New York Hates Wedding Photographers
Adorama reports that “New York City’s City Council is holding a hearing this morning on a proposed law that would require wedding photographers to be licensed and submit a $5,000 bond.” I don’t live in New York so this doesn’t affect me directly, but the proposal still scares me. If this bill passes, it could be the precedent for other cities, and even other countries to follow.
You can read the entire proposal here, but I’ve highlighted a few key points below.
§20-250.d. “Wedding photographer” shall mean any person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or any other entity engaged in business with the purpose of regularly selling, or offering for sale, the service of recording still images or video of marriage ceremonies and related events.
§20-251 License required. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of owning or operating a bridal shop or wedding photography without first having obtained a license in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, and without first being in compliance with all other applicable law, rules and regulations.
§20-251.c. The annual fee for a license or renewal thereof shall be one hundred twenty-five dollars.
This part seems ok. The part I wonder about is how they define “regularly selling, or offering for sale” one’s services. If, for example, I primarily cover corporate events, but accept requests from friends and acquaintances to cover their weddings, do I fall under the description of a wedding photographer?
I’m not particularly concerned about this definition though. I’m no legal expert, but it seems to be fairly specific - if you cater primarily to those getting married, you’re a wedding photographer. Do correct me if I’m wrong though.
This next part, on the other hand, scares me.
§20-256 Bond Requirement. Each bridal shop and wedding photographer shall furnish a $5,000 bond to the department conditioned upon:
a. compliance with all laws, rules and regulations covering the conduct of bridal shops and wedding photographers;
b. payment to the City of New York of any fine, penalty or other obligation imposed by the department for non-compliance with any law(s), rule(s) or regulation(s) within 30 days of its imposition; and
c. payment of any final judgment against the bridal shop and wedding photographer. The bond shall be either a cash bond or a bond executed by a duly authorized surety company in a form acceptable to the commissioner.
Seriously? What’s up with the Big Apple? First require photographers to “obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance,” and when that gets shot down (sorry, no link for now), they target wedding photographers.
I wonder how much it’ll cost to hire a wedding photographer in New York if this law passes.
On top of that, I wonder how this affects wedding photographers elsewhere.
Here’s another thought, what happens if you’re a hobbyist that wants to start a wedding photography business? Are you expected to raise $5,000 and then some even before your business gets off the ground?
Basically, the question that keeps coming to mind is this: why does New York give photographers such a hard time?
Ok, that’s enough ranting for now. I need to calm down.
• Luis • 8 May 2008 •
This is actually encouraging to me. I have no problem putting up $5,000 and paying an annual fee for a license. The market is so saturated that if you made a law keeping the riff raff out (those aunts and uncles who are hobbyists), this might encourage the profitability.
Scott:
While I do get your point about the saturated market and increasing profitability, I don’t like this bill because I started out as part of the so-called riff raff you mentioned. I got into photography as a hobby, started earning a little from it, and decided to work on it full-time. If a bill like this were in place when I started, I might still be working a desk job. This bothers me a lot because I started my studio with a limited amount of capital, and I’m still building on it.
I also understand that the bond is there to protect consumers from frauds who collect a downpayment and never show up for the wedding - that part I can’t really argue against.
Note that I’m replying to you hours after I first read the article - my head is a little bit cooler and clearer now.
Here’s a question I have for you though - would you still have the same attitude if you were only starting out today?
Interesting that you would ask that. My wife and I are just starting out. I would still have no problem and consider it startup cost. The fact is that more people than ever think they are a photographer and some even purchase professional equipment for their “hobby”. I would be thrilled to see something that would make people think twice before entering the profession.
I think it’s good you see it as part of the startup cost - it shows that you’re serious about this (that, or you’re that stable financially). However, my reluctance to pay the same bond doesn’t make me any less serious than you.
When I started out, I invested only in what I could afford (including 2nd-hand gear), and only took on projects that I knew I could handle. Basically, my startup cost was probably a fraction of what you have in mind now - and I didn’t have much of a choice in the matter. My problem is that a bond like this might have kept me from jumping into the market when I did.
Still, I see why you’d be “thrilled to see something that would make people think twice before entering the profession.” I wouldn’t mind having less competition from those who charge cut-throat prices.
Anyway, I hope you and your wife do well. Thanks for dropping by!