License for photographers !

Chorcai

I'm a little lost now, lets say I apply for an IPPA award, can I get an award even thou I'm not a "pro" ? Would I have to show I am tax cleared even as an amature/hobbie?

nonsequitir

Chorcai wrote: »

I'm a little lost now, lets say I apply for an IPPA award, can I get an award even thou I'm not a "pro" ? Would I have to show I am tax cleared even as an amature/hobbie?

I think you need to be a member of an IPF affiliated club to submit a panel of images for one of the licentiateship ('L'), associateship ('A') or fellowship ('F') levels available. No tax clearance is necessary - well, unless some real nonsense results in the outcome from this licensing push.

MartMax

In my earlier post I said IPPA is not a regulatory body or an organisation that represents all pros in this industry. Unless this is who they want to be. Correct me again if I'm wrong.

If it wants to govern, go ahead but regulate their own members not everyone in the business. Its beyond its charter or objectives - I can't find where these are on their website. Link me the page if there was one.

Do they know are or just being ignorant it's Irish tax system that is a self-assessment system. Fair enough one should be vigilant when dealing with dogdy tax or VAT practice but it's not a bounty hunter organisation chasing and hunting legal tax criminals or non-compliants. For that matter, Revenue Commissioners have their own team and Garda with CAB to do these jobs.

Just my own opinion.

DaireQuinlan

nonsequitir wrote: »

I think you need to be a member of an IPF affiliated club to submit a panel of images for one of the licentiateship ('L'), associateship ('A') or fellowship ('F') levels available. No tax clearance is necessary - well, unless some real nonsense results in the outcome from this licensing push.

And AFAIK the IPF has nothing to do with the IPPA anyway, right ?

Valentia

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

And AFAIK the IPF has nothing to do with the IPPA anyway, right ?

That's correct.

Cameraman

Chorcai wrote: »

I'm a little lost now, lets say I apply for an IPPA award, can I get an award even thou I'm not a "pro" ? Would I have to show I am tax cleared even as an amature/hobbie?

No - but you would have to be an IPPA member (and can't join, as an amateur/hobbyist)

Membership criteria are here :

http://www.irishphotographers.com/join.php

Summary is : Be a full-time professional photographer and submit a panel of photos (+pay their fees).Their definition of 'professional' is earn 100% of income from photography.

Incidentally, you can also view samples of work there and make your own judgement on 'quality'. Do take into account that when you're working for payment, the likes and dislikes of your client also matter - not just your own ideas, and so comprimises are often necessary.

Re the oft-quoted blog post on IPWS (by Dominic Lee) - he says on Twitter that he is not an IPPA member.

My own view is that at best I could support some sort of 'Business License' as exists in many countries. This has nothing to do with photography, as such, or any other particular business - and should not IMO have such a narrow focus. It would be worth a more general debate. I would strongly oppose any single body deciding who should or should not earn a living as a photographer.

Regarding the IPPA - of course they are self-appointed, with one of their functions being to look after their member's interests. I have no problem with that, provided it's done transparently. I'm sure many here are member of unions, professional bodies, pressure groups even camera clubs ! All perform some of the same sort of things as the IPPA. The problems arise when they try to extend their influence over non-members or people who disagree with them.

Cameraman

MartMax wrote: »

In my earlier post I said IPPA is not a regulatory body or an organisation that represents all pros in this industry. Unless this is who they want to be. Correct me again if I'm wrong.

If it wants to govern, go ahead but regulate their own members not everyone in the business. Its beyond its charter or objectives - I can't find where these are on their website. Link me the page if there was one.

This is the closest I can find :

http://www.irishphotographers.com/about.php

The 'Code of Ethics' and 'Best Business practices' are linked on the same page.

CabanSail

The IPPA & IPF are completely seperate organisations.

To quote from the IPPA Website;

Only full-time practising professional photographers should apply for membership. In order to be considered for FULL membership an Applicant must achieve the Licentiate Qualification of the Association and successfully complete the IPPA Orientation programme. Licentiateship is the first level of qualification within the IPPA and shows the photographer to be a qualified professional person.

Joining is only open to those earning their living from Photography. No evaluation of competence or quality is undertaken. That is done via their distinctions which start with the Licentiate.

Anyone can join the IPF but most do so as members of a Club. Non IPF Members can get IPF distinctions, just that the fees are a bit higher.

DaireQuinlan

Cameraman wrote: »

This is the closest I can find :

http://www.irishphotographers.com/about.php

The 'Code of Ethics' and 'Best Business practices' are linked on the same page.

ahHa, there's a cunning loophole in their code of ethics ....

"To always be courteous and professional in my dealings with customers & clients, suppliers, fellow IPPA members, and the general public, in the carrying out of assignments, and in the running of my business. "

No word there about being courteous and professional to other photographers who aren't a member of the IPPA

Covey

Coming to this late, but reading through the whole thing and I'm struck by the ability to turn a great idea into a farcical one.

A license is of course nonsensical and you simply can't exclude competition. But the IPPA and photographers in general could indeed do with a more professional approach to the profession. This however would involve a far broader approach than ratting on people you perceive to be eroding your income.

Rather than attack those who ligitimally operate on the fringes, the IPPA should be out there differentiating itself on a numbers of levels, qualification, product, pricing, flexibility etc.

If photographers want to be seen as a profession, similar to accountants, electricians or whatever then they need to formalise what a "professional photographer" means. The heart of any profession is learning and qualification and this is singularily missing in the photography industry. I would suspect that if a formal qualification was neccessary for membership this would exclude most of those who class themselves as "professional photographers" in Ireland today.

Standards are also poor in the industry from what I can see and yes there are some exceptions. Studios are often shabby, cobbled together places, lacking in any inspiration or diversity. Photography is often bland with very little differentiation between one photographer and the next. Portraiture doesn't have to be studio based. How about parks, beaches, mountains etc. Why do most wedding albums look the same? for instance.

I'm sick of hearing photographers complain about the industry and at the same time show no business acumen, marketing skills etc. The model seems to be one that restricts rather than expands. Do photographers invest in business training at all? Do they hire business consultants to look at their business, I suspect not. I'm sure I could turn any photo business around if given the chance, because thats my skill !

How many photographers go out and compete with the elements that they complain about. Do they work with the "low cost" elements that will always exist? It's emminently possible!

Do photographers teach, train, operate apprenticships/internships etc? Do they embrace the tourist industry? There are dozens of opportunities, that as far as I can see photographers do not want to get involved in. I don't recall seeing one photographer work hand in hand with building developers during the building boom, for instance!

There are dozens of ways to proactively improve your business but here isn't the place to outline them. For the cost of one wedding you could sort out your business, but I've no doubt that people would prefer to moan than spend the money !

This is a very negative and unproductive response on behalf of professional photographers. Indeed a very unprofessional way to go about things.

ihastakephoto

well said that man

smelltheglove

Well said Covey, marketing is a very important factor in the building of your business.

Thoie

Covey wrote: »

...

Rather than attack those who ligitimally operate on the fringes, the IPPA should be out there differentiating itself on a numbers of levels, qualification, product, pricing, flexibility etc.

If photographers want to be seen as a profession, similar to accountants, electricians or whatever then they need to formalise what a "professional photographer" means. The heart of any profession is learning and qualification and this is singularily missing in the photography industry. I would suspect that if a formal qualification was neccessary for membership this would exclude most of those who class themselves as "professional photographers" in Ireland today.

One of the problems with photography (leading back to the "artistic" discussions") is that it's difficult to examine. An accountant can either add 2+2 or they can't. An electrician can either wire a plug or he can't. Pretty much anyone can take a photo - whether it's a good photo or not can be quite subjective.

Covey wrote: »

Standards are also poor in the industry from what I can see and yes there are some exceptions. Studios are often shabby, cobbled together places, lacking in any inspiration or diversity. Photography is often bland with very little differentiation between one photographer and the next. Portraiture doesn't have to be studio based. How about parks, beaches, mountains etc. Why do most wedding albums look the same? for instance.

This usually comes about from people trying to cut corners. There are certain "norms" (sink, chairs, mirrors) when it comes to setting up a hairdressers, and even with that I've seen hairdressers in buildings you'd think were condemned. Very few photographers (none that I'm aware of) purpose build a studio putting thought into things like storage, waiting areas, displays. Creating that kind of setup would need a lot of starting capital, which photography doesn't lend itself to.

Covey wrote: »

I'm sick of hearing photographers complain about the industry and at the same time show no business acumen, marketing skills etc. The model seems to be one that restricts rather than expands. Do photographers invest in business training at all? Do they hire business consultants to look at their business, I suspect not. I'm sure I could turn any photo business around if given the chance, because thats my skill !

