Wedding Photography - Hotel Demanding Evidence of Liability Insurance

Fnergg

I saw a tweet the other day (I regret I can't recall the name of the photographer other than that he is Dublin based) complimenting a hotel for demanding evidence of insurance cover before he was allowed to photograph a wedding on the premises. He said: "What will the cowboys do now?".

The hotel's action appears to be extreme to me. I wonder if the IPPA or some such body is bringing pressure to bear on hotels in an effort to thwart the activities of "cowboys"?

Imagine the reaction of the Bride & Groom when advised by their "cowboy" photographer that no further photographs can be taken due to the lack of insurance cover? Were they advised of this requirement when they were booking the hotel? Are restrictions also applied to guests taking photographs and if not, why not?

Thoughts?

Regards,

Fnergg

smelltheglove

I remember reading about it, it was something put to hotels by the ippa and apparently some agreed to it. Though I can see why they would do this how can they control it, I mean how many people just have a friend of the family photograph the wedding, are they going to stop that....? Load of **** if you ask me, ippa seem to be trying to control the sector, which they have no right to do, I mean werent they trying to introduce a licence? They advertise as if the only 'real' photographers would be listed with them but dont they charge a nice amount to be listed with them.

Have to say I have no dealings with them, just from what I hear I dont really like what goes on, yes get insurance, yes be fully able to do what you say you can do etc etc etc but dont do it all just because the flaming ippa says it:mad:

Sorry rant over!

Borderfox

Its an important requirement when working, a lot of places I work in want to see evidence of insurance. More than likely he was contacted by the hotel before the wedding and not on the day?

CabanSail

I think you have to be very careful before accusing any body of being behind such a policy. The hotel is probably just making sure that they have their bum protected. It may well be on their standard check list for any contractors working on their premisis.

If you are going to be doing a job for payment then you really should be insured.

smelltheglove

CabanSail wrote: »

I think you have to be very careful before accusing any body of being behind such a policy. The hotel is probably just making sure that they have their bum protected. It may well be on their standard check list for any contractors working on their premisis.

If you are going to be doing a job for payment then you really should be insured.

Sorry it was the naip as per link

http://www.photographers.ie/2011/03/naip-meet-with-ihf-on-insurance/

I agree get insurance but the fact that these bodies are getting involved in making the industry harder for people to get into just rubs me up the wrong way tbh. There are so many talented capable people out there with the fear of god put into them because of attitudes expressed by groups about how if you have not got x amount of gear / experience or whatever you should not be doing any photography.... ok rant no 2 over!

Fnergg

I wonder how many of the professional photographers now clamouring for the clamp-down on non-professionals doing weddings started out themselves as part-timers? Of the professionals I know, *every single one* of them did.

Regards,

Fnergg

PopeBuckfastXVI

Part timer, professional, uncle Jimmy - it doesn't matter, if you are going to charge money for the service you are going to need public liability insurance, and for your own sake you'd want to think about professional indemnity insurance too.

CabanSail

If you are going to be a contractor for anything then you should carry the necessary public liability cover. To do otherwise is acting in a non-professional manner. This is not just Photographers but applies to a vast array of occupations.

While I agree that these sort of things can be an impediment to some talented new comers, they are out weighed by the opportunists who think they can do the job just because they own a DSLR and kit lens.

stcstc

is as important as the lens on your camera

would you let a mechanic work on your brakes of your car without insurance

would you allow a dentist to work on your teeth

as for any body of pros trying to force an issue, i dont see the problem, my insurance costs me about 90 euros a month, and that includes 100K of gear and my shop


i think if as an industry photographers dont try and make it safe for everyone, someone not doing it properly reflects badly on the whole industry

mrboswell

Whiles I agree that it is stupid not to have liability cover it is not compulsory and not necessarily unprofessional if you don't have it.

In the event of an accident or failure to produce required results it just means that you will be chased for compensation as opposed to an insurance company.

I have it and I never considered not having it but only because I want to protect myself.

