-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Licensing Photographers in Michigan
- Thread starter Hotwood
- Start date
Ken Phillips
Forum Pro
... and if the lawmaker had a contract, he can sue. If he didn't, he shouldn't be a lawmaker!
Ken
'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm
Ken
--
'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm
I think we would all have to take a test and pay for a license but I would not have a problem with that.
Yes he can sue but he still has no photos of that wedding.
If a person stands a chance of loosing his license I think most will be more careful. I think with testing it will help sort out that person just bought a camera last week for the first time and started calling themselves a professional today.
I really do think it is a good idea for all.
If a person stands a chance of loosing his license I think most will be more careful. I think with testing it will help sort out that person just bought a camera last week for the first time and started calling themselves a professional today.
I really do think it is a good idea for all.
Keyham
New member
Licensed or not if your so called pro makes a mess of things the client can still sue
K
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
Guest
(smiling) ... be careful what you ask for. Licencing establishes a "standard" ... if you violate the "standard" ... you make yourself liable for malpractice.
Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com
K
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
Guest
Interesting. Wonder what the "compelling state interest" or "rational basis" is in establishing a license procedure for photogs? Will be interesting to see if this passes Constitutional muster, (doubt it). Keep in mind, our elected representative only represent 51% of us,(and most have no clue about what they can and can not legislate) ... the rest, you and I, rely on our Bill of Rights
Regards
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com
Bruce Carpman
Active member
Funny how people who have never work in a regulated industry always think regulation (liscensing/certification) is something that will only effect those "bad guys".
Just wait till the regulations go into affect and you have to go out and take $3000 of classes before you can do your next shoot. Your equipment won't meet standards either, so you better be prepared to buy all new equipmtent that is up to some beurocrat's standards. Oh yeah, don't even think of taking any "non-standard" shots. You know a wedding shoot should only have the government specified standard shots.
Think that's outrageous? That's the way it works in every other industry the government decides to regulate (liscense/certify, etc.)
K
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
Guest
Sadly, you are right of course, Bruce. 'Nuff said.
Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com
Newk
Senior Member
Electricians and plumbers are licensed. Ever have one show up late or not at all on the day he was supposed to be there? Just what would licensing a photographer accomplish other than a few more bureaucrats on the payroll?
Insane!
Insane!
Cliff. Johnston
Senior Member
Hotwood,
With luck it's probably just a knee-jerk reaction.
I used to be a Licensed Nursing Facility Administrator here in Texas. I found the beaurocracy mind boggling. For example: In my last facility I had suspected some employees of selling drugs on the nursing home premises. Together with one of my department heads we terminated 6 of employees suspected of selling drugs on the facility property (we couldn't use "selling illegal drugs" as the reason because that would have led to law suits and huge expenses so we focused on job performance - much easier). The drug dealers starting realizing what was happening. The DON (director of nursing) came into my office, closed the door and issued a warning to me that some people in town were not happy with what I was doing and that I should back off.
My car had body panels damaged by rocks and bricks. A tire was slashed. An excellent charge nurse who was "on my side" and working with me to improve the level of care in the facility had every body panel on her lovely Volvo keyed. She quit. Finally when it became evident that I wouldn't be scared off someone called in an anonymous complaint to the State Hot Line that an employee (name supplied to the State) was selling drugs to the residents, and that I knew about it and was doing nothing.
The State sent in a surveyor in zero time. She sat in my office, closed the door, and proceeded to tell me that my license was in jeopardy. Did I know about the drug sales? If so, what had I done to correct the situation? I told her that I had already called the city police and had asked for their help. They told me that they were understaffed, over worked, and would put my name on the bottom of a long list. In other words, don't hold your breath while waiting for us to help you. Fortunately I had documented the call with the date, time, name of police contact, etc.. She wasn't impressed. I called in my department head who had been working with me on the drug problem. She brought the files of the terminated employees. The State Surveyor looked through the names, looked up and said that none of the names given were a match with the one that she had. What I had done was not good enough! I told her that if she would give us the name that had been given to the State in the complaint that we would observe the employee and terminate him/her at our earliest convenience. The State Surveyor sat there and said that the name had to be held confidential under State Regulations - in other words, no name would be given to us. She reminded me again that my license was in jeopardy and left. A cold chill went up my spine. What a situation!
I told my company regional manager about the problem - she didn't want to hear about it. "You handle it." she said cutting me off and quickly changing the subject before exiting my office PDQ.
We continued our hunt to root out drug dealing employees. Finally another anonymous complaint was called into the State. The State Surveyors came in full force. This time it was a different route that the druggies took. Someone had stolen all of the breakfast meats at night. Someone then turned in a complaint immediately on the phone hot line to the State complaining about the poor menu with no suitable meat among other things (the cook had substituted weiners in a pinch). The State was there with a full Survey Team the next day. Things were going fairly well - some glitches, but not too bad, until lunch time. A hose on the juice machine was leaking. I had the cook put a pan under the drip to catch the liquid. Then I told her that after the meal had been served that she should get a clean mop and clean the floor where the spill was. Within a minute and in front of the head of the survey team who was right beside me, the cook brought in a pail of dirty water and a grungy mop while food was still being served. She looked at both myself and the Surveyor with a sick half-smile on her face, knowing full well that what she was doing was a major infraction of regulations. That was all that it took - a major infraction (deficiency in the business). The facility was put in "immediate jeopardy", and I was fired within 2 hours (standard practice in the State of Texas - something about immediately limiting the liability of the owners of the facility).
