Licensing Photographers in Michigan

I dont see how you can liscense something that is based on artistic skills. You can know everything in the world about f-stops, ISO, etc and still take a bad pic.

After having read all of your posts here I can appreciate your stance on this but I disagree. I think trying to license photography is just below stupid. Look at all of the little photo studios in and around your town that are struggling. I am sure they would not want the extra cost or the oversight.

Regardless of the industry you will get bad service or a bad product with or without regulation. In this case vote with the all mighty dollar. If a client doesnt check refrences then they are partly to blame. You do the same

(I hope) when you hire a contractor to put windows in your house or a plumber install a new bathroom, etc.

I am off to scratch off the simple modes on my camera along with the AV/TV settings.........Wouldnt want someone thinking I dont know how to use the manual mode...

Hotwood said:

Dave Beaman said:

Speaking of a test. Would you have to know the developing time for
Tmax 400 using D-76 deluted 1-1? Shucks, do they still use D-76? I
used to know these figures but don't know now since it has been 6
years since I have been in a darkroom. How many of the new Photogs
have worked in a darkroom. is it even important anymore.

Will there be any questions about view cameras. I know nothing
about view cameras though I have been doing photography for 30
years.

Don't want regulation of any sort. We have too many wortless laws
anyway. MOst of the laws are made for just the same reason that was
stated at the begininging of this thread. Some blamed lawyer has
his/her knickers in a bunch and wants to make a law that is
completely unneccessary.

dave

Hotwood said:

The Michigan law makers are going to be taking a look at licensing
photographers in Michigan in the next few weeks. It seems the
photographer for one lawmaker did not show up to shoot a wedding.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Wayne Larmon said:

Karl, on what basis do you think that licensing photographers has a
(state? Federal?) Constitutional problem?

Click to expand...

Wayne, the "Equal Protection" clause contained in the 14th Amendment has two prongs: "Class" and "Fundemental Right". Photogs are obviously not a "protected class" .... but taking pictures, (a form of "expression" is a "Fundemental Right" under the 1st Amendment.) To infringe on a "Fundemental Right", the State must have a compelling State interest. The State may "license" the exercize of a "Fundemental Right" but must prove a "Compelling" State interest, rather than just a "rational basis". What is the "compelling" State interest in licensing photogs?
Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com

I will agree that testing could be a pain....but I have a competitor who asked me once at a convention we were both working....if the photos he had taken with too fast a shutter speed for his camera were going to be OK......This was after 16 years shooting ... professionally.

I think he should have know that the 1/500 sec on his FE/FM camera was not going to work as the sync max on those models was in the 1/200-1/250th range. The worst is that when I told him he needed to reshoot, he walked away mumbling....."I think it will be OK."

--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

So knowing knowing how a light meter works makes you a professional photographer? Get real! Next thing you'll know we'll have basic test for artists; what size brush is best used with what kind of paint? Give me a break.

Hotwood said:

Gary A. Bushey said:

Hotwood said:

tylerphoto said:

Bruce Carpman said:

Hotwood said:

I think we would all have to take a test and pay for a license but
I would not have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

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.)

Click to expand...

--
CQ

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
CQ

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Karl, on what basis do you think that licensing photographers has a
(state? Federal?) Constitutional problem?

Click to expand...

Wayne, the "Equal Protection" clause contained in the 14th
Amendment has two prongs: "Class" and "Fundemental Right".
Photogs are obviously not a "protected class" .... but taking
pictures, (a form of "expression" is a "Fundemental Right" under
the 1st Amendment.) To infringe on a "Fundemental Right", the
State must have a compelling State interest. The State may
"license" the exercize of a "Fundemental Right" but must prove a
"Compelling" State interest, rather than just a "rational basis".
What is the "compelling" State interest in licensing photogs?

Click to expand...

Ah. Thank you for this analysis. This is why it is valuable to have a lawyer participating in these forums.

Are you aware of any precedents in this area? Where a state attempted to license an occupation that was eventually ruled to be "a form of expression," and, therefore, was accorded Constitutional protection?

