Want to sell your photos? Do it here!

First ever photography shoot

Attention!

This topic is locked.

Reason : We think the OP has enough info now...


Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
8 Apr 2015 2:15PM
No, and we must never risk photographing the wedding of a friend in case the bride trips over our tripod plunging head first in to a chocolate fountain which ruins the carpet and wallpaper (chocolate stains being impossible to remove unless you use some fancy NASA stuff like detergent)

If that happened and it turned out we weren't insured it would ruin her day. Had we been insured, not a problem.

I've just spoken to a pal who owns three hotels. Anything like that is claimed from their own insurance firm. Their insurance firm will decide whether to try to get some of the money from the person who caused the damage, if it was a photographer with insurance they would negotiate with that firm. They'd never leave a 23k vase where it could easily be knocked over and broken. Their insurance firm wouldn't allow it.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit 9 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
8 Apr 2015 2:21PM

Quote:Let me present an alternative view of insurance, in this case motor insurance, and await the response:-

Here in rural Somerset, the chance of getting stopped with no insurance must be pretty slim. Judging by the Court reports in the local paper, the average fine is a little less than my quarterly insurance payment. In a well publicised case, a youngster killed a teenage girl while he was racing through a built-up area at between 2 and 3 times the speed limit. He was uninsured and the sentence wasn't significantly greater because of it.

Should we all ignore the law and just not bother with car insurance?



Being without motor insurance is illegal so is compulsory
Being without PLI is not - it is an exercise in CYA
Your analogy is misplaced.
thewilliam 10 6.1k
8 Apr 2015 2:24PM
We have a proper Risk Assessment for studio and location work and one court case convinced me of the wisdom.

At a branch of a now defunct photographic chain, the baby photography was done on a table top so that the staff didn't have to bend too much. One day they dropped a baby and it hit the hard floor head-first, causing serious injury. The Elfin Safety people prosecuted and they claimed that the photographer hadn't given any thought to customer safety because there was no written RA. The Court wasn't impressed by the complete lack of any RA and cited this as the main reason for the high 4 figure fine.

The case was reported in detail in the MPA mag because it was a useful warning to the members and we make sure that our RA is kept up to date!
Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
8 Apr 2015 2:26PM
Got a link to the case? No? Didn't think so.
thewilliam 10 6.1k
8 Apr 2015 2:28PM

Quote:
Being without motor insurance is illegal so is compulsory
Being without PLI is not - it is an exercise in CYA
Your analogy is misplaced.



The law doesn't seem to consider motor insurance as very important because the penalties are so small. It would be cheaper for me to get caught without insurance four times a year. I believe that PLI should be compulsory for all workers.
thewilliam 10 6.1k
8 Apr 2015 2:29PM

Quote:Got a link to the case? No? Didn't think so.


There's no need for me to answer because you've done it for me and your mind is closed anyway!
Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
8 Apr 2015 2:43PM
William the trouble is this being the internet people are going to think you are making stuff up when you make such claims without any kind of evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



themak 5 1.0k Scotland
8 Apr 2015 2:45PM

Quote:At a branch of a now defunct photographic chain, the baby photography was done on a table top so that the staff didn't have to bend too much.


Who was the parent in this case? Michael Jackson?
mikehit 9 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
8 Apr 2015 3:03PM

Quote:
The law doesn't seem to consider motor insurance as very important because the penalties are so small. It would be cheaper for me to get caught without insurance four times a year.



If you were caught without insurance four times your licence would have been revoked for a year and maybe your car crushed. Not severe enough for you?


Quote:
I believe that PLI should be compulsory for all workers.


