March 30, 2013 at 8:02 am #8345
I hope this hasn’t already been covered in the forums, but another major “no no” for professional photographers is the UNLICENSED use of live rabbits (or almost any other live animal) to promote Easter photos. This is a violation of the Federal Animal Welfare Act.
Some haven’t educated themselves enough to know that it is against federal regulations to use live rabbits (or lambs) in photography without a valid annual license from the USDA. To quote the APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) information from the USDA website:
“Ensuring proper animal care and comfort is not just good business—it is also required by law under the Animal Welfare Act. Passed by Congress
in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, 1985, and 1990, the law protects many animals not raised for food or fiber. It also sets stiff penalties for
sponsors and promoters of outlawed animal-fighting ventures.”
Birds and/or waterfowl (ducks) are not regulated, and I know there are those who push the limits of this law. Additionally, there are often state and local ordinances that require licensing. But basically, if you use live rabbits in Easter photos, you need a license from the USDA.
Below is the link to the information on the USDA/APHIS website (see page 15 for photographer-specific info.)
March 31, 2013 at 5:53 am #8367
- This topic was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by SEC.
I don’t see anything pertaining to photographers in that.March 31, 2013 at 8:55 am #8369
On page 15:
Anyone who uses regulated animals to promote
or advertise goods and services must be licensed. (If you give away or
sell animals as a prize, you must be licensed as an exhibitor.) You must
be licensed even if you do promotions with only a single animal, such as a
bear at a gasoline service station, a monkey at a trade show, or an
elephant at a shopping center. You also must be licensed if you use
animals to promote photographs or photography
But on page 16 it says:
Sponsors and participants at pet shows, such as dog, cat,
or rabbit shows, are exempt by law.
And back on page 7 it says:
Normal farm-type operations that raise, or buy and
sell, animals only for food and fiber, and businesses that use only fish and
other coldblooded animals are exempt by law; those that use only rats,
mice, or birds are exempt by regulation.March 31, 2013 at 11:32 am #8371
I posted a link in another thread the other day, which also reminded us that, aside from licensing, it can also be very unsafe for the animals or clients. children could grab a bunny wrong and snap it’s neck, and rabbits are also easily killed by heart failure from extreme fear.Chicks are delicate as well. Both rabbits and chicks can carry diseases that can be picked up and especially dangerous to infants and young toddlers who don’t yet have strong immune systems. That’s enough to say no right there! It’s too “trendy” and cliche to me anyway.March 31, 2013 at 2:25 pm #8376
It is not a show. It’s a picture on display, not an animal.
But I guess it depends how the gov interprets it.
I’ll go inform everyone who ever posted a picture of a cat.March 31, 2013 at 2:31 pm #8380
I saw BEGs post about this the other day and found it….interesting. I have never used, nor do I intend to right now, live animals in a photo shoot but I’m almost positive that the same laws do not apply here in the UK. I would look it up, but as I have no need to I wont, hahaMarch 31, 2013 at 2:47 pm #8390
Youch. Now the front page has an example of a kid holding a rabbit by one ear….March 31, 2013 at 3:11 pm #8393
Look at the comments…Kentucky what now? No offence to any decent people who might live there but there’s only one good thing that comes from Kentucky. The Colonels amazing secret blend of 11 herbs and spices! (Yeah I live in the UK so it rocks here!)
I think we need to find out whos page this image is on and actually abuse them as they seem to think that holding a defenseless bunny like that is normal behavior, f*cking d*cks!March 31, 2013 at 4:42 pm #8395
Taking photos of animals, and having peoples’ family pets in a photo, are different than borrowing or renting livestock to use as props. You don’t need a license for family pets.March 31, 2013 at 4:44 pm #8396
It’s okay if it is THEIR cat.
You can take YOUR dog, cat, hamster (or rabbit, or any other live animal) to a photographer; or the photographer can come to you and your furry family. But you must be the owner, or in a family, you must be a family member.
And it is also okay to photograph the animal by itself. But when the photographer is the provider of the human contact….\
Basically, it means the photographer cannot own the live animal. Here’s another reference (I hope it is okay to share this link.) http://behindtheloupe.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/how-can-a-bunny-rabbit-kill-your-business/
It’s not illegal. Photographers just need a license from the USDA.
March 31, 2013 at 7:35 pm #8402
- This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by SEC.
The idea that I cannot take a picture of someone holding my own cat without a permit boggles me.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying *something* is wrong.March 31, 2013 at 8:27 pm #8404
I’m not sure if it applies to cats and dogs, I thought it was livestock… but if that’s so, what if your cat or dog bit a client?March 31, 2013 at 8:40 pm #8406
This discussion is happening in two threads. In the other one, the guide that was presented said you did not need a permit if the pet’s owner was present, which would be the case if you were the photographer and pet owner.
If your pet bites someone, you have the same liability regardless of whether you are a photographer or not.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.