19 ms·
Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings
- StavrosK 5y agoAs the article admits, they'll probably find someone to do this for free. And if someone agrees to do this for free, we'll, that's how much it costs. I'm sure they'll get their money's worth.
- buryat 5y agoI would pay Netflix to be a photographer
- arkitaip 5y agoYou must be a shitty photographer.
- rafale 5y agoSo what? Let the market decide. Or would you rather dictate what consenting adults can agree to because you are so much wiser?
- simias 5y agoThe parent's comment was uncalled for, but many regulations are made specifically to "dictate what consenting adults can agree to". That's why minimal wages exist after all. The problem is that if the task doesn't require a highly skilled workforce you'll always find somebody desperate enough to undercut the competition. Then it's just a race to the bottom.
- EricE 5y agoThen the producers will get a bottom result - which has it’s own implications. It’s five days. No one is being compelled to do the gig. This guy is just mad that someone else may have a different perspective on value than he does. So what? Not every job is appropriate for every person. For someone else this could be what they need to get the door open to future work down the road. It’s wonderful this photographer has a body of work and reputation that can sustain him. How privileged of him to cast judgment on others who may not have his same level of privilege.
- paxys 5y agoJust because you are able to find someone desperate enough to take up your shitty offer doesn't mean it is the fair market at work. There's a reason labor laws, OSHA, minimum wage etc. exist. This is predatory, period. The irony here is that they wouldn't be able to do this if they just wanted people to act as photographers, not actually take any photos, because the various actors unions wouldn't allow it. Even nameless extras make $10-$15/hr or more for the time they are required to be on set.
- StavrosK 5y agoDefinitely, but they'll also just get unusable photos.
- aantix 5y agoWhy would you assume they're desperate? If I took a gig like this, I'd be damn sure that: 1) I am included in the rolling credits, 2) I have several cameo shots within the show, 3) I can use thumbnails of my appearances within my own web site and 4) that I am able to use the show's logo and likeness to promote my own business. My site would lead off with : "Award winning photographer. You may have seen my work recently on the hit Netflix show, 'Love Is Blind'".
- skeeks 5y ago1) Nobody reads them. 2) nice, but not useful for further business. 3,4) maybe the contracts would disallow that.
- aantix 5y ago1) The credits? That's not the point. This isn't a hail mary hoping someone discovers you via rolling credits. It's a way of solidifying your role in this production - so that if someone double checks, did you really help in this production, you are accounted for. 2) Could be useful for future business. It's a display of authority if positioned right. Just like any good portfolio piece. 3,4) Then don't take the contract. With any business, you are trying to project trust, authority, quality. You could leverage this as such.
- munk-a 5y agoGosh, the way I want this story to shake out is that they find someone to do the work and the photographer just shows up with their phone and takes a few blurry snaps forcing the show to re-shoot those scenes or go without any promotional photographs. Taking this job is honestly a financial liability - there's a chance your fancy equipment will be damaged (you should calculate wear and tear into the costs for every job) so be sure not to use anything that costs more than the expected damages.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ping_pong 5y agoIt's pretty bizarre not to offer even a modicum of money, but I can see how the opportunity could be lucrative for an unknown or rising wedding photographer. If you can say you were the wedding photographer for "Love Is Blind" and use that on your web site, it might get you a ton more clients. They should do the right thing and offer the contractor money, but from what I've heard, that's par for the course for Hollywood and movie/tv studios.
- jimbob45 5y agoSure, I'd agree for an unknown for rising wedding photographer. However, it seems like they want a highly experienced photographer and the guy they reached out to, who has $35k worth of equipment, certainly doesn't seem like he's green.
- toxik 5y agoApparently being a known photographer is not enough to land you the job as photographer for this show
- shoto_io 5y agoI might get downvoted for that, I still gonna say it: That might be due to the demand-supply situation in photography. They probably will find photographers doing this for the promotion effect described in the email.
- Ensorceled 5y agoRight but abusive and predatory behaviour is STILL abusive and predatory in an oversupply situation.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jf22 5y agoThe promotional aspects could be worth much more than whatever money they'd earn.
- pionar 5y agoWhy not both then?
- xpe 5y agoYes and Netflix (or the organization making the film) can afford to pay more.
- burnished 5y agoIf Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will? Whats the value of 'promotion' at that point?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> If Netflix won't pay you, who the fuck will? Couples who want that photographer they saw on TV.
