Need your thoughts - I'm a National Trust Volunteer photographer

[Eddzz!!]

So, I've been a volunteer photographer for the National Trust for the past few months. I've mainly been helping them out with documenting the structural integrity of old, dilapidated 18th/19th century buildings. It was interesting for the most part, but in hasn't been particularly exciting in terms of photographic prospects. Now, however, I have been asked to photograph some of the events that are held at some of the local tourist properties. I have been told that my pictures will be used in brochures, pamphlets, on their websites and on huge banners around the properties themselves. Should I be concerned that I'm volunteering for this? A photographer could earn a lot of money in doing this for any other organisation. If I ask for money they could just as easily replace me with another keen photographer - I was very lucky to be selected out of hundreds of other applications they had for this post. I know that there are a lot of photographers that think volunteering saturates business opportunities for paid work, but I'm trying to get my foot in the door here...

 

[gramps]

I was very lucky to be selected out of hundreds of other applications they had for this post. I know that there are a lot of photographers that think volunteering saturates business opportunities for paid work, but I'm trying to get my foot in the door here...

I wonder in what way you consider yourself "lucky"?
You are actually working for nothing and using your equipment for nothing.
Now I don't decry what you are doing, but as you imply, this is now going beyond simply documenting the work of the NT and now they are asking you to do what would clearly be seen as commercial work for nothing ... is that reasonable?
You are right they probably could get another 'sap' to do it for free - what benefit will you get for being the 'sap' that does it for free?

 

[wegotitugetit]

two ways you can look at this

1st your being ripped off and your working for free

2nd the way i would look at it

if you do get books , banners etc thousands of people will see your work and don't fogey to document that and use it to your advangte , you are doing this for a good cause hopefully the money they save will be used to put back into these buildings and not wasted other wise

its up to you how you look at it

 

[Steep]

Have you been told that you will be credited in these publications? if not I don't see how it could be of any advantage to you other than karma for your next life.

 

[Eddzz!!]

I did forget to mention that I will be given full credit for the images. I do like the idea of getting my name 'out there'...

 

[gramps]

Really just perpetuates the belief that there is no need to pay for the work/skills/time of a photographer but if you feel you will benefit :shrug:

 

[big soft moose]

First up I'd be clear that i work for the trust, i'd be equally clear that what follows is my personal opinion not that of the organisation.

In my view this is open and shut you volunter to do it , if you don't want to do it don't - its a free country and you arent being "ripped off" because no one is forcing you to volunteer (people do so for many reasons including that they support the work of the Trust, and/or that they get access as a volunteer that a member of the public wouldnt necessarily get) if you examine you motivations and they are solid then carry on volunteering, if they aren't then don't

The Trust does hire proffesional photographers for commercial work (right up to the level of people like Noton and Cornish) but in doing this kind of volunteering you arent being used for work for which a pro would be hired. by volunteering you are essentially doing stuff that which would otherwise be done by a member of the property team (if no other volunteers were available) or not done at all as the budget almost certainly doesnt exist to hire a pro to cover every event - so the logic that a photographer could earn money doing this is false , because the money isnt there to earn.

(as a parallel its just like doing any other kind of volunteering - e.g I have volunteer rangers who do practical work for us , we get work done they get the experience of doing it (training where appropriate) expenses etc.. its clearly understood that they are volunteering so they arent going to ask for money (apart from expenses) and if they did they wouldnt get it. However they arent taking work from contractors because my ops budget isnt large enough to pay contractors to do all the work that needs doing, so contractors do some jobs and staff and volunteers do the rest )

 

[Eddzz!!]

Really just perpetuates the belief that there is no need to pay for the work/skills/time of a photographer but if you feel you will benefit :shrug:

To be honest gramps, I'm at a bloody loss! Everyone wants photos but no one wants to pay for them. It's messing with my mind!

 

[Eddzz!!]

First up I'd be clear that i work for the trust, i'd be equally clear that what follows is my personal opinion not that of the organisation.

In my view this is open and shut you volunter to do it , if you don't want to do it don't - its a free country and you arent being "ripped off" because no one is forcing you to volunteer (people do so for many reasons including that they support the work of the Trust, and/or that they get access as a volunteer that a member of the public wouldnt necessarily get) if you examine you motivations and they are solid then carry on volunteering, if they aren't then don't

The Trust does hire proffesional photographers for commercial work (right up to the level of people like Noton and Cornish) but in doing this kind of volunteering you arent being used for work for which a pro would be hired. by volunteering you are essentially doing stuff that which would otherwise be done by a member of the property team (if no other volunteers were available) or not done at all as the budget almost certainly doesnt exist to hire a pro to cover every event - so the logic that a photographer could earn money doing this is false , because the money isnt there to earn.

(as a parallel its just like doing any other kind of volunteering - e.g I have volunteer rangers who do practical work for us , we get work done they get the experience of doing it (training where appropriate) expenses etc.. its clearly understood that they are volunteering so they arent going to ask for money (apart from expenses) and if they did they wouldnt get it. However they arent taking work from contractors because my ops budget isnt large enough to pay contractors to do all the work that needs doing, so contractors do some jobs and staff and volunteers do the rest )

Thanks for the insight, moose. It puts things into a better perspective. I can't see any harm in going ahead and doing it.

