License for photographers !

PCPhoto

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

haha, I have this mental image now of burly IPPA members wandering around the place in pairs, walking into other photographers studios and saying things like

"oo, nice setup you have here. shame if the tax man saw it, eh, eh ?? yeah yeah, lovely L lens there. pay VAT on that did ya ?, here love, why don't you just take out membership in the IPPA, eh ? No worries on the tax front any more if you know what I mean, eh ?, Eh ?? "

why did I read that in a ross o'carroll-kelly style dublin accent.

Fenster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

A chilling effect is a term in law and communication which describes a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed by fear of penalization at the interests of an individual or group.

I was apathetic towards the IPPA before I read this thread, but now I have to admit absolute, abject horror at the actions of this group. To me, the IPPA's goals are twofold:

1. As described elsewhere, to attempt to build a monopoly by 'outing' non-member photographers, whether full-time, part-time or amateur. Will they cull Boards.ie and Twitter for names?
2. To create, in the public mind, the false perception that they are a state-authorized licensing body.

So now what?

jeannie82

MartMax wrote: »

IPPA is not a self regulatory organisation over photography industry in Ireland - am I right? its business is their own members.

exactly - the IPPA is not a trade union

jeannie82

smelltheglove wrote: »

I am easily irritated and this definitely irritates me.

I am a photographer, it is my only source of income, I work at it 3-5 days a week sometimes more for quite little return for the moment. I am tax compliant, I have been since my very first paid job in 08. I am not an IPPA member. I do not label myself as a 'Professional Photographer' being a photographer is just that, call me professional or ametuer or whatever, to be honest I do not care. I would be extremely annoyed if I found someone reported me to the IPPA as being a working earning photographer so as they could report me to the tax man in the hope that they would send me broke and cause me to cease working due to having to sell gear to make up for a sudden large tax bill. Thankfully that will not happen but the idea that this is what they are after makes me wonder why anyone would pay a fee to be a member of this organisation.

My gut instinct tells me though that they are more likely going to try and advertise their services to these people, myself included. I have no interest, I have enough overheads to worry about without adding on a charge to be part of an organisation of 'pat the backs!'

I would feel the same - I am a professional, but as the work is freelance I also work in another similar area as a freelancer to make a full income. Therefore I can't join the IPPA because my sole income is not photography. This doesn't make me less of a working, qualified photographer. I don't earn enough to register for VAT but I do pay income tax. Everything I do is above board. I would be furious if, encouraged by the IPPA, a member reported me to Revenue as suspect just because I'm not an IPPA member. It's offensive.

smelltheglove

PCPhoto wrote: »

why did I read that in a ross o'carroll-kelly style dublin accent.

Lol, so did I:D

humberklog

jeannie82 wrote: »

exactly - the IPPA is not a trade union

That could be the only redeeming feature of it.


Curious question to the OP, what's your connection (if any) with all this? The reason I ask is that it can helpful to have some provenance of the writer and as it was your first post on Boards...well it just got me wondering.

Oh I think the idea is a sham invented by shamsters. And I base that on knowing very little about the IPPA, but a good bit about shamsterism.
"It's my ball and I'm going to photo it".

jeannie82

humberklog wrote: »

That could be the only redeeming feature of it.

just out of interest, what do you mean by this?

humberklog

jeannie82 wrote: »

just out of interest, what do you mean by this?

Oh, I don't like Irish trade unions.

ThOnda

I am about to print some window stickers:
"IPPA members not welcome!"
and
"Photography strictly restricted for IPPA members!"

As far as I understand, IPPA has the same value as members of boards.ie or pix.ie when they meet in pub and have one thing common. Apart from that fact that boards.ie and pix.ie members who meet in pubs on regular basis do something positive.

sineadw

Out of curiosity - does it cost much to join the IPPA? Not that I'm considering it Just wondering if they make much on membership fees.

Paulw

sineadw wrote: »

Out of curiosity - does it cost much to join the IPPA? .

€150 per annum.

humberklog

Oh and to join up with Sineads question...who here is a member?

Paulw

humberklog wrote: »

Oh and to join up with Sineads question...who here is a member?

Very good question.

Not I.

DaireQuinlan

sineadw wrote: »

Out of curiosity - does it cost much to join the IPPA? Not that I'm considering it Just wondering if they make much on membership fees.

Oh well, looks like they've gotten to sinead. You know what to do, folks ... (goes off to unfollow sinead in twitter)

sineadw

I'll report the lot of you if you do.

Fenster

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Oh well, looks like they've gotten to sinead. You know what to do, folks ... (goes off to unfollow sinead in twitter)

Who is this 'Sinead' of whom you speak?

humberklog

sineadw wrote: »

I'll report the lot of you if you do.