So much for beaurocracies and their inherent "stupidity". That was the last straw for me. I let my LNFA license lapse, and I found a new vocation - much less money, but I don't have to deal with a moronic state beaurocracy either. I have slept wonderfully well at night ever since then. As for Michigan and any other place that considers licensing photographers - it will be a disaster just waiting to happen. Trust me. Been there, done that, won't go there again.
Cliff.
Cliff. Johnston
With luck it's probably just a knee-jerk reaction.
I used to be a Licensed Nursing Facility Administrator here in Texas. I found the beaurocracy mind boggling. For example: In my last facility I had suspected some employees of selling drugs on the nursing home premises. Together with one of my department heads we terminated 6 of employees suspected of selling drugs on the facility property (we couldn't use "selling illegal drugs" as the reason because that would have led to law suits and huge expenses so we focused on job performance - much easier). The drug dealers starting realizing what was happening. The DON (director of nursing) came into my office, closed the door and issued a warning to me that some people in town were not happy with what I was doing and that I should back off.
My car had body panels damaged by rocks and bricks. A tire was slashed. An excellent charge nurse who was "on my side" and working with me to improve the level of care in the facility had every body panel on her lovely Volvo keyed. She quit. Finally when it became evident that I wouldn't be scared off someone called in an anonymous complaint to the State Hot Line that an employee (name supplied to the State) was selling drugs to the residents, and that I knew about it and was doing nothing.
The State sent in a surveyor in zero time. She sat in my office, closed the door, and proceeded to tell me that my license was in jeopardy. Did I know about the drug sales? If so, what had I done to correct the situation? I told her that I had already called the city police and had asked for their help. They told me that they were understaffed, over worked, and would put my name on the bottom of a long list. In other words, don't hold your breath while waiting for us to help you. Fortunately I had documented the call with the date, time, name of police contact, etc.. She wasn't impressed. I called in my department head who had been working with me on the drug problem. She brought the files of the terminated employees. The State Surveyor looked through the names, looked up and said that none of the names given were a match with the one that she had. What I had done was not good enough! I told her that if she would give us the name that had been given to the State in the complaint that we would observe the employee and terminate him/her at our earliest convenience. The State Surveyor sat there and said that the name had to be held confidential under State Regulations - in other words, no name would be given to us. She reminded me again that my license was in jeopardy and left. A cold chill went up my spine. What a situation!
I told my company regional manager about the problem - she didn't want to hear about it. "You handle it." she said cutting me off and quickly changing the subject before exiting my office PDQ.
We continued our hunt to root out drug dealing employees. Finally another anonymous complaint was called into the State. The State Surveyors came in full force. This time it was a different route that the druggies took. Someone had stolen all of the breakfast meats at night. Someone then turned in a complaint immediately on the phone hot line to the State complaining about the poor menu with no suitable meat among other things (the cook had substituted weiners in a pinch). The State was there with a full Survey Team the next day. Things were going fairly well - some glitches, but not too bad, until lunch time. A hose on the juice machine was leaking. I had the cook put a pan under the drip to catch the liquid. Then I told her that after the meal had been served that she should get a clean mop and clean the floor where the spill was. Within a minute and in front of the head of the survey team who was right beside me, the cook brought in a pail of dirty water and a grungy mop while food was still being served. She looked at both myself and the Surveyor with a sick half-smile on her face, knowing full well that what she was doing was a major infraction of regulations. That was all that it took - a major infraction (deficiency in the business). The facility was put in "immediate jeopardy", and I was fired within 2 hours (standard practice in the State of Texas - something about immediately limiting the liability of the owners of the facility).
So much for beaurocracies and their inherent "stupidity". That was the last straw for me. I let my LNFA license lapse, and I found a new vocation - much less money, but I don't have to deal with a moronic state beaurocracy either. I have slept wonderfully well at night ever since then. As for Michigan and any other place that considers licensing photographers - it will be a disaster just waiting to happen. Trust me. Been there, done that, won't go there again.
Cliff.
--
Cliff. Johnston
mpeltier
Forum Enthusiast
Hotwood wrote:
I think with testing it will help sort out
Sorry for being off topic but for the most part this state (michigan) is A@# backwards when it comes to some stuff and making a photographer get a liscense means that you will probably have to go get one from the state if you take pics of your kid playing baseball. .
You would have to think there is no way they could write a law so backwards huh? They implemented new gun laws here a couple of years ago. It was so messed up that if you read it it required everyone to take a class before they could carry a concealed weapon. That works wonders for a police officer who is required to carry a firearm off duty. Wouldnt you think they had already had the class? Guess what, they ignored it and there was talk of putting an exception into the law for them.
