License for photographers !

Well, not having a license from a self-regulated body isn't going to make much difference to customers, is it? If customers are that concerned, they can ask to see a tax clearance certificate from the Revenue showing that the photographer is tax compliant. This can be verified online.

If the IPPA license doesn't do any more than that, then, if I was a professional photographer, I'd just go with the more official Revenue Tax Clearance.

Why are the IPPA appointing themselves to do Revenue's job for them? Surely if Revenue were that excited about it they could go through ads, wedding magazines, etc. themselves?

I think its just a way for the IPPA to try to shake off a number of part-time photographers, their own numbers will drop as a result of introducing this.

However, I do think that proper licencing might be needed for some professional bodies.... at the moment there are too many people claiming to be a photographer (and earning an extra couple of hundred a month) simply because they have a DSLR. (no offence to any non-professional photographers who earn a couple of hundred a month through photography work - I've given some of you work as I find that you are capable of doing the job)

Think I might be contradicting myself there - I'm in favour of some form of licencing - however - for "part-time" photographers there should be allowances - there are some talented photographers out there who simply cant afford or dont know how to earn regular money and make a living from it.

The IPPA have no power to license anything.

So, elitists group want to become even more enclosed and restricted elitist group? Good for them.
Maybe they should submit extra panel for judging with application for such license

PCPhoto wrote: »

my understanding is that the IPPA are asking its members to inform the revenue of non-members and members who earn money through photography.

I'm not a member of the IPPA, my understanding of what they are looking towards doing is ensuring ALL their members are 100% compliant in an effort to stop "part-time" photographers earning extra cash through their photography.
[/B]

But you can earn so much additional earnings before you pay tax on it anyway. I'm not sure what the actual figure is, but it's 10-15K??

Many part-time weekend photographers, doing bits and pieces may not even be coming anywhere near that turnover, so have nothing at all to fear.

Anyone, anywhere, has the ability to contact the Revenue and report someone.

This is the IPPA trying to make themselves seem more important than they actually are. They're trying to empower themselves. What a load of utter rubbish and another reason to stay well away from that "association".

Paulw wrote: »

But you can earn so much additional earnings before you pay tax on it anyway. I'm not sure what the actual figure is, but it's 10-15K??

Many part-time weekend photographers, doing bits and pieces may not even be coming anywhere near that turnover, so have nothing at all to fear.

Anyone, anywhere, has the ability to contact the Revenue and report someone.

This is the IPPA trying to make themselves seem more important than they actually are. They're trying to empower themselves. What a load of utter rubbish and another reason to stay well away from that "association".

I totally agree with you here

I didn't realise you could do a second job part-time and not get taxed on first €10-15K ...might look into this.

PCPhoto wrote: »

I didn't realise you could do a second job part-time and not get taxed on first €10-15K ...might look into this.

Childminders (minding 3 or fewer children) can earn €15k a year, but most other people just declare the additional income on a form (12?) at the end of the year. There may be some other jobs besides childminding that are eligible, but I'd be surprised if photography was one of them.

Thoie wrote: »

Who are the IPPA to say whether I'm paying tax or not? If I set myself up tomorrow as a pro photographer (don't worry, it won't happen) and starting charging people 10k for a half hour photo shoot, the IPPA has no way of knowing my tax affairs. All I have to do is send Revenue a form to register as self-employed, but I won't have to file anything until next October. Between now and then I could earn a million euros and not even Revenue would be sure how much I've taken (unless they ask in the interim) - that won't be known until I file a return.

anyone can report you to the revenue if they suspect you are not working legit (not just in photography)

what the IPPA are asking is that their members report any photographers that earn money to the organisation....the organisation will then contact the revenue....they are not asking if you pay taxes or not ...at least not yet.

so going by your example.....if you started work tomorrow as a pro photographer then in a couple of days/weeks/months (assuming the members actually report photographers) then ... a IPPA member would report you as being a photographer and earning money - and eventually the revenue would be given your details and investigate (given the speed at which some governmental departments work this could be anything from 2-5yrs later)

IPPA is requesting it's members report non-members for...ummm...having the feck'n audacity of trying to make a living.:eek:
Is that not like asking your member to receive some sort of retribution?:D

A licence by the IPPA would mean zit but I don't think that that it what is being suggested.

A 'regulated system' probably isn't a bad idea if it were something that you could discern that you could reasonably expect quality from the 'licence' holder (mind you I don't like the term). My personal experiences of the professional photographer has been hit and miss - i've posted many times previously about this so I won't reiterate the point. TLDR, one case we're lucky to have a single image from a very special day and a second where the chap in question did a runner with no end images of that special day. Anyhow I can also appreciate that there are hard working and decent professionals that do deliver.

read some of the comments on the blog entry. Things must be getting hard out there when you depend on your living for your photography.

However it is fanciful to 'attribute blame' for professional photographers going to the wall on those which imo have to be few in number and not paying their due taxes. If it is a significant problem then revenue will be on to it. The IPPA should not concern themselves with the taxes of others when it doesn't appear be based on an evidential approach. I'm not dismissing it, I have no evidence to the contrary but there has been no evidence pointed to on the blog post or subsequent comment as to a factual position and actual nature of the problem (if at all it exists).

