we were informed that with just months to go in an 8 year tenure, the White House has decided to ban jeans from the Oval Office, and (apparently) the Cabinet Room if worn by photographers.

While I concur that David shouldn't have worn jeans, he would have learned that 7+ years ago had the current administration instituted that rule - and enforced it - way back then. To enforce a rule they've previously not enforced, or been lax in enforcing, is just petty, and belies the mindset of the outgoing administrations attitude towards the press.

While you ponder this, check out previous blog posts on this subject:

Proper Attire Whilst Making Pictures, 6/1/08

Leave The Flip Flops For The Politicians, 5/23/07

So, as the saying goes, dress for who you want to be, not who you are. Wait, I want to be David Burnett...but can I do it without wearing jeans?

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.