Can't take photos here - your views please.

Northantsgeezer

Northantsgeezer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
352
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys and gals,
I went out with @forklift yesterday, to do some shots of a mud run / obstacle course. We had done one before at Rockingham, and the event organisers and staff were great.
We decided to take the same approach yesterday (a different event/location), and just introduce ourselves to the organiser / race director. He said that they had their own team of paid photographers, and we should have phoned him prior to the event. He spoke to the photographers, and basically:
1. They didn't want us there taking photos. We said, 'Well ok, thats fine, we don't want to tread on anyones toes, we will just stay in amongst the other public members'.
2. They said it wasn'nt public ground. We went to the reception of the land owners, and they said that the grounds were open to the public on that day, so they were fine with us being there, but couldn't comment on any policy of the event organisers.
3. He said that the runners were paying to do the run. We said 'and your point is??'
4. He said that we would be putting photos on a professional website etc. We said 'We have already told you we are not pro, and they would go on Flickr'
5. He said the public members were probably family and friends of some of the runners. We said 'Maybe, maybe not, and do you think that all the photos they take on their phones, cameras, ipads, and HD video cameras will not end up on facebook and flickr etc etc? Maybe we should have gone with Micro four third cameras, and just gone with the flow (nothing would have been said).
6. Finally he said he didn't want us there taking photos, but he wasn't security so couldn't remove us, but if we continued to do so, it would be 'Unfortunate'. (comments please).

The end result, we carried on (we did see other dslr users, camera phone users, iPad users, and video cameras), and we were left alone despite him driving around and stopping numerous times at points where we were taking photos. About 5 hours later, we departed.

My question is: If a private ground is opened up to the public (probably the same as at an airshow), are we not entitled to do what we went to do.....take photos of the event?.

Note: I don't think there is any link between the Rockingham event and yesterdays event. The Rockingham event was great.
 
Northantsgeezer said:
Hi guys and gals,
I went out with @forklift yesterday, to do some shots of a mud run / obstacle course. We had done one before at Rockingham, and the event organisers and staff were great.
We decided to take the same approach yesterday (a different event/location), and just introduce ourselves to the organiser / race director. He said that they had their own team of paid photographers, and we should have phoned him prior to the event. He spoke to the photographers, and basically:
1. They didn't want us there taking photos. We said, 'Well ok, thats fine, we don't want to tread on anyones toes, we will just stay in amongst the other public members'.
2. They said it wasn'nt public ground. We went to the reception of the land owners, and they said that the grounds were open to the public on that day, so they were fine with us being there, but couldn't comment on any policy of the event organisers.
3. He said that the runners were paying to do the run. We said 'and your point is??'
4. He said that we would be putting photos on a professional website etc. We said 'We have already told you we are not pro, and they would go on Flickr'
5. He said the public members were probably family and friends of some of the runners. We said 'Maybe, maybe not, and do you think that all the photos they take on their phones, cameras, ipads, and HD video cameras will not end up on facebook and flickr etc etc? Maybe we should have gone with Micro four third cameras, and just gone with the flow (nothing would have been said).
6. Finally he said he didn't want us there taking photos, but he wasn't security so couldn't remove us, but if we continued to do so, it would be 'Unfortunate'. (comments please).

The end result, we carried on (we did see other dslr users, camera phone users, iPad users, and video cameras), and we were left alone despite him driving around and stopping numerous times at points where we were taking photos. About 5 hours later, we departed.

My question is: If a private ground is opened up to the public (probably the same as at an airshow), are we not entitled to do what we went to do.....take photos of the event?.

Note: I don't think there is any link between the Rockingham event and yesterdays event. The Rockingham event was great.
Click to expand...

You should have respected there wishes and left.
 
Northantsgeezer said:
My question is: If a private ground is opened up to the public (probably the same as at an airshow), are we not entitled to do what we went to do.....take photos of the event?.
Click to expand...
The simple answer is no....it's still private land.

Bob
 
Thanks for the replies guys (y)
Believe me, I am very respectful, which is why we went to introduce ourselves in the first place.
My first thought was to just leave, but we decided to stick around to see the first wave of runners set off. When I saw other cameras come out (especially a video camera), my train of thought changed.
The guy was there at the start of the race, and made no announcements about not taking photos. If other people were allowed to record and shoot, then why should we be any different @f/2.8 ? Why should we be singled out? Is this a camera sizeist thing? :D
I should point out that my Nokia 1020 phone is 41MP and takes great images.

