INSURANCE and Photography - some basics

I contribute to a photography forum and people are always asking questions about insurance requirements for photographers so I posted a helpful article, however the problem (if problem it be) with the particular forum I visit is it's popularity - with 1000 posts per day any one post quicky moves down and drops off the list!

Therefore,I have decided to reproduce my article here as a general guide to assist anyone who may be confused about insurance matters relating to photography.

INSURANCE and Photography - some basics
(originally posted on the TP forum)

There's been a few threads recently about the confusing issue of INSURANCE - do you need it and if so, what type(s) exactly? So I thought a few basic pointers would be in order.
I emphasise - these are only BASIC GUIDELINES!

I worked in Insurance for nearly 25 years both as an Insurance Broker and as a Commercial Insurance Underwriter for one of the UK's 'Top 5' Insurance Companies.

BEFORE deciding what covers you need you must first answer this question - DO YOU CHARGE FOR YOUR PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICES?

If you DO NOT then most likely your Household Insurance Policy will provide all the cover you need. READ IT!

Things to consider are:

Do you have Theft and Accidental Damage cover away from your premises? The answer should be YES or you're taking a great risk with your equipment everytime you go out.

Is there a Single Article Limit (SAL) on your policy for your camera gear or just an overall limit? Is this limit enough?

Do you have Theft/AD cover from unattended vehicles? Is the SAL enough?

What basis is your policy cover? Is it 'New for Old'?

Always, always, ALWAYS check that your Sum Insured (and any SAL) is adequate!

Your Household cover should provide you with Public Liability cover (minimum £2Million Limit of Indemnity)

If your policy doesn't give you the above or you are not sure please talk to an Insurance Broker.


~~If you do not charge for your services you do not need to read further. If you DO charge, read on... ~~


For PROFESSIONAL photographers (and that means anyone who charges a fee for their services) you should consider the following:

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY - THIS IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT IF YOU EMPLOY ANYONE! Seek advice.

PUBLIC LIABILITY - not a LEGAL requirement (but, to my mind, SHOULD BE!)
Covers you up to the Limit of Indemnity (LoI) against bodily injury you may cause to third parties (other people) and material damage you may cause to third party property.
What LoI do you need? I doubt any legit company offers less than £2Million these days but you may require higher! Some councils require you to have £5M or £10M for instance.
(Imagine if a faulty lighting cable burnt down a hotel or if a pro footballer tripped over your tripod and broke his leg - how much do you think that would cost?)

THEFT and ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE covers - no legal requirement but can you afford to lose/break your gear? Consider the basis of cover and limits as above. Make sure that your Sum Insured is adequate.
Consider also Theft from unattended vehicles.

OTHER covers you may like/deem necessary to have are:

PERSONAL ACCIDENT - provides you with a lump sum if YOU (or named person) permanently lose the use of a limb and/or a weekly sum if you temporarily do so.

PERSONAL ACCIDENT AND SICKNESS - as above but includes sickness!

Why do you need PA or PA+S cover? Well, if you're self-employed and unable to work where will your money come from? If an employee is unable to work are you contracted to still pay him/her? Or will you need to take on temporary staff to maintain business as usual?

BUSINESS INTERRUPTION COVER. If you can't work because your gear has been lost, stolen or damaged you will lose revenue.

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COVER. There has beem much confusion over this one - possibly due to that word 'Professional'!
This cover is for persons giving professional advice for a fee (Lawyers, Accountants, Consultants, Insurance Brokers, etc)
As a photographer you DO NOT require this cover! You are a providing a service not advice.


These are only some basic guidelines. If in doubt always seek professional advice - check your Yellow Pages for Insurance Brokers and make sure they are qualified British Insurance Brokers Association (BIBA)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


There was one area that I did not cover in my original post but which came up in discussion and should be noted here...

... MOTOR INSURANCE!

If you are an amateur photographer your Motor policy covers you for personal/pleasure use but if you are a semi-pro photographer (even if it's only a 'ONE-OFF' job) you need to let your Insurance Company know otherwise they could invalidate your policy and driving without insurance is a CRIME!


There, I think that's it, all the basics! Does that help?

Happy Snapping!

A NEW SERVICE for 2008 - GUIDED PHOTOGRAPHIC DAYS!

A bit of shameless self-promotion coming up (sorry!)...

Yes folks, I have decided to offer GUIDED PHOTOGRAPHIC DAYS!

Why? Well, the latter part of 2007 and early part of 2008 was a very odd time for me - quite 'out of the blue' I received a number of requests to take people out on guided photographic trips. I was taken aback at first and I turned down a couple of enquiries due to other commitments but I did a couple of trips and I really enjoyed it! So did my 'clients'.

So this year I have decided to offer the opportunity!.