I know that defining the limits of constitutionally protected expression is often subjective. How close to the limits do you believe that photographer's are compared to, say, Nike's right to express itself, which was recently struck down because it was classified as non-protected commercial speech (advertising)? Isn't it possible that a commercial photographer's "expression" could be classified as non-protected commercial speech, just as Nike's was?

Granted, the "hook" that sunk Nike was that thier public views were classified as being advertising and were treated under truth-in-advertising laws, but is is possible that there is something comparable to truth-in-advertising laws that can cause wedding photographers to be exempt from Constitutional protection?

Wayne Larmon

What if I, as an unlicensed photographer, manage to get the only shots of an ET landing.

Am I prevented from selling them to the magazines, and are they prevented from using them because they come from an unlicensed source?

C'mon folks, we don't need the government messing around with anything that is inherently unmanageable. In fact we don't need them regulating ANYTHING.

I believe completely in Caveat Emptor. I have no confidence in anyone just because they are licensed by the state. If, as a pro, I take a photo of someone that looks not like them at all, who is to say that is not artistic license?

By the way, many of the portraits I shoot do not look like the subject looks on the street (at their request). Am I in violation of my license if that happens?
--
The older I get, the better I was.
Joe

I have run into a lot of selfproclaimed pro that did not know how to use a light meter. Testing and licensing would help protect the consumer from people like that. It dosen't matter what tool you use just so long as you know how to use that tool.

tylerphoto said:

Hotwood said:

Gary A. Bushey said:

Hotwood said:

tylerphoto said:

Bruce Carpman said:

Hotwood said:

I think we would all have to take a test and pay for a license but
I would not have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

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.)

Click to expand...

--
CQ

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
CQ

Click to expand...

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Karl, on what basis do you think that licensing photographers has a
(state? Federal?) Constitutional problem?

Click to expand...

Wayne, the "Equal Protection" clause contained in the 14th
Amendment has two prongs: "Class" and "Fundemental Right".
Photogs are obviously not a "protected class" .... but taking
pictures, (a form of "expression" is a "Fundemental Right" under
the 1st Amendment.) To infringe on a "Fundemental Right", the
State must have a compelling State interest. The State may
"license" the exercize of a "Fundemental Right" but must prove a
"Compelling" State interest, rather than just a "rational basis".
What is the "compelling" State interest in licensing photogs?

Click to expand...

Lets see the State is of and by the people.
The people are consumers. Testing and licensing would help protect

the people from incompetent photographers. I think that would be a compelling reason for the State "AKA the people" to take such a step.

There are times when regulation can be a good thing, but what usually happens is that everything ends up being decided by comittee and that means some really bizare things come out of the comittee.

Photography is as much an art as it is the mechanics of taking a picture. How do you think the comittee will approach that? Certainly not to everyone's liking.

It could end up being something simple, such as knowing the difference between negative and slide film. But what would that prove? Would that keep out the riff raff?

In the long run regulation will add additional burden on the protographer (I am sure there will be lots of requirements for paperwork that must be filled in and kept for 7 or 10 or 20 years), and of course there will be the licensing fees.

All in all, I think it is a VERY bad idea.

Declan

Professional Photography is not all artistic skills it also requires a certain amount of tec. knowledge as well. And that is the area testing would come in to play.

mpeltier said:

After having read all of your posts here I can appreciate your
stance on this but I disagree. I think trying to license
photography is just below stupid. Look at all of the little photo
studios in and around your town that are struggling. I am sure they
would not want the extra cost or the oversight.

Regardless of the industry you will get bad service or a bad
product with or without regulation. In this case vote with the all
mighty dollar. If a client doesnt check refrences then they are
partly to blame. You do the same
(I hope) when you hire a contractor to put windows in your house or
a plumber install a new bathroom, etc.

I am off to scratch off the simple modes on my camera along with
the AV/TV settings.........Wouldnt want someone thinking I dont
know how to use the manual mode...

Hotwood said:

Dave Beaman said:

Speaking of a test. Would you have to know the developing time for
Tmax 400 using D-76 deluted 1-1? Shucks, do they still use D-76? I
used to know these figures but don't know now since it has been 6
years since I have been in a darkroom. How many of the new Photogs
have worked in a darkroom. is it even important anymore.

