Lots has been written about this, from both perspectives, speaking in favour of, and also against, the idea that one should work for free.
Here's my take.
Creative output, especially photography, has seen a devaluation of its worth over the past decade. We can attribute this primarily to two causes; the internet and digital manifestations of traditional media. The fact that these two things happened almost concurrently has meant that in no other sector I can think of have the changes been as far-reaching and tumultuous. Professional photographers have seen their traditional business models turned on their head and whilst I am not arguing for protectionism, there is a case to be made for ensuring that the professional creative industries, not just photography, survive.
In the UK, the creative industries contribute somewhere in the region of £92bn (http://bit.ly/2EKVMJd) to the economy. That is not an insubstantial amount and between 2015 and 2016, the sector grew at twice the rate of the UK economy as a whole. On the face of it, then, one might suppose that all is well, and that there is nothing to worry about, however the trouble with general stats like these is that they don't reflect the picture at grass-roots level.
With the growth of digital platforms and the ease of distribution, the proliferation of cheap, or even free resources, has sky-rocketed. Where there were but a handful of image libraries offering quality work at fair rates, there are now a ton of platforms all competing on price. For the buyer, this is great news but for the professional creator this represents a very serious challenge indeed. This new wave of 'content providers' encourages sharing in return for that greatest of all myths; 'exposure'. This has led to a decline in the amount of commissioned original work as people who have no need to cover their business costs (because they don't run one) are able to compete in the same field. Don't get me wrong, I am not denigrating 'the amateur', after all the word comes from the Latin word for 'lover' (amator), i.e., someone who loves what they do, in this context, and there are a great many brilliant amateur creators. However, running a business and making a living necessarily brings with it legal responsibilities and commitments. One needs equipment, premises, materials, insurance and of course the ability to make a living wage. This all costs money and let's not forget that making a profit should not be classed as a 'dirty' pastime - there's a huge difference between ripping people off and earning enough to pay oneself to be able to secure a roof over your family's heads, some time off and something left for the nicer things in life. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
On the face of it then, working for free is a no-no - how can your business survive on the basis of a one-way exchange and no, I do not buy into the 'it'll be great for your exposure/your portfolio/your career' argument. That's a fallacy. There is too much material out there for 'shares', 'likes' and 'credits' to be of any real tangible benefit to your business in return for you making something on a commercial basis for someone.
If someone wishes to offer something more tangible, then fine, that is a very different notion; some decent advertising somewhere, payment in kind of some sort or something along those lines. I am, by the way, inherently suspicious of those that offer great things on the next job, the 'if you do this one for free, we'll make sure we get some budget next time...' approach.
Creative work has a value and you have to value yourself and the work you make, for if you don't, how can you expect anyone else to?
colourmanagement.net February 20th, 2018, in the afternoon
Well balanced write up Nick. Photography is a business that’s lucky to have guys like you supporting it's status as a way to make a living.