Can't take photos here - your views please.

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...


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Any decent copper will tell you to grow up, go away and stop wasting his/her time.
 
I think the others taking photos would have been friends and family, and from the organisers POV had a reasonable interest to photograph. 'Strangers' wishing to photograph, with no reasonable interest to do so, would be seen as strange.

Although we can understand why, those without an interest in photography why you would want to shoot- hence the comment about how they paid to be there (and I take that to mean have a right to expect a certain amount of privacy- even if we could argue that 'privacy' is negligible in the world of the internet).
 
I still can't understand why taking photo's is such a big deal?
Whether it's on private land or not. It's a Photo..........
 
Paddlesat16 said:
I still can't understand why taking photo's is such a big deal?
Whether it's on private land or not. It's a Photo..........
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'd say this is more about someone asking for permission to shoot and then choosing to ignore the response because it wasn't as expected, than it is to do with photography per ce.
 
Paddlesat16 said:
I still can't understand why taking photo's is such a big deal?
Whether it's on private land or not. It's a Photo..........
Click to expand...
You may want to rethink the private land issue.

There are plenty of buildings in London (as one example) whereby the forecourt abuts the public highway. Security staff can and do ask photographers not to take pictures when they are shooting from the 'private' land. They cannot stop pictures being taken from the public footpath. Shopping Centres often stop photography on their 'land'.

I have found that contacting the building management company will yield permission to set up a tripod for shooting during weekends and 'outside working hours'. It has been a few years since I last dis a late night shoot but I would still request permission if I was to want to do any shoot on private property.
 
HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks @HoppyUK for this statement, as to me it hits the nail on the head. Especially as we had turned up at events, and been allowed to work alongside officials (under their guidance etc), but maybe the circumstances were different. The other photographer has mentioned that there are public footpaths on the land, and I was hoping he would join in on the thread, but has clearly chosen not to. Therefore I can only defend my own actions, so this has made it difficult for me to reply on here, as certain things have been said that certainly didn't come from me.
For the record, after talking to the event director, I said 'lets go home!'. If I had my car with me on the day, I would have. However, I have to be responsible for my part on the day, and with the information and views that you have given me, the only decent thing to do, was to speak to the organiser on the day.
I managed to track him down a week or so back, and we had a long and civilised conversation. We both gave our reasons for what we had decided to do on the day, and we understood each other. I apologised for the part I played. He is a decent guy, and the conversation was very friendly. It ended with a lot of respect for each other, and we agreed to draw a line under the matter. Hopefully, this would have been relayed to the photographers.I haven't done anything with the images that I took on the day for obvious reasons.

.
 
Next time walk in with your gear in the bag and say nothing. Doing the right thing and being honest gets you nowhere these days.

Myself and other members of an online photo site a few years ago had a similar issue. An event organiser got it into her head we were professionals that had visited a previous event. While siting having a drink and food, she came over and demanded our names and addresses and would not believe that we were hobbyists even though we proved who we were. She made it her mission to watch and follow us around the event, continually biting at our heels even though we'd paid the entrance fee.

Its either these people are totally uneducated in photography equipment or that its their only chance to possess some kind of authority in life, normally both.

Edit: I read up on a NIA badminton event that stated no photography, therefore I didnt take my gear. When I arrived there's cameras large and small, Ipads, phones you name it. Read into that what you will.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
...and sadly that list also includes little men with cameras who think that they can do anything they like.
Click to expand...
personal snipes tut tut, it's not national security but a sporting event. I'm sure the event organisers got there fee from the "Official photographer".... And besides the OP has a right to publish on flikr or any social media that he cares to subscribe too. People are far too touchy nowadays, it seem like our personal freedoms have been eroded since 9/11 and 7/11 because everybody seems to want to control you, your movements and your thinking. nuff said
 
On the contrary, what has changed is the emergence of 'camera zealots' who seem to think that they are entitled to take photographs of anything they want and do what they want with those images.

Quite often, that isn't the case at all.
 
I do alot of Mud Runs, i would love more people to be allowed to take photos, as long as they upload them somewhere i can find them!