- Magodo 5y ago> While the series is funded by and will be aired on Netflix, it is unlikely that the streaming behemoth is aware of how the producers of the show are soliciting talent Literally a line from the article. Clickbait headline
- jedberg 5y agoI actually feel bad for Netflix here. They have nothing at all to do with this (as the article rightly points out) but the photographer is blaming them anyway, and I'm sure all of their friends are too.
- dv_dt 5y agoOnly to some degree, if Netflix is in some sort of executive production role on this project, then they likely have the pull to squash these kinds of requests.
- JackFr 5y agoHonestly, Netflix should ding this company for embarrassing them.
- DontGiveTwoFlux 5y agoIf a Netflix subcontractor didn’t pay their actors, writers, etc, they would catch a well deserved deluge of criticism. Of course it wouldn’t happen because those workers are organized to prevent these abuses.
- jedberg 5y agoThey aren't really subcontractors of Netflix. They're a separate company selling a product to Netflix (a complete TV show). If Netflix buys a laptop from Apple and Apple does something wrong, you don't blame Netflix for it, you blame Apple.
- SirSourdough 5y agoI don’t think this is cut and dry, and instead depends on the nature of the relationship. To buy a laptop, Netflix didn’t have board meetings, deep contract negotiations involving the executives of both businesses, or an ongoing relationship. The laptop is effectively a commodity, and any injustice Apple commits is amortized over many million laptop owners who tacitly but minorly endorsed that injustice. Netflix buying a show feels like a much more intimate relationship where much more of the responsibility lies with Netflix as the only buyer of the product.
- mcraiha 5y agoThere is a Twitter account dedicated to people that try to abuse the exposure thing. As you might expect, the most stories are from USA https://twitter.com/forexposure_txt https://twitter.com/forexposure_txt
- EricE 5y agoI love the assumption that exposure has zero value. Usually from people who have only ever taken a paycheck from someone else. Exposure has value. Otherwise these kinds of things wouldn’t exist. If you don’t agree, don’t do the gig. Pretty simple. But no! That’s not enough! Those other people are expressing wrongthing and must be corrected. Ugh - bunch of freaking busybodies. At least in the days before pervasive communications (i.e. social media) busybodies were restricted to those physically around them or relatively small communities. But now thanks to the miracle of sites like Twitter everyone can have their own personal Gladys mocking and judging their every move. Yippie.
- thelean12 5y agoIt's not that exposure doesn't have value. It's that unpaid positions start to collapse the industry if it becomes too common. SAG has minimum day rates for a reason. I imagine major studios could find plenty of people to do speaking roles "for exposure" to the point where no low level people have any real leverage to make any kind of living from MASSIVE corps. The massive corps would get free labor by exploiting the hopes and dreams of low level actors. The free market gets weird and fragile without unions here. Photography doesn't have the same union powers, so we rely on public shaming as much as possible.
- throwaway823882 5y agoYou sound like somebody who got exposed for trying to pay people with exposure.
- ipython 5y agoWhere can one respond to Kinetic Content? I have an iPhone 12 with portrait mode and would be happy to take pictures, so I can break into the lucrative wedding photography business! It can't be that hard right?? (/s for anyone who was confused, although, seriously, people should flood Kinetic Content with "offers" to do the work for free.)
- Ancalagon 5y agoLove this idea
- sixhobbits 5y agoI'm not quite sure how recruiters et al brainwashed us all into talking about jobs as "opportunities". It should be the other way round. The fact that "This would be an unpaid opportunity" not only doesn't particularly stand out as a phrase, but is even something of a cliche says a lot about the world.
- duxup 5y agoI feel like it should be noted in the title that this is the show's production company "Kinetic Content" making this request. They should name the folks actually making the request. Naming Netflix misses the people actually making the request to work for free here.
- casefields 5y agoNaming the production company doesn't get the outrage and eyeballs that Netflix does. Which if you want to get this to stop, Netflix as the studio, could put in a call and get this changed. It all depends on how bad the press gets before important people are on the phone.
- duxup 5y agoNot naming the production company doesn't put ANY eyeballs on the folks who did the thing.
- steelframe 5y agoI bet there are photographers who would pay for the privilege.
- changoplatanero 5y agoyeah its weird how nobody objects to me paying someone to teach my photography and neither do they object to someone paying me to teach me photography (internship) but they object to the idea that these two payments could cancel out and someone could teach me for free.
- munk-a 5y agoThe US continues to support unpaid work in a pretty major way. I think unpaid internships being socially acceptable is one of the roots of this insidious habit. They've been illegal up here in Canada for a while and it hasn't really caused any economic disasters. It'd be a good change to advocate for down there as well. And, honestly, internships aren't free for companies unless there is literally nothing of value being given to the intern, adding a low salary to these positions to make them affordable to people without independent savings or rich parents would just be more equitable while not significantly impacting employers. Internships are, in the best light, just a really good recruiting tool.