You regularly see people quoting "fully insured". Means nothing to me. Doesn't make you a better photographer and in my opinion only serves to monopolise those who can work at certain venues.

lace

I would have thought any potential incident would be covered by the insurance of the hotel? Surely they, as the hosts of the wedding, would be liable for anything that might happen to guests attending the function?

mrboswell

lace wrote: »

I would have thought any potential incident would be covered by the insurance of the hotel? Surely they, as the hosts of the wedding, would be liable for anything that might happen to guests attending the function?

I think that it is moving the way of the venue trying to pass the liability over to the photographer in the event of an accident/injury.

Times are hard and we are living in an increasingly litigious society. That is reasonable.

However a (useless) organisation trying to prevent only its members working at venues because they have insurance is not on.

PCPhoto

while I (in principle) agree with the concept (an attempt to put a stop on part-time photographers who undercut professionals)

I do think if you are going into a line of work which has a risk - you should have some degree of cover (insurance), the industry is in the middle of a meltdown..... anyone with a bit of cop on and a digital camera these days is claiming to be a professional, the industry has been flooded with people using excess money from the boom to "invest" in something which they can make money with... on the side.

There is no regulation of the industry so anyone can simply call themselves professional and they are not challenged, earlier today I was browsing a list of members of a professional photography organisation and I came across the name of a guy I know who works for a state body monday to friday and only takes pics at weekends - the company name the guy is registered under with the "professional organisation" does not even exist.

Balfey1972

mrboswell wrote: »

I think that it is moving the way of the venue trying to pass the liability over to the photographer in the event of an accident/injury.

Times are hard and we are living in an increasingly litigious society. That is reasonable.

However a (useless) organisation trying to prevent only its members working at venues because they have insurance is rubbish.

Just two points guys,

Venues and not just hotels are under more and more pressure by their own insurers to keep a record of anyone or organisation using their facilities and keep a record of those parties insurance. As mrbosewell says 'Times are hard and we are living in an increasingly litigious society'.

The number of claims have increased dramatically and especially in the leisure industry. I am witnessing this on a first hand basis.

If a photographer is responsible for causing an accident they should have their own insurance. The public liability covers are covering you personally as a photographer, in case of actions taken against you, whereby you are deemed responsible of causing an injury to a third party or indeed causing third party property damage.

Alot of people go without insurance but if you are earning an income from work as a photographer you should seriously look at Public Liability insurance as a minimum to protect yourself.

mrboswell

PCPhoto wrote: »

while I (in principle) agree with the concept (an attempt to put a stop on part-time photographers who undercut professionals)

I do think if you are going into a line of work which has a risk - you should have some degree of cover (insurance), the industry is in the middle of a meltdown..... anyone with a bit of cop on and a digital camera these days is claiming to be a professional, the industry has been flooded with people using excess money from the boom to "invest" in something which they can make money with... on the side.

There is no regulation of the industry so anyone can simply call themselves professional and they are not challenged, earlier today I was browsing a list of members of a professional photography organisation and I came across the name of a guy I know who works for a state body monday to friday and only takes pics at weekends - the company name the guy is registered under with the "professional organisation" does not even exist.

I see where you are coming from. Times like these do bring people out of the woodwork and with a bit of redundancy they get a nice camera and claim to be a professional photographer (and the "what makes a professional photographer?" question has been done to death) but you can not blame people for trying to make a living, even if it does make it difficult for established photographers. Lets face it most of us would do anything to look after our significant others.

I spoke to a builder recently and I asked him how was he surviving in the downturn. He explained that he survived the last one because he was good at his job and so long as he kept doing a good job then he would make it through this one as well, regardless of the competition.

Balfey1972 wrote: »

Just two points guys,

Venues and not just hotels are under more and more pressure by their own insurers to keep a record of anyone or organisation using their facilities and keep a record of those parties insurance. As mrbosewell says 'Times are hard and we are living in an increasingly litigious society'.

The number of claims have increased dramatically and especially in the leisure industry. I am witnessing this on a first hand basis.