I'm dangling your Lubutel out of my window (not a euphamism!).

nowst

humberklog wrote: »

Curious question to the OP, what's your connection (if any) with all this? The reason I ask is that it can helpful to have some provenance of the writer and as it was your first post on Boards...well it just got me wondering.

".

Hi,

To answer your question whats my connection to this - im a photographer, non ippa member, who pays his tax, who doesnt pay vat as i dont earn enough

- i came across the Blog post on photographers.ie, replied to it but then received an email from the "moderator/author" that because my post differed to the Author he wouldnt be posting it & "would i like to change my post" - which i refused.

I then assumed the best place to discuss the so called ippa proposal - was in an open forum like boards.

- i do believe the proposed gathering of "lists" has more todo with the author of the blog, than the actions of the IPPA organisation - the license is however an actual proposal of the ippa.

humberklog

nowst wrote: »

Hi,

- i came across the Blog post on photographers.ie, replied to it but then received an email from the "moderator/author" that because my post differed to the Author he wouldnt be posting it & "would i like to change my post" - which i refused.

I then assumed the best place to discuss the so called ippa proposal - was in an open forum like boards.

Fight the power...don't mind them ol' mods:pac:.

Thanks for clearing that up nowst, as you can imagine these sites can attract people with set agendas and what not.

Oh and welcome to Boards.

Ettna

Paulw wrote: »

But you can earn so much additional earnings before you pay tax on it anyway. I'm not sure what the actual figure is, but it's 10-15K??

Many part-time weekend photographers, doing bits and pieces may not even be coming anywhere near that turnover, so have nothing at all to fear.

Anyone, anywhere, has the ability to contact the Revenue and report someone.

This is the IPPA trying to make themselves seem more important than they actually are. They're trying to empower themselves. What a load of utter rubbish and another reason to stay well away from that "association".

There is no additional extra earnings amount. Once you use up your tax free allowances or tax credits etc tax is payable on all earnings after that from either your normal day job or weekend photography. The Revenue are going after everyone they can for more tax at the moment. Nobody is excluded. Maybe you are thinking about registering for VAT. The IPPA are probably having pressure put on them by the Revenue Authorities to ensure their members are compliant.

Buzz Lightyear

I haven't gotten involved in this yet as I've been trying to remember the crowd to tried this amongst tradesmen. I also haven't red through the last 7 pages of tripe either

The National Guild of Master Craftsmen tried this a number of years ago to build up a name and membership to their 'elite master craftsmen'. Joe soap thought that because they were a member of this guild that they were getting a pro and a skilled craftsman. Pure bull****e. I was approached by a rep who didn't even inspect the quality of my work. Just sign here with a discount on insurance for bait. Did I fall for it - no friggin way. The IPPA are trying something similar. Run as fast as you can from a fee grabbing society. Togs will know the story, Joe public will think they are getting quality service, reality anybody can join for a fee !!!!

Chorcai

Dara Robinson wrote: »

tbh I personally did not see it as that big if a deal until I read:

1) Let the revenue do their own work, like someone else said, it could become a double edged sword. Its very easy to cause problems for your competition by reporting them or adding them to a list.

Am I right in saying that, you have the right to know who informed the Revenue ?

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

haha, I have this mental image now of burly IPPA members wandering around the place in pairs, walking into other photographers studios and saying things like

"oo, nice setup you have here. shame if the tax man saw it, eh, eh ?? yeah yeah, lovely L lens there. pay VAT on that did ya ?, here love, why don't you just take out membership in the IPPA, eh ? No worries on the tax front any more if you know what I mean, eh ?, Eh ?? "

PCPhoto wrote: »

why did I read that in a ross o'carroll-kelly style dublin accent.

Funny when I read it I thought of this straight away !!

Paulw

What I find interesting, is that someone who has been doing photography for a while but only this year started to charge/earn has until this Oct to declare this new earnings. So, if the IPPA report them to the Revenue, there is not a whole lot the Revenue can do.

Fenster

Does anyone have a copy of the IPPA newsletter they could forward to me? mark@bhalash.com

I was going to email a whole bunch of bloggers and news outlets...

Valentia

Would you believe that some on Twitter are using this thread as an example of why they avoid Boards? I'd prefer to use it as an example of why I love use Boards. (And it's not because most people agree with me, honestly!)

Come out of the closet you IPPA people, we know you are reading!

As a side note I have asked (on Twitter) the purveyor of the slow light theory if he still goes along with his October blog but all is silent I'm afraid. I promise to bring back any developments though.

Chorcai

feed ?

Valentia

Hungry?

Chorcai

Valentia wrote: »

Hungry?

For a laugh yea !

