Can't take photos here - your views please.

Graham W said:
" and just introduce ourselves to the organiser / race director" Why?
As you say there were others with DSLRs, I'm prepared to bet one of my pounds that they didn't introduce themselves, or feel any need to.
Click to expand...

Because as @ukaskew has mentioned, it can sometimes get you into some good spots. This has worked for me loads of times in the past, and I consider it polite and friendly. I am learning though, clearly.

ukaskew said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Northantsgeezer said:
Because as @ukaskew has mentioned, it can sometimes get you into some good spots. This has worked for me loads of times in the past, and I consider it polite and friendly. I am learning though, clearly.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and I've done it myself, but it can spook organizers into thinking that you are a "Profeshernul" out to make some money.
 
Graham W said:
Absolutely, and I've done it myself, but it can spook organizers into thinking that you are a "Profeshernul" out to make some money.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have worked alongside official event photographers in the past, but I guess everybody is different. I will just look upon it as a shame, and not post my images.
Guys, thanks again for the input, but I am going to request a thread lock, as I think everything has been covered that I was interested in. Providing I can find a mod :D.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Shame I thought this was an interesting thread. Why the rush to lock it ?
Click to expand...

It seems to be going around in circles a bit now Nick, so I think it has pretty much covered everything. Lots of valid and varied points that I can take on board, and learn from (y), and maybe some others who read it in the future.
 
I see your point on the fact others were using dslr's, video cameras, etc, but by asking permission, you most likely gave the impression that you were there specifically there to photograph the event, not to photograph family/friends taking part in the event. I think you mentioned that he asked 'his own' photographers if they minded and it seems they did, so on his part, the focus was on responding to you on behalf of them. The general public would, in his eyes, would have been friends and family that came firstly to watch the event and secondly, to take pix for their own personal keepsakes.. .. your purpose would solely have been to take pictures and that seems to be the issue. :-)
 
Regarding the discrimination thing, especially the post mentioning racism, the logic of not allowing DSLRs was fairly valid until a few years ago.
Whether or not they think you may be profiting from the photos, having high quality pictures put online for free potentially undermines the professional event photographer.
This isn't because they're worried yours will be better and obviously they should have unimpeded access to areas that offer them better shots anyway, but Joe public isn't that discerning about photography and if there's a reasonable image shared online that might make him not pay for an official one.

Until relatively recently it was a safe bet that a DSLR meant a higher quality photo than a compact or phone, hence the 'discrimination'.
Admittedly now an unimposing CSC can take very high quality photos, so there's less of an obvious distinction on what cameras to allow or not, but for now it's probably reasonable risk management to just say no to big obvious ones, the only other realistic option is to ban any dedicated camera which would be unreasonable.
No 'professional looking' cameras is fairly standard policy at gigs etc.

Now yes it's unfair that some people were using DSLRs and you were told no, but like others said I think you singled yourself out by asking, not saying that's right or wrong but they were forced to make a call on it and probably assumed because you asked your photography was at a standard that might be a conflict of interests with their official photographers.
It's a lot easier to say no to someone who asks than it is to go round the crowd asking anyone they see holding a good camera up to stop taking photos.
 
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...

No, they can have rules such as no photography, can ask you to leave for breaking them and can get you removed for trespassing if you don't.
 
What I would have done is look around, see others taking photos and go with the flow, not ask anyone if its okay.
 
I understand both sides but reading between the lines you introduce yourself and ask permission partly from experience to gain a better viewpoint.
With that attitude and history I'd not call it being respectful but expectant.
If you get knocked back you should take it with grace and not cry fowl.
Failing that go with the flow and go along like everyone else if there are cameras present and stay in the public areas.
 
AJR SIMPSON said:
I understand both sides but reading between the lines you introduce yourself and ask permission partly from experience to gain a better viewpoint.
With that attitude and history I'd not call it being respectful but expectant.
If you get knocked back you should take it with grace and not cry fowl.
Failing that go with the flow and go along like everyone else if there are cameras present and stay in the public areas.
Click to expand...

^^^ This.

Sorry to be blunt, but the OP has not understood the rules of the game and then cried foul. In a selfish and self-righteous quest to assert rights he didn't have, he's completely overlooked the position of the organiser and the other photographers that had gone through the proper channels in advance and paid for rights to cover the event commercially. In that situation, the organiser had no option but to decline the request, and if any other camera-toting spectators had asked the same question, they'd have got the same answer. The organiser was, in fact, protecting the rights of legitimate photographers.
 
