One of my potential clients asked today if I was “bonded”. This was the first time for this type of question. The potential client owns an art gallery. Anyone else ever get this type of question?
Ty Holland wrote:
One of my potential clients asked today if I was “bonded”. This was the first time for this type of question. The potential client owns an art gallery. Anyone else ever get this type of question?
Thank you,
Ty
I can't think of any reason why a gallery should wonder about that. The question would have to be "bonded against what?" because like insurance, it's rather pointed toward a certain type of loss not adequately covered by insurance--but just being "bonded" doesn't mean everything is covered.
Something wedding photographers (in particular) are liable for are damages claimed by a couple if the photographer fails to provide promised wedding coverage. That's not coverable by ordinary insurance, but can be covered by bonding. Instead of bonding, members of the PPA can also purchase cheap ($50 per year) membership into an indemnity trust fund that covers "errors and omissions" lawsuits.
I could see a gallery inquiring about bonding if you're going to be transporting artwork in their care off of their premises for shooting...most insurance policies will cover damage to their premises or property within their premises when you have your carrier issue the proper certificate or rider, and will certainly cover theft or damage of your own property, but might not cover theft or damage of someone else's property on your premises or in transit. It's one of the reasons that jewelry companies will employ bonded couriers for transporting their goods, or B&H won't allow assistants to pick up goods purchased by a photographer from the retail store...you need a bonded courier so that B&H isn't liable for the loss or fraud.
If you're shooting on their premises, then having your insurance carrier issue a certificate listing them as "additionally insured" with an appropriate amount of coverage should be enough.
I believe in Canada, bonded or bondable means you don't have a criminal record. So to be in a place where being bondable is required (can prove you don't have a crimanal record via a police report), then that is a good thing. I have heard this used by cleaning companies where their staff come into homes and offices when no one is there to clean (i.e. after hours or in your home during the day when you are off at work). If I was asked that question, I would answer 'I am bondable and can support your requirements on such if necessary'. (I have to do the same thing for my kids school if I am going to attend any field trips as a parent helper/supervisor).
Like Lord Kimbo, in Canada, I would say to employers that I am bondable.
This means I have no history or record of cash or property theft and will swear to it.
But in the United States of America, I think they need an insurance company to cover any pilfering if they get the job...or in other words they need an insurance company to indemnify them.
Then if there is an employer theft and you are named, the insurance company pays out.
Still, if you are bondable, you should state so right away.
I would say that a good reason to be bonded would be if your photography is of private locations or people. If you don't have a signature saying you have permission for the photography (even if it is from public property) the person / entity in the photograph could technically do a cease & desist / sue the gallery to have the photo removed. This way the Gallery would be able to pass that love back to the photographer.
Stuff like this has happened with iconic locations such as the Chrysler Building which I believe has a patent or copyright on it. This makes it so anybody who has a picture of it in any way being publicly displayed is infringing on it's copyright / patent.
I would say that a good reason to be bonded would be if your photography is of private locations or people. If you don't have a signature saying you have permission for the photography (even if it is from public property) the person / entity in the photograph could technically do a cease & desist / sue the gallery to have the photo removed. This way the Gallery would be able to pass that love back to the photographer. Stuff like this has happened with iconic locations such as the Chrysler Building which I believe has a patent or copyright on it. This makes it so anybody who has a picture of it in any way being publicly displayed is infringing on it's copyright / patent. ...Show more →
No, that would only be true if the photograph is used commercially, specifically, to promote a third party service or product.
Presuming no laws were broken in the physical act of taking the photograph (such as trespassing), the photographs can be sold as editorial illustrations or as art, and the images can also be used to advertise the selling of the image itself as art or editorial illustration.
The copyright law permits the blueprints of a building to be copyrighted (which means nobody else can build the same building), but it explicitly permits the making and selling of photographs and drawings of a copyrighted building.
Trademark laws do not apply unless you're "trading" on the trademark--making use of the commercial benefits someone else's trademark to enhance the commercial benefit of your own product. An example would be Pradis prominently using a Mercedes in an ad for their purses--using the symbolic luxury of the Mercedes emblem to convey a sense of luxury to their own product.
!