AndyBristow Photography wrote:
Paying to work for a company!

Andy are they simply requesting a fee for a media pass? If so it happens... sadly far too many hacks think they don't need to pay admission to a show because they are carrying a camera...  hosting fashion events is not cheap... and rest assured emerging clothing designers do not have deep pockets...

AndyBristow Photography wrote:
As a pro photographer who normally gets paid for shooting fashion shows

Good for you... See that your the Official Portfolio Photographer for Miss England

Andy, I've shoot with quite a few pageant queens... Pro Bono... works for me... and I'm typically also the makeup artist on these sessions...

AndyBristow Photography wrote:
Would you pay to work at a fashion show?

Actually have a colleague who shoots all the fashion events in our market... have accompanied him on occasion... Yes he would certainly pay since he uses these events to recruit potential models and is highly successful (sends them runway imagery which he is rather good at obtaining excellent quality)  He told me it is an order of magnitude better than using Model Mayhem since the models rarely if ever flake and are always amiable to creative testing with him at his studio...   

Andy I think you are missing something here... Fashion shows are about Clothing Designers, not photographers... You might step back and seriously ask yourself what are you bringing to the table to expedite the local emerging textile industry...

Possibly finding more appropriate clientele might be a wise choice for one with a mercenary mind set...
Have you considered editorial portraiture i.e. shooting business professionals in their working environment?
I assist many commercial shooters in my market who find these clients very profitable... 

btw, fashion models are seriously limited in financial resources... As also those who host fashion events, thus the reason so many rely on the dedication of those in the fashion community to contribute...  I for one do makeup for fashion shows... it is a brutal job in which I'm given only half the time (at best) necessary to achieve the director's "look"  And I always work pro bono...  Why? because I support the local clothing designers in my market...

As a result many times I'm selected to do catalog for them...
Maybe you might try this... just a thought...

"If you love life, don't waste time, for time is what life is made up of."  -Bruce Lee
All the best on your journey Andy...

David Kirk wrote:
Perhaps they have so many that wish to volunteer to shoot these shows that they need to put up a small barrier to discourage too many from showing up.  After all, how many of these photographers do they need?

Thomas Van Dyke wrote:
sadly far too many hacks think they don't need to pay admission to a show because they are carrying a camera...

Loki Studio wrote:
You need to limit the amount of amateurs so that they do not interfere with the real work of professionals, and paid tickets is a good strategy.

Yes, I see your points and it makes sense, its just something thats fairly new in my neck of the woods so wanted a few opinions. Cheers.

Loki Studio wrote:
This is not "work" because the fashion show company is not "hiring" you.  The fashion show certainly has another official photographer who does get paid- its just not you. If you worked for a real media company, you would get hired by the media company and they would get you your media pass at no cost because the fashion show producers want the exposure, hype, and free promotion of their event.  When you are part of a real magazine, newspaper, TV show, website, or blog that reaches 1000s of people and helps the event producers- you will not pay to work as real media.

What also happens though is that 100s of amateur photographers, friends of the models, bloggers, etc also apply for media credentials with no ability to provide exposure, hype or any real benefit.  In that case, the fashion show producers have a legitimate reason to charge them to practice amateur photography.   You need to limit the amount of amateurs so that they do not interfere with the real work of professionals, and paid tickets is a good strategy.

You definitely make a good point here. If it was that you'd pay the entry fee so you can get access to shoot the show that would be fine with me. The problem is that the OP says that they're demanding the shots as well. That's my problem. That's the "best of both worlds" for the company setting up the show. They can choose the best shots from the amateurs and then probably demand copyright as well, might not be that far off, so the guy who paid money to shoot is giving them material for THEM to profit from, potentially.

AndyBristow Photography wrote:
and demanding copies of the images as well.

And is there any indication what they intend to do with the images?

Studio36

Loki Studio wrote:
This is not "work" because the fashion show company is not "hiring" you.  The fashion show certainly has another official photographer who does get paid- its just not you.

I wouldn't place a bet on that being true. They are demanding the images exactly because they don't have their own shooter(s).

Loki Studio wrote:
If you worked for a real media company, you would get hired by the media company and they would get you your media pass at no cost because the fashion show producers want the exposure, hype, and free promotion of their event.  When you are part of a real magazine, newspaper, TV show, website, or blog that reaches 1000s of people and helps the event producers- you will not pay to work as real media.

