Can I work as a photographer in Iceland?
The work environment for photographers in Iceland is very different from the one in Victoria. One big reason is that photography, as a profession, is protected by law in Iceland.
Anyone who wants to make a living as a photographer, other than for newspapers, is forbidden to do so without proper accreditation from educational authorities. Without the accreditation, said person can not legally open up a studio and advertise the studio's photography services. One would have to go through Reykjavík's Technical School or study abroad and come home with a bachelor's degree (or more).
The law in question essentially puts photography in class with plumbing, carpentry and hairdressing - as and industrial profession. In order to receive (what would probably be best described as) a bachelor's accreditation after your studies, the student has to locate someone with a master's accreditation and sign a contract to become their apprentice. (I do hope I'm making sense, and also that I'm not telling lies here). This contract varies in length according to the field; tailors need 24 weeks, bakers need 126 weeks, and photographers need 48 weeks.
When the student has fulfilled his contract, he earns the right to take a bachelor's exam. By passing that exam he earns the right to work as a photographer. He can now open up a studio if he so chooses, advertise his services, and start earning his pay.
I guess it's safe to say that the Icelandic photography community is up in the air these days.
Four years ago, the Icelandic Photographers Association sued the Icelandic state. Photos for passports and other identifications were now being taken by government officials instead of professional photographers. Photographers were losing quite a lot of business, and money, because of that, and decided to sue on the basis of that protection law I mentioned earlier. To cut a long story short, the photographers lost the case.
At least since then, and perhaps even longer, there has been a lot of discussion among Icelandic photographers, both amateurs and professionals, about whether or not the profession should be protected by law. Should just anyone be allowed to call himself a photographer and sell his services? Or should there be some educational requirements? These questions, and oh so many more, have been asked countless times, and the questions are becoming louder and louder.
Last month two small businesses were, well, run out of business after a ruling by a district court in Iceland. Nine accredited professional photographers went forward against those two businesses, suing them for breaking the protection law and working in a field they were not allowed to work in. (During a radio interview, one of the professional photographers said that this was being done to protect consumers, while another stated in the witness stand that these businesses were taking away from his business. Those comments fuelled some very heated discussions on 'the' Icelandic photography forum.) As I understand it, both businesses were run at the owners' home, and apparently both tried to defend themselves by arguing that the law in question was outdated because photographers were now mostly shooting digital, thus not working with chemical. Well, that's the gist of it anyway. I find the arguments from both parties a bit flimsy, although the pros do have the letter of the law on their side.
Photographers are not divided by educational lines in this matter. I know that more than a few accredited professional photographers would like to see the law changed. They feel, just like so many amateur photographers, that the law is outdated and is benefiting neither photographers nor consumers.
Consumers aren't stupid. They may not know why they like a certain photograph or style of photography, but they usually know if they like it or not. And therefore they should be allowed to pick a photographer they like.
Shortly after the court ruling, a Facebook page, called 'Freedom to photograph' was started, and it now has over 1,700 followers. Two of the instigators have already been heard by someone at the Ministry of Industry, where they asked for the protection law changed so it will not include photography anymore. They've also asked to know the original reason for the inclusion of photography on the list of protection professions.
It will certainly be interesting to see what. It will take time, but some decision will eventually be made - I hope.
---
I've mentioned this protection law to people around me here in Victoria, such as my former classmates at Western Academy of Photography, and they have had a hard time understanding it. This kind of protection for photography is not in place in Canada, and in fact I think almost none of Iceland's neighbouring countries - the countries we frequently compare ourselves to, have this kind of protection. Although, come to think of it, I think I've seen Austria and Switzerland mentioned in some forum thread.
I guess I'm in a limbo of sorts. I haven't gone through the Technical School in Reykjavík, nor have I got a bachelor's degree in photography coming from Western.
So where does that leave me? I simply don't know. I might be allowed to take the accreditation exam (perhaps based on work experience), I might not. The law might have been changed by then (in which case I might not need to take the exam), and it might have stayed the same.
All I know is that I won't allow myself to worry about it until I have to.
Until then I'll work hard at my chosen profession - and continue to enjoy life.
Light from an umbrella
This spring we had an assignment for portraiture class. I can't remember exactly what the assignment was about, but my end result was this photo here of my wife Hófí:
My portrait of my wife, Hófí, where she's lit from inside the umbrella.
It was an overcast day, even a bit rainy if I remember correctly. So I decided to tie my flash to the inside top of an umbrella and fire it off remotely, the idea being that the rain was staying outside the umbrella, and the sun was shining inside it. I tried a few different compositions and also had my wife rotate the umbrella so that the flash was pointing at her from different angles. The photo posted here is the one I liked best and subsequently submitted to my instructor.
And I was thoroughly happy about it, because I had done something I had never seen done before, not in that way at least. Of course I might have seen something similar before and that mental picture got stuck somewhere right behind my left ear on its way to the rolodex that is my brain - but that's about it... I think.
And now for something completely... erm... kind of similar. Yesterday, I was trying out Seesmic Desktop, a piece of software which allows me to follow my Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as add some Twitter searches to follow. I punched in a couple of searches, one of which was "pratchett". Now, that search term might not mean a whole lot to people west of the Atlantic, but Terry Pratchett, author of the Discworld books, is my favourite author, and I would say that his 65 million copies sold worldwide indicate that I'm not his only fan.
Well, that search term generated quite a few tweets, and somewhere in that haystack was a link to a blog post titled "Why I'm going to the Discworld convention". I clicked the link and to my amazed enjoyment (can I say that?) I saw a photo of Pratchett which reminded me more than a little bit of my own photo from this spring.
Terry Pratchett, my favorite author. Photo by Murdo Macleod, found on blog.dwcon.org.
Since Pratchett is also my wife's favourite author, we both found this quite amusing.
And one Discworld quote for the road, from Jingo: "Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."