If a photographer is responsible for causing an accident they should have their own insurance. The public liability covers are covering you personally as a photographer, in case of actions taken against you, whereby you are deemed responsible of causing an injury to a third party or indeed causing third party property damage.

Alot of people go without insurance but if you are earning an income from work as a photographer you should seriously look at Public Liability insurance as a minimum to protect yourself.

Agree with you 100% Derek, just stating that a policy like that should benefit everyone - not just members of a specific group.

CabanSail

lace wrote: »

I would have thought any potential incident would be covered by the insurance of the hotel? Surely they, as the hosts of the wedding, would be liable for anything that might happen to guests attending the function?

It will cover Guests and Staff. It will not cover other business's or contractors working on the premises. They will be expected to provide their own cover.

smelltheglove

I am dragging a slightly old topic here but this is what I thought of when a potential client told me today their hotel needs to be forwarded on a copy of insurance.

No problem, I am only in the door now from the meeting and I am getting more and more irritated, as I linked in the first page a release by the naip stating they were asking all hotels to insist on insurance, yes of course this is fine, anyone wants my insurance they can see it but one particular hotel, a hotel which I rave about usually when I hear of it, has under its terms and conditions, as I was told by the bride, that not only do they need proof of photographers insurance they also need proof that the photographer is a member of an Irish photographic association!

I will admit, I did state to the couple I was not part of one and it is unlikely I ever will be as if I am spending money to join a club it will be upping my business costs and therefor I need to up my package prices. I will not be bullied into joining one of these clubs, if the hotel insist I am a member then I will have to decline the client, I will also have to get on to another client who has already booked and paid her deposit and tell her that due to her hotels demands I will not be able to fulfill my contract at the hotel.

What grates me even further is this, hotels do not request this information from entertainers, most likely not from videographers either. They certainly do not request that entertainers are part of an association, with a singer as a husband I know this, in the years we have been together he has never been asked to provide either of these things.

Am I right to be irritated or slightly infuriated by these demands???? If the hotels knew anything about it they would know that membership of a membership club is in no way a sign of professionalism.

A link from the naip page http://www.naip.ie/home/about%20us/page77.html

another link from the naip page, this is what it costs to be accredited apparently http://www.naip.ie/home/page20.html but honestly that price is not to bad compared to Ippa http://www.irishphotographers.com/about.php?section=fees

eas

Just call the venue in the morning and talk to them. I can't imagine there being a huge problem.

I see why the venue should be checking for insurance, but for membership to an organization is plain silly. At the end of the day, couples have the ability to put sh@t like this to a stop. I'm guessing it's not in contract with the venue to vet these conditions with their photographers.

Either way, I'd have a GnT and not get worked up over it until you get a chance to talk to the venue personally.

smelltheglove

eas wrote: »

I see why the venue should be checking for insurance, but for membership to an organization is plain silly. At the end of the day, couples have the ability to put sh@t like this to a stop. I'm guessing it's not in contract with the venue to vet these conditions with their photographers.

Either way, I'd have a GnT and not get worked up over it until you get a chance to talk to the venue personally.

Haha, I dont do G&T but could do with a couple of bottles of malibu. No I hate dictatorship, I really do, and I do get a bit wound up by these groups going around telling potential clients that they will get quality if they go with members of these groups, yet quality is not required to join most of them, it is a fee that gets you in! If I was approached by them due to the quality of my work and asked to join the organisation then maybe but not because it has been put into the terms and conditions of a brides hotel contract.

This information was not given to the couple, a sharp eyed mother perused the contract and flagged the info to be mentioned.

eas

sure, I agree 100%. Thing is, if this policy has come about because of an organization visiting the management of such venues, then they need to hear that they've been fed a load of bollix. That's why you need to call them tomorrow.

Hotels and wedding venues are businesses and will act in best interest of their business and don't give a shinny shyte about the IPPA or any other photography organization.

smelltheglove

The couple I met this evening are meeting with the hotel tomorrow so I think I will let them discuss it with the hotel first and then get in touch maybe the next day. I already have other bookings for the venue so I do need to address the issue with them for these other clients also but I suppose it might be best for them to hear from their own clients first.

