A few questions about first paid photo shoot??

[Bliss87]

Hi
I was just wondering if anyone is able to help me out with a few questions?
A friend of a friend has offered me a job shooting about 10 Girls in the adult entertainment industry for their website and business cards,
I will be doing about 3-5 shots of each girl for their profiles on the website which will be done in a studio and a few group shots on the beach for the business cards.
Will I have to have them sign release forms I'm sure there will be a few nude shots so is there any other legal documents that I would need I live in QLD?
Also she insists on paying me I am no where near a professional I have only done a few unpaid shoots for friends but she said she loves the work that I have done how much do you think I should charge her?
I know how much professional photographers hate it when beginners ask questions like this (as I have seen on other forums) but any help would be great!
Thanks :)

[maccaroneski]

Hi and fistly, welcome to the site.

Just a reminder about Rule 23 in the site rules


Requesting/Providing Financial, Medical or Legal Advice on Ausphotography:

Australian Photography is a website with broad topic coverage. However, when it comes to medical, financial and legal advice, it's always recommended to seek advice from a qualified professional, rather than asking about it on Australian Photography. As such, Australian Photography takes no legal responsibility for posts seeking or providing Medical, Financial or Legal advice. Members use any advice provided via Ausphotography at their own risk. The site owner, moderators or members cannot be held liable for any Medical, Financial or Legal advice posted on the site.

P.S. I have also moved the thread to a more appropriate spot.

[Wayne]

If I could shoot naked girls all day, I'd do it free ;)

Ok, now seriously..

First, it is annoying when someone joins the site and their first post is to ask for help to make some $$ when you have so far contributed nothing to the community at all.
Whatever you think your time is worth. As far as model releases go I assume they are all adults in the eyes of the law, so they can enter into agreements etc. If their image or likeness is used to promote a product or service, then they must grant permission for that, and the best way is a written model release. Given that you know what the intended output is for, you should obtain and file the release to provide some protection for yourself.

Get some legal advice if you want to be certain of your responsibilities.

[Longshots]

I'm sorry Tony, but surely

a) a properly qualified professional photographer should be able to answer this type of question - which is one asking an opinion on what to ask,

and

b) the question seems very sensible - to seek different opinions - this is a photographic forum where questions, answers, opinions are I thought encouraged ?

Why would this question result in a rule reminder, when so many of these questions have been asked recently, without such a response ?

[JM Tran]

you will definitely need a model release, and also maybe a written contract of the whole job

the adult entertainment industry is a fickle one, as many many girls who have done it will have their photos resurface somewhere and come back to haunt them in the future - through either misuse of it, or a misunderstanding of who owns the rights to what etc

[ricktas]

I think the question here from us should be ...what gear do you have? If you are going to do this shoot justice, you need lights as well as camera, a good understanding of using flash/lights to get the lighting right on the girls. You also need reasonable post processing skills to get the results that the client is likely to expect. After all they want to present their girls in the very best way!

I would suggest as a minimum you work for $100.00 an hour, include your processing time etc in all this. Work out how long everything is going to take you and then set your fee.

[ricktas]

I'm sorry Tony, but surely

a) a properly qualified professional photographer should be able to answer this type of question - which is one asking an opinion on what to ask,

and

b) the question seems very sensible - to seek different opinions - this is a photographic forum where questions, answers, opinions are I thought encouraged ?

Why would this question result in a rule reminder, when so many of these questions have been asked recently, without such a response ?

The rule reminder here, was in relation to the question regarding legal advice for Queensland, as the thread started asked.


Will I have to have them sign release forms I'm sure there will be a few nude shots so is there any other legal documents that I would need I live in QLD?

[Longshots]

best to say nothing other than get public liability insurance if you intend to do a paid shoot.

[Bliss87]

I understand the rules and I have emailed a couple of professional photographers I just thought i'd get a few opinions from other photographers as well,
she wants to do the shoot on Sunday so I want to get as much information as possible so I can get a good understanding of what I need to do in the little time I have.

I have the Nikon D3000 Twin lens kit with 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses nothing special just something easy for me to start off with. I was planning on shooting children and families in Natural light so I havn't bothered getting any lighting equipment but I am hiring a studio which apparently includes all the lighting and flash equipment I need along with someone to show me how to use it all.
Honestly I wasn't planning on starting paid work yet but this will give me a great oppertunity to learn a few things and gain some experience.
also I'm sorry if it seem as I've just joined to ask for help to make some money which is definatley not the case I'm just freaking out!!!