There also appears to be a finger of blame pointed towards the revenue commissioners. Like it or not (and none of us like having to pay taxes) but the system of taxation is the basis on which the country runs and works quite simply - you earn money and you pay tax at varying rates (a different argument as to the overall fairness etc..., not for here).

If you are a professional photographer and can't afford to live as seems to be the sentiment being expressed, after paying taxes then you really need a new profession. The guy referred to that had to close the studio after 10 years because "the revenue commissioners" actually wanted the amount of tax which was due to be paid by the studio, of course has my sympathy in terms of the predicament they found themselves in but seriously, apart from the sad occasion of the studio closing, get an accountant, a business partner, an innovator, a leader, an investor. Revolutionise your business model. ehhh..... like..... it don't appear to be working. To the owner who ever they are - from what was posted on the blog comments, you might be the nicest person in the world but it appears that you shouldn't be running a business.

I think exception can be taken to the commentary that if you have a full time job and are earning money from photography then you are depriving a professional photographer of their living. Simply put, grow up lads, stop whining and get on with it. You need to give people a reason that they will come to you. To use the management speak - What is your unique selling proposition? You take photographs? Well so do a lot of people. You take photographs at the top of Mount Everest - now there's a unique selling proposition. Not a lot of people can be doing that. You take photographs at weddings, well so do a lot of people and auto feicin mode is being made better and better by the good engineers in Japan. Look, the world works very simply - If you can't earn a living at what you do regardless of how much you like it or how good you are at it, well its time to go get yourself a job as an employee.

As for ratting people out - absolutely, if you have the evidence that anyone is making money and not paying taxes then it is a civic duty to let the relevant authorities know. Don't go scowering the local focus magazine (sorry, a Trim reference) for the "we take photo's" mini ad with no knowledge of what is their setup. But if you have the evidence and will be witness and accuser then why not. Not paying the amount of tax prescribed by law is illegal and should be dealt with appropriately.

Me? For the record, I don't make money from photography at the present time.

Lets start with the usual disclaimers:

I have no issue with the IPPA and I do not want to be a member of theirs as I feel I can benefit having membership with other organisations elsewhere.


The concept is good but personally I think its more hype than anything with way too many "what if's, who does what?" kind of questions which have to be resolved first. Could this possibly be another way of the IPPA trying to recruit new members??

Lets be honest here, do you really and honestly think a bride & groom (using weddings as the example here) are going to give a rats ass if the photographer holds a piece of paper saying they are "official"?? Of course they aren't as all they are concerned about is the €€€€€€€€€€€ and who isn't.

bernard0368 wrote: »

Frankly I would be suprised if this has any tax issues, it is more likely to be an advertising ploy to try and promote their members. A bit like the financial regulator at the end of every bank ad. More than likely not worth the effort or anyones concern.

What it is, is a very obvious attempt to put the frighteners on people, both folks who do one or two jobs as "nixers" from their day jobs, or their own members who might consider cutting their rates and taking cash under the table instead of putting it through the books.

Dara Robinson wrote: »

tbh I would have been up for a licence. I mean there is already one for Press Photographers so I see no harm in it but that does not seem to be there to protect the integrity of their members but simply their pockets

There is no press photographers license. All there is is a press photographer's ID card. Nothing more than that.

I have a press card. It's not a license of any sorts, it's just a form of ID to show I work in a photographic medium.

Dara Robinson wrote: »

well fair enough not a licence. But the end result is the same for the most part, an ID for a press photographer, criteria to be met to get that id and database of press photographers.

What I was getting as is that in essence it might not be such a bad idea. But the reason behind the licence seems flawed imho

Different organisations issue different press cards. None are any more valid than the others. AIPS, ASJI, NUJ, FAI, etc all issue different press cards. All they are are effectively ID cards. They are not a license of any form.

Even still, criteria for getting such cards differ greatly.

The idea of being able to license photography is absurd. Anyone can buy a camera and take picts. Anyone can then charge for their services. How would you propose licensing that? Who decides if you get a license or not? What are the criteria for getting a license?

I am easily irritated and this definitely irritates me.

I am a photographer, it is my only source of income, I work at it 3-5 days a week sometimes more for quite little return for the moment. I am tax compliant, I have been since my very first paid job in 08. I am not an IPPA member. I do not label myself as a 'Professional Photographer' being a photographer is just that, call me professional or ametuer or whatever, to be honest I do not care. I would be extremely annoyed if I found someone reported me to the IPPA as being a working earning photographer so as they could report me to the tax man in the hope that they would send me broke and cause me to cease working due to having to sell gear to make up for a sudden large tax bill. Thankfully that will not happen but the idea that this is what they are after makes me wonder why anyone would pay a fee to be a member of this organisation.

My gut instinct tells me though that they are more likely going to try and advertise their services to these people, myself included. I have no interest, I have enough overheads to worry about without adding on a charge to be part of an organisation of 'pat the backs!'

IPPA is not a self regulatory organisation over photography industry in Ireland - am I right? its business is their own members.

a perfect example of a "busy body" indeed.