OldGoat

Start your own Photographers Association. Become a member of it, charge yourself a membership fee of, ooh lets say €0.01, then accredit yourself.
Then get your insurance sorted as per normal. You might even be able to push for a discount with your new accredited status.
Voila, full professional body accreditation to show the hotel.
You could even make this accreditation available to others if they become members of your association - for a nominal joining fee of, ooh lets say €98.00.
You could go further and start a second association. Then they could 'recognise' each other which would double the kudos of your accreditation.

Or, a bit more realistically, Small Claims court for loss of earnings.

smelltheglove

Lol, maybe we should start the boardsie photographers association.... who wants to set it up, membership requirement = using boards as a reason for procrastination

ditpaintball

lace wrote: »

I would have thought any potential incident would be covered by the insurance of the hotel? Surely they, as the hosts of the wedding, would be liable for anything that might happen to guests attending the function?

Just to add a point to this also. Insurance for photographers is also needed for Professional indemnity / liability insurance, and not just for public liability.

NAIP

To correct one or two things though, as regards our meeting with the IHF this was done to ensure our members are fully insured when taking on jobs both for their sake and the hotels. It is important to note that you do not have to be a member of the NAIP TO OBTAIN WORK IN ANY HOTEL in ireland nor did we advertise that fact. Professional Photographers within the NAIP are required to have insurance Amateur Photographers are not required to have insurance unless they are taking on public work.

The NAIP ALSO HAS A STUDENT program to help people coming into the business gain the experience they need, we do this by placing them with a working photographer for a period of time.

Many things have been said about the NAIP since its launch last April most of which was wrong. The NAIP is for Amateurs/part-time and professionals alike.Nobody is trying to stop anybody from entering the business and nobody ever could. We live in a free market and if somebody wants to make money from it thats fine.

What we are trying to do is provide all the training and support the photographer needs to enter that market both in terms of technique and running a business in a manner that is good for the photographer and clients.

Some people dislike the distinction between Amateurs and professional but that is a fact of life like it or not, if you are earning money you are professional, if you photograph as a hobby you are amateur ( FACT )
But this has no bearing on the quality of work produced and the NAIP is acutely aware of this. Hence there is a place for everybody within our association.

The term WEEKEND WARRIOR is probably an ugly term but in no way reflects the part-time status of many photographers if fact there are very few 100% full time photographers out there and we understand this too.

By the same token owing a 1000d with a kit lens does not make you a photographer be it pro or amateur. Yet a section of would be photographers are providing a service to people (wedding in particular) and are leaving themselves open to court action if they ruin some poor couples wedding day and this effects everybody Full time and part- time alike.

So what do you do? you bring them in and educate them to a min standard.
This is why everybody within the NAIP is expected to meet the minimum standard through appraisal and qualification this helps you as a photographer provide the best service to your clients and to further your skills as a photographer and whats wrong with that?

In short the NAIP is there to help you. You have nothing to fear from us

Signed

NAIP Executive

AnCatDubh

@NAIP, Can you please email hello@boards.ie for confirmation of your representative status. This is standard with anyone representing or claiming to represent an organisation of any kind on boards. Thank you.

On the topic you state:

NAIP wrote: »

To correct one or two things though, as regards our meeting with the IHF this was done to ensure our members are fully insured when taking on jobs both for their sake and the hotels. It is important to note that you do not have to be a member of the NAIP TO OBTAIN WORK IN ANY HOTEL in ireland nor did we advertise that fact. Professional Photographers within the NAIP are required to have insurance Amateur Photographers are not required to have insurance unless they are taking on public work.

The way to ensure your members are fully insured surely has little to do with the hotels federation. If you are sincere that it is to ensure your members are insured (and, by the way, that is a noble aspiration), can't you simply have it as a condition of your membership.