Alot of the runs involve photographers that charge silly amounts for people to buy the JPEGs, thats why they dont want you there! Ignore them and carry on.
 
Sorry bit late to this thread as I've just seen it. What (if it's a private event on private land) is the competitors status here, are they classed as 'models' each needing an individual release form or are they just classed as members of the public who can be photographed at will. Genuinely interested in this as there seems to be a general consensus that pro photographers can have exclusive rights to earn money shooting unpaid 'models' but woe betide an amateur doing the same.
 
JackBell said:
Sorry bit late to this thread as I've just seen it. What (if it's a private event on private land) is the competitors status here, are they classed as 'models' each needing an individual release form or are they just classed as members of the public who can be photographed at will. Genuinely interested in this as there seems to be a general consensus that pro photographers can have exclusive rights to earn money shooting unpaid 'models' but woe betide an amateur doing the same.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the UK does not have a 'Model Release' requirement for people in photographs - though some companies may well want them when looking to obtain images for commercial use.

Generally any restrictions / rights linked to photographs on private land / events are all linked to conditions of entry - either as a participant in the event (where by entering you agree that the organiser can use photographs of you in the event), or as a visitor / spectator (where by attending you agree NOT to take / sell photographs).
 
Would you guys kindly take your arguments about what is and isn't a legal bit of paper, pisch off and create your own thread? Ta muchly.
 
nick16 said:
I do alot of Mud Runs, i would love more people to be allowed to take photos, as long as they upload them somewhere i can find them!

Alot of the runs involve photographers that charge silly amounts for people to buy the JPEGs, thats why they dont want you there! Ignore them and carry on.
Click to expand...

So in my camera bag I have a 5D mk3, assorted lenses, cost was about £7.5k. Then there's expenses to get to the event, public liability insurance and pay for a days work.

How much were silly amounts for the images? Last event I went to the prints were £15
 
nick16 said:
I do alot of Mud Runs, i would love more people to be allowed to take photos, as long as they upload them somewhere i can find them!

Alot of the runs involve photographers that charge silly amounts for people to buy the JPEGs, thats why they dont want you there! Ignore them and carry on.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, it's the attitude of 'silly money' that causes the problem.

If they are printing on site, an event photography company will have anywhere north of £40,0000 worth of kit just to display and print.
Each photographer will be carrying around £5,000 of camera and lens.
On a mud run of 5,000 people you'd want at least three photographers and probably two sales staff. That's staff costs of over £500 per day.
The photographer is also, almost certainly, paying the organiser a pitch/supplier fee.
Then you have to consider the cost of an online platform and for bigger races the cost of bib tagging.

Put that way, does £5-8 for a social media sized jpeg or £15-20 for either a 9x6" mounted print or a full res file sound that much?
Incidentally, those prices have changed very little for around a decade.

Then there's the issue of photographers that just turn up and "upload them somewhere i can find them".

This, far more than 'unofficial photographers' that sneak into events and then try and sell their own images, is killing event photography.
It's slashing margins and wiping away sales conversion figures.

It's not a question of quality; ie the age old cry of delivering better quality images that blow the customer away.
A large percentage of them don't care. In the Facebook age, the quality expectation of a photograph has plummeted.
If it's free, customers will happily take an out of focus, blurry shot as long as they are recognisable somewhere in it.
That's before you even get on to the subject of those who will happily screenprint online, massively watermarked images and not care.

Which is a shame, because those who do prefer quality will suffer.
Soon the balance point will shift and it will no longer be economically viable to provide event photography.
After that, you'll be left with happy amateurs and within ten years the knowledge base of professional photography will have disappeared.
That day isn't here yet but it's on the horizon.

That is why professional event photographers are protective of their market. Because in some cases it's a matter of survival.
 
Byker28i said:
So in my camera bag I have a 5D mk3, assorted lenses, cost was about £7.5k. Then there's expenses to get to the event, public liability insurance and pay for a days work.

How much were silly amounts for the images? Last event I went to the prints were £15
Click to expand...