Will there be any questions about view cameras. I know nothing
about view cameras though I have been doing photography for 30
years.

Don't want regulation of any sort. We have too many wortless laws
anyway. MOst of the laws are made for just the same reason that was
stated at the begininging of this thread. Some blamed lawyer has
his/her knickers in a bunch and wants to make a law that is
completely unneccessary.

dave

Hotwood said:

The Michigan law makers are going to be taking a look at licensing
photographers in Michigan in the next few weeks. It seems the
photographer for one lawmaker did not show up to shoot a wedding.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hotwood said:

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Karl, on what basis do you think that licensing photographers has a
(state? Federal?) Constitutional problem?

Click to expand...

Wayne, the "Equal Protection" clause contained in the 14th
Amendment has two prongs: "Class" and "Fundemental Right".
Photogs are obviously not a "protected class" .... but taking
pictures, (a form of "expression" is a "Fundemental Right" under
the 1st Amendment.) To infringe on a "Fundemental Right", the
State must have a compelling State interest. The State may
"license" the exercize of a "Fundemental Right" but must prove a
"Compelling" State interest, rather than just a "rational basis".
What is the "compelling" State interest in licensing photogs?

Click to expand...

Lets see the State is of and by the people.

The people are consumers. Testing and licensing would help protect
the people from incompetent photographers. I think that would be a
compelling reason for the State "AKA the people" to take such a
step.

Click to expand...

People can be harmed if incompetent reporters makes inaccurate statements. Would this justify licensing newspapers? Or reporters? Or press photographers?

Wayne Larmon

Hotwood said:

Lets see the State is of and by the people.
The people are consumers. Testing and licensing would help protect
the people from incompetent photographers.

Click to expand...

"Protect" the people?

Unlike plumbers or electricians who have to do their work to meet specific standards, there is wide range of acceptable work done by photographers. What looks good to you, may look awful to me. And you want the state do decide who is and who is not an incompetent photographer.

As far as showing up for the wedding, that's a contract issue, not a licensing issue.

Hotwood said:

I think that would be a
compelling reason for the State "AKA the people" to take such a
step.

Click to expand...

There always will be hack photographers and clients looking for bargain, and nanny government ain't gonna change that.

--
-Kel 2K

We are talking about photography not reporting that is getting a little too far off the subject at hand.

Wayne Larmon said:

Hotwood said:

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Karl, on what basis do you think that licensing photographers has a
(state? Federal?) Constitutional problem?

Click to expand...

Wayne, the "Equal Protection" clause contained in the 14th
Amendment has two prongs: "Class" and "Fundemental Right".
Photogs are obviously not a "protected class" .... but taking
pictures, (a form of "expression" is a "Fundemental Right" under
the 1st Amendment.) To infringe on a "Fundemental Right", the
State must have a compelling State interest. The State may
"license" the exercize of a "Fundemental Right" but must prove a
"Compelling" State interest, rather than just a "rational basis".
What is the "compelling" State interest in licensing photogs?

Click to expand...

Lets see the State is of and by the people.

The people are consumers. Testing and licensing would help protect
the people from incompetent photographers. I think that would be a
compelling reason for the State "AKA the people" to take such a
step.

Click to expand...

People can be harmed if incompetent reporters makes inaccurate
statements. Would this justify licensing newspapers? Or
reporters? Or press photographers?

Wayne Larmon

Click to expand...

Kel Tookay said:

MikeDitz said:

Lets see the State is of and by the people.
The people are consumers. Testing and licensing would help protect
the people from incompetent photographers.

Click to expand...

"Protect" the people?
Unlike plumbers or electricians who have to do their work to meet
specific standards, there is wide range of acceptable work done by
photographers. What looks good to you, may look awful to me. And
you want the state do decide who is and who is not an incompetent
photographer.
As far as showing up for the wedding, that's a contract issue, not
a licensing issue.

Click to expand...

Acceptable is one thing but no images or severly over or under exposed is quite another.

