A few questions about first paid photo shoot??

[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.

[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.

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.