Having shot over 20 of these events in 2016, some two day events, a significant proportion are moving to a free photos business model where the photographs are either included as part of the entry fee, or they are sponsored. They may have branding applied including the event logo and the relevant sponsors logo - but they are free for the competitor.

The photographers get paid a day rate and don't have to worry about sales figures. The race organisers know their costs and apart from a photo delivery method, no need for sales websites / payment gateways / print on site facilities (difficult as often these places have unpredictable mobile internet for card payments) and so on.

The days are often quite long. During the summer, you could be asked to meet at the start line at 7am for your briefing, in advance for first wave at 8am, and still be onsite at 8pm waiting for the last runners.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Unfortunately, it's the attitude of 'silly money' that causes the problem.

If they are printing on site, an event photography company will have anywhere north of £40,0000 worth of kit just to display and print.
Each photographer will be carrying around £5,000 of camera and lens.
On a mud run of 5,000 people you'd want at least three photographers and probably two sales staff. That's staff costs of over £500 per day.
The photographer is also, almost certainly, paying the organiser a pitch/supplier fee.
Then you have to consider the cost of an online platform and for bigger races the cost of bib tagging.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

For a small event there would be a team of 3-4 photographers. The largest I've been involved with was 12 over a two day event.

Each photographer is expected to have a camera and a suitable lens, plus backup in case of failure.

We are usually asked to take about 3 shots of each runner. Just to make the maths easier, 10,000 runners, 10 photographers, 3 shots per runner = 300.000 photos to QC, tag and upload, ideally within 72 hours. Sadly you can't take everyones photo, some run in groups, others are masked by other competitors and you can't get a clear shot, or the obstacle is wide and you can't get everyone - but you try to get the vast majority

As said, the model for this type of event is already changing from a selling photos to make your profit, to negotiating a day rate.
 
Last edited:
Having seen many a race director on the morning of a race tearing his hair out as his attention is being pulled in different directions by different people all with little problems or queries, asking for permission to take photos could easily get a short and inconsidered reply. Its rare that everything is running totally smoothly!
 
Can we see this from another perspective! My 14year old daughter is a competitor and has pictures of her taken by an unauthorised photographer at an event and subsequently ends up on a dodgy website or child porn image site! Who's at fault? The photographer or the event organiser for letting him or me having a daughter?
 
DemiLion said:
On the contrary, what has changed is the emergence of 'camera zealots' who seem to think that they are entitled to take photographs of anything they want and do what they want with those images.

Quite often, that isn't the case at all.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the public at large!!!

I'm afraid everyone is armed with a camera nowadays, it sorta negates your argument. Everybody walks round with a 10mp smart phone in their pocket and whip them out at the slightest.... Asking people not to take photo's is like sticking your finger in a dam. People aren't camera zealots there just people, they follow the trends, use facebook, they walk round looking at there phone and when they see something interesting they take a picture.
 
Mark twiglet said:
Can we see this from another perspective! My 14year old daughter is a competitor and has pictures of her taken by an unauthorised photographer at an event and subsequently ends up on a dodgy website or child porn image site! Who's at fault? The photographer or the event organiser for letting him or me having a daughter?
Click to expand...

The publisher of the dodgy website is legally liable, but if it was acquired through a photo agency they would get embroiled too which is why they tend to play safe with model releases etc.

But what are the chances of that? Why would they choose a photo of your daughter at an event over any other from the billions on the web - even one of yours if it's made publicly available, eg Flickr?
 
Paddlesat16 said:
Tell that to the public at large!!!

I'm afraid everyone is armed with a camera nowadays, it sorta negates your argument. Everybody walks round with a 10mp smart phone in their pocket and whip them out at the slightest.... Asking people not to take photo's is like sticking your finger in a dam. People aren't camera zealots there just people, they follow the trends, use facebook, they walk round looking at there phone and when they see something interesting they take a picture.
Click to expand...


You seem to think that I'm talking about average members of the public. I'm not.

I'm talking about the sort of person that buys high end camera kit (which they are fully entitled to do) and then uses that kit to destroy someone's living.