[ricktas]

Ok, you need to include the cost of the studio into your quote as well.

however, if you are freaking out! I would suggest you are not ready to undertake this job, so perhaps politely decline but ask if you cannot be the 'assistant' to someone experienced who can do this shoot, and see if they cannot find a professional to do the job for them. This might sound blunt, but if you are freaking out now, what are you going to be like during the shoot?

[Bliss87]

I dont think I am ready for it maybe if I had more time to prepare myself it might have been a different story but I have told her how i feel about it all and she said I will do fine and she will not take no for an answer.

[William]

Sounds like my Partner!! BTW , what day and where are you doing the shoot, I'll be out Sunrising on Sunday , Maybe I could combine the two if you need a hand , Seriously :rolleyes:

[kiwi]

Do you have to charge ? maybe just recover your costs at this stage, might take the pressure off a bit. Someone in a studio showing you how the strobes work, doesnt at all mean showing you how to use them to effect....anyhow...good luck and remember to post your results here

[Wayne]

I have told her how i feel about it all and she said I will do fine and she will not take no for an answer.

Nobody can make you do something you don't want to do here, it is up to you. Think, will your friend be annoyed if you don't do a job that she and the girls are happy with, and will she and the girls be more annoyed if they have to then pay an experienced professional and waste their time doing it a second time?

It smells to me (purely an assumption on my part) like your friend may know or reasonably know the cost to hire an experienced professional to do this job, and, is simply looking to skimp and get it done for peanuts. If you have expressed that you feel you can't do the job adequately and your friend is still insisting, that is a poor business decision to push you IMHO.

The fact you have the most basic of SLR equipment, no lighting gear or experience using same (you said you need someone to show you how to use it) and the fact you are most unlikely to understand how to use that lighting gear effectively the first time you get to use it, this is destined for almost certain failure.

I make no apologies if the above is not friendly or warm & fuzzy enough for some.

[Bliss87]

Just because I'm scared doesn't mean that I don't want to do it like I said its a great opportunity for me to learn a few things and gain some experience and if she thinks that I can do it then why not try. Its my first real photography job of course i'm going to be nervous. we'll see how it goes...

[William]

Jeez and I worry with my experiance about doing a Wedding :eek: Hope you've got the reflectors the assistant , Remote triggers and extra flashes on hand and the rest of the stuff :D

[Cam Scott]

I would most certainly want to have all parties involved with your first undertaking aware of your capabilities, your concerns and definitely their expectations.
A contract is absolute. You can clearly state your job description, your detailed hours, and have all the shots required BEFORE you start. (Obviously to work out your hours)

There is a LOT of legal jargon in a commercial photography contract. You must understand every single clause and be able to explain what they mean. Once the client signs it, the quote included, you are bound to uphold your responsibilities and fulfil your hired role as photographer.

I'm just painting a picture here, as you are dealing with 1:the contact, 2: a group of models, 3: advertising agency, 4: print house, 5: expectations, 6: you are ultimately responsible for the end product being sought.

Things could get complicated. But, if you're up front, honest about your capabilities, equipment and post skills, they accept, well it's all up to you.

From what you stated regarding the shoot 3-5 shots per 10 girls plus group shots:
I'd be personally looking at 15 hours as a starting point. This would be me, and that would be on the go, and flat out processing (the level and expectation of touchup in processing…. for this instance I'd image quite high!)
Setup 30 mins
10 girls @ 15min ea 2.5hrs
Beach shot 1 hr

Processing:
Sorting to final 60 images 15 mins
Initial RAW processing 2 hrs
Viewing with client 1 hr+
Processing and Retouching 6 hrs +
Output 1 hr.

$100 hour, looking at initial quote of $1500. Id' reasonably expect to be a final estimate though more like $2500 once the real hours of the whole job were configured.
Oh, and I'd have to pay an assistant too, and hire some extra strobes for use on the beach that are battery powered…. more bucks there. It's blowing up to around $4k now.
Go for it, and good luck!

Oh, yes, have public liability & Indemnity insurance and please, consult a lawyer before you do anything (you can add these extra costs into your estimate as it's a large shoot of a specific nature)
Hope this info was helpful.