Or bet on that either. There was a time when a number of London Fashion Week show pieces were demanding that the photographers, even actual media credentialed photographers, agree in writing not to publish what they shot without explicit and advance approval that they could, and, of course, they could withhold consent to do so at a whim.. I never found out for sure who was behind that bit of nonsense but my impression was that it was not the designers but the model agencies.

Studio36

AndyBristow Photography wrote:
One example is a medium sized fashion show in preston (not a charity event) which is charging photographers £20 a pop to take pictures of the runway models and demanding copies of the images as well.

Having to pay for the press credentials is kinda common... but... having to submit the photos to the organizers would be indeed "paying to work", and that is major bullshit!

If you have to pay for the credentials, the photos are yours and you are free to sell them to your clients.

I suggest to tell them to fuck off!  Seriously!!! That's some low rent hussler bullshit!

studio36uk wrote:

Or bet on that either. There was a time when a number of London Fashion Week show pieces were demanding that the photographers, even actual media credentialed photographers, agree in writing not to publish what they shot without explicit and advance approval that they could, of course, withhold at a whim.. I never found out for sure who was behind that bit of nonsense but my impression was that it was not the designers but the model agencies.
Studio36

In 300+ events I can think at least 12 times when the magazine editor required a change in terms or rejected all restrictions as a condition of providing coverage.  Of course is much easier when you work for Rolling Stone vs Mississippi Banjo News.  If the event producer really feels your media coverage is important, then everything is negotiable.  Not only does your media outlet need to evaluate if they can live with the offered restrictions, but also you as a professional need to make the same assessment.  Smart photographers make a plan with the editor based on the assignment on how to handle these challenges.

studio36uk wrote:
I never found out for sure who was behind that bit of nonsense but my impression was that it was not the designers but the model agencies.

Studio36

That makes sense.
If you are hired to shoot runway, then you are there to make the designers look good, not the models. The really good models will look good most of the time.
Ok, you try to avoid getting pics that make the model look weird, but... they may not look their best.

studio36uk wrote:
And is there any indication what they intend to do with the images?

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
They are demanding the images exactly because they don't have their own shooter(s).

Studio36

No indication of usage, just said copies of images taken and publishing rights required from each photographer.

lukezsmith wrote:
As someone who is a newbie and needs to build a portfolio, I would definitely consider paying a fee to shoot runway models, and for as little as £20, to me it's a no-brainer.

Sadly, foolishness of this sort is why the show organizers are doing that. And also why they will get away with it. Equally sadly, it will be why our friend Luke will find no one willing to pay him when he seeks to make a living doing photography: (1) he's already established his worth at negative 20£, and (2) to compete with him, lots of other young-and-foolish people will be standing in line to pay for the privilege of working for less than free.

Meanwhile, guys like me who are used to being paid if folks want to use our work will leave the "job" to them. I'm sorry, if the work you get from someone willing to pay you is satisfactory, you certainly don't need me. But do not whine to me later if/when you need better and expect me to provide it for a similar low-low price.

And by the way, Luke my friend, just so you know how the game is played, should you turn in work they can a tually use, the next step is we'll let you shoot it for free and plan to pay you exactly the same forever afterward, too.

But you are right, it is a no brainer. Meaning no brain was applied to the notion. Certainly not yours.

Think about it. Do you honestly believe you could get an inexperienced plumber to pay you to unplug your toilet? Of course not. Experienced or not, expect to pay the going rate for toilet unpluging. That is because plumbers are not known to be morons, they are usually shrewd businessmen. But photographers, well, we suffer a lot of fuzzyheaded businessmen who foolishly give it away.

AndyBristow Photography wrote:
I,ve noticed a worrying trend of companies requesting payment from photographers to work for them...

One example is a medium sized fashion show in preston (not a charity event) which is charging photographers £20 a pop to take pictures of the runway models and demanding copies of the images as well.

As a pro photographer who normally gets paid for shooting fashion shows I find this quite worrying.

What are your views? Would you pay to work at a fashion show?

I have No sympathy  They should charge £ 1000 for all  the annoying camera guys

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:

Sadly, foolishness of this sort is why the show organizers are doing that. And also why they will get away with it. Equally sadly, it will be why our friend Luke will find no one willing to pay him when he seeks to make a living doing photography: (1) he's already established his worth at negative 20£, and (2) to compete with him, lots of other young-and-foolish people will be standing in line to pay for the privilege of working for less than free.