Just think, it could be a felony for taking a snapshot. Give me a break
mike
I think with testing it will help sort out
Up until very recently a cosmotologist? that was liscenced by the state of mighigan required more hours for cert than a Paramedic and I think a firefighter also. A paramedic can stick a needle in your heart, cut your throat and needle you lungs if he thinks its needed and he requires less training than someone who cuts your hair by the state of michigan. To top it off, the state pays an agency to administer its tests (SWMS?). They make you pay for the national registry (a private company) test after they have collected their fee from you. To top it off, once the registry says you have passed you then have to pay a fee to the state for their liscence when they havent done jack.
Sorry for being off topic but for the most part this state (michigan) is A@# backwards when it comes to some stuff and making a photographer get a liscense means that you will probably have to go get one from the state if you take pics of your kid playing baseball. .
You would have to think there is no way they could write a law so backwards huh? They implemented new gun laws here a couple of years ago. It was so messed up that if you read it it required everyone to take a class before they could carry a concealed weapon. That works wonders for a police officer who is required to carry a firearm off duty. Wouldnt you think they had already had the class? Guess what, they ignored it and there was talk of putting an exception into the law for them.
Just think, it could be a felony for taking a snapshot. Give me a break
mike
Your assumption that the photographer is automatically going to lose his license becasue he failed to show up at a wedding is assuming a lot. The victum would have to file a complaint with the Photography Board, made up of political oppiontees of the govenor which would include not only photographers but consumer representatives, probably developing labs would be represented as well. Of course you will pay a yearly licensing fee along with proof of a certain number of hours of certified contining education in order to be relicensed. The photographer would have the opportunity to present his side of the story. If they were found to be in the wrong more than likely they would receive probabtion for a certain period of time or a 30 suspension, which is considered harsh. Of course any complaint tothe board would have to be followed up. And not something as blatant as not showing up for a shoot but disgruntled couple who didn't think you took the right pictures at their wedding or they didn't turn out as well as they should have. You'll have to respond to the board in writing and it may well end there. If it doesn't then be prepared to take off a couple of days unless you live in the state capital to appear before the entire board. Be careful what you are asking for. You might feel like it would narrow the field down and keep out the novice/pro an you may well find out that you may have just opened the door you can't close. I know, as a professional I live under such conditions in my work place. I will be retiring at the end of this month and I look forward to being out from under all the BS I have to put up with in the from of government regulations.
And by the way, if you think dealing with the public is a pain at times try some bureaucrat. They start telling you have things are going to be done only to find out later they didn't even know what they were talking about. Or worse you, they pull out some regulation you didn't even know existed and levie a fine for non-compliance.
Bill Dewey
Veteran Member
Would you be happy with the test you devise? Or the one that I would devise? How about the one the state will devise? Before you decide that you would not have a problem, you had best take a very hard, and long, look at what the criteria for testing and licensing will be. What if the test and license only allowed film to be used for weddings, say?
As others in this thread have stated, and I agree, I doubt that this will come to pass. My only point to this post is to not be too quick to agree to licensing and a "test" until you know what they really entail.
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
As others in this thread have stated, and I agree, I doubt that this will come to pass. My only point to this post is to not be too quick to agree to licensing and a "test" until you know what they really entail.
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
People can still buy hair products for home use. You just can't work on other people for money.
So I don't think you would get busted for taking photos of your own or the neighbors kids.
Such gutter language!
Michael Long
Senior Member
Doesn't seem to keep them from licensing contractors, electricians, plumbers, beauticians, doctors, lawyers, therapists, cab drivers, realtors, teachers, architects, engineers, insurance agents, truck drivers, and even couples...
I think some people here are simply over reacting about licensing.
If you have a good sound photographic education then you should have nothing to fear. Seriously even the plumber who fixes my toilet is licensed and guy that fixes my car as well, licensing has not hurt them at all.
It has also helped protect the consumer. With car repair alone I recall the days before licensing it was a mess to find a competent repair person to work on my car. Licensing was one of the best things to ever happen to car repair in Michigan now other states do the same thing.
I think it will do the same for Professional Photography.
Frank from AZ
Senior Member
Why not, the state needs the extra revenue and think of all the new people it will employ---so the state kills two birds with one stone: more revenue and a bigger state government which hires more people. Yep, imagine your photographich professional life being run by the same morons who run the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Frank from Phoenix
Olympus E20N; C5050; FL40; LiPo; Tripper 15 Gb, Pentax MZ-S
--
Frank from Phoenix
Olympus E20N; C5050; FL40; LiPo; Tripper 15 Gb, Pentax MZ-S
The central issue is supposedly that a Michigan legislator got stood up by a wedding photographer.
Was there an invoice and a contract? If so why are you talking to me?
If not why are you talking to me?
Ed
Was there an invoice and a contract? If so why are you talking to me?
If not why are you talking to me?
Ed
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum