License for photographers !

Slidinginfinity

As far as I am aware they did abandon the plan to compile the list, they just decided the not turn over the list they compiled.

Covey

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

As far as I am aware they did abandon the plan to compile the list, they just decided the not turn over the list they compiled.

It's beside the point really. They've shown their true colours and put the very existence of their organisation in question imo.

Paulw

Covey wrote: »

It's beside the point really. They've shown their true colours and put the very existence of their organisation in question imo.

Totally agree there. I think they've alienated a large group who may have been potential members.

Slidinginfinity

Covey wrote: »

It's beside the point really. They've shown their true colours and put the very existence of their organisation in question imo.

Oh absolutely, I was just correcting VisionaryP.

VisionaryP

They have ceased compiling it, Captain Pedantic.

ThOnda

Sounds like association of steam boat owners complaining about jet-skis capable of transporting people

I can imagine such discussion:
Person one: "Well, sir, I can see you are taking pictures here for money. I hope you are registered and paying taxes!"
Person two: "Well, sir, I hope your pictures are not sh;te..."

charybdis

VisionaryP wrote: »

They have ceased compiling it, Captain Pedantic.

You mean "Captain Pedant".

FoxT

- Hiring a pro photographer is a luxury. If you need, say, a plumber or a Gynaecologist, chances are it is a necessity.

- The line between pros & good amateurs is blurred b/c the quality of work is comparable. Not too many amateur plumbers or Gynaecologists out there,and, even if you knew one, would you take the chance?

- The qualifications needed to be a P or G, are fairly clear & well understood by most people. You do not need to have a qual to be a pro photographer.

- Crucially, many people think that once photos reach a certain level of 'goodness' (easily achieved by an amateur with decent kit) there is no point in paying for 'better'


b/c of the above, life is hard for pros. Good pros probably expend more energy on marketing & educating their customers than they do on taking photographs.

pros may feel that they are underappreciated by the market & undercut by amateurs etc. Also, Pro Photog assocs worldwide have to try & show their members that they are worth the annual sub.
This missive is the IPPA's response to the problem. This 'look up the yellow pages' strategy by the IPPA is evil, not because it may alienate amateurs, but because it will not succeed, and is a waste of financial and human resources. Ignore it. It will go away.

-FoxT

VisionaryP

charybdis wrote: »

You mean "Captain Pedant".

No, I'd be banned if I wrote what I really meant.

Paulw

Looks like this is not just an IPPA issue.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122643421090039

Seems some US photography groups also want to license photography.

democrates

Paulw wrote: »

Looks like this is not just an IPPA issue.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122643421090039

Seems some US photography groups also want to license photography.

By that logic governments should also license sketch artists, painters, sculptors, fashion designers, musicians, singers, dancers, writers, comedians etc. to protect the public from unprofessional artwork.

Our need for concern depends on the answer to this question: how stupid can politicians be?

magicbastarder

next thing, taxi drivers will be protesting about people driving their daughters to the wesley disco, because it's an amateur depriving a professional from making a living.