[Redgum]

Your technical and creative skills are the least of your challenges. I know this part of the industry very well (but from another perspective - film). Just how well do you know your friend? Is she a long time or recent acquaintance? Is this an agency gig or simply a low key local event? Who's responsible for the event organisation? (the shoot)
If the object of the shoot is for a charitable calendar or something like that let your friend take the lead and organise the legals - just exchange a simple letter of agreement with her. If it's an high end agency shoot just make sure you're not being used in the wrong way.

[Erin]

Have you shot in a studio and used studio lighting before?
No.

Do you have the appropriate gear to take good, usable photos of these girls?
Not really.

Do you know what your time is worth?
No.

Do you have the appropriate experience with people photography to do these girls any justice?
Highly unlikely.

I'm not being mean, but at this stage, I doubt you'd be able to pull off a shoot like this properly. You sound like a complete newbie and whilst that's be NO means a bad thing, I don't believe in jumping into a shoot like that without some experience behind you. Indeed, it does sound like your "friend" has seen you take maybe a couple half-decent pictures and has probably thought s/he could get a cheap set of pictures to use - it may be that you're being taken advantage of.

To be really honest, I would suggest perhaps do a couple of workshops to at least get the basics of lighting and intimate portraiture as well as get up to speed with the legal requirements of your state and what rights you have before you tackle this.

[ricstew]

and it aint as easy as it may look........

[ricktas]

Another thing that has not been raised .Equipment failure.

What is your contingency if you do the shoot, get home, and find the memory card is corrupt..no photos. Or your camera has shutter failure 5 minutes into the shoot. During a lens change, you fumble and drop one of your two lenses. You need to be able to deal with this sort of thing and be able to complete the contract with the client.

[MarkChap]

Well, I have read and re-read this, there seems to be a theme that you need to have in place a "release" with the models.
I don't think YOU will need a release with/from the models - huh, I hear everyone say

You are effectively being contracted to perform the task of photography for the company that employs the girls
That company should already have in place some form of workplace agreement with it's staff that covers this sort of thing, especially for the industry you state, as promotion of the staff would be a key to promoting the business.
That same company are employing you on a short term basis to provide a service, you should definitely have a contract or agreement in place as a contractor to that business. Provided all you are doing is shooting and handing over the images, that is, you are not using the images yourself or for promotion of you, then you shouldn't require any type of agreement with the individual models.

I am not a lawyer so take this as you see fit, with no guarantee of correctness

[Longshots]

Have to counter that Mark. So what happens if the photographer wants to use the images on his own website in the future ?

Work place agreements dont always include the issue of releases for photography, and I can assure you that its a minefield for companies or organisations that rely on that, when the release issue is included. Because if or when that person leaves the company, voluntarily or involuntarily, it can be an expensive exercise for the company, if that person feels hard done by and requests that their image be removed from all company marketing material. I recall an experience of a past client, ignoring all my advice, and using a very attractive office worker in many shots, and after they printed $50,000 worth of marketing materials, they sacked her. She wasnt too happy, and had a partner in the advertising industry, who advised her of her rights. The company had to reshoot a fair amount of the work, and had to throw away most of what had been printed, and then redesigned, and reprinted everything. And all of that could have been averted with a properly signed talent/model release.

And no I'm not a lawyer, but a full time pro shooting people in their work places for over a couple of decades.

So my advice is yes, if anyone is in this similar situation, get the company to produce their own release, and also if you feel the need, produce another release yourself; and get both signed.

Personally though I dont think this idea is feasible in any shape of form. And I too dont want to sound harsh, but getting a grip of this situation, is important. While it might just be possible to pick up a DSLR, put it on an auto setting, and auto focus, and without ever having experience of using that type of gear before, produce an acceptable image; I dont think its in the realms of workable, to walk into a photographic studio, having NO experience of using photographic studio strobe lighting, and producing images on a commercial basis. That moves from the nightmare scenario to a hell situation.

Oh and the other assumption, which while I'm not saying its wrong, one need to replace the assumption that this person is being contracted. On the other side of the coin, that may not be correct. I'm generally considered as being sub contracted, and the agreement I have with who ever wants to utilise my services is based on the terms and conditions that I supply on how I choose to take on business.

[arthurking83]

Have to counter that Mark. So what happens if the photographer wants to use the images on his own website in the future ?......

