In the absence of any regulation, anybody can sound like they are eminently qualified to do the job, and they very often aren’t.
For the past three years, the Ontario government has been working toward licensing and regulating home inspectors. Bill 165, Licensed Home Inspectors Act, was introduced earlier this year.
The provincial government announced yesterday that it expects the law to pass and go into effect this fall.
Until this regulation comes in, anybody that can pick up a clipboard can become a home inspector.
The proposed law intends to ensure that home inspectors are qualified, insured, use proper contracts and deliver at least certain standard results.
This will also create a level playing field for the home inspection industry, preventing inspectors with little or no training from competing with qualified professionals by offering lower rates.
How much of this could also apply to professional photography?
Proper qualifications, being insured, proper contracts? People with little or no training undercutting experienced professionals? Anyone with a camera calling themselves a professional photographer?
The point to regulating home inspectors is to help protect consumers making the biggest and most expensive purchase of their lives. Certainly a $750,000 house purchase is very different from a $5,000 photography purchase. But do customers need protection from unscrupulous or unqualified photographers or should it be left to caveat emptor? Are the existing consumer protection laws, which apply to photographers, good enough?
The purpose of licensing or regulating photographers is to benefit the customer not the photographer. This would have no effect on pricing nor will it produce any more work for the photographer. It would only tell the customer that a photographer meets minimum business standards. (You can’t licence or regulate artistic standards or creativity.)
Keep in mind that photographer licensing, regulating or certification would not eliminate low-priced or low-ball photographers. It won’t eliminate the weekend warrior photographer. That should not be the intent.
The purpose is to prove to customers that a particular photographer is, for example, insured, legally collects and submits taxes, understands copyright and model release basics, uses a proper contract, can properly handle a customer’s personal information, and can correctly archive images for a minimum of X-number of years.
Many trades and industries have minimum standards. There are minimum standards for coffee shops, car dealers, corner convenience stores, barber shops, house painters, dog walkers and more.
The photography industry has no minimum standards. How great is that? Having minimum standards would be a win for everyone except the unscrupulous photographer.
Spot quiz: Which would you choose:
• a licensed or unlicensed installer to put a swimming pool in your backyard?
• a licensed or unlicensed bakery?
• a licensed or unlicensed butcher?
• a licensed or unlicensed locksmith?
• a licensed or unlicensed special events planner?
• buy fruit from a licensed or unlicensed fruit grower?
• a licensed or unlicensed glass installer to replace your car windshield?
• a licensed or unlicensed car mechanic to work on your car?
Did you prefer the licensed business in all cases?
None of the above jobs require a licence but all of them have voluntary licenses. Having a licence, even a voluntary one, has a positive effect on consumers. There’s no guarantee that a licensed person will do a better job than an unlicensed person. But there is value in knowing that the licensed business has met certain minimum standards.
The downsides to most licensing/regulating schemes are the cost and bureaucracy involved, deciding on what standards need to be met and determining who would run the licensing organization. Another concern is that a little regulation today might lead to a lot more regulation tomorrow.
It’s been said that rules are the solutions to yesterday’s problems. If there aren’t any problems when hiring or working with photographers then licensing or regulation isn’t required. But should this be left to customers or photographers to decide?
