NYC Wedding Photographer License may be required!

<p>A hearing on a proposed New York City law to require wedding photographers to be licensed

and submit a $5000 bond was held Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 in the Council Chambers of City

Hall. I don't know what the outcome of the hearing was, but this idea of having to pay a license fee

and for a bond really disturbs me.</p>

<p>Link: http://www.photoattorney.com/2008/05/alert-hearing-regarding-nyc-wedding.html </p>

<p>Link: http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textfiles/Int%200633-2007.htm </p>

I think its a great idea !

 

Then every jerk and his cousin wouldn't be able to instantly become a pro the minute he goes out and buys a point and shoot. In NYC you need a license for everything except making babies and being a Wedding/Event photographer.

 

It would really do allot towards making the business for professionals only !

What about the brides that cant afford a professional and want to take their chances on a photographer that is just starting out? Thats dumb, and Mitch, why do you worry about people just starting out in photography taking business away from you? Brides look at sample pictures and if they dont like what they see, they dont hire them. Its simple the people that take crappy pictures just weed themselves out. You need to be a beginner sometime.

I read this, too, and I think that it could be VERY beneficial to the industry. Much

like there are real estate agents and Licensed Realtors, it would lend value to the

professionals who are doing it right, and help protect couples from unethical

photographers.

 

Carolyn (the Photo Attorney) suggested that the greatest frustration would be for

new photographers who can't afford the bond to get started.

 

Brides with little or no photography budget would still be able get a non-pro friend to

shoot their wedding for free or next-to-nothing.

Andrew--unfortunately, brides look at sample pictures and EVEN THOUGH they don't like what they see or are indifferent, they MAY still hire the photographer because he or she is the cheapest 'professional' that can be found. The people that take crappy pictures weed themselves out...EVENTUALLY--it takes time and a number of unsuspecting couples before that happens. Every professional wedding photographer was a beginner at some point... I don't necessarily agree with Mitch (especially his labelling of people), but your statement is equally one sided. Let's not turn this into a newbie vs. old pro argument.

 

Anyone know the outcome?

I have to say my knee jerk reaction is to dislike ANY govt involvement in free trade. But the whole reason I got into doing weddings, which I now LOVE, is wanting to chage what I saw at the time; the terrible quality turned out be generations of hacks that just churn and burn brides for years, caring not that they were trusted with something that would be cherished and passed down thru the family.

 

Perhaps like the other professions mentioned it wouldn't hurt. As to the newbie that can't afford a bond? Really have you priced those? Many venues require them, as well as insurance. I would hope the lisc would require insurance as well as a bond, like they do for contractors, etc. If anyone can't afford insurance and a bond, they prob can't afford to have adequate equipment or back ups plans either, and should NOT be playing photog at someones once in a lifetime wedding. They should assist, until they CAN afford to do it right. J

Sorry, I dont mean to be one sided. I beleive that if someone wants to make sure their wedding is done right they should hire the old pro, but I also think that they shouldnt be weeding out the future old pro's with their fees. I guess im not too sure what 5000 is equivelant to over in NYC either. For all I know that could mean only about 100 dollars where I am at.

Who knows, the license could make it even worse becuase then you give the brides a false sense of security thinking that everyone that has the lisence is a pro.

I have a license to drive a vehicle and the guy next to me on the road has a license to operate a vehicle does that mean that we are expert drivers and will never get into any accidents? This is simply a money grab by NYC. Bad photographers will still leak into our profession and we will have more horror stories from families taken in by a "licensed" wedding photographer.

I think it's a marvelous idea! I'm writing a letter to my Senators.

Next you'll need a license to go to the bathroom! What? we already need one? What's the difference? People will hire photographers, whether they are pro of newcomer based on their needs and their budgets and having a license will not change anything. All it will do is cause more paper work and problems. If a bride wants to hire a pro, she will. If she wants a beginner, student, relative or any one else, she will hire them too. It has been like that for years and will be like that for years to come. Pros bookings depend on their quality and experience and new photographers will always depend on low prices. Wake up New York, The City doesn't want to make sure there is a better grade of photographers, they just want more money.

They are being too interventionist on things. Obviously a reasonable attempt to prevent wrong-doings in the industry could be a good thing. But the idea of a $5000 bond is simply insane.

"It would really do allot towards making the business for professionals only !"

 

 

 

Currently, the City of New York has a complete office to look into consumer complaints (i.e., the sleeze stores that offer to sell you a neck-strap with the camera you are buying 'new in the box') and the sleeze stores have a "current" business license. Having a photographer pony up a deposit or bond may make some photographers 'honest' and keep the bride happy, but the element of scam artists looking into $4,000 or $5,000 for one day's work will still exist.

 

 

 

It is unlikely that the consumer's complaint office will cease to function, or have no complaints against a photographer.

Won't work. Just let the market sort it out.

It's all about making money for the govt.

"If anyone can't afford insurance and a bond, they prob can't afford to have adequate equipment or back ups plans either, and should NOT be playing photog at someones once in a lifetime wedding".

 

I completely disagree with this - wouldn't it be better if that individual was actually given a chance to get the decent equipment rather than paying yet another tax through the back door to a bunch of pen pushers?

 

Or perhaps just like the American Presidential Elections, if you can't pay you can't play - does this mean that the guy who gets picked is the best of the bunch?! Or is he just the guy who can afford to stand where other perfectly worthy individuals cannot...

 

I'd be so much more convinced with schemes like this if there were a nominal admin fee and a license based on having a qualification, experience or some other tangible merit involved, rather than just greasing palms. And even then, who would decide who was worthy and on what basis?

 

No, let the market decide - promote the highest standards in the profession, encourage education and training, have rigorous laws to sort out the cowboys, and aim to make the client aware of their options.

 

We all make little enough cash at the end of the day without being taxed to death by crazy schemes like this...