- Black101 5y agomake your money work for you, don't do internships for $0... even the YC plan is not that good... you get a few thousands to loose a big part of your company? Sometime it makes me want to start a YC alternative ;)
- duxup 5y ago>I think unpaid internships being socially acceptable is one of the roots of this insidious habit. When I worked with interns they were all paid... but every one was more time and expense to work with than any value they provided. In weeks they accomplished what I could do in an afternoon, and we spent WAY more than an afternoon of work with them. Amazingly many seemed to have a very high opinion of their productivity. Now that's fine because when I did work with them the intent was to give these folks an opportunity / experience. But I don't know about this idea that interns are somehow a gateway to getting value out of people for free. Interns in my experience (outside of maybe a unicorn out there) are not something you can expect to get much of anything out of. I can't imagine coming out of the intern experiences I've had thinking that I'm going to get anything like worthwhile free labor from them.
- notyourwork 5y ago> But I don't know about this idea that interns are somehow a gateway to getting value out of people for free. Interns in experience (outside of maybe a unicorn out there) are not productive ... We use internships as a pipeline to hire. We pay them for their time, they get real world experience. We both get quality time together to see if long term this is a good fit. Those who start full time ramp up much faster and are generally successful in their career.
- martini333 5y agodisgusting
- gist 5y agoI don't get why everyone thinks this is so bad. It's great and free publicity for the photographers. They are trading their time for something that will bring them future business and will get them attention to get paid jobs. While I don't do photography anymore I'd take this in a heartbeat. Clear win for the photographers. Note that TV has a history (game shows) of trading free products in exchange for media mention (and this is way better than that).
- EricE 5y agoYes - I love how the dominant assumption is that exposure has zero or very low value for everyone to the point that this is a ludicrous practice at face value. A whole lot of privilege in those fundamental assumptions :p
- aiisahik 5y agoPeople who think this is predatory have clearly NOT worked in the TV / Film industry. Doing shit jobs for free in the hopes of getting some cred is the norm. Not right but not news. BTW just because it's going to be on Netflix doesn't mean Netflix is the employer. Netflix just buys the content. The staffing / contract decisions are made by the production company.
- duxup 5y agoEven if you're established in your career ... they'll ask you. As Harlan Ellison demonstrates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
- ww520 5y agoWow. That's one good speech from Harlan.
- medicineman 5y agoIf you don't like, you can always build your own netflix.
- pavel_lishin 5y agoJust because it's the norm doesn't mean it's not predatory.
- skeeter2020 5y agoJust because some people think it's fair and wouldn't accept it also doesn't mean it's wrong and should be stopped.
- walkon 5y agoIf someone makes you an offer and you say, "no" and they walk away, that isn't predatory.
- kelnos 5y ago
- throwaway888abc 5y agoDisgusting power play. I will cancel my account with them if they don't provide free chicken wings every weekend for their free coverage in living room. Going to write to support now.
- kenjackson 5y agoUnderpaying for desired positions is nothing new. Game devs historically are underpaid relative to their skillset. Sports coaches for HS are often paid nothing or a stipend (often something like $1000/year, even for major urban high schools). This role does have the additional benefit of exposure. How much do the performers on this show get paid? At least if its like a lot of reality shows, they are aspiring actors who view this as a foot in the door. If you think the exposure is worth more than a typical five day shoot, go for it. If not, pass on it. If I did it, I'd try to negotiate some "brand name placement" during the show or in the shows publicity.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cwkoss 5y agoIf photographers are mad, they should accept the gig and then take horrible photos. Let em get what they paid for.
- Ekaros 5y agoOr accidentally lose all the footage. Data recovery could be done for right price...
- sgt 5y agoI'll do it for the free food. My camera gear is a pocket full of: Fuji X100S and an iPhone XS. For those warm colors I'll even throw in some Nikon D70 photos.
- buildbot 5y agoIs the budget so constrained they can't pay a few decent wedding photographers 4K each, for a whole 20K? That's what's so insulting about this.
- bigtech 5y agoI would have though SAG-AFTRA require all on-screen talent to be paid.
- acomjean 5y agoNot surprising. Last century I had some NYC black and white photos online. An TV show asked to use them. I gave them a price and crickets.. Digital cameras became popular and the value of photography has plummeted.