The OP would then have to understand that using the images for their own purposes is not an option.
Considering the OPs experience and confidence level, I'd agree that Mark's suggestion is probably the best one so far.

If this friend is sincere, then you would ask that she organisies the shoot herself all at her own cost, allows you the chance to do the shooting.. or more accurately the operation of the camera(it's then your option to ask for payment or not) and you get to spend a day with some girly girls prancing about in the birthday suits. :th3:

ie. minimise the headache inducing administrative element, and just go out and enjoy the chance to take photos.

(well.. that's what I'd do)

Your friend is allowed to ask you to come in and use your camera at your own leisure as a friend and in an amateur capacity. She's also allowed to employ you for a few hours without the need to draw up any contracts and legal documents where you may simply walk away with a small cash fee for your effort... as long as she's organising the administrative elements relating to the girls time and subsequent use of the images.

[Longshots]

If you were in the position you might understand that the only time any of this matters if something unfortunate happens, and then thats when the legal people start pulling in the definitions. So its better to be informed as opposed to ignoring all of the aspects around you. If the OP wasnt concerned, they wouldnt have asked the question.

And again, sorry but you cant be an amateur and get paid, again thats back to the legal people who will say, as will the tax people, that receiving anything for services is a commercial arrangement, and that does not fall into the amateur area, unless its a competition

And FYI, I actually regret not having more of my earlier work "released" for my own marketing and personal ability to show it. So the distinction as I suggested to put forward that other thought process, is to get a release, regardless of the client's responsibility to acquire a release would have given me the chance to show off work shot 30 years ago. Unfortunately at that time, I had no access to this type of advice.

[kiwi]

Back to the issues of skill required for the studio session, not to scare you but to point something out

I'm going to guess that out of the 10000 members on ap that no more than 50 here ( and that's being optimistic) would have the skill required to walk into a hired studio and get a commercially acceptable standard.

[arthurking83]

If you were in the position you might understand that the only time any of this matters if something unfortunate happens, and then thats when the legal people start pulling in the definitions. So its better to be informed as opposed to ignoring all of the aspects around you. If the OP wasnt concerned, they wouldnt have asked the question.....

It sure is!

and hence why the alternate angle.

If the friend is organising the event, then the onus is on her to provide all liability cover... the OP would then be working for her in the capacity as the the camera operator.

As far as I'm aware, not every single insignificant employment offer is required to be treated as a major scale legal dossier encompassing every facet of contractual law.

My accountant has explained many aspects of this... but I still refuse to commit every point he's ever made to long term memory.
I only remember there were limits relating to the amounts of remuneration only.. not much else, other than the tax office can be flexible with respect to employment as a 'contractor', and as the OP hasn't yet hinted to any ongoing contracting work, the proposal I've made can still be valid.
(as far as I am aware, and unless the ATO has made recent changes to their system).

The emotional attachment each individual has to every image they've ever captured is relevant to that individual only.
Your comments re the regret you have about earlier work is a fair enough one too.. I've lost images (off my hard drive) and while I don't like it.. I live with it and move on.
I'm sure if this friend of the OP's is a decent person, some leeway may be agreed upon by the two parties, re self promotion of any work the OP may want to use.

Anyhow the point is that there are many ways to skin an orange... and Tony's(maccaroneski's) initial reply now has a lot more validity, even tho it was initially questioned.

Rule 23 exists for a legitimate reason.

[Longshots]

while wanting to thank you for your post arthur, the complications of when someone is in business and who is rresponsible is literally a mine field. So taking in all sides is a huge importance. The legalities of who hires the studio, who directs the model, is the basis for who is in charge according to both tax and legalities. If the person brings in their own gear, directs the model, then my experience with tax and legals, is that the photographer is going to be ultimately responsible. Hence why I have $20 million and $30 million if I have to work in a Westfield centre (their min for subs btw), public liability insurance. Passing it off (the legal responsibility) to the commissioning client doesnt work in practice I'm afraid.