Meanwhile, guys like me who are used to being paid if folks want to use our work will leave the "job" to them. I'm sorry, if the work you get from someone willing to pay you is satisfactory, you certainly don't need me. But do not whine to me later if/when you need better and expect me to provide it for a similar low-low price.

And by the way, Luke my friend, just so you know how the game is played, should you turn in work they can a tually use, the next step is we'll let you shoot it for free and plan to pay you exactly the same forever afterward, too.

But you are right, it is a no brainer. Meaning no brain was applied to the notion. Certainly not yours.

Think about it. Do you honestly believe you could get an inexperienced plumber to pay you to unplug your toilet? Of course not. Experienced or not, expect to pay the going rate for toilet unpluging. That is because plumbers are not known to be morons, they are usually shrewd businessmen. But photographers, well, we suffer a lot of fuzzyheaded businessmen who foolishly give it away.

I think you missed the part of my post that mentioned the need for such an opportunity to improve and expand on my portfolio. To label my post as 'foolishness' is pretty ridiculous, considering you're someone with a lot more experience than I have and at the moment there aren't a lot of other opportunities to get access to a runway and shoot pictures for free, let alone get paid to.

Every photographer works for themselves, if I can take an opportunity to further my photography knowledge and experience and I deem the cost/benefit to be worth it, I'll take it. I assume you've never partaken in TFP shoots before?

lukezsmith wrote:
As someone who is a newbie and needs to build a portfolio, I would definitely consider paying a fee to shoot runway models, and for as little as £20, to me it's a no-brainer.

A runway isn't exactly a great portfolio builder, but if you are just trying to build skills then that makes more sense.  However the issue with the rights grab to your work is a problem IMO

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:

A runway isn't exactly a great portfolio builder, but if you are just trying to build skills then that makes more sense.  However the issue with the rights grab to your work is a problem IMO

Exacttly.

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:

A runway isn't exactly a great portfolio builder, but if you are just trying to build skills then that makes more sense.  However the issue with the rights grab to your work is a problem IMO

It is if I want to become a runway photographer at fashion weeks in the future. Yeah, I agree about the rights, but there's not much you can do, as other people have said, if you don't take the opportunity, someone else will.

Thomas Van Dyke wrote:
Andy I think you are missing something here... Fashion shows are about Clothing Designers, not photographers... You might step back and seriously ask yourself what are you bringing to the table to expedite the local emerging textile industry...

Fashion shows are about the clothing designers GETTING NOTICED. It doesn't do a clothing designer any good to go through with all the work of showing their efforts if nobody ever sees it. They are in the business of getting as much press on them as possible and that's pretty difficult to do when nobody is there to report it.

AndyBristow Photography wrote:
I,ve noticed a worrying trend of companies requesting payment from photographers to work for them...

One example is a medium sized fashion show in preston (not a charity event) which is charging photographers £20 a pop to take pictures of the runway models and demanding copies of the images as well.

As a pro photographer who normally gets paid for shooting fashion shows I find this quite worrying.

What are your views? Would you pay to work at a fashion show?

Since we're talking UK, outside of LFW this is very rare.
I would have thought the only reason would be to weed out the less serious, but the image grab sounds like they cannot generate enough press coverage.
What I tend to see outside the official LFW shows is lack of media knowledge, the photographers pit non existent or a mere after thought.
A fashion show is a publicity event, not just to the few that attend but the masses that see the photos afterwards.

Shot By Adam wrote:

Fashion shows are about the clothing designers GETTING NOTICED. It doesn't do a clothing designer any good to go through with all the work of showing their efforts if nobody ever sees it. They are in the business of getting as much press on them as possible and that's pretty difficult to do when nobody is there to report it.

QFT,

LA StarShooter wrote:
Paying to shoot in a fashion show and then giving them the images for free is crazy talk. When I started getting more connected on facebook I started getting the unsolicited invites with the press pass with the expectation that I would go to the show and shoot for free. I have always said no and then the designer invites me to attend and I don't bring my camera. The people who attend the shows are often friends of the designer as well as family but also there business people and it is how I have met future clients. I walk past all the photographers with their press passes shooting for free the designer, etc., so they can meet non-agency models,  and then because I know a few people, not that  many,  I get the V.I.P. pass and go into bar where you can meet some impressive potential clients.