Hey guys, I said earlier that the reason for the thread was to find out if we were wrong or had a right to take photos if others were. If we were wrong (and I can only speak for myself as @forklift hasn't commented), then I expect to be told so. The stuff we do isn't commercial, we don't sell, and as for expectation.......I didn't have an expectation of getting a priviledged location (although we usually do), but I guess I did have an expectation to take photos from the areas that the public were in (taking their photos, which is all we did). We said that we didn't want to tread on anyones toes, as per the original post. Maybe some 'No photography signs would be a good idea'.
I have learnt some lessons and there have been valid and informative points made, but they are just being repeated over and over now, so I have asked for the thread to be locked. Once again thanks to everyone for their contributions.
 
Northantsgeezer said:
Guys, thanks again for the input, but I am going to request a thread lock, as I think everything has been covered that I was interested in. Providing I can find a mod :D.
Click to expand...

You found a mod. In fact you found three of us, and we all decided that there was nothing in this thread that merited locking. We don't just lock threads that have an interesting discussion going on because the OP hears opinions contrary to what he was hoping to get. If you're no longer interested in the discussion or have learned what you needed, leave the thread, unsubscribe and let others continue to discuss it... If its truly no longer of merit, people will stop replying and it will die naturally.

Oh - and as a word of caution, please DON'T remove the original post in a fit of pique and try and make the whole thread impossible to follow, because we'll simply give you a short holiday, and restore the post to it's original status. Not that I think you're that daft to do so, but we do get the occasional numpty that does as I described, then wonders why they can't post for the next week or so.

Blank_Canvas said:
Shame I thought this was an interesting thread. Why the rush to lock it ?
Click to expand...

There's no rush to lock it from the people that can.
 
Who knew photography could be fraught with so many restrictions, not me that's for sure.

Think the every person with a camera that has children within in a mlle must be a pervert days are greatly diminished, but I'm sure other contentious issues will arise.
 
Northantsgeezer said:
I understand that @Faldrax , but you can't have one rule for one, and not for everyone?
Click to expand...

I wasn't commenting on the fact that there was a difference in the way you were treated, but on the fact that the 'right' of the event organiser to prohibit you taking photographs was less clear cut than is often the case.

Assuming the organiser did have that right, then some form of 'discrimination' is common (EG No cameras with lenses longer than x, no Cameras with interchangeable lenses).

I suspect the case was that they were busy running the event, so when you appears with 'pro gear' were told no, but they then didn't have time to chase down everyone else.

As others have said, once told you did not have permission then you should have stopped, but I understand why, when faced with others apparently being allowed to shoot, you decided to ignore the request not to.
 
Faldrax said:
(EG No cameras with lenses longer than x, no Cameras with interchangeable lenses).
Click to expand...


[devilsadvocate]How about something like the Nikon P900 though? Non interchangeable lens and only 357mm at the long end. BUT, since it has a small sensor, its effective focal length (in 35mm/FF terms) is 2,000mm. Many bridge cameras these days have an EFL of over 1,000mm.[/devilsadvocate]
 
Nod said:
[devilsadvocate]How about something like the Nikon P900 though? Non interchangeable lens and only 357mm at the long end. BUT, since it has a small sensor, its effective focal length (in 35mm/FF terms) is 2,000mm. Many bridge cameras these days have an EFL of over 1,000mm.[/devilsadvocate]
Click to expand...

They usually restrict the physical length of the lens, not the focal length (which would be pretty much unenforceable), particularly at stadium events. I assume this is for other spectators comfort as much as anything, i.e. I wouldn't really enjoy a 400mm 2.8 hovering over my shoulder all day.
 
HoppyUK said:
^^^ This.

Sorry to be blunt, but the OP has not understood the rules of the game and then cried foul. In a selfish and self-righteous quest to assert rights he didn't have, he's completely overlooked the position of the organiser and the other photographers that had gone through the proper channels in advance and paid for rights to cover the event commercially. In that situation, the organiser had no option but to decline the request, and if any other camera-toting spectators had asked the same question, they'd have got the same answer. The organiser was, in fact, protecting the rights of legitimate photographers.
Click to expand...