MikeDitz said:

MikeDitz said:

I think that would be a
compelling reason for the State "AKA the people" to take such a
step.

Click to expand...

There always will be hack photographers and clients looking for
bargain, and nanny government ain't gonna change that.

--
-Kel 2K

Click to expand...

Hotwood said:

We are talking about photography not reporting that is getting a
little too far off the subject at hand.

Click to expand...

The subject at hand is constitutional protection and questioning if there are reasons to override these constitutional protections. It has already been clearly established that the news media can't be regulated and licensed by the government, even though non-optimum things happen when an news person is incompetent.

Your point was that protecting people from the bad effects of incompetancy is sufficient reason to override constitutional protections. I question this statement, and used the constitutional protection of news as an example.

But OK, back to your topic. Where is the compelling interest in overriding photographer's constitutional protections? That can't be dealt with with existing fraud and contract law?

Wayne Larmon

Hotwood said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Hotwood said:

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Karl, on what basis do you think that licensing photographers has a
(state? Federal?) Constitutional problem?

Click to expand...

Wayne, the "Equal Protection" clause contained in the 14th
Amendment has two prongs: "Class" and "Fundemental Right".
Photogs are obviously not a "protected class" .... but taking
pictures, (a form of "expression" is a "Fundemental Right" under
the 1st Amendment.) To infringe on a "Fundemental Right", the
State must have a compelling State interest. The State may
"license" the exercize of a "Fundemental Right" but must prove a
"Compelling" State interest, rather than just a "rational basis".
What is the "compelling" State interest in licensing photogs?

Click to expand...

Lets see the State is of and by the people.

The people are consumers. Testing and licensing would help protect
the people from incompetent photographers. I think that would be a
compelling reason for the State "AKA the people" to take such a
step.

Click to expand...

People can be harmed if incompetent reporters makes inaccurate
statements. Would this justify licensing newspapers? Or
reporters? Or press photographers?

Wayne Larmon

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hotwood said:

Hotwood said:

Hotwood wrote:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

snip

Hotwood said:

Acceptable is one thing but no images or severly over or under
exposed is quite another.

Click to expand...

...and for this you want a law.

Wow. Anything else?

--
-Kel 2K

Wayne Larmon said:

Hotwood said:

We are talking about photography not reporting that is getting a
little too far off the subject at hand.

Click to expand...

The subject at hand is constitutional protection and questioning if
there are reasons to override these constitutional protections. It
has already been clearly established that the news media can't be
regulated and licensed by the government, even though non-optimum
things happen when an news person is incompetent.

Click to expand...

Ok with your reasoning physicians, attorneys, auto repairman, plumber ect.
should not need to be licensed as well.

Wayne Larmon said:

Your point was that protecting people from the bad effects of
incompetancy is sufficient reason to override constitutional
protections. I question this statement, and used the
constitutional protection of news as an example.

But OK, back to your topic. Where is the compelling interest in
overriding photographer's constitutional protections? That can't
be dealt with with existing fraud and contract law?

Wayne Larmon

Wayne Larmon said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Hotwood said:

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. said:

Wayne Larmon said:

Karl, on what basis do you think that licensing photographers has a
(state? Federal?) Constitutional problem?

Click to expand...

Wayne, the "Equal Protection" clause contained in the 14th
Amendment has two prongs: "Class" and "Fundemental Right".
Photogs are obviously not a "protected class" .... but taking
pictures, (a form of "expression" is a "Fundemental Right" under
the 1st Amendment.) To infringe on a "Fundemental Right", the
State must have a compelling State interest. The State may
"license" the exercize of a "Fundemental Right" but must prove a
"Compelling" State interest, rather than just a "rational basis".
What is the "compelling" State interest in licensing photogs?

Click to expand...

Lets see the State is of and by the people.

The people are consumers. Testing and licensing would help protect
the people from incompetent photographers. I think that would be a
compelling reason for the State "AKA the people" to take such a
step.

Click to expand...

People can be harmed if incompetent reporters makes inaccurate
statements. Would this justify licensing newspapers? Or
reporters? Or press photographers?