 

[big soft moose]

Really just perpetuates the belief that there is no need to pay for the work/skills/time of a photographer but if you feel you will benefit :shrug:

Not so - as i said above the Trust does pay for the skills of a photographer where there is both budget and necessity , as mentioned both Noton and Cornish have done a lot (plus various less known shooters) Volunteers are donating their time (for a multiplicity of reasons) and helping a charitable organisation bridge the gap between what needs to be done and what can be paid for

If someone gave their work away to a profit making company like say tesco , i'd say they were nuts - but equally you wouldn't donate money to them either , or leave them a gift in your will or volunteer to stack shelves End of the day people support charities with either money or time because they want to and they believe in what that charity is doing... and also for less selfless reasons like experience, wanting something to do, and the fact that it makes them feel good etc

 

[gramps]

by volunteering you are essentially doing stuff that which would otherwise be done by a member of the property team (if no other volunteers were available) or not done at all as the budget almost certainly doesnt exist to hire a pro to cover every event - so the logic that a photographer could earn money doing this is false , because the money isnt there to earn.

Sorry but I don't buy that - it isn't that there isn't the money, it's that nobody wants to pay it.

 

[big soft moose]

Thanks for the insight, moose. It puts things into a better perspective. I can't see any harm in going ahead and doing it.

I'd also say that if you have concerns you should discuss them with your property head of department or VDM... they'll be able to give you a lot more specific insight into why you are being asked to do a certain project, and why - I virtually guarantee that the reason won't be "so we don't have to hire a pro" - they'll also be able to put you in touch with the people at your regional hub who do hire photographers, and tell you how you get your work in front of them. ( I'm in the SW region so I can't help with specifics as I don't know the movers and shakers in the welsh region)

 

[big soft moose]

Sorry but I don't buy that - it isn't that there isn't the money, it's that nobody wants to pay it.

I'm sorry but you arent correct - I can say that for a certainty

take my team as an example - we have somewhere in the region of 50 events this year, we also have maybe the same again in working parties, several working holidays , and numerous third party events... its would be great to have images from all of them, but i can categorically tell you that I don't have the money in my budget to pay for pro photography at any of them... they are either covered by volunteers, by staff with compacts (or in my case with my own DSLR gear) or they arent covered at all

 

[gramps]

i can categorically tell you that I don't have the money in my budget to pay for pro photography at any of them...

Of course you don't, why would anyone pay when they can get it for free?

 

[big soft moose]

Of course you don't, why would anyone pay when they can get it for free?

you're not getting it - if I didnt have any volunteer photographers we still wouldnt have the money to pay pros, it just wouldnt get done.

Bottom line on this is that the Trust is a charity - volunteers are freely choosing to donate their time to support something they believe in, no one is being coerced if you don't believe in the Trust and don't want to support it then thats your perogative (and on that i suggest we agree to differ)

 

[gramps]

you're not getting it - if I didnt have any volunteer photographers we still wouldnt have the money to pay pros, it just wouldnt get done.

Bottom line on this is that the Trust is a charity - volunteers are freely choosing to donate their time to support something they believe in, no one is being coerced if you don't believe in the Trust and don't want to support it then thats your perogative (and on that i suggest we agree to differ)

I'm a Trust Member, I pay for the privilege.

 

[munch]

Might come as shock to some people on here, but there are lots of volunteers, all over the country who for there own reasons do things for free when other people get paid to do the same thing.

Is it taking money from "professionals" maybe, but in a lot of cases a lot of these things wouldn't get done.

 

[gramps]

Might come as shock to some people on here, but there are lots of volunteers, all over the country who for there own reasons do things for free when other people get paid to do the same thing.

Is it taking money from "professionals" maybe, but in a lot of cases a lot of these things wouldn't get done.

Yep many people volunteer, myself included.

 

[srichards]

The usual poverty pleading from organisations with tons of money. They can afford to pay photographers. They choose not to because people will always do it for free.

From the telegraph a few months ago:

Nearly half of the executives who are on £100,000 a year worked at the National Trust, where the numbers increased from 11 to 21 over the three year period.

Analysis of the Trust’s annual report and accounts showed that it also spent the most on a single unnamed employee in a single year - £219,999 in 2012. The figure included a redundancy payment.

The Trust’s said that its former director-general Dame Fiona Reynolds who left in November 2012 saw her pay increase from £160,000 - £169,999 to £170,000 to £179,000 between 2011 and 2012.

It's no different to media organisations trying to get work for free.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm a Trust Member, I pay for the privilege.

indeed you do - and I and my colleagues have the responsibility to make the absolute best use of your membership money

The Trust has a tad over 4 million members which does produce a shed load of income , there are also legacies, investments, rents , grants etc... however we also have a shed load of expenses. The Trusts full accounts are sent to every member and are also available online if you want to have a look.