- paxys 5y agoThe value of photography is as high as it has ever been. Try hiring a photographer with a decent portfolio and referrals for your wedding, for example. The value of "random person with a DSLR" is close to zero (where it probably should be).
- hosh 5y agoHow well do you think a counteroffer for retaining all rights and a license for royalties for each use be received? Depending on how valuable exposure is for the photographer, the license can be exclusive or non-exclusive. I’m sure the brand for that show is important, so exclusivity is valuable. But minimum though is, if you are not paid for the work, then it should not be work-for-hire, and the photographer ends up with ownership of the copyright. Back when I did independent contracting for software development, who owns the copyright and how it is licensed was usually negotiated. It kinda depends on how much leverage each side brings to the table, and how exploitative people at the table are.
- SirSourdough 5y agoThe power asymmetry massively favouring the production house in this case is the reason they are able to make such an aggressive demand as having a professional work intensively for a week for no pay in the first place. I don’t think you would be given much space to negotiate because they would just move down the line to the next person willing to work for free but without all your requirements. It’s a very different world from software development. Imagine what Google would pay to bring on a consultant for a week of important work...
- hosh 5y agoThere was an article series I once read about negotiating the terms of a software development job. There is asymmetry there, though not as lopsided for photography. The article also goes on to say how the run of the mill software developer are not getting as much as they could be getting. I mentioned exploitation in my earlier comment. For me, this is part of a much larger issue stemming from the prevailing paradigm we have that attempts to extract as much value out of things. I don’t frame this in terms of abuse of power; how much leverage one brings to the table matters. Instead, it is the underlying paradigm that treats people as resources from which value is squeezed out of it. Whether we are talking about return on shareholder value, or using adversarial interactions and competition to maximize market efficiency, or maximizing profit, those are all expressions of Value Extraction. To come back full circle with an alternative perspective: you might have a producer and a production company that enjoys fostering new talent and creative voices. Inviting a photographer to join, not necessarily for the exposure, but for challenging work that cultivates their art. What does a wedding really mean? How can photos be taken to express that? And so forth.
- xpe 5y agoI'll offer some context that may help people here to discuss with each other more productively. I'm seeing at least four different "conversations": 1. One conversation is about what an individual should do. Is an unpaid gig worth it? Under what circumstances? 2. Another conversation is about what an employer should do. Does paying zero lead to good results? Why or why not? 3. Another conversation is about what kind of society we want. This may include collective action; i.e. what companies to support and what level of government involvement makes sense. This may include worker's rights and possible limitations on organizations not paying some minimum amount. 4. A final conversation is about related events. Is this kind of situation unusual? Why or why not? There is place for all of these (and more). I mention this because there is no need to "correct" someone who is having one of these conversations when you'd rather have another.
- blobbers 5y agoMeanwhile in the tech industry, big companies are paying college interns more than $2000/week.
- input_sh 5y agoGood? Internships shouldn't be limited to those rich enough to work for free.
- Jiocus 5y agoThe scenario I imagine will play out will be something like the following. Netflix get a sizable amount of applications from photographers of varying degree of skill and walks of life. Among these will be a few highly valuable photographers. Well established to carry out their part of this project. These photographers are somewhat financially secure, and doing this without compensation isn't an issue. They might even frame this situation as a collaboration on equal terms. On Instagram and the professional blog, the lucky one share posts describing the appreciation for getting the opportunity of helping Netflix out, the wonderful team and how much they look forward to Love is Blind. Status isn't blind.
- supernova87a 5y agoThis will be an unpopular opinion, but I am feeling chatty today. As long as safety + working conditions are not cruel and unusual, and someone is willing to work for $0, why are you trying to stop (or hide) that fact? Someone willing to work for less (or for free) is offering a bargain to incentivize giving him/her the business or the benefit of experience instead of more $. You restricting them from doing that doesn't magically solve their problem of not having a job, you realize? We have tons of people who are locked out of well paying jobs because they can't get on the job experience or even get in the door at the wages being required (and experience demanded by those wages). Young people, people with less education. Minorities. Did you know that? It actually causes some people's heads to explode, that the good intentions of a policy actually might hurt the people it's designed (in a very coarse way) to benefit. This is the classic conundrum of the minimum wage. You may not realize it but you are implicitly choosing some people to benefit over others. It's great for people who can get the job. It does nothing for those who cannot get employed, who for many industries are more numerous. It's in fact a very discriminatory regulation in outcome (although of course not in intent -- no one intends that obviously!). But intentions, as they say, are heavily overrated. Look to outcomes. Maybe the person doing unpaid work is someone who has been overlooked by "the establishment" and is trying to break into the industry. Maybe it's a 2nd job to support the family and doesn't have to be a full wage earning job. You want to foreclose people from those possibilities and say that only full professional (say, union members) should be able to get that job? You are not going to escape the fundamental fact that there are people who are out there wanting to work, but who cannot command the pay rate dictated. And that we have an excess of labor in many pockets in this country (really, we do!). You just hide the problem by saying that it's unjust to pay so low a wage and not allow people to do it. The people and their lives are not going away just because you mandate not to see them.