This is a claim which is hardly credible when on your homepage of your website you state;

NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS:

DUE TO RECENT DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE IRISH HOTELS FEDERATION AND THE NAIP, ALL WORKING PHOTOGRAPHERS BE THEY PART-TIME OR FULL TIME WILL NOW BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PROOF OF INSURANCE BY THE HOTEL THEY ARE WORKING IN.
THIS IS TO PROTECT THE HOTEL & THE PHOTOGRAPHER FROM ANY POSSIBLE LAW SUIT. IT WILL ALSO DISCOURAGE THE WEEKEND WARRIOR
FROM WORKING IN IRISH HOTELS.

You haven't implied or even suggested in what you say on your website that it is ALL NAIP WORKING PHOTOGRAPHERS (that which you are saying on thread here). You have in the quoted content from your website said ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS. Seeing as you don't in any way represent ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS, the move itself is entirely reprehensible. It reminds me of the IPPA's attempted direction to members to 'report' the WEEKEND WARRIORS to the revenue sources.

And now for whatever reason (whether that involves your discussions or not), the hotels federation appear to have dropped necessity of your stated discussions to refer to NAIP PHOTOGRAPHERS and just applied it across the board.

Finally, from the same post on your web site, in the next breath you state;

AS A MEMBER OF THE NAIP WE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH VERY COMPETITIVE RATES ON YOUR INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

I'm sorry but i'm suspicious as there appears to be too many vested interests in how you portray your association's intentions.

I do believe that encouraging professionalism in the industry is a laudable intention, and enforcement things which are a requirement is fine, however as an association or organisation you should know the place of your association as should the likes of the IPPA, the IPF, boards.ie photography forum, etc.. No organisation should cut side deals which serves to unduly influence something of which they have no legitimate influence. As I understand it the NAIP have no legitimate influence on a situation pertaining to insurance but have cut this side deal with the hotels federation.

I presume Uncle Bob at the wedding, you know the ones with more dSLR swinging from them than the NAIP member might have, is the next to require to have insurance? It does appear to be heading that way.

NAIP

First of all Insurance is a condition for all members taking on public commissions

Twisting words out of context seems to be rampant on this site, as regards the IHF and what is published on our website is correct in its context. When we say all photographers we mean NAIP members. The IHF mean all photographers be they members of an association or not.

The IHF cannot insist on any of their members deploying any policy, that is up to each hotel to set their own rules regarding any policy.So if any Hotel has decided to apply any rule to all photographers that is their own business and nothing to do with NAIP policy on the matter.

As regards insurance i,m not sure what you are trying to imply, but I can assure you I don't like it. The NAIP agreed insurance cover for its members at a discount rate its as simple as that.The insurance arranges it with the member and fees are paid to the insurance company. Many clubs, associations etc do this for their members as a perk of membership. We have also agreed discounts with suppliers and retailers that members can avail of, whats your problem!

As for knowing our place we do, and we certainly don't need anybody to tell us what that is. We will continue to act in the best interests of our members and the industry as a whole which is in dire straits at the moment and nobody is going to tell us otherwise.

Its very simple we either self regulate or the government will do it for us.
You only have to look the mess they made of the security industry and the taxi industry. This could mean licence fees of any form 500 to 2000 a year just to have the right to be a photographer and you have no idea how close that is.

These are the facts twist it all you want, but thats it in a nutshell.

As for weekend warriors, the fact of the matter is there are people out there that have not got a clue about their cameras or how to photograph a wedding in a professional manner.
They are just asking for trouble if they mess up a couples wedding day because it will end up in court and without insurance it would be a disaster for the photographer. This is vastly different form the partime pro or serious amatuer who knows what to do and how to it.
I don’t know why people get so upset about the phrase (weekend warrior) unless you are one, in which case your asking for trouble.

We came on here to try an address some of the concerns people and we have done that. We don't get involved in public forums as a rule and I regret that we did now. If you want to change things get involved in a meaningful way instead of moaning here which will achieve nothing. Its all a load of contrived nonsense.