I'm guessing that the kind of people who "just want to take great photos" won't sit there and make business plans, draw up proposals, fiddle with spreadsheets and spend more time on the business and marketing side. There are obviously some that do, I can think of a few regulars here, but you hear a lot of photographers saying "I had to pick up time management/learn about marketing as I went along"

Covey wrote: »

Do photographers teach, train, operate apprenticships/internships etc?

Some do, but it's all quite informal. You can teach someone certain rules, you can teach them about how the camera works, how light works, but I'm living proof that you can't teach someone how to take a good photo - all you can do is offer critique.

Covey wrote: »

This is a very negative and unproductive response on behalf of professional photographers. Indeed a very unprofessional way to go about things.

Fully agree, but I'm not sure what the right response is. Perhaps the IPPA needs to examine their "Best Business Practises" (some of which aren't relevant, and there's at least one glaring omission in there) and concentrate on helping teach their members some of the skills needed to carry those out. They mention training seminars and business lectures, but a lot of their focus seems to be on networking, exhibits and other promotion.

Covey

Thoie, I think your answer supports the point I was trying to make. Rather than be a professional industry it's rife with cutting corners at every opportunity and most unprofessional. So much so that every Tom Dick and Harry says, I could that and has a go. In a lot of cases they are right as low standards are easy to meet.

Buckz

there are 2 types of licence- qualifications ones such as a driving licence or practising licence for a profession generally requiring you to demonstrate ability ro get them and can be lost for showing lack of ability. And then there are licences to generate cash that anyone can get- Tv license, dog licence. The IPPA should create the former, but have tey created the latter. some of the training that is available is aimed at making chancers look credible- 2 of the 'togs who quoted for my wedding were a great example of this- first guy, brilliant portfolio- stunning bride in a beautiful dress, dashing groom, well posed, beautiful backdrop perfect light, interesting side shots of the car, champagne glasses etc(feel free to buzz in when you get it). Second guy, beautiful bride, dashing groom, same poses, similar backdrop, same interesting side shots. They went on a wedding portfolio shoot- (available in Dublin google it!). Either portfolio was a winner I was completely fooled by the first guy (should've been suspicious that his entire portfolio was one wedding.) the purpose of the course is to deceive the customer- if you get two models, dress tem, light them, pose them, how can I miss?It would be nice if the pros were trained or qualified, but photography is an art and subjective, and if selling portfolios to raw beginners and chancers is a viable business I think any qualification will be circumvented.

Paulw

I wonder what the NUJ, ASJI or PPAI would think about the idea.

Maybe IPPA just want to license wedding/portrait photography?

democrates

Paulw wrote: »

I wonder what the NUJ, ASJI or PPAI would think about the idea.

I'd say they'd like a way to restrict, their employers/customers are getting free photos from the public of increasing standard.

Paulw wrote: »

Maybe IPPA just want to license wedding/portrait photography?

Lol, release the hounds...

smelltheglove

Buckz wrote: »

The IPPA should create the former, but have tey created the latter. some of the training that is available is aimed at making chancers look credible- 2 of the 'togs who quoted for my wedding were a great example of this- first guy, brilliant portfolio- stunning bride in a beautiful dress, dashing groom, well posed, beautiful backdrop perfect light, interesting side shots of the car, champagne glasses etc(feel free to buzz in when you get it). Second guy, beautiful bride, dashing groom, same poses, similar backdrop, same interesting side shots. They went on a wedding portfolio shoot- (available in Dublin google it!). Either portfolio was a winner I was completely fooled by the first guy (should've been suspicious that his entire portfolio was one wedding.) the purpose of the course is to deceive the customer- if you get two models, dress tem, light them, pose them, how can I miss?It would be nice if the pros were trained or qualified, but photography is an art and subjective, and if selling portfolios to raw beginners and chancers is a viable business I think any qualification will be circumvented.

I've seen that quite a lot, there are lots of photography sites where the sample gallery only has one wedding, and also seems to lack a full bridal party and guests, another tell tale of wedding portfolio shoot. I am sure it would be a lot easier to take a perfecct side car shot if you had someone instructing the driver exactly where to park and angle the car and have the couple posed perfectly without worrying about following a tight schedule, never mind dealing with inexperienced models.

I think a true professional should display samples of numerous weddings and be forthcoming if a couple ask to view a full wedding start to finish.

pullandbang

Thoie wrote: »

An accountant can either add 2+2 or they can't.