Just to illustrate, here's a parallel situation. If you set up a burger bar and were giving away free burgers, you would expect the organisers and the commercial burger bar owners to ask you to stop - even if other spectators were having picnics and maybe giving away spare sausages ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
Just to illustrate, here's a parallel situation. If you set up a burger bar and were giving away free burgers, you would expect the organisers and the commercial burger bar owners to ask you to stop - even if other spectators were having picnics and maybe giving away spare sausages ;)
Click to expand...

But in this case wouldn't it be more like setting up a burger bar and eating all the burgers yourself?
 
Ed Sutton said:
But in this case wouldn't it be more like setting up a burger bar and eating all the burgers yourself?
Click to expand...

No, the OP planned to put the images on Flickr, where anyone is free to eat as many as they like.

This kind of exclusion is common at all sorts of events, even though it may be a far from perfect system and apparently randomly applied. It's simply to protect commercial interests, and perfectly legitimate whether we like it or not. I understand it can be irksome and often pretty pointless, but them's the rules ;)

Edit: the enemy in this case, for want of a better term, is not the organisers but the other photographers that have a commercial agreement. The OP doesn't appear to see this, and is understandably confused by the experience at other events where there are no commercial agreements and amateur enthusiasts are actively encouraged.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, in this situation there is no democracy. Somebody has hired the land to run an event and if they say no, they mean "no". Personally I think asking for permission when it was an event that was bound to have a dedicated tog(s) and every man & his dog has a camera of some description was pointless.

Just rock up early and find a good position, like you do at somewhere like Brands Hatch.
 
Time for a reality check. To put all this in to perspective many of the worlds greatest press photographs have been taken after some official has said "no photography" Photographs are taken on underground stations, the embankment and from NCP car parks over cities every single weekend, people flout the rules all the time. I neither commend nor condone such action. I neither confirm or deny that I have ever done this but life is all about choices.
 
Would have loved a bash at Urbex photography when I was younger, daresay permission hasn't been sought for some of the great photos that genre provides.

Bit too old for it now, climbing about and having to leg it every now and then puts me off, still a bit tempted though.

Fortunate in that my work entailed seeing some very interesting underground establishments mainly disused or mothballed although one network of little known tunnels were still very much in use.
Photographing any of it would have undoubtedly meant losing my job and having signed the official secrets act prosecution was also a likely outcome.

Lots of other places I would like to go, but definitely wouldn't ask permission, top of that list would be the old coastal forts out in the Thames estuary, been up close on a boat, but would love to get on them with a camera.
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
....... old coastal forts out in the Thames estuary, been up close on a boat, but would love to get on them with a camera.
Click to expand...

Me too.
A couple of years ago, there were people living (unofficially) on them periodically.
 
viv1969 said:
Me too.
A couple of years ago, there were people living (unofficially) on them periodically.
Click to expand...

Seem to remember some bloke got on one of the forts and declared it a sovereign state, called it Sealand if memory serves, clearly a nutter
 
tijuana taxi said:
Seem to remember some bloke got on one of the forts and declared it a sovereign state, called it Sealand if memory serves, clearly a nutter
Click to expand...

Yep, and some artist was permitted to live there alone for six months a while ago.

The one's I'm on about were a group of hippies. :-)
 
As far as I'm aware you can be kicked out of an event for no reason other than the organiser doesn't like you, it's their event and they can do as they like as long as it's not on public property. The land may be open to the public but it seems private. I used to run a venue and hadn't people removed for a wide range of reasons, always legitimate in my opinion, but none were on a little list they had to sign before they came in. I wouldn't have kicked someone out for taking photos even when we did have official photographers in, they couldn't get as close and they'd paid to come in, the professionals didn't complain and it didn't bother us.

I do think the organiser was totally within his rights to ask you to not take photos, he just didn't realise he could kick you out for it - his loss I guess. However I would have done what you did OP considering everyone else was taking pics. If it was just the occasional phone snapper then no, but if people were taking pics with a range of cameras and filming it too then just carry on, those pics will be going on social media and possibly Flickr too, I don't see the difference. If the guy didn't want yountkaing thenpictures he should have told you if you did he would have you removed. The fact he didn't know what he could do at his own event is his loss.

