A few questions about first paid photo shoot??

[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.

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/cont...t/00199712.htm

and

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co...tent/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.