The fact remains however that the money isnt there to pay for everything that a volunteer photographer might cover - in my team alone that would cost in the region of £30k , scaled up[ across the whole trust that would be in the region of £10.5M - and we just don't have that much extra cash available. ( In fact we don't have sufficient volunteers to cover everything either so a lot goes uncovered).

I'm happy to go into greater detail if you want, but not a public forum so feel free to take this to pm - also if you want an on the record official Trust answer (as opposed to my view which is mine alone an not necessarily that of the Trust), I can give you contact details for the senior people who can provide it

 

[big soft moose]

The usual poverty pleading from organisations with tons of money. They can afford to pay photographers. They choose not to because people will always do it for free.
:

that simply isnt true - as I said to Gramps I can categorically say that i don't have the cash available to pay pros to do everything my volunteers do. The Trust does have tons of income, we also have tones of expenses - the acounts are online for anyone to see.

also as ive said the Trust does pay photographers - however it can't aford to pay for everything that is coverd by the volunteers who freely choose to give their time because they want to

As I said to Gramps above if anyone wants an on the record comment i'm happy to put them in touch with someone more senior - I'm not personally going into this any further on open forum

 

[jon ryan]

The usual poverty pleading from organisations with tons of money. They can afford to pay photographers. They choose not to because people will always do it for free.

From the telegraph a few months ago:

Nearly half of the executives who are on £100,000 a year worked at the National Trust, where the numbers increased from 11 to 21 over the three year period.

Analysis of the Trust’s annual report and accounts showed that it also spent the most on a single unnamed employee in a single year - £219,999 in 2012. The figure included a redundancy payment.

The Trust’s said that its former director-general Dame Fiona Reynolds who left in November 2012 saw her pay increase from £160,000 - £169,999 to £170,000 to £179,000 between 2011 and 2012.


It's no different to media organisations trying to get work for free.

Did the article miss out the bit about the NT reporting a loss of £70,000,000 last year? The NT is one of the most important organisations we have, and while normally I'm against people working for free, sometimes, for some charities, it's worth it.

Would it be worth asking if they will allow you to sell some of your shots in their gift shops on a profit split? Or if you can sell to the people who attend the events you cover?

 

[srichards]

The last accounts claim 993 million of investments and 15 million carried over that they weren't spending. Don't think they are short really

Profit split is a good idea. That way both parties benefit.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

If you not pushing other work and stuff aside to make space for it, then apart from ware and tear your not losing much but possibly gaining something...ya never know what might come out of it, who you might meet, or what other doors may open.

 

[sk66]

If it's a charity/organization I would donate money to, then I have no issue with donating my time/photography to it. Only problem is there is a lot less tax benefit to deducting time/effort....none in fact here in the US.

But I have no delusion that doing work for free is going to somehow going to help me/business.... it *could,* but a lot of other things could help as much/more.

 

[Nod]

If they were going to be selling the shots and so making a direct profit from them, I would be hesitant about giving the shots away for free but since they're going to be used for publicity purposes, I would probably allow them to be used.

If you want to make money from event type photography, use the NT events to network and get your cards into as many hands as possible - it might get you a few jobs (and even if it's only 1 job that makes you a few quid, it hasn't hurt!)

 

[Flightphoto]

Eddy, I volunteered for them around 5 years ago and it's not changed, but we did get free yearly membership cards out of it, no credit for the photos though. I believe I may have had one that had my name acknowledged but that was it. It still helped in many ways though because it can open up different avenues, we (my wife and I) would just literally go to NT sites, enjoy the day and snap away. Treat it as a day out but with your camera on the shoulder aswell. To be honest, they are VERY fussy about photographers so the fact that you've been approved stands for something

 

[Gary Coyle]

The NT are bloody minted, you might as well drop your pants now and get it over and done with, it will hurt but only the first time.

 

[Flightphoto]

As far as responses go, Gary's won it for me on this round!

On a serious note, if it's something you want to do Eddy, then do it, don't worry about the responses on here. Just see if they can offer any perks etc as there is room for it (not a lot of room).

 

[onomatopoeia]

If you want to volunteer for anything, do so because it's something you want to do, not for what you think it will do for you. Lots of charitable organisations that have vast incomes use the services of volunteers in skilled roles, because people volunteer to use their skills. There's nothing special about photography which means it's a skill you shouldn't use when volunteering.

 

[the black fox]

HMMMM a hard one to quantify eddie ,but you stated yourself that you wanted to get your name /work out there and known.the same advise i was given several years ago . ,you could have done that via flickr,Facebook etc or by submitting it to various publications ,and as with what your doing theres no promise of payment ,i have had quiet a few shots published via FLICKR ,and usually just get a free book ,or magazine in payment with the relevant photos in ,like wise my lad has done the same .
the BBC take the same stance as the N/T in not wanting to pay for the use of your photos but you do get the chance to get your name out there i.e one of the wifes shots was used on autumn watch last week .if nothing else it gives you that inner glow and the feeling that your doing something "right" and sooner or later someone pops up that actually wants to pay for your work .it takes time but does happen ,just make sure you have a paypal account set up ready to take the payment (i speak from experience )