5 ms·
As 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
by StavrosK 5y ago
As 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.