Why me? As a photographer of many years and as a member of two RPS Groups and former editor of a RPS magazine I have seem many, many great photographic images and I'm used to providing constructive criticism and advice - so why not me?

Also, I have the advantage of living and working in the beautiful Cornish countryside.

2008 Guided Photographic Days!

Are you a photographic newbie?
Or a competent photographer who wishes to improve?
Maybe you think your photographs are good (or not so good) and would like someone to give you an honest, informed opinion?
Do you have difficulty seeing the photographic potential in a scene?
Perhaps you are a holidaymaker to Cornwall who just doesn't know where to take your camera?

HELLO! I can help.

Photography is my passion and my profession. I'm here!

The basic services I will be providing are:

Assessment and Critique of your current work.
Help and Advice on how to...
... improve your current standard.
... see the potential in a scene.
... frame and focus for best effect.
A jolly good day out taking photographs with someone who does it for a living.
Trips tailored to suit you.

Interested? Then just get in touch to discuss your requirements.

PS. Do you have a loved one who would enjoy a day out like this? What a wondeful gift!

For George...

For George... who took the trouble to kindly post a couple of comments. Thank you.

I know the debate about angling will grind on and on and on and...

I just thought that the ignorance around the process by which that cod (or whatever) ends up covered in breadcrumbs needed highlighting and a few myths about angling needed debunking. People are entitled to their own opinions but I believe that opinion should be based upon fact and not ignorance.

I fully intend to keep film alive for as long as possible (although I do now own a digital camera).

Yes, credit where credit is due. Namely, to... The Who for lyrics from the Ballad of Baba O'Reilly.

For everyone... I haven't been able to post (or do anything inter-thingy-wise) for a while as the recent strong winds caused tree branches to saw through our 'phone line and I had to fall-back on reading books and ranting to the wife! Now I'm back I have a lot of catching-up to do.

Philolsophy and five annoyinq questions!

I like questions; I like being asked sensible questions and I like asking questions. BUT there are four questions that I find really, really annoying and they are:

What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?
If a tree falls in the forest with no-one to hear it does it still make a sound?
Which came first; the chicken or the egg?
Is the glass half-empty or half-full?

The first two I find only mildly irritating because they're not asked (of me) very often and it's not really the question that's irritating but the asker. Or, rather, the attitude of the asker. It's the 'these are philosophical questions and therefore I am a philosopher to have thought to have asked them' attitude that annoys me. So let's just consider that...

Whether the questions themselves should be termed philosophical I choose not to comment upon (but certainly they are widely considered so).

Does the asking of the question mean that you are a philosopher? Erm... no! Not unless the question is your own original thought, which, as these particular questions are ages-old they are not. What you are doing is merely repeating the question and unless you are a lecturer in philosophy that means you are a smug so-and-so who hasn't even considered the question!

Would considering the question make you a philosopher? Possibly.

How do I know you haven't really considered the question? Well, if you had you would know the answer! It's really quite simple.

Moving on to the 'chicken and egg...' This question irritates me a whole lot more than the previous two not only because I hear it more but because it is often used to terminate a debate, usually in a condescending manner and implying that there is no solution. Again, it shows that the speaker, although trying to adopt the philosophical high-ground, isn't really as bright as he/she thinks they are because the answers to the chicken/egg question are blindingly obvious! Yes, I did say "answers" plural; there are two answers because the question itself is imprecise.

Now the last question... the one about that glass!!! This one really sets my nerve on edge! Why? Because it has been adopted as a means of pigeon-holing people as being optimistic or pessimistic. What utter ROT! The use of this question for this purpose is ill-conceived and again only serves to show the lack of thought and total lack of originality on the part of the asker. I could give you my 'answer' now but I would be risking RSI of my typing finger. Suffice to say that this particular question is also annoying because it is a pointless question - the 'answer' doesn't matter!

Oh, my title does say five questions doesn't it? Well the last one is unique in my experience; a smug so-and-so of my acquaintance always asks "Why did the chicken cross the road?" when trying to terminate a debate - he's mistaken it for the 'chicken/egg' question! Which which would actually annoy me more, if it wasn't so funny!

If you would like answers to the above questions I shall be happy to supply them, if you ask nicely.

Angling Is Cruel! No it's not! Yes it is! No...

I've been away, in Manchester, for a long weekend/short week break and I'll probably post more on this later but while I was there I overheard a conversation between two children aged probably between six and eight years; the gist of their conversation was that Angling Is Cruel! From what they said they had obviously been told this by their teacher (or other person in authority) and they accepted and believed it.Without knowing exactly what was said, in what context, by whom and for what purpose I wouldn't like to say that these children had been subjected to anti-angling propaganda or had been indoctrinated but it was obvious that they believed this point of view almost as a matter of faith and I find this sad. I don't just find their pov sad because I disagree with it (Yes, I am an Angler!) but because this issue is a highly emotive one and almost everybody has an opinion but rarely are these opinions (pro or con) based on fact and even more rarely are they rational or particularly well thought through.



