Why you shouldn't agree to the Environment Agency's offer to work for free. Jan '10.

You can sort of see what some bright spark at the Environment Agency was thinking. “Hey there’s loads of good amateur photographers out there who want to get their work published - why don’t we put out a shout for free photos and we can build a huge library of  photography that will cost us nothing except travel expenses! We can even use Facebook and Twitter to tap straight into these guys!” And no doubt there was a cheer around the office as everyone agreed what a brilliant idea this was given the cost-cutting times in which we live.

And so, a statement went out on their Facebook page to this effect, as well on Twitter: ‘We're looking for amateur photographers in England & Wales interested in work experience - reply if this sounds like you and pls RT.’ In an email to people who replied, they said ‘Please note that due to the nature of the work we will not be able to provide guaranteed hours and the work will be unpaid, although we will reimburse your travel costs.’

I don’t doubt that a lot of amateur photographers, students, and aspiring pros saw this as a great opportunity too. But then this industry has always had a tendency to shoot itself in the foot. So what exactly is the problem?

It’s a question of value. As the EA press officer said to the British Journal of Photography: ‘We're really keen to have a good bank of images and video at the Environment Agency of the work we do in England and Wales – if we commissioned professional photographers to cover everything it would be very expensive.’ Well, exactly. Just as it would be very expensive to commission experts in their field to carry out country-wide environmental surveys. But does that mean a shout goes out from the government to populate the EA with keen amateurs? Of course not.

Remember, the Environment Agency is a government body. This is a government that pledges to support the creative industries, and is committed to a minimum wage policy. By effectively making the argument that professional photography is too expensive for them to afford, the EA are in direct opposition to the message the government are trying to give out - and they are consequently adding yet one more nail to the coffin of professional photography. They are directly helping to devalue the worth of the professional photographer.

There are of course other considerations of insurance and safety that shouldn’t be forgotten. As the Association of Photographers say – “One of the reasons professional photography is 'professional' is because the practitioners operate within the law, are suitably insured and work to best practice guidelines.”

The British Journal of Photography has reported on this story (http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872792) and both the Association of Photographers and the Pro-Imaging group have taken up the baton in condemning the EA’s action. Pro-Imaging released a statement saying:

"We think it appalling that a publicly funded authority should be seeking to undermine the viability, yet again, of a significant part of the UK creative industry by seeking obtain photographic services for free. Has this policy been handed down from the government to the Environment Agency, or is this an 'initiative' of the Environment Agency itself? We assume that the Environment Agency is paying for other resources it needs to carry out its functions, such as fuel and power, advertising agencies to promote its work, its own staff, and so on? They need to set out clearly why only the photographic industry should not be paid. Have they considered whether or not the unpaid photographers they intend to use are covered for public liability insurance? The government sets out in its arguments concerning the Digital Economy Bill the importance of the creative industries to the UK economy. It seems clear that the Environment Agency disagree and that photographic services are not worth paying for. Shame on them for such unethical behaviour, we will certainly be making contact with them."

There’s now some evidence that the EA might have realised the error of their ways, or are bowing to the outcry that's come about. They’re now talking about ‘travel expenses and royalties’ on Twitter (there was no mention of royalties in the first place) – and they temporarily took down their Facebook page, as well as the comments of a number of photographers that were critical of what they were doing. Pro-Imaging report this in their article here - http://www.pro-imaging.org/content/view/836/32/ - which includes links to screen-shots of the original comments.

I’m aware that the EA offer will be tempting to many who are starting out – but I’d urge anyone considering this to think again. If we, as photographers, allow this to happen, just think of the slippery slope – what’s to stop all government bodies doing this, or all big corporations for that matter? It’s all very well working for free to get shots for your portfolio – but if there’s then not going to be any paid work out there when you’re read to go fully pro, what’s the point?

There is a place for working for free as a photographer, but there’s a big difference between a photographer approaching an organisation to work in a mutually beneficial way, and a government body exploiting an already over-competitive industry in such a way to get something effectively for nothing. [And on a photo assistant-related note, it’s the same thing with work experience, hence the Photoassist work experience guidelines]. It’s good that the professional photo community is coming together over this and it’s important that, as someone coming into the industry, you remain aware of the issues that will affect the future of professional photography.

UPDATE

The strong reaction against this from the professional photography community has obviously had an effect. In their latest statement, the EA have backtracked and said that they are not now looking for people to work for them for free: "...the initial advert could have been better worded to recognise that we will always pay photographers for their work - by covering expenses, royalties and an agreed rate for the job. This initiative is intended to widen the pool of photographers with whom we work and I hope we'll end up with a good spread of experienced pros and new graduates across the country." http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872832

In addition, the EA Facebook page is now accepting comments again.

This is a great result that has undoubtedly come about as a result of the instant outcry thanks to organisations such as the AOP, PI and many other individuals, mainly through the medium of the internet. To give them credit, the EA have accepted that their initial actions were misguided, and didn't appreciate the effect that this sort of action can have long-term on an industry such as ours. Which goes to show how important it is to promote professional photography as a valued product - by educating your clients through sites such as www.copyright4clients.com - and not underselling yourself.