BTW, all of this is good information for everyone, not just the OP :)

[Redgum]

If the friend is organising the event, then the onus is on her to provide all liability cover... the OP would then be working for her in the capacity as the the camera operator.
As far as I'm aware, not every single insignificant employment offer is required to be treated as a major scale legal dossier encompassing every facet of contractual law.This is so true Arthur. If every single photographer were to adopt the general advice given in this thread they would need to take a bush lawyer on every single shoot. Yes, there are very real legal risks in any sort of public work, even signing contracts, but the focus needs to be on the principal operator. The law will always focus on "the principal person" otherwise I would need over twenty separate insurance policies to cover those who work for me.
Longshots nearly had it right except for the last sentence
Passing it off (the legal responsibility) to the commissioning client doesnt work in practice I'm afraid. In fact this is exactly what an agreement between the two girls would do, that is, make the first party responsible for the job.
And of course amateurs can be paid. Even the tax office doesn't consider you a professional unless photography is your primary source of income and you can earn up to $50k per year and retain a non-professional status.
Like I said earlier, and as Arthur suggested, draw up an agreement between you and your friend that clearly states her principal role. Plain english will be fine as long as it's clear.

[Longshots]

This is so true Arthur. If every single photographer were to adopt the general advice given in this thread they would need to take a bush lawyer on every single shoot. Yes, there are very real legal risks in any sort of public work, even signing contracts, but the focus needs to be on the principal operator. The law will always focus on "the principal person" otherwise I would need over twenty separate insurance policies to cover those who work for me.
Longshots nearly had it right except for the last sentence . In fact this is exactly what an agreement between the two girls would do, that is, make the first party responsible for the job.
And of course amateurs can be paid. Even the tax office doesn't consider you a professional unless photography is your primary source of income and you can earn up to $50k per year and retain a non-professional status.
Like I said earlier, and as Arthur suggested, draw up an agreement between you and your friend that clearly states her principal role. Plain english will be fine as long as it's clear.

I would be very wary of anyone taking this advice re the tax situation. While I'm definitely not in a position to say its wrong, I would have sincere doubts that the professional tax advice I've been receiving, and organisations like AIPP, and ACMP have been receiving that an income of $50,000 is "non-professional". Frankly I dont think ATO give any status at all to whether someone is professional or not. They just want to know how much total income you've received. My own personal understanding, and practice is that all income needs to be declared. But then again, I'd point to the AP rule of not taking advice on financial or legal matters.

I'd also maintain that the last sentence quoted by Redgum is what I said, 100% correct. Anyone thinking that they can not be legally responsible when it comes to public liability is not only wrong, but offering very dangerous advice IMHO. The small cost of public liability insurance is very low when it comes to comparing the costs of a legal claim. And I'm not worried if a sentence is taken out of context, but for the record, try walking into (for instance) a Westfield Shopping Centre, which is what I was referring to, and if you cannot produce a public liability certificate of insurance, even if you are shooting in a shop that has their own cover, you will be refused entry.

For the context, this is what I originally said:

If the person brings in their own gear, directs the model, then my experience with tax and legals, is that the photographer is going to be ultimately responsible. Hence why I have $20 million and $30 million if I have to work in a Westfield centre (their min for subs btw), public liability insurance. Passing it off (the legal responsibility) to the commissioning client doesnt work in practice I'm afraid.


And to me this is all part of being a paid photographer. Its not hard, and its not difficult. There's nothing scary about the legal and tax situation. The obvious issue here for the readers, and the OP is to go and get proper advice from the ATO (ie speak to someone), speak to a qualified accountant, speak to a specialised insurance broker, speak to a lawyer. All pretty easy to arrange. And in some cases most of the advice is completely free. For instance in Qld the Qld Gov "smart licence" office has plenty of free small business advice available (including one on one consultations with specialists I believe). I believe most states have that.

I would be a great deal more concerned if I were the OP, to consider walking into a studio having never used studio lighting equipment before, because it matters not one jot who is responsible for tax and legals, if everything turns into a nightmare. Because anyone seriously considering that without any prior learning, is in a for a major disappointment.

[Redgum]

Okay, Longshots, so what you are saying is that everyone working in my studio, or any studio, employed or contract, needs to have their own public liability insurance? * personal attack removed : refer to site rules : admin *For example, if I go to a friend and ask them to shoot down at Westfields (providing they give permission) Westfields will require his public liability insurance? Not even close, they certainly may want to see a PL certificate of currency, but only one, that of Redgum the principal provider. If you're going to sue someone you need to make sure they have the ability to pay (even their legal costs).
By the way, I just dragged out my public liability documents from CGU (the largest PL insurer) and they clearly forbid two concurrent policies for the one owner. How come you have a $20m and $30m policy and why? The premiums would be far less for a single policy anyway.
And yes, the focus of this thread should rather be on the technical capability of the OP although every person I've employed has started from nothing. I think we all do.