Fair enough.
Evertonian 6 729 England
8 Apr 2015 3:30PM

Quote:William the trouble is this being the internet people are going to think you are making stuff up when you make such claims without any kind of evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



The proof is in the law of the land. Health & Safety at Work Act of 1974. Nothing extraordinary involved - just basic stuff. I did think I had explained this earlier on - as had a few others in the know.
The HSE has insufficient staff to police everybody and everywhere in the UK, just like many other government organisations, so most of the time photographers and their anciliary staffs will get away with it; weddings not being well known for being dangerous events. However, when severe injuries are sustained the liklihood of a vsit by the local HSE becomes very much more realistic. Then your compliance or otherwise with the documentary proof of your planned actions to avoid such accidents will play a major part in the outcome.
The injury or death risk at weddings is extremely low as I have said but the documentation and the thought that needs to go into it it perhaps daunting initially, but with a set of generic assessments it is then very simple to make one specific just prior to the event taking place. See the HSE website for templates.


mikehit 9 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
8 Apr 2015 3:46PM
I don't disagree with you, Evertonian.I (like others) simply think the tone in which this advice is given when someone merely asks about photographing a friend's wedding is overplayed.
It is like someone saying they are taking their kid to the playground and having a stranger tap them on the shoulder and reel off all the risks about falling off the swings and breaking their neck and all the precautions they should take incling wera rubberised bumper suits and how they should make sure their household policy covers them if they should knock another kid over and graze his knee. It is all factually acccurate but somewhat inappropriate in the context of the original statement.
I know it is all done with the best of intentions but sometimes need to stop and think before typing. Or word it differently and not sound like a doom-monger.

If the OP was an experienced photographer wanting to branch out professionally I would have no qualms about it whatsoever. It is all about context.

scottishphototours 15 2.6k 2
8 Apr 2015 3:49PM

Quote:If that happened and it turned out we weren't insured it would ruin her day. Had we been insured, not a problem.


If this was the case, surely I should be more worried about MY bank balance. That's my whole point.


Quote:I've just spoken to a pal who owns three hotels. Anything like that is claimed from their own insurance firm. Their insurance firm will decide whether to try to get some of the money from the person who caused the damage, if it was a photographer with insurance they would negotiate with that firm.


And if the photographer was trading as a sole trader, he/she then IS the company, and so the insurance firm would still be looking for some recompense. They would then be liable to cover the damage - insured or not - and it then comes down to the same thing - the photographer having to cover the cost of damage - so surely if this is the case then it's better to be insured then???


Quote:They'd never leave a 23k vase where it could easily be knocked over and broken. Their insurance firm wouldn't allow it.


I wonder if this crowds insurers allowed this??.... bbc news and I wonder what would have happened if the guy who knocked it over happened to be a visiting amateur photographer who happened to brush it with his camera bag hanging off his shoulder?? Would the insurance company ignore him and pay up? What if he was proven to be earning money with his camera - would their decision change? For me personally, I'd rather be insured than want to have to find out...and that's the whole crux of my point.
keithh 15 25.5k 33 Wallis And Futuna
8 Apr 2015 4:02PM
With the boot on the other foot. Don't leave a priceless vase where it can be knocked over.

How many hotels actually have high value China antiques on display? The story of the photographer knocking one over is pretty prolific on the Internet but with no actual information as to where and when it happened. In fact some insurance companies use the story as a 'what if'.
Chris_L 5 5.0k United Kingdom
8 Apr 2015 4:24PM
Scottishphototours sometimes uses the stories as what-ifs and other times as things that happened. Vase ranges between 8k and 23k. Wallpaper between 150 a roll and 270 a roll I believe.

The company / firm I refer to is the photographer's insurance company.

How much are you going to say the vase was next time you tell this fairytale?
scottishphototours 15 2.6k 2
8 Apr 2015 4:26PM
I'm sure if you're shooting in 5-star places in Scotland like Mar Hall, Cromlix House, Gleneagles or in similar venues in the rest of the country, there are sure to be items of substantial value adorning the place.

As I said previously, I personally know of two people who have had to use their PL insurance to cover damage to vases and walls. I'm sure there are people who could recount stories from the MPA, SWPP or the FSB that have similar tales to tell.

Accidents can happen, and my whole point in this is simply to say to the unwary that PL cannot be overlooked nowadays. That's not being negative or scaremongering, I believe it's good, solid advice to anyone at whatever level, and it's more important than getting a new camera body/lens/flash/cards for their first wedding shoot.