We wont be replying to any more posts there is nothing more to be said.

NAIP
National Executive

AnCatDubh

NAIP wrote: »

First of all Insurance is a condition for all members taking on public commissions

Thank you. So your discussions with the IHF were about exactly what then? Something that you already have covered? Nice.

Twisting words out of context seems to be rampant on this site

And you base this on? People engaging with you representing your organisation?

as regards the IHF and what is published on our website is correct in its context. When we say all photographers we mean NAIP members. The IHF mean all photographers be they members of an association or not.

With respect, I have simply drawn together what you have said here on our forum, and what your organisation claims on its website - both things which by the way are contradictory and i've pointed that out in my earlier post.

The IHF cannot insist on any of their members deploying any policy, that is up to each hotel to set their own rules regarding any policy.So if any Hotel has decided to apply any rule to all photographers that is their own business and nothing to do with NAIP policy on the matter.

Again, with respect. You have no consistency in what you are portraying. The NAIP website completely contradicts what you indicate here; As quoted earlier what your website has to say on the matter is:

DUE TO RECENT DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE IRISH HOTELS FEDERATION AND THE NAIP, ALL WORKING PHOTOGRAPHERS BE THEY PART-TIME OR FULL TIME WILL NOW BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PROOF OF INSURANCE BY THE HOTEL THEY ARE WORKING IN.

I'm not twisting words but the technical definition of DUE TO is "as a result of" or "because of". What else is someone reading what you say to understand by it.

As regards insurance i,m not sure what you are trying to imply, but I can assure you I don't like it. The NAIP agreed insurance cover for its members at a discount rate its as simple as that.The insurance arranges it with the member and fees are paid to the insurance company. Many clubs, associations etc do this for their members as a perk of membership. We have also agreed discounts with suppliers and retailers that members can avail of, whats your problem!

I am merely commenting on the postings on a thread on a forum that I have a real interest in. In terms of what I am implying is no more than i've stated. There is a strange confluence of events which is as i've outlined.

As for knowing our place we do, and we certainly don't need anybody to tell us what that is. We will continue to act in the best interests of our members and the industry as a whole

What i'm telling you is simply is that the NAIP have no position as far as I understand it to influence the requirements on photographers to have insurance. The requirements of your own membership is up to your organisation. I have no issue with that.

which is in dire straits at the moment and nobody is going to tell us otherwise.

In my humble opinion, your organisation outwardly appears as poor as every other photographic organisation in this country in addressing the root causes of an industry which is in dire straits. That is my opinion and I accept that you may not see it that way.

Its very simple we either self regulate or the government will do it for us. You only have to look the mess they made of the security industry and the taxi industry. This could mean licence fees of any form 500 to 2000 a year just to have the right to be a photographer and you have no idea how close that is.

And you are seriously trying to say that these were such clean industries beforehand as in when they were self regulating? I don't agree.

These are the facts twist it all you want, but thats it in a nutshell

Now in fairness, I have only stated that which you've stated yourself and pointed out that they don't add up. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for weekend warriors, the fact of the matter is there are people out there that have not got a clue about their cameras or how to photograph a wedding in a professional manner.

Why generalise so? Why not just call them 'clueless people'. Everyone understands such a term. It means something. There is no ambiguity. There is no fear of complication that there may be some air of superiority of an association member (doesn't matter which association) compared to incredibly talented photographers which are out there, looking after their own business, paying their taxes, insuring their presence and gear. You do not make a distinction.

They are just asking for trouble if they mess up a couples wedding day because it will end up in court and without insurance it would be a disaster for the photographer. This is vastly different form the partime pro or serious amatuer who knows what to do and how to it.

If you do a forum search you will see many occasions where experiences of photographers with that professional tag after their name has been less than edifying - also strangely enough, instances of members of particular photographic associations (no particular inference regarding NAIP).

I don’t know why people get so upset about the phrase (weekend warrior) unless you are one, in which case your asking for trouble.

covered above. At the moment, i'm shooting with my phone and I don't have insurance. I don't think I have anything to worry about.