[kiwi]

Without making a personal judgement on the tax consideration, yes, talk to the ATO, and this might be useful

http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/00199712.htm

and

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/66884.htm

which includes a telephone number for you to call.

If your income is derived as a hobby it's not assessible income (you do not have to disclose or pay tax on that income at all). You must pass certain tests to be determnined as a business where you a) must declare your income, b) deduct taxes etc

There are a number of tests and a number of case studies.

Get advice.

[Longshots]

I'm not making anything up, or have any reason to. I'm passing on what I've learnt, and practice over the decades.

I can assure you that as I regularly have to shoot in areas such as Westfield shopping centres, that the first thing I have to produce is a "certificate of currency". It happens all of the time.

I'm often asked to produce it, from entering power stations, to hospitals, to government buildings, etc etc.

So please dont belittle my experience or my advice as I can assure you that its correct in exactly that context of Westfield. And yes their minimum is $30 million, whereas the min I am generally asked to produce is $20 million.

As to who should and who shouldnt, well the advice I've always been given, is that if you are a subcontractor or contractor, you need public liability insurance. If you're employed under a full or part time basis, then you dont. The definition - so I'm told depends on provision of equipment, and ownership of such. But as I repeatedly say, its just my opinion. Get proper advice.

But in terms of being cautious, and to answer the point asked often about starting up in business or being paid for a shoot, my response is to offer the advice of my opinion based on experience. If we disagree then hey thats fine, but in this case, to not have something could cost a small fortune, and more, whereas to have this is less than $1 per day annually.

I didnt say that I have two policiesg. I have a $20 million as standard which I can increase to $30 million on a temporary basis, and all of it is on one policy.


On the matter of whether you have public liability or not. Well its a standard requirement as part of membership of AIPP, and I believe ACMP.

Whether you choose to sue someone or not, and your thoughts about if they have the money - thats a factor which can probably be answered by the legal specialists. My response has always been, if you own a car, or/and a house, then those lawyers will go for that - I can assure you that I'm speaking from experience of a friend being sued - and losing both !

We're probably being a bit focused on the technical points about whether you should have PL. And I'll try and get a comment to post here directly from a specialist, as I personally think its important that people know the right way. My advice is that if someone trips over my tripod in your studio, the legals would not be chasing you, they would come chasing me. But again thats a semantic point that few could answer, as thats why the court system exists, its that process who decide on a case. My approach is safe and not sorry.

On the matter of insurance, I had a good friend who had the misfortune to have his car broken into (as do many these days), and he lost his entire photographic kit (blads and nikons), plus he also had some borrowed lighting gear from a friend (broncolour, and chimera boxes). Unfortunately he had not paid his insurance, and his friend was not covered because the gear was loaned out (which he was not covered for). Unfortunately my friend lost his livelihood, lost his marriage, and eventually lost his house, as he was legally chased down to pay back his friend for the loss of the lighting gear. That destroyed my friend, and he has since battled with severe depression ever since. Plus he never came back to the photographic profession. So when you suggest I should give something a break, it might be that I passionately want to avert as many people as possible from falling into the same hellish pit.

[maccaroneski]

Frankly I don't think ATO give any status at all to whether someone is professional or not.

I would have to agree with that statement.

For the balance it is good too see that we're sticking to "the practical stuff" rather than specific legal or accounting advice. I think that this sort of thread is a good example of treading that fine line, i.e. I think that it is very valuable to see what our working pros actually do in practice with regard to these matters and why, as opposed to debating the legal or accounting theory.

[maccaroneski]

I'm not sure I understand your tone John/Redgum ?

And I'll try and get a comment to post here directly from a specialist, as I personally think its important that people know the right way. My advice is that if someone trips over my tripod in your studio, the legals would not be chasing you, they would come chasing me. But again thats a semantic point that few could answer, as thats why the court system exists, its that process who decide on a case. My approach is safe and not sorry.



William the short answer would be "it depends", and I don't think that a specialist would answer that question any other way.

And it depends on a range of factors. Which of the parties has the deeper pockets (or insurance) might be one. Was the tripod owner renting the studio from the studio owner (i.e. taking occupation of the premises) or was it some kind of joint venture (i.e. both parties shooting)? Who was in control of the positioning of the tripod? I could go on all day...

