$5,000 Bond for wedding photographers in NY.

ALERT: Hearing today on NY Wedding Photographer License proposal


We've just been informed by an alert from Carolyn E. Wright's Photo Attorney web site that New York City's City Council is holding a hearing this morning on a proposed law that would require wedding photographers to be licensed and submit a $5,000 bond. If you are a wedding photographer in New York and can make it to City Hall to voice your concerns, the meeting will take place in the Council Chambers at 10:00 AM.

The council's proposed law also requires bridal shops to be licensed, and the photography license also includes videographers. The law states in part: "It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of owning or operating a bridal shop or wedding photography without first having obtained a license..." The law will require licensing fees, extensive additional paperwork, and fines of $1,000 to $5,000 for each voilation.

Quote from Adorama site
http://www.adorama.com …rnal&article_nu​m=050708-1

What is the reasoning behind this?
Just thought I'd share this with you pro guys.

ironchef31 wrote in post #5516453
What is the reasoning behind this?

Money and power. Big brother protecting everyone from everything.

Just saw this little tidbit.
"Wedding Deposits go into an Escrow account and not released til after the pictures are delivered."

Don't see a problem. Fairly minimal requirements for doing biz in the city.
The purposes? You can figure that out yourself if you read the proposed bill.

(1) ensure some minimum contractual requirements when doing biz with the public,

(2) provision for a rather small bond ($5,000) so the city can enforce violations and, more importantly, so if you lose a lawsuit the person going through the time and trouble can get paid out of your bond.

Really minimal stuff obviously the result of certain bad apples screwing the public and the public having no effect recourse, especially with respect to those located out of the city.

(3) some minor ($125/year) license revenue.

I think it's not a bad bill. Certainly all those that periodically wish to elevate photography into more of a professional occupation should not have a problem with it.

I think that New York is trying to take after California

T2000 wrote in post #5516603
Don't see a problem. Fairly minimal requirements for doing biz in the city.
The purposes? You can figure that out yourself if you read the proposed bill.

(1) ensure some minimum contractual requirements when doing biz with the public,

(2) provision for a rather small bond ($5,000) so the city can enforce violations and, more importantly, so if you lose a lawsuit the person going through the time and trouble can get paid out of your bond.

Really minimal stuff obviously the result of certain bad apples screwing the public and the public having no effect recourse, especially with respect to those located out of the city.

(3) some minor ($125/year) license revenue.

I think it's not a bad bill. Certainly all those that periodically wish to elevate photography into more of a professional occupation should not have a problem with it.

The more they start to regulate you the worse it gets. A few bad apples reek havoc for proper business owners. I have seen this in the financial business and it punishes the honest people who have to constantly jump thru hoops.

What the heck? Why are they punishing the honest photographers for the few bad apples?

5k won't hurt me THAT much (I'm not in NY) but it'll hurt the few that do this for a side job and might take revenue out of their hands. I realize the bill was made with good "intentions" but it's usually in my experience, that once the government gets to regulating anything, they MICRO-REGULATE every aspect. Next, they'll make it so that we have to have a license to purchase "professional quality" photographic equipment, much like gun ownership -.-;.

Edit: What if I'm a photographer from Texas, who got hired to come and shoot a wedding in New York? Where does the law stand on that? Would I still be expected to acquire a license? Seems like a big hassle just to shoot a destination wedding.

It's kind of like trying to protect the people from themselves. If a bride hires some guy off the street corner with a camera to shoot her wedding, that's her problem. One would think that the smart thing to do is to hire a photographer with professional credentials. This just makes more bureaucracy. The tax payers have to fork out the money to run this thing. What would be the court cost to chase down the $5000?

Maybe the ice cream man should post a $1,000,000 bond in case he sells a nut bar to a kid with a nut allergy.

What is the cost of a $5000 bond? I say cover it as added cost and invoice it as city licensing fees. That way your customers know why their costs are going up.

A 5K bond does not cost 5K.

"who got hired to come and shoot a wedding in New York? Where does the law stand on that? Would I still be expected to acquire a license?"

I've only glanced at the proposed statute but it appears to want to pick up that type of biz hence the provisions for designating an agent for service of process.

The point is to protect city residents doing biz with people that are not located in the city. So when you skip back to Texas people still have recourse against you. More interesting is how the city would enforce unlicensed activity against out of towners.