We came on here to try an address some of the concerns people and we have done that. We don't get involved in public forums as a rule and I regret that we did now.

So, in this time where the industry which you stated is in dire straits, your organisation doesn't as a rule getting involved in public fora? Right so, kinda explains a lot tbh.

If you want to change things get involved in a meaningful way instead of moaning here which will achieve nothing. Its all a load of contrived nonsense.

Thanks, but i've merely pointed out to you your associations shortcomings in respect of your policy and actions on the issue which you were portraying.

We wont be replying to any more posts there is nothing more to be said.

NAIP
National Executive

I guess, at least the record stands.

Thank you for your engagement.

OldGoat

If the representative of the NAIP does return to the discussion could we move/merge the two existing threads into a single thread.

If you want to change things get involved in a meaningful way instead of moaning here which will achieve nothing.

Hate to pick out little slices of a response but this gave me a wry smile. I thought thats exactly what Smelltheglove way trying to do, be proactive in starting up a new association.

IPWS

smelltheglove wrote: »

.....but one particular hotel, a hotel which I rave about usually when I hear of it, has under its terms and conditions, as I was told by the bride, that not only do they need proof of photographers insurance they also need proof that the photographer is a member of an Irish photographic association!

If you can tell me, either here or thru a PM, the name of this hotel I would be interested in following up with them.

Thanks

Alan M

sollisb

NAIP wrote: »

Some people dislike the distinction between Amateurs and professional but that is a fact of life like it or not, if you are earning money you are professional, if you photograph as a hobby you are amateur ( FACT )
But this has no bearing on the quality of work produced and the NAIP is acutely aware of this. Hence there is a place for everybody within our association.

Signed

NAIP Executive

This is wholly untrue statement of fact. The NAIP site states;

Full Membership
On Approval of your portfolio you must then apply for your first distinction within 6 months (see here for details)
If your submission is successful you will then be invited to become a full member of the NAIP.
Proof of Business Registration in the form of your CRO number ( only where you are not using your own name)
Proof of Insurance
You will then be issued with your membership card, qualification certificate and NAIP logos to use on your website etc;

So the actual facts are; Only those photographers with insurance can get full membership.

The other 'fluff' states that being an amateur or a professional has no bearing on the quality of work. This is probably true..

Finally, if my sister asks me (an amateur (FACT)) to be her wedding photographer, does it mean I need insurance? Does uncle Joe, Aunt Belinda and niece Jenny also need insurance? Or is it measured by the size of equipment and ego?

-B-
PS: Signing a post 'executive' has about as much credibility as a wolf in a hen-house..

itsbk

Hi,

I have to say I found this thread very interesting indeed, but what really interests me is how a diploma can be issued when the entity (NAIP) is just a registered business name, correct me if I am wrong but I thought only a government approved colleges or a university can issue a diploma, and these are normally internationally recognized, so it begs the question what is the diploma that is issued, and who or what recognizes this diploma and more importantly is NAIP approved as a college or university by the Irish Revenue Department.

If requests are made by a hotel for photographer insurance, the only distinction that can be used to define if insurance is required is if the photographer performs for commercial reward, Sister Sue or Benny who are guests and take fantastic shots surely must be excluded as they are guests, and therefore covered by the hotels insurance. Whether the photographer has a diploma or a certificate has no bearing on insurance.


Regarding insurance shop around you might get some good surprises.


Look forward to some nice flames on this.

Healeagh

stcstc wrote: »

is as important as the lens on your camera

would you let a mechanic work on your brakes of your car without insurance

would you allow a dentist to work on your teeth

as for any body of pros trying to force an issue, i dont see the problem, my insurance costs me about 90 euros a month, and that includes 100K of gear and my shop


i think if as an industry photographers dont try and make it safe for everyone, someone not doing it properly reflects badly on the whole industry

I wonder how many people ask their mechanic or dentist for evidence that they have insurance.