- slaymaker1907 5y agoThe problem with this is that it creates lots of equity issues. How exactly are poor people supposed to get into government if the entry level positions (internships) are unpaid?
- 5y ago
- drivingmenuts 5y agoAs an aside, the author of that page has made one of the most worthless UI decisions that rates a kick in the junk. Hitting Page Down (in Safari) advances the frame of an advertisement in the right-hand column, rather than advancing the page itself. If you are a designer who does this sort of thing, I hate you and hope you fall into a pool of piranhas.
- slver 5y agoEveryone is free to want things.
- SirSourdough 5y agoI’m sure lots of businesses want to exploit workers, but that doesn’t mean they should be permitted to. The issue here is Netflix/Kinect being able to act on a predatory want.
- slver 5y agoNetflix isn't out there kidnapping people to take photos for them for free, so WTH would "predatory" mean. "Hey you wanna come take photos on a few weddings for a show? We can't pay" "No" See? Simple. That's a normal market. If people wanna do it free, they should be able to. If they don't, Netflix will have to pay someone. Why does anyone else have to get involved here?
- cochne 5y agoShould the same principle imply we should abolish the minimum wage?
- thinkloop 5y agoI'm pretty sure the advertising is worth at least the $50K. If you tried to purchase equivalent exposure it would cost you more. It's a bad deal if you don't need the exposure, but seems alright if you do.
- skeeter2020 5y agoThis isn't anything like an unpaid internship IMO. The photographers can debate the benefits from exposure and promotion (I imagine saying you were the photographer who did season X of a popular wedding show has quite a bit of value) but this is an in-kind trading of services. There's nothing wrong with the practice or this instance.
- Ansil849 5y ago> While the series is funded by and will be aired on Netflix, it is unlikely that the streaming behemoth is aware of how the producers of the show are soliciting talent. Kinetic Content is likely solely responsible for how it spends the budget granted by Netflix and the choice to seek unpaid labor from photographers is likely entirely on the production company. This struck me as weirdly being pandering to Neflix. This is like saying 'the choice to use paramilitary forces to murder union organizers is likely solely the choice of the local plant subsidiaries, and Koca Kola is unlikely to be aware of it.' Neflix has a clear choice to work with contractors who engage in predatory labor practices or not, just like they also have risk and due diligence teams to obtain business intelligence on their contractors.
- cerved 5y agonegligence isn't the same as malice
- agys 5y agoAt least there is a name for it: “unpaid opportunity“.
- paxys 5y agoYou mean "unpaid labor". "Unpaid opportunity" is recruiter speak.
- emodendroket 5y agoConsidering how exploitative the content is, perhaps not surprising their labor practices are no better.
- l0c0b0x 5y agoI think the scale of the 'Exposure' does matter here (please don't just downvote, hear me out). Exposure = Advertisement, right? Wouldn't you pay for advertisement? Now, if you invest very little for advertisement, you might get very little in return. Say, your investment is doing a free 'exposure' gig for a return of 20-30 potential customers. This might not be equitable to your time/equipment/team/etc. Now, in the example of doing exposure for a well known show (I don't watch any reality shows, btw), then: 1) Getting exposure to millions of people 2) Gaining the ability to say you worked on 'x' show 3) Your pictures being out there 4) How about other negotiated perks for doing this? (Right to use and ownership of material, being most important). 5 days of this investment does sound like a lot of money, but I believe the real question is: "Does my investment have the potential to yield to not only cover initial costs, but turn a profit?" If the answer is 'yes', go for it. If it is 'no', then decline. I truly believe this is a business decision. I am not saying people should be working for free. I truly think your time and resources are highly valuable. What I'm saying is that 'free' might not always mean 'no return on investment'.
- chmod775 5y agoI'm willing to bet money precisely nobody is going to seek out those photographers because they found them in the fineprint of some probably cringeworthy netflix show. The best they can hope for is having additional munition to convince a potential but hesitant customer. Also, some people need money this month, not maybe-money 2 years down the line.
- EricE 5y agoSo no one would value the experience and prestige of being involved in a successful program that has an audience of 30 million. No one? That’s a pretty bold assumption. As for the money this month vs later - this is the gig for them. Again, just because it’s not a an appropriate gig for all photographers doesn’t mean that it’s a gig that might not be exactly what a different photographer could benefit from.
- chmod775 5y ago
- newsat13 5y agoIsn't this very similar to uber/lyft which undercut "professional" drivers? Or airbnb undercutting professional hotel services? I thought we let free market decide who wins and so if people are willing to do for free by their free will, why shouldn't they?
- antiterra 5y agoI think I'd enjoy operating a TV camera and would do a decent job for a layperson. But, you can bet absolutely no established director would hire me, even for free (ignoring union rules that would prevent this.) It would be a disaster, perceptible by the average audience member. There's also no massive pool of people aspiring to film four camera sitcoms uploading their own attempts daily to Instagram. There is a fundamental issue with the 'portfolio' careers. Because of how subjective it is, the prestige of the client becomes an inseparable component of the quality of the work. Your amazing logo for Pat's Cosmetics will be given less cachet than that same exact logo for Procter & Gamble. Conversely, a coder's amazing video encoder will likely give that coder credibility no matter who it was written for. Fundamentally, it seems there either isn't a notable difference between, say, very good wedding photography and superlative wedding photography OR the average person isn't sophisticated enough to discern the difference. So, for someone who isn't established enough to already be booked up with regular clients, it's hard to see this as anything but a big opportunity for that dirty word, exposure.
- hooande 5y agoFrom what I've seen personally, the value of the experience and relationships you get from working in your desired field often far outweigh the dollar amount you get paid. It seems like someone would be much more likely to get hired for a good paying job if they had previously worked for a popular tv show. Much more so than if they made $20/hr working for a company that no one has heard of. I would be willing to endure short term personal hardship (ie, living with parents for an extra year) for a chance to put something eye catching on my resume. It will simply pay off more over the long term. No one should be counting on an entry level job to pay all of their bills. When I was young, internships were considered a source of extra money and not a means of supporting yourself as a full time career.
- air7 5y agoIt seems that I'm in the minority opinion but I think exposure on a prime Netflix series tuned in by "30 million households" is quite an impressive offer and the compensation (or lack there of) is not important. Declining such an offer, unless you are a very successful professional, seems like the wrong thing to do and is perhaps an example of one's ego getting in the way of one's success. Just make sure they spell your name right, as the saying goes.
- blueside 5y agoHalftime performers aren't paid for their performances at the Super Bowl, but at least the NFL does foot the cost for all their expenses.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- skeeter2020 5y agoIsn't this really close to the mantra of many people here: "Do things that don't scale"? If you're trying to grow your photography business you obviously can't do it for free forever, but you probably do some high profile jobs for cheap or even free if you think the longer term pay-off is there. I actually think Netflix will get a much better photographer paying nothing then they would if they paid low or average rates. The value alignment is much closer with the former.
- bww 5y agoI do think this production company should just pay their vendors. That said, and assuming that this company cares about the quality of the production and their relationship with Netflix, I doubt highly they're trying to hire the equivalent of a free intern here. They are almost certainly approaching established, professional photographers for whom it would not necessarily be out of the question to take a one-time 5-day hit on what is effectively a marketing and brand recognition expense for their business. I'm not saying it makes sense for everyone and it would probably seem a lot less sleazy if this production company only wanted a discount instead of free work, but I don't think the fundamental idea of an established professional services business accepting a one-time loss in order to get access to opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have access to is a fundamentally wrong proposition.
- freetime2 5y agoMy biggest issue with this is the way Netflix reached out directly to professional photographers and didn’t disclose up front that the work was unpaid. It is so disrespectful and unprofessional to make people write follow-up inquiries to get that information.
- JackFr 5y agoTo me the obvious conclusion is that the production company puts no value on the wedding photography. I’m not sure how they could even structure a contract since there is no consideration given to photographer. The photographer gives labor and rights to the photographs and the production company gives what exactly? That they might use the pictures in promotional material? If they must the pictures in promotional material that is consideration like product placement. But ambiguous amorphous exposure is not consideration. So you know, take the deal and forget to put in your memory card. Oops. Maybe they’ll learn a lesson.
- ben509 5y agoWhat's nuts is that the production company could have avoided this debate by contacting some photography studios and asking them to sponsor the show. Perversely, they would have gotten better press if they asked the photographers to pay _them_ and had treated it as a product placement.
- MarkusWandel 5y agoSuppose company A has a co-op job involving unglamorous but technically meaningful work and offers decent pay. Company B has a job involving glamorous work that may or may not be interesting, but expects you to work for free. What motivates the available worker pool? Worker A has real skills to bring to the table and expects to be paid for them, so he/she goes for company A. Worker B's competence is lacking, but glamorous company B would really help his/her resume, so that's where they go (they probably wouldn't pass the interview at company A either). I used to be a co-op student at the University of Waterloo. Back then, it was possible to pay your way through school on just co-op earnings. Companies did real interviews for co-op jobs - you had to earn those spots. Of course the students would also feel out the companies. Some were just dead end jobs doing maintenance on a long-obsolete piece of software, that sort of thing. Others were cool. A significant oddity was a certain really big company with three letters and (then) 300K+ employees, that sent generic recruiters doing generic recruiting (but they were good at it). Here you really were just "generic co-op student, we'll assign you something suitable". I had a strange but ultimately very memorable first co-op job there (OK - doing APL programming in a marketing group - strange enough?) For second and later co-op jobs you could secure something interesting internally before going back to school.
- boatsie 5y agoThere is a huge amount of outrage in this thread but some people actually do things for reasons other than money. For example, volunteer work is very popular and common and is unpaid. Why are people not outraged about someone volunteering their time. Who cares what their motive is, maybe they feel it’s furthering a cause they believe in but maybe they want to feel needed. Maybe they are bored. Open source, same thing. Sure, it’s crass to approach photographers directly and be coy about the lack of pay, but we can’t think that nobody should do anything without being paid to do it.
- throwaway823882 5y agoWell, Fuck Netflix.
- minimuffins 5y agoWe ought to establish norms that discredit this kind of nonsense. Those of us who could afford to take on this kind of unpaid work for exposure ought to object sternly and without any particular regard for professional decorum (just like the author) when these sort of offers come by, because the other side has already thrown all of that out. Always treat an "offer" for work without pay like the insult it is.
- gist 5y agoWho is the 'we' in that statement? You think this free market thing means get the government involved to prevent some kind of exploitation?
- minimuffins 5y agoWe = everyone who has to work to earn a living. And as I say, most especially people who can afford to take a pass on bullshit no-pay work and try to establish a culture where such exploitation is impermissible (like it used to be). > you think this free market thing means get the government involved to prevent some kind of exploitation? Can't parse that.
- jsdwarf 5y agoTo all the folks who would do it "for the exposure": my partner volunteered as a graphic designer for a well-known European charity event that featured a former US president, known music groups and fashion designers as pro bono acts and had a live TV broadcast. She really liked to volunteer and we received free tickets for said event and definitely enjoyed it. She added the project to her CV, but unfortunately it had zero impact on her career - no paid project was ever generated out of it. She learned about the why in several job interviews: - the design tasks were "below the line" work, applying an already developed corporate design to various event brochures like invitations or menues. - she wasn't the only volunteer for this event. Every year it recruited dozens of musicians, hairdressers, actors, designers to work pro bono for the good cause. The hiring bar wasn't very high - everybody in the "scene" knew this which devaluated the reference. I do see some parallels to the Netflix show - if they ask photographers to work for free, they will surely ask hairdressers, caterers etc as well. Creative power of those volunteers will likely be 0.
- Ekaros 5y agoThe last one is interesting point. I wonder if this is their general approach on these weddings. How many free talents working for exposure do they involve? Not the crew, but the venue, decoration, bands and so on...
- tpmx 5y agoYou're saying she should have made money from this charity event she volunteered for? Or just avoided it, because she didn't get any meaningful "exposure" out of it? For the second time in this posting, as a (northern) European I'm quite puzzled about all of this. I think we may have wildly differing thoughts about what concepts like "volunteering" and "charity" mean.
- jsdwarf 5y agoNo - my point is that some posters in this thread overestimate the monetization potential of exposure. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the project is for profit or pro bono - either way you commit to unpaid work. Volunteering doesn't only have to be about a good cause, it can also be for your own professional benefit. However, you should be sceptical about the exposure potential of such a gig. The main drawbacks are that you are likely not the only volunteer in the project and that it's often pretty clear you weren't hired for exceptional talent (in the case of the Netflix show a potential customer can do a quick web search and learn that the show contacted many photographers and only accepted free offers).
- thehappypm 5y agoWorking for "exposure" sounds really bad in general, but just about everyone in the general getting-married demographic has at least heard of Love is Blind. If I was shopping for a photographer and someone's portfolio included Love is Blind I'd absolutely think they were top talent.
