Netflix's “Love Is Blind” Wants Unpaid Photographer for Five Weddings

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.

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.

(/s for anyone who was confused, although, seriously, people should flood Kinetic Content with "offers" to do the work for free.)

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'.

I'm sure they'll get their money's worth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They should name the folks actually making the request.

Naming Netflix misses the people actually making the request to work for free here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Literally a line from the article. Clickbait headline

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.

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.

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.

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.

Perversely, they would have gotten better press if they asked the photographers to pay _them_ and had treated it as a product placement.

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.

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.

Just make sure they spell your name right, as the saying goes.

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.

Always treat an "offer" for work without pay like the insult it is.

Digital cameras became popular and the value of photography has plummeted.

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.

/s maybe?

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.

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.

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.

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.