A Pro or not a Pro...........that is the question

[ghost]

I consider myself an amateur photographer. Hell I'm not even anywhere near a Pro, BUT I have been paid to take photographs.

So where do I stand? I'm still learning this magical art and it just so happens that some plp have decided that they wanted to pay me to take photographs for them.

Yes I have derived some income from my photography but only a token amount of my annual income. I have seen it said before (in amatuer competitions etc) that if you have derived any income from your photography you are considered pro and unable to enter. At my level this seems crazy. I would love to enter some amatuer comps to better myself in photography but don't want to break the rules because I have been paid in the past.

Are there any clear guidelines or laws in relation to this? Any help is appreciated.

[shakey]

Might be a bit like the olympics in the "old days". If its an amateur comp you probably need to speak to the organisers to see whether you are eligible or not. Might depend upon how much you've been paid. Someone once gave me $10 for a CD of her kids photos, even though I didn't ask for any payment. Took me about an hour to put them all together. I'm not sure whether that makes me a pro or a mug..

As a purist I'd have to say that if you earn "any" money from photography then you are a "pro", rather than an amateur. Rather than photo comps making a distinction between pros and amateurs it would be more sensible to make the categories "Earning more than $1000.00" from photography and "Earning less than $1000.00" from photography. This would let the "casual" professional and the "pure" amateur sit easily together.

[sirhc55]

I would categorise a pro as someone who has a primary income from photography and invoices the client complete with ABN.

[ghost]

Someone once gave me $10 for a CD of her kids photos, even though I didn't ask for any payment. Took me about an hour to put them all together. I'm not sure whether that makes me a pro or a mug..

Probably the latter But thats my point. Surely you cannot be considered a pro under those type of circumstances.

"Earning more than $1000.00" from photography and "Earning less than $1000.00" from photography. This would let the "casual" professional and the "pure" amateur sit easily together.

I agree but over what timeframe? Ahh, I wish it was that easy.

I would categorise a pro as someone who has a primary income from photography and invoices the client complete with ABN.

I have an ABN and have invoiced plp under that ABN number but it is (unfortunately) by no means my primary income (I wish it was!).

Any money I have earned via photography in the past year would be less than 1% of my annual income.........so where do I stand?

[cawdor]

Any money I have earned via photography in the past year would be less than 1% of my annual income.........so where do I stand?

I would define someone as a pro if they derive their primary income from photography or are employed to work as a photographer (newspaper, magazine etc). The classification of "pro" doesn't relate to skill at all in my opinion.

[ghost]

Yep I agree with you. So that means if I want to enter an amateur photo comp where the rules rules state as I have mentioned above, I have a few choices:
1. Enter and try to explain that even though I have broken the rules they really don't apply to me.
2. Lie.
3. Sit on the sideline and spectate.

[Raskill]

Option 2. Lie. If the rules are that rediculous, then circumvent them.

You aren't a pro if you get paid for the odd job. I've done a few paying jobs, but would never consider myself a pro. Like a few others have said, if it was your primary income, then yes, you'd be a pro.

Incidentally, you can still earn up to $50,000 from a 'hobby' and not pay tax, thats the ATO's rules. Also, you can still hold an ABN, but not register for GST.

Good luck in the photo contest.

[JordanP]

Incidentally, you can still earn up to $50,000 from a 'hobby' and not pay tax, thats the ATO's rules.

Hi,

Just to clarify when you say tax you mean GST? You would still be liable to declare and pay income or company tax on $45,000 profit wouldn't you? If not I'm going out to beat my accountant around the head

[ozonejunkie]

Incidentally, you can still earn up to $50,000 from a 'hobby' and not pay tax, thats the ATO's rules.

Hi,

Just to clarify when you say tax you mean GST? You would still be liable to declare and pay income or company tax on $45,000 profit wouldn't you? If not I'm going out to beat my accountant around the head

You would have to pay tax on $44,000 of it. Even if income is from a hobby source, it is taxable, and the tax free threshold is $6,000.

Tristan

[kenny12]

does it really matter what you call yourself or what others call you?

its the photo that matters

[dooda]

Yes but he wants to enter into a photo competition and isn't sure if he's considered pro. There's a difference between having made money from photography and being a pro. In Canada there are several things that define you as a pro anything. Do you have business cards and a business license? Do you actively promote your services for a fee?

I was framing some prints of mine the other day for a gallery showing and another fellow was in there framing a print of some people he took at a wedding. He was a pro and asked me if I was pro. I had to think for a second, and said "nope". He showed me his photo and it was the most unimaginative generic wedding photo I had ever seen. Not sure, but it was funny. He said that he loved being a pro. I told him I'd probably hate it. I just rambled, sorry.

[ghost]

Thanks everyone for your input. I agree with all of you.

As I said in my original post I am certainly not a Pro, it's just that the comp rules said something like "if you have earned ANY money from taking photos you are deemed professional and are ineligible to enter the competition" or words to that effect.

I have decided to run with Raskill and take option #2....lie.

Cheers,

ghost

[Ordinary K]

I'd say those rules about "No pros in this comp" are there to hold back the folk who look upon those comps as a reliable source of income, rather than someone who's managed the odd sale/commission here or there. If you don't tell 'em, if your name isn't in the yellow pages, if your website doesn't advertise your pricing scale... how will they know?

... you can still earn up to $50,000 from a 'hobby' and not pay tax, thats the ATO's rules...

Ahhh... slipped a digit there maybe?
Or the rules have changed *substantially* in the last three years.

I scored a four-figure sale back in 2003 and checked in with the ATO. Their response was:

***PLEASE*** don't tell us about anything less than $5000 per year because that's just hobby income and it makes our life hell!

- it was their begging tone that got me. (And yes, my main source of income takes me well over several tax thresholds.) (Oh, and this comment does not constitute qualified advice on tax matters )
(EDIT: got interested and did some research: this ATO advice implies there's no set figure on how much hobby income is untaxable, and this one seems to be the source of the $50000 figure? Seek professional advice kids...)

Seriously, I've known "pros" that make less than $5k a year, and "amatuers" who've made a comfortable living from their hobby. It's a personal judgement call - if you think you're an amatuer that's what you are; if you decide you're a pro, you're a pro.

Personally: I don't make pictures to live. That means I'm an amatuer.

[moz]

I have an ABN and have invoiced plp under that ABN number but it is (unfortunately) by no means my primary income (I wish it was!).

Do you mean that you wish the money you have got from photography is all the money you earned? Because that seems to be the common path... which I why I haven't even tried. I have made more than I've spent on camera toys some years, and claimed the cameras as expenses as a result, but I have only once made more than ~$5k in a year and that was a complete fluke - one high paying job.

Most of my sales are $50-$200 for an image or two off my site, and most months I don't sell anything. But I seem to get print published most months

[Steffen]

You're a pro if you can claim your lens purchases at tax return time. And, of course, if your lens sticks out more than 20cm in front of your camera

Cheers
Steffen.

[kipper]

While Im no longer in Oz at this current time in my life, if I was to earn money from doing work in the same line of work that I do as my primary income but said "Im doing it as a hobby because I love my line of work so much" you wouldn't have to declare it?