I tried likening it to street photography, but it doesn't work for me then. I take pictures without permission as I'm allowed to do, sometimes if I want a better pic I'll ask them if I can take some pics, if they said no I may well have taken a candid one previously but I wouldn't take more - that does seem rude. But for most people I just don't ask, most people say no anyway and I don't want to spend all day asking people if I can, this isn't cold calling or door to door selling, plus I'm happy with taking candid pictures without people knowing, they make better pics mostly. I guess the difference is on the street there wouldn't likely be other people taking pics of the same person unless they were famous.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Seem to remember some bloke got on one of the forts and declared it a sovereign state, called it Sealand if memory serves, clearly a nutter
Click to expand...
Although he declared it a sovereign state the UK refused to accept it (you can only become a sovereign state if it's recognised by a governmen) , then if I remember rightly some Germans tried to take it over and he captured them after a fight, the German government then contacted him and opened negotiations to get it's subjects back therefore recognising the Sealand state, after that the UK had to accept it. He's still there as far as I know.
 
Interesting.

Here's the official photographer's point of view posted elsewhere:


I do find it strange behaviour.
We have been booked for an event today.
Standing waiting for the start when 2 blokes with a whole lot of gear turn up.
Organisers know nothing so ask who they are.
Just freelancers they say.
They were asked to leave but said we can do what we like and are staying.

Is this really the way it's going???
Click to expand...
 
Personally I wouldn't have bothered asking, the venue is hosting a public event.... nuff said
It's not about copyright issues, some people don a yellow waistcoast and a clipboard and think about invading Poland. Barrier technicians, traffic wardens etc etc all think they have the right to tell you not to do stuff and you need to ask there permission to do stuff....
 
Paddlesat16 said:
Personally I wouldn't have bothered asking, the venue is hosting a public event.... nuff said
It's not about copyright issues, some people don a yellow waistcoast and a clipboard and think about invading Poland. Barrier technicians, traffic wardens etc etc all think they have the right to tell you not to do stuff and you need to ask there permission to do stuff....
Click to expand...


...and sadly that list also includes little men with cameras who think that they can do anything they like.
 
he OP said quote " but if we continued to do so, it would be 'Unfortunate'. " unquote. That is a threat against a person and as such can be arrested. That would be my approach and seek out a policman who would be bound to be at the event. lets see his response with a copper marching him away and fined for a public order offence. Give someone a bit of authority and it goes to their head.
You could also play him at his own game by demanding seeing what he has said written down and signed by a solicitor to make it legal. Then you could also query the third party insurance not being displayed in a prominent place. So many ways to make him look the idiot he obviously was.
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
he OP said quote " but if we continued to do so, it would be 'Unfortunate'. " unquote. That is a threat against a person and as such can be arrested. That would be my approach and seek out a policman who would be bound to be at the event. lets see his response with a copper marching him away and fined for a public order offence. Give someone a bit of authority and it goes to their head.
You could also play him at his own game by demanding seeing what he has said written down and signed by a solicitor to make it legal. Then you could also query the third party insurance not being displayed in a prominent place. So many ways to make him look the idiot he obviously was.
Click to expand...

Oh please, nobody was threatened. And in this case, the law is on the side of the organisers. The OP was trying to assert rights he didn't have - that's the whole point.
 
realspeed said:
he OP said quote " but if we continued to do so, it would be 'Unfortunate'. " unquote. That is a threat against a person and as such can be arrested. That would be my approach and seek out a policman who would be bound to be at the event. lets see his response with a copper marching him away and fined for a public order offence. Give someone a bit of authority and it goes to their head.
You could also play him at his own game by demanding seeing what he has said written down and signed by a solicitor to make it legal. Then you could also query the third party insurance not being displayed in a prominent place. So many ways to make him look the idiot he obviously was.
Click to expand...

Emphasis is everything here, you're making your assumption as you're reading it with the view of the op as the victim. Read the same words with the view that the official photographer is the victim. "Unfortunate" now means it would be unfortunate for the official photographers who spent time and money planning, traveling, scouting locations, liasing with event organisers, hosting and advertising photos only to be unable to sell any images to recoup their costs and livelihood because someone posted similar photos for free on social media.

It doesn't read that the organiser is trying to prevent photography at the event just trying to protect the rights and realtionships they hold with the vendors they partner with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top