Please 'stay with me' on this one because although I am an angler I would like to dispel a few myths, raise a few issues, put forward my own opinion and more importantly let you know the thought processes by which I have arrived at my opinion.



About me... As well as being an angler I am also a keen amateur naturalist ecologist and environmentalist, a hill-walker and lover of nature, the countryside and all the 'beasties' that live in it including the fish that I fish for. Is this a paradox? I don't think so. I have never yet met an angler, young or old, who wasn't interested in the wonders of nature and who didn't care about animals, birds and of course, fish.



Lead shot poisons swans - fact or fiction? Well, it's true that swans can suffer from lead-poisoning after ingesting lead shot but angling weights are no longer made from lead and this change was led by pressure from the anglers themselves. Most 'true' anglers voluntarily switched to non-toxic shot 25 or more years ago! Even before that the amount of lead shot lost by an individual angler during the course of a season was infintissimally small and the amount lost by all the anglers in the country could not have added up to much and could not have had any significant impact.



Anglers' nylon line kills animals. That's certainly possible but again most anglers are aware of this and take care not to leave nylon lying around. Indeed, most angling clubs (certainly the ones I belong to) have a policy that any angler found leaving any litter will be have his/her membership revoked. The clubs I belong to clubs go even futher and say that any angler not clearing up litter whether or not he/she dropped it will be barred. Plastic bags, plastic loops and plastic netting pose a much greater danger to wildlife and are found as a result of agricultural practices, accident or left by the casual visitor to the coutryside.



Angling is cruel because fish feel pain (and fear). This has been the subject of much 'No they don't/Yes they do' debate. I don't know exactly what fish feel. I do know that fish are a cold-blooded animal living in an environment that is totally unlike ours and that it is wrong to anthropomorphise them and say that they experience anything exactly the same way that we do. From many years experience and observation I can say that if they do feel pain they appear to quickly recover from it and/or 'shrug it off' - they have to in order to survive. I can also say that fish do experience alarm in the presence of danger such as potential predators and again they quickly recover once the danger has passed - they would be eaten if they did not experience such alarm and they would starve if that alarm did not quickly pass!


Okay, I think it's time to move on and talk about the three basic types of fishing...


Coarse Fishing is the name given to angling for fish which are considered inedible. This is a popular sport/pastime and when caught the fish are released back into the water. Is it ethical to catch fish purely for personal enjoyment? Or is it cruel? I think that this is an entirely personal judgement-call. Each individual should have the right to decide for themselves. If you have any qualms about it then don't do it but you should not try to make that decision for anyone else.

I will say again that most anglers care passionately about and for the fish they catch (or try to catch) and certainly fishery owners do because they have a financial stake in looking after the wellbeing of their fish.

In my opinion coarse fish must rank among the most loved and pampered of all cold-blooded animals with the routine use of landing- and keepnets of such delicate softness that you would have no qualms about carrying a newborn baby in them. The use of unhooking mats is 'de riguer' and again most of these could double as changing mats or matress for a baby. A lot of anglers also carry with them antiseptic creams just in case they should accidentally scratch their beloved carp!

For me the most important questions that one should ask oneself before contemplating banning a pastime that is enjoyed by approximately five million people in the UK are:

* do I know enough about this to have formed a rational argument against it?

* do I have the right to remove other peoples freedom of choice just because I wouldn't do it?

* do I object to coarse fishing just because 'they' do it for personal enjoyment?

That last question is a 'biggie' because it leads to another question - 'If I do object to angling for pleasure do I also object to angling for food?' Which leads us on to the other two forms of angling Game (Trout/Seatrout/Salmon) and Sea where the fish caught are often taken 'for the table'.


Game anglers are extremely aware of the environmental issues that affect their sport because their fish (compared to the total number of coarse fish species) are that much rarer and species like salmon and seatrout are subjected to so many outside pressures that coarse fish are not. The two clubs/associations that I belong to between them seed 70,000 salmon fry into the river system each year - not just to enhance their sport but to redress the ecological damage done over the years by licenced and un-licenced netsmen satisfying the public demand for these extremely tasty fish. This work is voluntary and wholly funded by the anglers themselves and is carefully carried out under the watchful gaze of and with the approval of the Environment Agency(EA). The EA believe that this is a good thing to do but does not have sufficient funds to do it itself. In addition these clubs also carry out regular maintenance of the river bed (to give the fish a reasonable chance to spawn) and regular maintenance of the banks to the benefit of wildlife, anglers and non-anglers alike.