Zansho, I'm not sure the statute picks up the person doing an occasional side job. It speaks to those in the biz of "regularly" selling wedding services. I personally don't find the slippery slope argument persuasive here. Even a hot dog vendor needs a license. Basically if you are going to do business in the city it would be nice for people to be able to find you and, if they have a beef, address it. I presume most cities have an interest in this.

Anyway, it's just a proposed bill. We'll have to see what, if anything, comes of it.

Ok, I can understand that. Perhaps that's akin to doctors having a license to practice medicine in a specific state, or lawyers for that matter. Teachers have licenses too. What kind of "quality" control will they have in place to make sure not just anyone can get these licenses to become a wedding photographer? Photography is a very subjective art, and it's really the eye of the beholder that really judges the photos.

If I were (and I won't, I'm too much of a an honest person for this) to go shoot a wedding in NY, take the bride's money, and not contact them about their proofs and basically skip out, how will the good state of NY do anything for recourse against me? That's where I'm confused. I've done weddings in Boston, Hawaii, Houston, Minneapolis without any problems at all. Granted, these cities don't have the same proposed bill in place, but if they were to make this enforceable, they need to have some kind of quality control, and some kind of way to ensure that the professionals are actually providing a professional service, not an amateur who just picked up an SLR and starts shooting.

Personally I like this and would like to see it a little more wide spread. I know that the majority of people won't like this, I think, but it does make those that want to just shoot a few weddings here and there for some fun and experience to think twice about doing this. I wouldn't exactly call it protectionism but it will ensure that those that are serious about this will follow the rules. It does have the possibility of weeding out some of the weekend warriors who may feel this is all too much to bother with. Business licensing is just another cost of doing business, whether it is in NY or upper Bolivia.

Without going into it a lot, just say that the Craig's List "I'll shoot your wedding for $100" people are going to disappear. The cost of a bond will be minimal, maybe $100 if that.

The more laws and regulations, the more the casual shooters will move on to other things. Senior pictures are going to be next.....

Mark H

"what kind of "quality" control will they have in place to make sure not just anyone can get these licenses to become a wedding photographer?"

None of course. Quality control, as you call it, isn't at all the thrust of the billl.

Without looking into I would guess the city doesn't have the legal authority to implement any kind of "skill level" requirement. Apart from the fact that no one is trying to implement any skill requirement, that sounds like a matter for the state.

Sorry to be repetitive but it appears designed solely to address minimal contract requirements and having a bond to satisfy judgments. And to raise some revenue.

p51, the language in its current form may not capture the casual craigs list shooter.

"go shoot a wedding in NY, take the bride's money, and not contact them about their proofs and basically skip out, how will the good state of NY do anything for recourse against me?"

If you mean doing the wedding without jumping through the licensing hoops, I'm uncertain how the city (it's not a state thing. It's a city thing) would possibly proceed against you if you have no presence in the city. But there will be a new category of photographer in NYC. Those licensed to do business in the city and those not. There will probably be an easy way to determine who is licensed and probably something photographers will advertise to potential clients.

Here we go, and so what's wrong with "shoot a few weddings here and there for some fun and experience". I think this thread is gonna turn into another "taking away from the prof. photogs". So please don't turn this into another "i'm a prof photo you have no right" thread This is just another money grab, i guaranty the bond money disappears.

Regards,
Joe W

ssim wrote in post #5518544
Personally I like this and would like to see it a little more wide spread. I know that the majority of people won't like this, I think, but it does make those that want to just shoot a few weddings here and there for some fun and experience to think twice about doing this. I wouldn't exactly call it protectionism but it will ensure that those that are serious about this will follow the rules. It does have the possibility of weeding out some of the weekend warriors who may feel this is all too much to bother with. Business licensing is just another cost of doing business, whether it is in NY or upper Bolivia.

T2000 wrote in post #5520240
"go shoot a wedding in NY, take the bride's money, and not contact them about their proofs and basically skip out, how will the good state of NY do anything for recourse against me?"

If you mean doing the wedding without jumping through the licensing hoops, I'm uncertain how the city (it's not a state thing. It's a city thing) would possibly proceed against you if you have no presence in the city. But there will be a new category of photographer in NYC. Those licensed to do business in the city and those not. There will probably be an easy way to determine who is licensed and probably something photographers will advertise to potential clients.

Well, if the bride wants to sue you for not following the contract, not only can they do that, but they can get federal help to catch you since you crossed state lines with the intention of breaking a law (so if you live in white planes, you're safe; live in jersey city, you're not). If you're a one time shooter, you can simply add the fee in there, and just demand payment in full before the shoot. Should take care of all the issues.