March 28, 2013 at 12:36 pm #8304
Thought this was an interesting read.
I’ve seen so many photogs offering Easter sessions with live bunnies and chicks. The majority if not all seem to be fauxtographers. I personally think it’s gimmicky and would be too much of a hassle. Glad I never tried to do this either. It’s dangerous and you need a specific license.March 28, 2013 at 3:20 pm #8311
We had a pet rabbit. One was enough to last forever. Bunnies are a pain to clean up after because they pee bleach!March 28, 2013 at 8:47 pm #8321
A photographer in my area illegally used bunnies and chicks. Days before a little girl with cancer was scheduled for her surgery she offered her a free session through “the Olivia Act”. It burned me up to see a photographer putting a little girl who’s immune system has been weakened by chemo at such risk and exposure to disease.March 29, 2013 at 12:44 pm #8335
I saw that the other day when one of the FB photog groups, I am part of, posted it. I sent it along to a fauxtog I know. Shows she read it, but I got no response and she is still planning a live chick photoshoot. Her pics are really bad too. (I posted a link to her here once before).March 29, 2013 at 5:08 pm #8337
Report her… lol. Ok that might be mean, but, isn’t it tempting? If it was a true self-respecting photographer they would be like “Oh my gosh! I had no idea! I guess I’ll have to tell my clients we can’t do this!”March 29, 2013 at 10:01 pm #8342March 30, 2013 at 1:09 pm #8350
@beg Yea very tempting! Lol.
@cam cute pic! =)
I think baby chicks are so adorable..the problem is what do most of the fauxtogs do with them when they are done with them! Cuz we know they don’t keep them…March 31, 2013 at 3:07 pm #8392
That article says I can’t take a picture of a friend holding my cat.
It says I can’t take a picture of my neighbor’s horse in his field.
Both of those things sound reasonable to me, so I have trouble believing the article. Maybe it’s spot on, but it sounds wrong.
But after seeing the image of the kid holding up a bunny by an ear, I can understand what the animal welfare act is supposed to prevent… things like that.March 31, 2013 at 4:36 pm #8394
A photographer I followed was offering Easter shoots and was reported to the USDA for it. She posted a long, angry rant on her FB and her website addressing a similar article to that and so on and so forth. She said she used a licensed animal handler and was covered for safety and legal concerns. She said when she called the USDA, there were restrictions for rabbits but not birds, including chicks. I’ve read articles like that and the USDA website. Most of the information is confusing and contradicting. I still don’t quite know what is allowed and what is not, which leads everybody to confusion even when they’re trying to do the right thing.
On a side note, I ran into a photography supplier who sells prop chicks and rabbits, and they look extremely realistic. (Taxidermy…?) Either way, while I think they are ‘cute’, I don’t think I’d be interested in doing live animal shoots just for the sake of cleanliness and safety for both the children and the animals. Nothing wrong with a basket and some eggs if you must have some props.March 31, 2013 at 5:50 pm #8400
Stef, “The use of a live animals (mammals) in photography requires a license from the federal government’s USDA and some states.” However, “the use of a live animal in photography” is not the same as photographing a live animal. If an animal is in it’s habitat and you get out your camera and shoot it, you are just taking its picture, not using it in photography.
Item 12) paragraph 4 says: “Family pets may be incorporated into photographic sessions without a license. But, the pet or pet owner must be the person/people being photographed. There must be an established pet ownership relationship or the owner must be present. For example: The photographer may not sell a pet to the client for the length of the session and then have the client sell the animal back. It must TRULY be the pet of the client or the owner must remain present.”
So you can take your friend holding your cat, or neighbour’s horse in the field. It may be different if you want to dress the horse up in a funny hat and tutu, however.March 31, 2013 at 9:04 pm #8407
No no no! What are these people thinking? A faux just put a live chick inside a plastic Easter egg and photographed the kid opening the egg with the chick all squished up and sticking out the sides! This is like the faux who put the baby ducks in the glass vases. That pic was featured on the facebook site that has been talked about here.April 1, 2013 at 12:14 pm #8424
I ran across a really good photographer I follow on FB who just posted a few photos of kids with chicks in the studio. She has a very established business so I will assume she went through the proper legal licensing. The photos she posted also look very safe. The chicks are in a basket next to the basket a baby is in, and in another one, a little girl is cupping her hands while sitting and holding a chick. Then I ran across another photographer’s website and it had two bunnies sitting on a wooden box with a boy petting them, and in another image he was holding the bunny nicely. Again, that website looks very professional so I will assume these photographers have gotten licenses for this. It seems to be more of a problem with inexperienced fauxtogs trying to mimic others and not having a clue how to do it right.April 1, 2013 at 10:18 pm #8456
“Family pets may be incorporated into photographic sessions without a license. But, the pet or pet owner must be the person/people being photographed. There must be an established pet ownership relationship or the owner must be present. For example: The photographer may not sell a pet to the client for the length of the session and then have the client sell the animal back. It must TRULY be the pet of the client or the owner must remain present.”
So, this says one of two things:
1. I cannot photograph someone else holding my cat, because I’m the owner and not being photographed. Likewise, I cannot use a pet bunny.
2. I can photograph children holding my pet bunny, without getting a license.
Cats and rabbits are both pets. The owner (me) is present, but NOT the one being photographed.
Which is it? If it’s #1, that sounds kind of strange to be unable to legally photograph a friend holding your cat.
If it’s #2, then this whole thread is immaterial.April 2, 2013 at 7:59 am #8466
The first sentence is clear enough. It does go down hill from there. I can’t see why it should make a difference if the pet owner is photographer or photographee.
To see the effect, substitute “dog” for “cat” or “rabbit”.April 28, 2013 at 5:51 pm #9212
I have chickens as pets and it always upsets me to see people using chicks as “props”, especially when they let young children (who are not exactly gentle) handling chicks. They are fragile (and really shouldn’t be handled a whole lot while so young, it’s not good for them) and I don’t even want to know what these people do with the chicks after they’re done being used. Now to cheer everyone (or just me) up, a picture of one of my hens being cute. http://www.flickr.com/photos/92660812@N03/8638375795/in/photostream/lightbox/
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.