A word here about the EA... The EA is a government-established body whose job includes managing the welfare of rivers and waterways in this country. In part the work of the EA is funded by fees paid by anglers for a licence (a legal requirement) to use rod and line to catch fish and with over 4 million licence holders this is a sizeable amount of money. But still the EA is dreadfully under-funded and does not have the manpower to carry out it's duties without the aid of anglers. Sir David Bellamy, naturalist, described anglers as 'the eyes and ears of the British waterways'.


Sea anglers have for a long time been lobbying the Government for a review of commercial fishing practices, size-limits and quotas. Why? Because they were the first to see the reduction in size and numbers of sea fish visiting our shores and they were the first to understand the implications.

So, let's move on... We have asked the questions 'Do I object to angling for pleasure?' and 'Do I object to angling for food?' Let's assume that the answer to both of these is 'Yes'. Where do we go from here? Well, if you object to angling 'for the table' you must also object to commercial fishing for food!
Most commercial fishing as we all know is done by trawling fleets. What is less well known is the ecological impact of trawling; after all why should we even be aware that the innocent breaded or battered fishfinger was once a fish at all? I think that we should be aware.

Between 2002 and 2005 a study was carried out by Government scientists on commercial fishing practices by English and Welsh commercial vessels operating in the English Channel, Western Approaches, Celtic and Irish Seas; this study discovered that in this time an estimated 186million fiish, weighing 72,000 tons, were caught - now that's a lot of fish! Sadly, of these fish approximately two-thirds were discarded as being under-sized or the 'wrong' type of fish (ie they had less commercial value than the 'target' fish). These fish did not survive being dumped back into the sea!
Hmm... that fishfinger is starting to look a little less 'innocent' now, isn't it?

And what of the fish that were retained? How did they make it onto the shelves? Caught by the hundedweight(s) the fish at the bottom of the net would have suffered crush injuries and they would all have been deposited on the deck gasping for oxygen. Those that did not die from being crushed or from asphyxiation would have been gutted alive. I do not say this to shock you but to raise your awareness that just because you buy your fish from a supermarket and just because it no longer looks like a fish you cannot disassociate yourself from reality and before you atempt to decide whether angling is cruel you should take an honest look at how the food you eat is produced. At least when I take the occasional fish 'for the table' I despatch it quickly with a blow to the head! I understand and care about the fish that I eat and I respect them!

I wonder if those children in Manchester were told all about the fishfingers served up in the school canteen?

The purpose of this article was to raise your awareness and allow you the reader to consider whether or not angling is cruel on a rational basis rather than just on an emotional level. I may have given you something to think about or I may have put you off eating fish for life... I don't know. I have made my choice - I do occasionally (not often) eat fish products from a supermarket but I do at least know how those fish got to be 'au gratin-ed'!

I am an angler and I fish with care and respect!

Photography and the weather

It seems like forever since I was able to go out and take the sort of photographs that I like taking and the reason is... the weather! This winter has, so far, just been wet, wet, unrelentingly WET! Of all the weather conditions possible persistant rain is, to my mind, the only one that makes photography totally unrewarding due to the:
* low light levels
* flat contrast
* poor visibility
* risk of damage to equipment
* sheer 'miserable-ness'

And I couldn't even go fishing. For the same reasons.

However, today looks quite Spring-like and the forecast for tomorrow doesn't look bad either so hopefully I will be able to get out soon.

I'm exploring some new directions in my photography and I will post some examples on this blog soon. So... 'Watch this space'!... and prepare to be suitably impressed!

It had to happen!

Well, it had to happen sometime... I've got a 'blog'!


Why? There's always been a dichotomy in my way of thinking; I have strong views on some subjects but I don't like (or can't be bothered) to preach or argue. This seems like an ideal way to put my thoughts 'OUT THERE' so others (you) can pick-up on them if they (you) wish. Or not.

Who am I? My name is Paul and I am married with 2 children and 2 cats. I am a photographer and artist - mainly landscapes (cue music and sing.... "Out here in the fields, I work for my meals...").

What's this blog about? Well... ME, obviously! It's part diary and part a means of expression. It's ALL about communication so I hope that YOU will join in and come along with me as I continue on this journey that we call 'LIFE'.

What might we talk about? Here's a few ideas: Photography, Films, Fishing, Facts, Fiction, Fantasy and Philosophy. (Did you notice that all these begin with an 'f'' sound? I must be having an 'f-day'! Sorry!)

What shall we NOT talk about? Sex, Politics, Religion and Foxhunting as these subjects are too emotive and people rarely think rationally about them. Also, there's just no FUN in talking about 3 of them!

Anyway, for what it's worth, this is my 'blog' - I hope you like it.