@Canon Bob , Thanks for the response Bob. I take it that your comment is like a 'bottom line' remark. I appreciate that, but if you went to an airshow, would you not have a reasonable expectation to be able to shoot the aircraft? I am assuming that 'that expectation' would be wrong of me.
I am just thinking of what would happen if some of the guys on here went to RIAT and were told to leave their cameras in their cars :eek:
 
Northantsgeezer said:
@Canon Bob , Thanks for the response Bob. I take it that your comment is like a 'bottom line' remark. I appreciate that, but if you went to an airshow, would you not have a reasonable expectation to be able to shoot the aircraft? I am assuming that 'that expectation' would be wrong of me.
I am just thinking of what would happen if some of the guys on here went to RIAT and were told to leave their cameras in their cars :eek:
Click to expand...
Of course RIAT would have that option but clearly choose to allow photography in the interest of getting the maximum number of punters through the gate. Try the same thing at a Premier League football match and you'll be asked to stop. Likewise shopping centres....open to the public but often with restrictions on photography.

Bob
 
I think this is one of those situations where if you had a smaller more consumer looking camera you would have been fine. People often draw the line on what they see as professional equipment that they think you will be able to make money from the shots vs. a small camera that they would assume is just for snapshots.
 
Cheers @Canon Bob, I see the point you are making, but what do you feel about the being singled out bit? I know that this part of it wasn't the point that you were making, but I am interested on thoughts from others.
If some people were taking photos in the places you mentioned above, and were , lets say 'getting away with it unchallenged', would you be happy if you were singled out and told not to?
Really interested to hear from others too.
 
It's a slightly complex one, as the basic 'rule' for private land / events is that conditions of entry can prohibit photography, so if that is the case then you should stop.

However here there seems to be the landowner saying it's free access, but a separate event organiser trying to impose restrictions - so I suspect it would come down to the details of the contract between the event organiser and the landowner - IE does that stipulate the event organiser can restrict activity such as photography.
 
Gareth_E said:
I think this is one of those situations where if you had a smaller more consumer looking camera you would have been fine. People often draw the line on what they see as professional equipment that they think you will be able to make money from the shots vs. a small camera that they would assume is just for snapshots.
Click to expand...

Ahh thanks @Gareth_E (y), this is totally what I am trying to get across. I continued because as you say, it's an assumption! (a wrong assumption in my opinion) We know that some of these smaller cameras can take brilliant images, hence so many switching to micro 4/3's. I continued because I thought it 'fair', and larger camera users should 'not' be discriminated against in any way.
 
Northantsgeezer said:
Thanks for the replies guys (y)
Believe me, I am very respectful, which is why we went to introduce ourselves in the first place.
My first thought was to just leave, but we decided to stick around to see the first wave of runners set off. When I saw other cameras come out (especially a video camera), my train of thought changed.
The guy was there at the start of the race, and made no announcements about not taking photos. If other people were allowed to record and shoot, then why should we be any different @f/2.8 ? Why should we be singled out? Is this a camera sizeist thing? :D
I should point out that my Nokia 1020 phone is 41MP and takes great images.

@Canon Bob , Thanks for the response Bob. I take it that your comment is like a 'bottom line' remark. I appreciate that, but if you went to an airshow, would you not have a reasonable expectation to be able to shoot the aircraft? I am assuming that 'that expectation' would be wrong of me.
I am just thinking of what would happen if some of the guys on here went to RIAT and were told to leave their cameras in their cars :eek:
Click to expand...


You asked them, they said no, you went ahead and did it anyway. Rudeness personified.
 
f/2.8 said:
You asked them, they said no, you went ahead and did it anyway. Rudeness personified.
Click to expand...

Is it not rude to allow some people but not others @f/2.8 ? There were other DSLR users taking photos. So my question is 'Do you consider that fair?'
If he had asked them not to take photos too, then I would have definitely ceased/not started.
 
I agree with your feelings 100% but I got very used to the fact that phone and compacts were tolerated whilst SLR's and decent lenses weren't.....it's a form of discrimination but one which can be asserted by the landowner or an appointed representative as is their right. It's quite feasible that another person had been given, or paid for, the rights to photography for the event....maybe evening paying the landowner commission on his/her sales.
The bottom line is that it's the landowner's choice who can and can't do things on their land unless he has to abide by other agrrements/regulations. If you'd paid to enter and not been told of the restriction then I would think that there's a reasonable case for a refund....probably not the case here.