Whatever happened to having a sense of value? Zero equals zero and shooting a designer for free means you'll be considered to shoot that designer's work for free in the future.

I agree with what you say, but it requires one very important asset. The ability to be social and schmooze. And your way is the smart way. But, and it is a BIG but, you do not get VIP passes unless you have received a certain stature.
What about the rest of us unknowns?

Now for the flip side.

I just shot, free, on my terms a local fashion show.
Did a bunch of runway stuff.
<thanks again Udor for your help>
I am going to try to parlay this into a trade with some designers for 'pulls'.
I will be giving some images to a local fashion rag. The future potential of being published will make me much more interesting to any models I contact, as well as designers.
I do this for fun, so the possibility of doing some trade shoots with some designers that I like, and with luck getting them to spring for a team seems like a win for me.
And since it is for fun, when I get bored I can simply move on.
But the possibility of getting someone else to pay for a team so that you can shoot your creative idea seems like a worthwhile effort.
Will this work...?

Runway seems easy.
Ask Udor, he can tell you differently.
Hell ask me, and I will tell you differently.

studio36uk wrote:
And is there any indication what they intend to do with the images?

AndyBristow Photography wrote:
No indication of usage, just said copies of images taken and publishing rights required from each photographer.

That's the point at which I would end the conversation. How I might end it depends on how I felt about the whole thing - - - somewhere between a polite "No thank you" and a simple, but very much to the point, "piss off!"

Studio36

lukezsmith wrote:
As someone who is a newbie and needs to build a portfolio, I would definitely consider paying a fee to shoot runway models, and for as little as £20, to me it's a no-brainer.

... And you would supply them with images and publication rights?

Studio36

lukezsmith wrote:
As someone who is a newbie and needs to build a portfolio, I would definitely consider paying a fee to shoot runway models, and for as little as £20, to me it's a no-brainer.

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:
A runway isn't exactly a great portfolio builder, but if you are just trying to build skills then that makes more sense.  However the issue with the rights grab to your work is a problem IMO

Ah, yes, the rights grab. Well he gets to be "published" as well. That's a bonus for some. Pay to shoot then give away the rights.

ROTFLMAO !!!

Studio36

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:
A runway isn't exactly a great portfolio builder, but if you are just trying to build skills then that makes more sense.  However the issue with the rights grab to your work is a problem IMO

lukezsmith wrote:
It is if I want to become a runway photographer at fashion weeks in the future. Yeah, I agree about the rights, but there's not much you can do, as other people have said, if you don't take the opportunity, someone else will.

No, Luke, it works like this when offered these sterling opportunities, you take a copy of their terms and conditions and write the following across the face of them, then send it back  - - -

"FUCK YOU, PAY ME"

Simples. Just because some idiot will do it doesn't mean you have to do it too. They are without a doubt paying the freight to put on the show. I bet they are paying for the venue; they are undoubtedly paying the set construction people; they are going to be paying the caterers, and more.The only one they are not paying is in all likelihood the photographers.

Imagine the response they would get if they tried to:
* charge the venue to put on the show in their facility - such a deal!;
* charge the builders to construct them a catwalk - you're joking!;
* charge the printer to produce the advertising and mail-outs - RIGHT! Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave;
* charge the caterers for the grand privilege of providing the food and drink, and the staff to serve it up;

Yup! They would get told the same thing by each and every one of them - "Fuck you, pay me"

Just a by-the-by, in the case of the show the OP mentions, I wonder if they are charging the models to appear in their show? I fully expect that, at the very least, they are not paying the models, and the models are expected to supply them with a freebie too. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they are charging everyone for entry at the door as well.

Studio36

Thomas Van Dyke wrote:
Andy I think you are missing something here... Fashion shows are about Clothing Designers, not photographers... You might step back and seriously ask yourself what are you bringing to the table to expedite the local emerging textile industry...

Hi Thomas!

I know you are very experienced etc., but at fashion shows... who do you think will get the designer's clothes out.

Take a look at what Diane von Furstenberg and Carolina Herrera have to say... about the role that photographers play!

Daniel Chase wrote:
£20 to cover the show is nothing. What would concern me is that they want all the images, without a licensing agreement in place, I would runaway.

The licensing agreement, from what the OP says, seems to be - that they get publishing rights [of course with no money going to the photographer.]

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

The licensing agreement, from what the OP says, seems to be - that they get publishing rights [of course with no money going to the photographer.]

Studio36

no es bueno!!!