Thoie

Thoie wrote: »

All I have to do is send Revenue a form to register as self-employed, but I won't have to file anything until next October.

Paulw wrote: »

What I find interesting, is that someone who has been doing photography for a while but only this year started to charge/earn has until this Oct to declare this new earnings. So, if the IPPA report them to the Revenue, there is not a whole lot the Revenue can do.

Just to clarify in case anyone is thinking of starting tomorrow. Step 1 is to register yourself with Revenue. This is free and essentially informs them that you will be earning money, and you'll tell them how much in October. Step 2 is to keep track of all your earnings and outgoings. Step 3 is to file a tax return in October.

Ettna wrote: »

The IPPA are probably having pressure put on them by the Revenue Authorities to ensure their members are compliant.

I can't see how. There are many clubs I can join and pay a fee to - it doesn't mean I'm still working in that field. I could have joined IPPA last year, but then taken up alternative full time PAYE employment since then.

Calina

humberklog wrote: »

Oh and to join up with Sineads question...who here is a member?

This is actually irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. An open discussion on the subject is required; witch-hunting members will not make for an open discussion given the vibe already in the thread. It's clear quite a lot of people disagree with certain aspects of this.

My internet is a tad flaky right now so I don't have too much of the background detail but for the most part - discuss the idea on its merits or lack thereof - and frankly I'm not sure any professional body should also appoint itself Revenue agents - but there's no need to personalise the issue on the basis of who is a member or not.

Paulw

Valentia wrote: »

Would you believe that some on Twitter are using this thread as an example of why they avoid Boards?

Can you post a link? I'm curious to read what is being said.

I'd also love to see a copy of this IPPA newsletter/email, to see exactly what they are saying/asking.

the_syco

Paulw wrote: »

I'd also love to see a copy of this IPPA newsletter

Google says http://www.irishphotographers.com/newsletters.php

Paulw

the_syco wrote: »

Google says http://www.irishphotographers.com/newsletters.php

Nothing there seems to relate to the issues being discussed here. I guess it was a special letter, not posted online.

jeannie82

Paulw wrote: »

Nothing there seems to relate to the issues being discussed here. I guess it was a special letter, not posted online.

It's a blog entry - http://ipws.blogs.com/my_weblog/2010/02/licensed-cowboys-by-dominic-lee.html

I tried commenting a couple of times - politely and respectfully - but the comments are moderated by the author, bit ridiculous.

Paulw

That blog is separate to the IPPA letter that went out. The blog just discusses the proposal to license photography.

jeannie82

Paulw wrote: »

That blog is separate to the IPPA letter that went out. The blog just discusses the proposal to license photography.

Sorry I'm confused - an IPPA letter re. licences or whistleblowing?

Paulw

jeannie82 wrote: »

Sorry I'm confused - an IPPA letter re. licences or whistleblowing?

I'm not sure, since I'm not an IPPA member and haven't seen the letter/notice.

Paulw

I guess there are really two big issues -

1) An association reporting people to the Revenue, with no knowledge at all if that person is tax compliant or not.

Well, it's simple - anyone doing photography for profit should be declaring their earnings. Nothing at all complex in that, and if you earn relatively little then you have nothing to worry about. I don't earn enough to have to register for VAT and what I do earn is very simple to declare. So, in that respect I'm not worried at all. It's easy enough, as Thonda posted, to declare your extra earnings. You just need to remember each year to declare these earnings in Oct.

If you start earning today (or since last Oct), you just need to declare it in Oct. In fact, I think you can also declare last year's too (with a small penalty).

If you are earning a good bit from photography, and are not declaring it, then, of course, you have reason to be scared, and you really need to get your act together and declare your earnings.

At the same time, what gives the IPPA (or it's members) the right to make accusations against people, without knowing if someone is compliant or not? I know some people locally who advertise in local shops/papers, who may or may not be tax compliant, but that is up to the Revenue to sort out.



2) Licensing of photography.


With licensing of photography, that whole idea is absurd. It's impossible to bring in. It would require many changes in law to start with.

There are many photographic associations in Ireland/Europe. I'm a member of some - SWPP, SISLP, ASJI, AIPS, to name but some of the associations. Each of those has some benefit to me. I'm not a member of IPPA and can see no logical reason at all as to why I would want to join.

I've had a good read today of a number of tweets. It seems that many "professional" photographers, members of IPPA, are not making the same money they got used to. Well, tough! That's business. Photography, by and large, is a luxury item. It's only natural for people to spend less on photography when times are tough. People can buy their own DSLR now for what some studios charge for a shoot and some prints. It's time that these "professionals" realised that there is an open market. Someone can go out today, buy a camera, take some picts, have them printed, sell them, and still come out cheaper than paying for a studio shoot.