Most accountants hired by the super rich can add 2+2 and come up with something different to the rest of us - we've seen plenty of that come to the fore since the demise of the Celtic Tiger.

mikeanywhere

smelltheglove wrote: »

I think a true professional should display samples of numerous weddings and be forthcoming if a couple ask to view a full wedding start to finish.

This should be taken as standard and not by request.

Valentia

Regarding quality being subjective, that's true up to a point.

Some of the "professional" photography that I have seen, not just from IPPA members, is simply awful. Poles or fountains sticking/gushing out of peoples heads, colour casts, grossly unflattering poses, harsh unsuitable lighting, extraneous objects in the shot, poorly composed images and having no concept of how to set up a group are just some of the unforgivable things I see regularly. How some get away with it is a mystery. I often wonder if they realise how dire their work is.

The difference with it being an IPPA member is that that organisation portrays itself as having standards thereby giving prospective clients a false impression.

The example given earlier of the "set up" wedding is ok in so far as training goes but photographers should not be allowed use the shots in their own portfolio.

The IPPA doesn't seem to have changed a jot in the 25 years since my brief membership.

Cameraman

Valentia wrote: »

Regarding quality being subjective, that's true up to a point.

Some of the "professional" photography that I have seen, not just from IPPA members, is simply awful. Poles or fountains sticking/gushing out of peoples heads, colour casts, grossly unflattering poses, harsh unsuitable lighting, extraneous objects in the shot, poorly composed images and having no concept of how to set up a group are just some of the unforgivable things I see regularly. How some get away with it is a mystery. I often wonder if they realise how dire their work is.

The thing is - obviously their clients don't realise it either. Otherwise, why would they use them

Valentia

Cameraman wrote: »

The thing is - obviously their clients don't realise it either. Otherwise, why would they use them

It's not confusing at all. Some people just see themselves in a photo and have no concept of what a good photo is. Harsh but I can assure you true. Another problem is that friends are never prepared to tell the bride and groom that their photos are crap.

In most cases you will find that the type of photographers I mention aren't snowed under with work. And probably can't figure out why.

Cameraman

Valentia wrote: »

It's not confusing at all. Some people just see themselves in a photo and have no concept of what a good photo is. Harsh but I can assure you true. Another problem is that friends are never prepared to tell the bride and groom that their photos are crap.

In most cases you will find that the type of photographers I mention aren't snowed under with work. And probably can't figure out why.

I'm actually agreeing with you. I have often seen people raving about photos (sadly, even mine sometimes ) that I wouldn't have rated very highly.

Darragh

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??

If so we may as well shut up shop.

Valentia, sorry about the delay in getting back to you.

I snipped those posts because I felt they were made as personal attacks with no opportunity for the subjects to respond. I know I wouldn't want my twitter account linked to on here, and certainly wouldn't want to read that my work was "mediocre at best" or that I was "technically competent enough to be a professional but lacking talent" without having invited the criticism or having an open channel to defend myself. Yes, you can say they can register to join, but would you? Even I'd find it daunting.

The IPPA have not officially made respresentations, no. But the post is about the issue and not their members. The comments being made are neither relevant or constructive to the conversation and only serve to alienate people and propogate the Us vs Them idea. That's not the Boards.ie I'm part of - is it the one you think this is?

I'm reliably told that IPPA members have no say in council decisions or the way the organisation is run. So why should they take the blame for what's happening or have their expertise questioned in an issue that isn't about them?

Darragh

I should also point out that if any IPPA council member would like to make an official reply to this thread, to respond or to make a statement, they are most welcome to.

Drop me a line at hello@boards.ie and I'll help facilitate that for you - as long as you understand that it's a conversation and you should be open to discussion on the issue, like Boards.ie members are.

Thanks

Darragh

DaireQuinlan

Darragh wrote: »

I snipped those posts because I felt they were made as personal attacks with no opportunity for the subjects to respons. I know I wouldn't want my twitter account linked to on here, ... <snip>

I agree with the first part, and those parts of the posts certainly should have been snipped (well ideally never written in the first place but what can you do). However, a twitter stream, if the user wishes, is publicly accessible. I would view linking a public twitter stream to be exactly the same as linking a blog or website. Now the photographer in question has chosen to make the stream private which I guess is her perogative. If I was in a similar situation I would stand by what I previously said on a public forum but people differ in their approaches to these things I suppose.

Valentia

Darragh wrote: »

Valentia, sorry about the delay in getting back to you.