- gist 5y agoAmazing the bad attitudes on this thread. Perhaps people in the creative arts should realize there is more supply than demand for what they do and stop being jealous that others are willing to take advantage of an opportunity to get notice in some way. Ironically coming from I am sure many people who will give up their time and energy helping established companies by offering free advice and filling out surveys (without pay) to help them make more money.
- anigbrowl 5y agoLine producers (in film and TV in general, but doubly so for reality TV) are in the habit of asking for free services. Basically they get a production budget to work with. About half of it immediately disappears to production photography, because the director of photography is hired first (and chooses the gear, camera operators, and lighting crew). Next come locations and costumes, then catering, and finally things like sound, still photography and production assistants. Very often they overpay the DP somewhat and try to cut corners elsewhere. Trying to trade services for 'exposure' is unfortunately a norm in the industry. FTA: While the series is funded by and will be aired on Netflix, it is unlikely that the streaming behemoth is aware of how the producers of the show are soliciting talent. Nah, everyone who has been in the industry for more than 10 minutes knows this. So do the people at Petapixel because this is a longstanding industry norm - search for 'unpaid professional' and you'll see stories about the injustice of being asked to do professional work for free going back more than a decade. But you don't want to burn your personal reputation int he industry so you say nice things about the executive producers (who sign the checks that get the ball rolling) while calling out the production companies (who roll the ball while clinging to as much of the cash as possible). The sad thing is that the line producers themselves are poorly paid, but success depends on their demonstrating the ability to coax free or cheap work out of others. Once someone is an established producer, they don't cold-call, they get people they've worked with before or who came recommended. In the meantime, they go through the ritual of trying to get something-for-nothing, and then either agreeing on a reasonable rate (if they are able to recognize a professional) or getting burnt (if they hire someone who has no idea how to behave on a set). They too are trying to get industry exposure; if they screw up by hiring the wrong person it seriously damages their career prospects. For service providers, the tricks are as follows. First, ask how they got your contact details - if they got a recommendation you can ask for money, if they pulled you out of a directory or whatever they are probably winging it. Next, get the details of the time and location, so you know what the production is already locked into. Ask how much the budget is - not for the job, but for the whole production, because there are fairly well-established guidelines for how the budget should be divided up. Also, whether it's a union shoot or not, because if so there are established pay scales and contractual agreements in place (which why so much of this stuff is farmed out to production companies in the first place). Next you get the producer into a conversation about deliverables and put them on the defensive by burying them in technical detail from your specialized field. Then (if you are new in the industry) you agree to work free or cheap but beg for money to cover your expendables, charge a box rental (gear) fee, and moan about the necessity for two assistants so that you can get some money to pay one. The line producer moans about how great the exposure is, the professional alternates between asking if they can pay rent with exposure bucks and describing horror stories about what will happen if the line producer cheaps out and hires someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Every pro has a fund of stories about shoots they were brought onto midway through after someone else had crashed and burned and jeopardized the production and the line producer's future in the industry. The line producer's bait is that this job will lead to more work, and the service provider's bait is that the line producer will come back when they're not poor and have decision-making ability. The first person to say no typically wins the negotiation; it's a bluffing game of who needs it more. It doesn't have to be an antagonistic bluffing game. The professional can decline the job but give some free advice on how to hire an (obviously inferior) competitor, thus creating a token debt with the line producer. When a line producer hires someone inferior and it goes badly, the money to hire a competent person magically appears, often with a gratuity for the rescue effort at short notice - ie can you leave now and be there in 3 hours, plus scenes X Y and Z will need to be re-shot and you're probably working a bunch of 18 hour shifts (because if they fucked up one thing they probably fucked up a bunch of others). Other tricks: if the producer doesn't want to talk about the budget, ask about the catering. If it's a first time director or producer, everything will be 50% worse. Production genres in order of prestige and earning power are theatrical film, serial TV, episodic TV, documentary, news, daytime TV, reality TV, and internet only. You need to know which one you want to be in because they're not that interchangeable and if you get locked into one it's hard to move out of it. If you like movie work but need to take a cooking show gig to pay the rent then you do it under a pseudonym or nickname.
- lizknope 5y agoWill Netflix be okay if I pirate their shows but I talk about them to my friends a lot and provide them "free exposure?" /s maybe?
- lr1970 5y agoSimilar shenanigans were rampant in Hollywood in early 20-th century. This lead to creation of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) trade union representing interests of movie actors. Might be the time for photographers to unionize as well?
- cratermoon 5y agoI hope the entire cast and crew of the show walk off in solidarity.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]