Bob
 
Northantsgeezer said:
Cheers @Canon Bob, I see the point you are making, but what do you feel about the being singled out bit? I know that this part of it wasn't the point that you were making, but I am interested on thoughts from others.
If some people were taking photos in the places you mentioned above, and were , lets say 'getting away with it unchallenged', would you be happy if you were singled out and told not to?
Really interested to hear from others too.
Click to expand...

I think there are a few things in play, the general attitude that unaccompanied men with larger cameras are wierdos and the little Hitler/jobsworth complex meaning they don't want to change their mind or back down once they're made an initial decision of "No way..."

It does irk me that at the beach, park or even in the countryside unless I'm with my GF women in particular give me that if looks could kill look whilst anyone with a smartphone can snap and film with impunity. Obviously any man with a camera is a p****.
 
Part of me felt that I was sticking up for the rights of fellow photographers because I felt that if it was open to the public on that day, then I could shoot freely. I opened this thread to check if I was right or wrong.
I believe that it was the run director that said that we would have to speak to the owners to see if they considered it public, which we did. We came away with the belief that it was fine for us to be there on that day.
She couldn't comment on event policy, but if this had been clarified in a contract, wouldn't he have pointed that out instead of telling us to speak to the owners?
Yes @Sejanus Aelianus , we were more polite than 'most' who didn't bother to ask, but as you and I have already mentioned, THAT is where we went wrong. I get fed up with trying to do the right thing, to find out it's supposedly wrong.
 
woof woof said:
I think the point is that the rule is not universal. Would it be ok in your world if non whites were told they couldn't shoot? Or Canon shooters couldn't?
Click to expand...

That maybe the odd point you wish to make.

The actual point is that they asked and where told no but did it any way. What was the point in asking if they where going to completely ignore what they were told anyway?
 
It does feel in some ways as though the problem was that the question was asked, rather than the photos being taken. To the OP it was done out of courtesy, but to the organiser it appeared as a request for official permission - one that had already been given elsewhere - and that was why it generated a NO.
 
No doubt there were quite a few IPhone snappers there. Normally people get twitchy when a big DSLR is produced.
 
Maybe taking a DSLR camera to such events would best be taken in a camera bag. Event officials have no legal right to examine the contents of the bag unless stated at the entrance all bags and baggage will be searched. The question of it being a public allowed or private,as the event holders have gained permission has come up before on forums. with no defined answer that I remember. If they put hand on you preventing you from access then that is assault and then they are in trouble
 
f/2.8 said:
That maybe the odd point you wish to make.

The actual point is that they asked and where told no but did it any way. What was the point in asking if they where going to completely ignore what they were told anyway?
Click to expand...

We always ask out of "politeness", and sometimes we get helped to shoot the best locations , and have always had a good reception. To be honest it didn't even cross my mind that there would be an issue.
As mentioned, I would have gladly left if it had been a blanket ban and enforced against others with cameras. This is why I continued @f/2.8 . It called sticking up for fairness.
 
Last edited:
f/2.8 said:
That maybe the odd point you wish to make.

The actual point is that they asked and where told no but did it any way. What was the point in asking if they where going to completely ignore what they were told anyway?
Click to expand...
It's not odd at all. I was just replying to your rather unusual view that it's ok for someone to tell one person they can't do something but others can.

Doesn't treating people differently when they're doing the same things seem arbitrary and rather discriminatory to you?
 
Northantsgeezer said:
We always ask out of "politeness", and sometimes we get helped to shoot the best locations , and have always had a good reception. To be honest it didn't even cross my mind that there would be an issue.
As mentioned, I would have gladly left it it had been a blanket ban and enforced against others with cameras. This is why I continued @f/2.8 . It called sticking up for fairness.
Click to expand...
The thing is, having been polite enough to have asked, one should be polite enough to abide by the answer.

As to others being allowed to shoot, that's a different issue. If I'm running an event I can choose who is allowed to shoot and who is not. It's my choice, not the photographer's. Life isn't fair, get over it.
 
GeeJay57 said:
The thing is, having been polite enough to have asked, one should be polite enough to abide by the answer.

As to others being allowed to shoot, that's a different issue. If I'm running an event I can choose who is allowed to shoot and who is not. It's my choice, not the photographer's. Life isn't fair, get over it.
Click to expand...