I snipped those posts because I felt they were made as personal attacks with no opportunity for the subjects to respond. I know I wouldn't want my twitter account linked to on here, and certainly wouldn't want to read that my work was "mediocre at best" or that I was "technically competent enough to be a professional but lacking talent" without having invited the criticism or having an open channel to defend myself. Yes, you can say they can register to join, but would you? Even I'd find it daunting.

The IPPA have not officially made respresentations, no. But the post is about the issue and not their members. The comments being made are neither relevant or constructive to the conversation and only serve to alienate people and propogate the Us vs Them idea. That's not the Boards.ie I'm part of - is it the one you think this is?

I'm reliably told that IPPA members have no say in council decisions or the way the organisation is run. So why should they take the blame for what's happening or have their expertise questioned in an issue that isn't about them?

My link was to a public statement making uncomplimentary comments about people I know on this forum. I would consider it very inappropriate to edit out information that is in the public domain. At no point did I make any personal comments about anybody. I made that absolutely clear in my reference to the bad standards I was referring to. The whole point I'm making is the substandard work of some members of an organisation that likes to portray itself as a protector of standards.

Twitter is a public forum and it's a pretty draconian stance to edit out references to it.

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. Is there some sort of dictatorship within the IPPA with the members doing as they are told? Don't they have AGMs where members can put motions etc? I very much doubt it that members have no way of influencing policy. Who in their right mind would want to be a member of such an organisation? This whole idea of a "list for the revenue" surely originated from disgruntled members?

There certainly were incorrectly attributed comments in this thread but I don't remember any specific photographers being singled out re. their work. Tempting and all as that is.

Paulw

Valentia wrote: »

My link was to a public statement making uncomplimentary comments about people I know on this forum. I would consider it very inappropriate to edit out information that is in the public domain. At no point did I make any personal comments about anybody. I made that absolutely clear in my reference to the bad standards I was referring to. The whole point I'm making is the substandard work of some members of an organisation that likes to portray itself as a protector of standards.

Twitter is a public forum and it's a pretty draconian stance to edit out references to it.

I have to totally agree. The posts on boards about comments on Twitter are just as valid as the posts on twitter about comments on boards. Or are you now going to ask Twitter to remove those posts??? I think that "moderation" or rather censorship was totally OTT.

If people (on twitter or anywhere else) want to respond, they are more than welcome to join here and comment, in the same way that posters here can join Twitter and respond there.

And with reference to people's view on photography, I thought that was the whole point of the photography section - what's good, what's bad, what's average, etc.

Surely anything posted on the internet is open for comment?

higgins2010

Try to remember that the IPPA at one stage was just a bunch of togs whom started a pro society, in my opinion its just a bunch of friends who get together and pat each other on the back and probably say something like "ah you beat me this year but ill get you next year".

tiffmister

higgins2010 wrote: »

Try to remember that the IPPA at one stage was just a bunch of togs whom started a pro society, in my opinion its just a bunch of friends who get together and pat each other on the back and probably say something like "ah you beat me this year but ill get you next year".

mmmm the IPPA what an interesting organization. Its just one big CLICK you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours "wink wink", the only qualification you actually need as a photographer is the satisfaction when a happy customer is in love with the picture you took of either them or there siblings.

Why don't they run for government as well and keep all the gangsters in one room.

Valentia

Can we take it then that editing out "fair comment" is now acceptable Boards policy?

K_user

tiffmister wrote: »

mmmm the IPPA what an interesting organization. Its just one big CLICK you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours "wink wink", the only qualification you actually need as a photographer is the satisfaction when a happy customer is in love with the picture you took of either them or there siblings.

Why don't they run for government as well and keep all the gangsters in one room.

I'm sure that there are many fine members of the IPPA.
And I'm sure that the "leaders that be" are trying their best to protect their members.

But...there is always a right and wrong way to do things. And trying to crush or bully those that don't join you...well...

Valentia

Sorry for digging this up (well not really) but I think it's important to get clarification on the points that I raised. Mainly: are posts going to be edited on a whim or on external influences. There were points made by me that were deleted. They were not personal and were relevant. Critical yes but we are allowed to criticise? Aren't we? I have already asked for clarification on why my comments were deleted but have had no reply.