[Longshots]

I agree.

Which is why I've asked an insurance specialist to view this and potentially post their experienced viewpoint - again on the same basis that everyone else posts here - take your own proper professional advice on legal and tax issues.

And to respond Tony, "they would go for both of you", was his comment, when given the same scenario, which means that, you're right, it ends up in court.

And with the system of payment only in the case of a win type situation we have here in Australia, the issue of which party has deeper pockets, tends to be unimportant, and is exactly why PL insurance is so important.

[maccaroneski]

William I guess what I was going for in terms of the "deeper pockets" comment was along the lines of more a strategy thing from a plaintiff lawyer perspective. I make the following comments from my own experience as a personal injury lawyer (having spent time both working on behalf of insurers and plaintiffs), and just as a general comment rather than specific legal advice.

OK imagine you're a plaintiff lawyer. You have a case, say worth $250k. And costs and disbursements (medical reports, court filing fees, expert witness fees) are say another $20k. There are two potential defendants to pin, both being "regular Joes" (i.e. not in a position to be able to write a cheque for $270k). One has PL insurance, one doesn't. What do you do? You frame your case against the one that does have PL insurance, because when you win, the insurer can just write you a cheque, rather than going down the very tiresome path of obtaining a verdict, and then trying to extract that from the defendant without insurance. So there is some deep consideration given to deeper pockets, as it were.

Further, again just FYI "the system of payment only in the case of a win type situation we have here in Australia" can be a flexible concept as well. Basically the plaintiff lawyer promises the plaintiff that he will not be charged unless he is successful, and even then, to be paid from the money that the plaintiff receives in a verdict. Generally speaking, a lawyer is not going to take on that sort of case unless there is a very good chance that there will be such money on the way.

So if you're suing someone for $270k, and they have no insurance, then you're not going to take it on a no win-no fee basis. as you may be unlikely to recover those fees.

There are various compromise positions though. For example, the lawyer might still do no win-no fee solely in relation to professional costs and not disbursements (i.e. the plaintiff pays up front for the medical reports, expert report and court filing fees) meaning that the lawyer is only risking his time and not outlaying any cash) or they might impose a cap on the amount of costs that can be racked up on that basis.

Bit of a diversion, but hopefully you might find that an interesting insight into the way that the insurance industry works, and ultimately demonstrating that the issue of deep pockets is very relevant indeed.

[arthurking83]

.....

I would be a great deal more concerned if I were the OP, to consider walking into a studio having never used studio lighting equipment before, because it matters not one jot who is responsible for tax and legals, if everything turns into a nightmare. Because anyone seriously considering that without any prior learning, is in a for a major disappointment.

This is so far the most appropriate advice given to (what I think is) the situation.

Practising at home with flash, whether onboard camera flash or external speedlights, is completely different to a studio environment.
I've been shooting(digital) for quite some time now, and have a good understanding of exposures and lighting, but recently I had the good fortune to attend Andrew and Deb's studio session meetup at Marlo, and the only reason I got any images worth keeping was entirely due to Andrew's advise. Otherwise I'd have been in way over my head and it'd have taken me at least a few hours of experimenting with various settings on both camera and lighting setup(as well as understanding the limitations of the wireless lighting triggers).
If you have the opportunity to do a test run in a studio environment to get an understanding of studio lighting, it'd be immensely helpful.. rather than wasting the model's time in experimenting 'on the spot'.

it's really not hard, but it's something to have a basic understanding of prior to doing it as a job for someone, even if you are not being paid for it.

[maccaroneski]

How dare you both bring this thread back on topic :)

[ricktas]

REMINDER:

Ausphotography Site Rule:

[23] Requesting/Providing Financial, Medical or Legal Advice on Ausphotography:

Australian Photography is a website with broad topic coverage. However, when it comes to medical, financial and legal advice, it's always recommended to seek advice from a qualified professional, rather than asking about it on Australian Photography. As such, Australian Photography takes no legal responsibility for posts seeking or providing Medical, Financial or Legal advice. Members use any advice provided via Ausphotography at their own risk. The site owner, moderators or members cannot be held liable for any Medical, Financial or Legal advice posted on the site.