Well yes but taking that view and my rather extreme racist point racism would be acceptable under some situations just because someone makes a decision and says we should get over it.... I too would have probably walked away but venting on line against the injustice of it all is ok and the op is IMO right, he should in a fair world have been allowed to shoot just as all the mumsies with their smartphones probably did.
 
woof woof said:
Well yes but taking that view and my rather extreme racist point racism would be acceptable under some situations just because someone makes a decision and says we should get over it.... I too would have probably walked away but venting on line against the injustice of it all is ok and the op is IMO right, he should in a fair world have been allowed to shoot just as all the mumsies with their smartphones probably did.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and thank god that there are people who stick up for themselves and what they believe to be right/fair. What on earth would this world be like without those people? I dread to think.
Personally, I could never run an event, and impose rules on some, and not enforce it on others. Thats just the way I am made though.
 
GeeJay57 said:
The thing is, having been polite enough to have asked, one should be polite enough to abide by the answer.
Click to expand...

This, really. Putting the legality etc aside and regardless of everything else...What's the point of asking if you're going to ignore the answer if it's not the one you were hoping for?

I imagine if you just turned up and started snapping away nobody would have batted an eyelid, anyone there would have assumed you were probably supporting somebody in the race and just wanted to get some nice shots.

I judge these things event to event, if there are clearly pros there working I just shoot away as a member of the public, particularly if I know it to be an event where the pros are the official company suppling paid-for images to participants (as is often the case). If there appears to be no professional photographers I might introduce myself because it might open a few doors. I went along to a sand rally in Weston a few years back and I was amazed to see no photographers, so I introduced myself, got some better angles and ended up being asked to return officially as a signed on photographer next time.
 
Last edited:
I think the lessons learned here are:

1.) Next time, don't ask (although I know it is the courteous thing to do) ;) by the time you are discovered and told to stop you may have already taken some cracking shots
2.) Invest in an unassuming but competent compact camera as a fallback for such situations
3.).......?
4.) Profit
 
i often used to come across this in another hobby ,the final say on the matter lies with the landowner ,not the tenant or leaseholder or event organiser ,and in this case apparently the landowner said fine then in law thats the final ruling .
the only thing you did wrong was to ask somebody that was probably getting bakeesh from the supposedly official photographers in common decency .lesson learned shoot first ask questions afterwards
 
The representativesof the landowner told you it was okay to take photos on their land and it's their call not his. Bearing in mind that tact and diplomacy have never been my strong suit when dealing with pompous idiots, I'd have told him to sling his hook (or words to that effect).
 
Yes, I think its time to wrap it up, and I don't like threads getting personal etc. So before that happens....
I will just say once again, that I was ready to accept his response and walk away, but I stayed because 'I saw others shooting!'
I don't really want to say it again :D.
I think you are right @Gareth_E in saying next time don't ask, and just go ahead and do it until asked not to (I didn't see any signage saying NO photography).
I would love a little Fuji, but I am saving for more Dslr lenses :)
I consider myself a respectful guy (I am sure you all feel likewise), but I also expect a little respect in return. I think this is the first time I have done something of this nature, but that is probably because I hate discrimination.
The world may well be unfair at times, but that doesn't mean that I will just take everything on the chin.
@ukaskew I do like your post, and I think you have done it right. I think this is the first time that this has happened, at every other event, the organisers have been really helpful, as they seem to have been in your experiences too. I hope you can see now though the reason I carried on. It wasn't really a case of doing it whatever he said (it was events that followed).
Thank you to 'everyone' for you comments ...for/against. (y)
Lessons learnt. :)
 
Johnytuono said:
....so did they want no-one at all taking photos.............selfish I say. Maybe the actual event photographers were 'frightened' you'd take better pictures.
JohnyT
Click to expand...
It's probably not that they are worried about you taking better pictures it more about they've paid maybe several thousand pound for the "right" to cover the event and are selling their pics to cover the cost and make a profit. If everybody else then comes along and takes pics and either sells them or puts them up on the web for nothing the company loose out. We've covered lots of event over the years, at one we had a number of other people taking pics and handing out business cards, clearly selling their pics too.
It's usually the case that the event organiser has rented the land from the owner, it's then his land effectively for the duration as far as rules go.
 
woof woof said:
I think the point is that the rule is not universal. Would it be ok in your world if non whites were told they couldn't shoot? Or Canon shooters couldn't?
Click to expand...
clown lives matter..


FFS.
 
Johnytuono said:
...but they weren't selling them.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that would be a whole other issue. I've been asked on several occasions how much I charge when people have looked through my Festival of Speed photos: by drivers, a tyre manufacturer and even the owner of one of the smaller supercar companies that were demoing their car on the hill.

As a paying punter I know I can't do that though. Shooting for profit on private land without permission opens you up to a world of pain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top