This is kind of important to me. I have seen on other parts of the interweb (mainly Twitter) that there has been contact between people, not on boards, but connected with the IPPA and other professional photographers that seems to have influenced the direction that this thread was taken. Needless to say this method of administering a forum would not be acceptable to many people.

kensutz

Agreed

Darragh

Valentia wrote: »

Sorry for digging this up (well not really) but I think it's important to get clarification on the points that I raised. Mainly: are posts going to be edited on a whim or on external influences. There were points made by me that were deleted. They were not personal and were relevant. Critical yes but we are allowed to criticise? Aren't we? I have already asked for clarification on why my comments were deleted but have had no reply.

This is kind of important to me. I have seen on other parts of the interweb (mainly Twitter) that there has been contact between people, not on boards, but connected with the IPPA and other professional photographers that seems to have influenced the direction that this thread was taken. Needless to say this method of administering a forum would not be acceptable to many people.

Hi Valentia, sorry about the delay in replying to you.

Reviewing the thread, I did the following about what you had posted:

Deleted one post that was (a) linking to someone's twitter account and to what someone had said. As I said above, I didn't feel it was fair to do this, especially when they didn't have an opportunity to participate or respond, and (b) I didn't feel that what other people were saying about the conversation was relevant to the discussion as a whole. This was about the issue, not about the people, who, to be fair to them, are not official IPPA representatives, who this thread was about.

Your comment in this post included the phrase

Dear God. Some it is absolutely atrocious. The membership criteria obviously does not include competence.

again was not, in my opinion, relevant to the conversation, and could have been seen as trolling in a way - not constructive to the conversation, not given with the opportunity for the people you were talking about to respond, AND, in my opinion, could be seen to be made because you knew that people on twitter were reading the thread and designed to provoke a negative response from them. I'm not saying this is what you did, I'm saying it looked like that, and so, to avoid any accusations, I removed the comment.

The other post of yours that I snipped was simply removing a quoted post/comment made by another poster - I left what you said exactly as you said it - who again, could have been accused of posting what they did for those people looking in from twitter - where they went into how this person's photos were "mediocre" and how they were "technically competent enough to be a professional but lacking talent". Again, with no opportunity for this person to comment, and it not being constructive towards the conversation about the *issue* at hand, as well as leaving both member and us open to legal action (I had to deal with solicitors over this) I deleted it.

The point here is that people simply cannot go making intentionally damaging and derogatory comments about other people's livelihood or whatever, while hiding behind a username on Boards.ie and expect to be protected by us.

I'm not saying that's what's happening here, I'm saying it could be seen that it looks that way. We don't do this. These are our legal guidelines. We have very strict policies on this.

Mainly: are posts going to be edited on a whim or on external influences.

There is always a reason to edit/snip/delete posts - mostly to avoid legal action. It is mostly done with moderator knowledge (where time permits) but there are times that Dav and I have to take action immediately.

If by "external influences" you mean "legal action by companies/individuals/organisations", then YES, yes we have to. We also do it if we think the comments are way off the mark and could lead to legal action. Do you think we shouldn't do this?

In this case, I removed ONE comment of yours - as above - and the post you had quoted from someone else. Nothing else.

I also think that it's one of the only times I've ever had to do that in the Photography forum, because of the personal nature of the comments. It's not something I generally do, because, as said by Paulw above

with reference to people's view on photography, I thought that was the whole point of the photography section - what's good, what's bad, what's average, etc.

There were points made by me that were deleted.

There were no "points" deleted, in my opinion. There was a comment on the work of IIPA members, that was not even part of or relevant to the main discussion which is about the photography license.

They were not personal and were relevant.

We'll have to disagree on that. Given the fact that you knew people were looking at the thread, my point above about what you could have been accused of stands.

Critical yes but we are allowed to criticise? Aren't we?

Yes, if it's kept about the work and not about people, of course. Would you appreciate it being said about you? Not your work, but you.

I have already asked for clarification on why my comments were deleted but have had no reply.

Apologies, I've been extremely busy. I was PM'd about this earlier. I'd had no direct contact about it beforehand. There are 1,340 forums on Boards.ie as well as all the members we have to contact since the incident in January. That's not an excuse, it's just a reason.

This is kind of important to me. I have seen on other parts of the interweb (mainly Twitter) that there has been contact between people, not on boards, but connected with the IPPA and other professional photographers that seems to have influenced the direction that this thread was taken. Needless to say this method of administering a forum would not be acceptable to many people.

This was not what happened. I was emailed to ask if this fit in with our guidelines (I think I've explained why it doesn't) and then followed up with contact from a solicitor. That's why this action was taken.