[Longshots]

Thanks Maccaroneski - thats a great insight. While the personal claim/public liability issue may be a slight distraction here, its certainly interesting for all. :) Oops sorry to take it on the tagent again.

And yes I agree and support #23, but feel its of help to offer the advice on that proviso, as this is what I've encountered and experience all of my working life.

Would the same questioning be relevant if its the insurance company chasing you after they have settled a claim ? That was why I made the comment questioning the deep pockets (which I now understand your point). Again, if you own your house, and car, then you still have some ability to be taken to task. And perhaps its my previous friends experience (multiple cases), that makes me cautious.

On the walking into a studio point, and then getting to instantaneous grips with studio lighting, there are plenty of courses available, and some excellent tutorials around on the net; but until you try it in practice, its not the easiest of things to master in a potentially less than an hour's introduction (which is the max you would get when hiring a photo studio ).

However, a great suggestion would be to enquire (at the studio thats being hired for the event) about hiring an experienced photographic assistant - there are many around with the skills to assist a photographer, and would be the best choice, if the OP chose to take the chance.

[WhoDo]

I can't say I have any pretensions to being a professional photographer, but I have on occasion been asked to use what skills I have in places that could hardly be considered "public"; a conference venue and a wedding reception centre. I find the whole discussion absolutely fascinating and want to thank all participants for conducting it in great detail.

I have had Public Liability and Professional Indemnity insurance before, as a contract IT support person, and it cost a lot more than "a few dollars a day" (sic) but that comes down to risk and the risk in what I was doing was commensurately higher. No-one's business is likely to fail because someone takes a bad photograph. All the same, I agree that safe is better than sorry. I don't have much but I sure don't want to lose what little I have because someone decided to get litigious. You can't rely on family, let alone friends, when the smell of money is in the air and there is blood in the water! (sorry about the mixed metaphors).

The OP's dilemma sounds a lot like that faced by celebrities who insist on pre-nuptual agreements. Better to lose a friend ... even a potential spouse ... than to start again from scratch because you were naive enough to trust someone you cared about. In the end you have to ask whether a "bit of practice" is worth the potential problems, don't you?

Thanks again to all for the interesting discussion.:th3:

[Longshots]

my public liability insurance actually costs me $450 annually if I recall - for $20 million. I'm assuming $10 mill is going to be cheaper. So thats why I referred to $1 a day. My insurer is Wesfarmers, and I also have a pro gear insurance policy through the same broker, which is with also insured through Wesfamers.

You're right no photo is going to kill anyone, same counts for my PS support person cant cure a software problem isnt going to injure or kill me.

However I suspect the costs of the professional indemnity insurance, is going to be the biggest part of the costs of the insurance you refer to.

What PL covers me for, is if someone - for example, falls over my camera bag, or my tripod or something like that. What the PL insurance isnt going to insure me against is what professional indemnity insurance covers, which is if my photos are not suitable for the job.

[WhoDo]

My Public Liability insurance was negligible; something of the order you mentioned. I forget exactly how much because it was so long ago - 15 years or more. The Professional Indemnity insurance, even then, was around $1800 pa. Heaven only knows what it would be today. While what I did wouldn't "kill" anyone, a critical mistake with a client's data or file servers could have sent the client out of business, in some circumstances, and their employees out of work. That's why the risk and fees were so high in the IT arena even then.

I would guess that a wedding photographer who gets it badly wrong would at least be liable for a reshoot and some compensation? Not life-threatening, but also no small issue. I can't even imagine what might be the consequences of fouling up a commercial advertising campaign, but we aren't dealing with that in this instance. Either way, trusting people is dangerous because you never know how they will react when the pressure is on.

An illustration: I remember years ago being "begged" by an uncle to sell him a car when I was finished with it; an old EK Holden. I resisted mightily because I don't believe in selling cars to friends or family due to the risks involved. I eventually relented. I repeatedly warned him that I had no idea whether the car was in good condition, or reliable, since I had only bought it to be a stop-gap while my own was being repaired and knew nothing of its history. He said that was fine because he wanted it to keep his similar model running. I sold it to him for $100 still registered and running - a pittance even back in 1972 when the transaction took place - and wouldn't you know it but the motor blew up a month later. :eek:

Of course there were all sorts of complaints and it took quite some time for the atmosphere between us to return to some semblance of normality. It's only anecdotal evidence, I know, but it happens.