Wayne Larmon

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Kel Tookay said:

MikeDitz said:

MikeDitz said:

Hotwood wrote:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

snip

MikeDitz said:

Acceptable is one thing but no images or severly over or under
exposed is quite another.

Click to expand...

...and for this you want a law.

Wow. Anything else?

Click to expand...

Wow??? Exposure is not an important thing to a photographer and the people he or she are photographing?

Come come now we all know it is very important as well as proper focus good color balance and a bunch of other things that a photographer should be tested on.

MikeDitz said:

--
-Kel 2K

Click to expand...

Hotwood said:

Kel Tookay said:

Hotwood said:

Hotwood said:

Hotwood wrote:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

snip

Hotwood said:

Acceptable is one thing but no images or severly over or under
exposed is quite another.

Click to expand...

...and for this you want a law.

Wow. Anything else?

Click to expand...

Wow??? Exposure is not an important thing to a photographer and the
people he or she are photographing?
Come come now we all know it is very important as well as proper
focus good color balance and a bunch of other things that a
photographer should be tested on.

Hotwood said:

--
-Kel 2K

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Hotwood,

I am somewhat surprised at all the negative responses to your original post.

My field is commercial and advertising photography. The main difference in my field, from a business standpoint, compared to a wedding or portrait business is that most of my clients have had a great deal of experience buying photographic services.

The general public on the other hand, has little experience. This makes it far easier to get by on a much less developed skill set.

I have found over the years that most experienced and competent pros have little fear of licensing becoming required. In fact, a stringent licensing procedure would make the average business climate far easier for those pros that have spent the time to master the craft, especially the pros in the portrait and wedding fields.

There are those that would argue that photography is an "artistic" endeavor, but like any other true art form, nothing of real craft can be created without first mastering the fundamentals. This being so,a true photographic artist should have no fear whatsoever of a comprehensive test to prove knowledge of the basic fundamental technical issues of quality photography.

Although a license to legally run a photo business is no guarantee of quality imagery, it would most certainly give the government authority deny or revoke a license to those who prove to be grossly incompetent. This would not only protect the public, but add more prestige and validity to calling ones' self a professional photographer.

I, for one , would welcome a stringent test for photographers. If a pro is truly competent, why is the issue anything to worry about?

Just food for thought.

Cheers!

The thread is really long.. so I am not going to attempt to read all postings before I put in my two cents worth..

Here is a perspective..

The licencing at the outset seems silly but yet thought provoking..

If you need to do a major electrical repair in your house, they suggest you see a licenced and insured electrician.. since it involves people safety and what not..

if you need to manage your finances, they suggest you see a certified financial analyst to be assured of good services..

the list can go on.. but the bottom line is, from a consumer perspective, licencing and certifications are means to provide a certain basic quality and professionalism with respect to the service - which does not mean that the certified ones won't screw up whcih again doesn't mean that those certifications are worthless. in any profession, there will be some good certified ones and some bad certified ones..

but the common thread in all these services that require licencing and certification is that the outcome of the service is very important to the consumer ..along those lines why is photography not important.. a guy arranging a wedding photographer, as much as he goes based on referrals from friends etc., is still hpoing and praying that the professional he hired will do the job right.. why can't he go one step further and ask for certifications and licences?

Here are some of the cons as I see them:

1. The fundamental criteria will be very hard to establish and will be subjective no matter which way you look at it, since photography beyond all the technical aspects that go with it is fundamentally a creative field; so many things will be subjective no matter what.

2. The politicians and the government offiicials may make the whole process complex beyond recognition that the basic purpose and spirit of licencing may be lost in the long run..

To sum it up: I can see why, but I still don't like it..

Licenced actor
Licenced artist
Licenced musician
Licenced photographer..
doesn't sound right.. does it?

Two cents worth finished!!

SP.

Hotwood said:

The Michigan law makers are going to be taking a look at licensing
photographers in Michigan in the next few weeks. It seems the
photographer for one lawmaker did not show up to shoot a wedding.

Click to expand...

--
When all else fails.... scream!!