Other than emails from someone who felt their livelihood was being degraded (which, is, as far as I'm aware, illegal) and the solicitors, I've had no contact, directly or indirectly from anyone from the IPPA and, if I had, I'd have informed the moderators at the very least.

I trust this clears that up?

Darragh

Paulw wrote: »

I have to totally agree. The posts on boards about comments on Twitter are just as valid as the posts on twitter about comments on boards. Or are you now going to ask Twitter to remove those posts??? I think that "moderation" or rather censorship was totally OTT.

If people (on twitter or anywhere else) want to respond, they are more than welcome to join here and comment, in the same way that posters here can join Twitter and respond there.

And with reference to people's view on photography, I thought that was the whole point of the photography section - what's good, what's bad, what's average, etc.

Surely anything posted on the internet is open for comment?

Sorry about the delay in responding to this one as well.

The posts on boards about comments on Twitter are just as valid as the posts on twitter about comments on boards. Or are you now going to ask Twitter to remove those posts??? I think that "moderation" or rather censorship was totally OTT.

The point here, simply, is that we're not responsible - LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE - for the comments made on twitter. We are for those on Boards.ie. If you feel that me removing 4 posts that were not relevant to the conversation, were degrading other people's work with no opportunity for them to respond and left both us and the poster open to legal threats (at the very least) is "Censorship" that is "totally OTT", then so be it.

I'm in a tricky situation here folks. I have to work to keep the forum open to criticism and fair comment but within legal guidelines. No legal guidelines, no forum. Simple as that.

If people (on twitter or anywhere else) want to respond, they are more than welcome to join here and comment, in the same way that posters here can join Twitter and respond there.

True that, but would you join to defend yourself, especially if you felt it was a hostile environment where people just wanted to criticise you, rather than the organisation you happened you be a part of, but had no decision making authority in?

People shouldn't have to join Boards.ie to defend themselves, they should join because they want to.

Surely anything posted on the internet is open for comment?

As long as it's within the law, it's not libellous, defamatory or specifically designed to cause offence, then yes. It's also though about playing the ball, not playing the player.

Is that fair enough or am I way off the mark here?

Valentia

If you could PM me my deleted posts I'd appreciate it Darragh. Thanks.

Darragh

Sure thing, will do

Paulw

Darragh wrote: »

Sorry about the delay in responding to this one as well.

No worries. Even if you did reply, I'd only see it now anyway. The joy of being the other side of the world with minimal internet access.

Darragh wrote: »

True that, but would you join to defend yourself, especially if you felt it was a hostile environment where people just wanted to criticise you, rather than the organisation you happened you be a part of, but had no decision making authority in?

Actually, I would, and have done in the past, especially to depend myself.

As has been said before, by others, I can't believe that members have no influence at all on decisions made in the IPPA.

Darragh wrote: »

As long as it's within the law, it's not libellous, defamatory or specifically designed to cause offence, then yes.

Is that fair enough or am I way off the mark here?

I've never heard of making a comment on the quality of someone's work being libellous, especially a comment by a peer. The comment was on the photography, not about the person.

smelltheglove

Can I ask, are IPPA members actively seeking photographers who do not pay taxes?

Reason being I have been approached in work by individuals who I suspect are photographers, because of wide knowledge of photography and equipment, often behaving like they are merely makingenquiries but ending the conversation asking do I pay my taxes and asking for a business card! I never question, I always answer the queries put to me but often have the feeling that they are hiding something. The clientelle my location attracts are mainly elderly people looking for restoration or people with young kids so when a middle aged man alone asks a diversity of questios along with querying taxes it really makes me wonder!

By the way, I do pay taxes and I do hand over my business card because I have nothing to hide! My location is in a city centre indoor Market .

democrates

smelltheglove wrote: »

Can I ask, are IPPA members actively seeking photographers who do not pay taxes?

Reason being I have been approached in work by individuals who I suspect are photographers, because of wide knowledge of photography and equipment, often behaving like they are merely makingenquiries but ending the conversation asking do I pay my taxes and asking for a business card! I never question, I always answer the queries put to me but often have the feeling that they are hiding something. The clientelle my location attracts are mainly elderly people looking for restoration or people with young kids so when a middle aged man alone asks a diversity of questios along with querying taxes it really makes me wonder!

By the way, I do pay taxes and I do hand over my business card because I have nothing to hide! My location is in a city centre indoor Market .