From reading, it seems that the IPPA is geared towards full-time professional photographers. This is similar to the NUJ. More and more, people are trying to suppliment their normal income with a little extra gained from photography (like myself). I don't do what I do to make extra money. I do it to pay for my photography itself (to enjoy the photography, to pay for my insurance, professional fees, membership fees, etc). If I earn above that, then it's a bonus. I haven't even bought any camera equipment with what I earn from photography. My camera gear is paid for by my day job.

I don't go out to undercut anyone. But, I also don't believe in fixing market prices. It's a free market. People can charge as much, or as little, as they like. (I'll continue to state that I don't believe in free though.)

I see people, so called "professionals", who produce average work, yet want to charge high end prices. I also see weekend/hobby photographers who produce stunning work, but charge very little. If people want to make money, they need to produce the goods. If you have a niche or can produce quality work, then I think you can charge what you like. If the IPPA or "professionals" don't like that, then it is time they woke up to reality.


I think it would be totally impossible to license photography, never mind who would be responsible, what criteria would be used, how it would be maintained, how it would be regulated, etc.

Sorry for the very long post, but this whole idea stinks.

Chorcai

jeannie82 wrote: »

Sorry I'm confused - an IPPA letter re. licences or whistleblowing?

We are looking for the Twitter links

Valentia

I don't know how to post twitter links. You need to be on twitter and following people in order to see what they are saying as far as I know. I picked up a few new IPPA followers yesterday

DaireQuinlan

Valentia wrote: »

I don't know how to post twitter links. You need to be on twitter and following people in order to see what they are saying as far as I know. I picked up a few new IPPA followers yesterday

Not if the feed has been made public.

Here's the public twitter feed of Dominic Lee / priorystudios for example, the author of that original blog post.

http://twitter.com/priorystudios

PaulieC

if you have to have a license, do they give you a badge and leather wallet to hold it in?

"calm down ma'am, I'm a photographer" he said, flipping open his wallet and showing the badge, which glistened in the light

pretty pathetic if you ask me

Paulw

cambo_gueno wrote: »

if you have to have a license, do they give you a badge and leather wallet to hold it in?

"calm down ma'am, I'm a photographer" he said, flipping open his wallet and showing the badge, which glistened in the light

Priceless !!!!!

pullandbang

I'm thinking of joining the CIPPA (Continuity...) Hope I don't fall out with you lot of cowboys

Fenster

I'm not narrow-minded. I just ignore everything.

Valentia

<snip>


There are some excellent photographers in the IPPA too to be fair.

Notice my number of followers has dropped in the last hour. Interesting how some debate, isn't it? They are usually the same people that accuse others of not seeing the other side of the story and imagine every criticism is aimed at them. Ah well! C'est la vie.

jeannie82

Valentia wrote: »

There are some excellent photographers in the IPPA too to be fair.

Absolutely, but being a member doesn't make the IPPA photographers superior to non members.

Valentia

Could you explain what has happened to the posts and why please Darragh? My snip above has removed comments that did not require reference to the deleted post.

Have the IPPA made representations? If so I'd be a bit concerned about our right to say what we want here. I can't remember anything, thought critical, that could have been considered anything but fair comment. Is boards being directed by exterior influences like??

If so we may as well shut up shop.

DaireQuinlan

Valentia wrote: »

Could you explain what has happened to the posts and why please Darragh? My snip above has removed comments that did not require reference to the deleted post.

Have the IPPA made representations? If so I'd be a bit concerned about our right to say what we want here. I can't remember anything, thought critical, that could have been considered anything but fair comment. Is boards being directed by exterior influences like??

In fairness, I didn't expect those specific posts to last for long. There was an element of personal abuse creeping in that I thought was a little unsavoury TBH. I would imagine that the photographer in question asked for the references to be deleted. I don't entirely agree with the thoroughness with which it was done but I'd imagine that's the reasoning behind it.

Valentia

I agree with you Daire but my comment about the poor quality of a number of IPPA members was also removed. It was a separate paragraph and unrelated to the previous posters comment. I purposefully made that very clear at tha time.

I would dearly love to post some pretty dramatic examples but I do not want to personalise this. My main argument is that the IPPA aspire to convey to the public that being a member of their organisation is in some way a guarantee of quality and more when this is patently not the case.

For an organisation like this to suggest that their members submit to them a list of people working as photographers so that that list can be submitted to the revenue is beyond absurd. I was only half joking about IMRO earlier. How do they know that all their own members are completely tax compliant. Do they insist on a tax clearance cert before allowing membership for example? Do they have an arrangement with IMRO for members to use copyright music without payment? Etc etc etc.....