Could have been from the Revenue Commissioners or a body that requires C2 cert from suppliers, but that line of questioning sticks out alright.

The whole idea is stupid, for starters time spent trying to catch tax cheats is time not spent chasing photography work. Even if they catch someone who then gets a corrective tax bill, that person is hardly going to give up photography, more likely they'll clean up their act and compete harder for honest work...

smelltheglove

As a self employed photographer do I need to have a c2 cert/card though? I mean I work for myself, I don't sub contract or anything.

Its happened a few times in the last few weeks. One guy actually then told me he was a photographer and asked did I need an assistant etc. The market I work in is inner city, there are very few people coming in and out of there alone who are not locals, even fewer middle aged men, most are generally looking for their bargains. My main area is restoration and kids shots so it is highly unusual for me to be apporached by any men at all, in fact the only men really that come to me are travellers bringing their kids in for pictures so it is a bit suspect when I get in depth questions on my business.

I generally follow a few things, I am always nice and curteous, I am always forthcoming with information asked i.e. lighting, camera bodys, printing, usually one of the first questions would be where I get my canvasses printed, when it comes to enquiring about costs i.e. rent I basically fob it off, tell them there are more costs to photography than meets the eye or something small to avoid being rude and always say yes I am insured and yes I do my taxes. If they take my card and want to go check it out for themselves fair enough, but it is irritating, I'd say in the last 6 weeks I have had this 3 or 4 times and at the end of the day my time would be better spent doing some work rather than answering questions of someone who is trying to catch me out in the hope that I am not legit.

Tactical

smelltheglove wrote: »

As a self employed photographer do I need to have a c2 cert/card though? I mean I work for myself, I don't sub contract or anything.

Usually only required for a government or county council or city corporation work. Definately unusual to be required for private work.

smelltheglove wrote: »

I'd say in the last 6 weeks I have had this 3 or 4 times and at the end of the day my time would be better spent doing some work rather than answering questions of someone who is trying to catch me out in the hope that I am not legit.

Why not try the following tack, asking the enquirer for their personal details to enter onto your database for your research / marketing activities. This is very common practice in business. In other words, politely turn the tables around.

K_user

smelltheglove wrote: »

As a self employed photographer
...
I generally follow a few things, I am always nice and curteous,

Well there is the problem!

Being self employed you have to be courteous and friendly to everyone.
There are many that like to take advantage of that, therefore they are rude and nosey!

smelltheglove wrote: »

always say yes I am insured and yes I do my taxes. If they take my card and want to go check it out for themselves fair enough, but it is irritating, I'd say in the last 6 weeks I have had this 3 or 4 times and at the end of the day my time would be better spent doing some work rather than answering questions of someone who is trying to catch me out in the hope that I am not legit.

I heard that people from the revenue office have started to look at the classifieds for potential "Tax frauds". It seems that the guy earning an extra E50 on the side is a major threat to the economy. And alot easier to catch out than those pesky Millionaires. :rolleyes: They could be doing the same at local markets. So it mightn't be just photographers sniffing around...

Saint_Mel

K_user wrote: »

I heard that people from the revenue office have started to look at the classifieds for potential "Tax frauds". It seems that the guy earning an extra E50 on the side is a major threat to the economy. And alot easier to catch out than those pesky Millionaires. :rolleyes: They could be doing the same at local markets. So it mightn't be just photographers sniffing around...

Yep, teachers giving grinds are being targeted aswell

K_user

Saint_Mel wrote: »

Yep, teachers giving grinds are being targeted aswell

So Bankers are given huge pay offs and pensions, but teachers and photographers are "caught" and fined! Makes sense really... :rolleyes:

PCPhoto

K_user wrote: »

Well there is the problem!

I heard that people from the revenue office have started to look at the classifieds for potential "Tax frauds". It seems that the guy earning an extra E50 on the side is a major threat to the economy. And alot easier to catch out than those pesky Millionaires. :rolleyes: They could be doing the same at local markets. So it mightn't be just photographers sniffing around...

its more something to do with the little guy earning an extra €50 is not going to put up a fight, while someone who earns and doesn't pay millions can tie the revenue up in litigation for a couple of years.

VisionaryP

The IPPA have dropped their plans regarding compiling a list for revenue.

Covey

VisionaryP wrote: »

The IPPA have dropped their plans regarding compiling a list for revenue.

THE most barmy self righteous idea in a very long time!