Think about it...

Yup, photographing sport is exhilarating and great fun. It also takes a fair amount of skill to do well.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to have a go.

That attitude changes with what the photographer then decides to do with the images.

Post a few of your best to Flickr/FB/Photography forums - that's fine. You can learn to improve, teach and encourage others and get praise for your work. All good.

It becomes a problem, however, when that photographer posts hundreds of images to Flickr and/or Facebook, tagged as widely as possible to let everyone know that they are available for free.
Now why would someone do that?
The praise and feeling of satisfaction for a job well done can be achieved by the first scenario.

Are their egos so fragile that they can only be salved by the currency of likes, shares and downloads?
Are they deliberately trying to pull custom away from the official photographer to prove that they are better (and yes, people like that really do exist)?
Are they using their free photographs to promote other services without having to pay the organiser?

Which ever way you look at it, it's a fairly twisted situation.
 
Mark twiglet said:
Can we see this from another perspective! My 14year old daughter is a competitor and has pictures of her taken by an unauthorised photographer at an event and subsequently ends up on a dodgy website or child porn image site! Who's at fault? The photographer or the event organiser for letting him or me having a daughter?
Click to expand...

No, TBH, we can't. Someone might take pictures of your daughter in the street, or on the beach, or at the pool. If the idea of your daughter being photographed at such an event with the possibility of an image ending up on a porn site bothers you that much then you should consider putting her in a burka. :jawdrop: :runaway:
 
Mark twiglet said:
Can we see this from another perspective! My 14year old daughter is a competitor and has pictures of her taken by an unauthorised photographer at an event and subsequently ends up on a dodgy website or child porn image site! Who's at fault? The photographer or the event organiser for letting him or me having a daughter?
Click to expand...
Grow up!
 
Mark twiglet said:
Can we see this from another perspective! My 14year old daughter is a competitor and has pictures of her taken by an unauthorised photographer at an event and subsequently ends up on a dodgy website or child porn image site! Who's at fault? The photographer or the event organiser for letting him or me having a daughter?
Click to expand...
What about all the cctv videos she has taken at every shop, garage cafe car dash camera etc and most public places. Sadly being photographed and videoed is now a part of our daily life if we're out in public. We might not like it but thats the way it is these days.
Not saying it's right or wrong, thats just the way it is, we can't hide for the tech any more.
 
Mark twiglet said:
Can we see this from another perspective! My 14year old daughter is a competitor and has pictures of her taken by an unauthorised photographer at an event and subsequently ends up on a dodgy website or child porn image site! Who's at fault? The photographer or the event organiser for letting him or me having a daughter?
Click to expand...

Mumsnet, the Daily Mail and other media for putting such weird ideas into peoples heads?
 
Mark twiglet said:
Can we see this from another perspective! My 14year old daughter is a competitor and has pictures of her taken by an unauthorised photographer at an event and subsequently ends up on a dodgy website or child porn image site! Who's at fault? The photographer or the event organiser for letting him or me having a daughter?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling you intended this tongue in cheek, but sometimes smilies are neede to cue people in.
 
Mark twiglet said:
Can we see this from another perspective! My 14year old daughter is a competitor and has pictures of her taken by an unauthorised photographer at an event and subsequently ends up on a dodgy website or child porn image site! Who's at fault? The photographer or the event organiser for letting him or me having a daughter?
Click to expand...

Don't let her out of the house. Ever.
 
DemiLion said:
Would you guys kindly take your arguments about what is and isn't a legal bit of paper, pisch off and create your own thread? Ta muchly.
Click to expand...

as they failed to take the argument elsewhere - i've had it taken out the back of the barn and shot.

don't make me get the hoover out again folks. :bat: ;)
 
Paddlesat16 said:
personal snipes tut tut, it's not national security but a sporting event. I'm sure the event organisers got there fee from the "Official photographer".... And besides the OP has a right to publish on flikr or any social media that he cares to subscribe too. People are far too touchy nowadays, it seem like our personal freedoms have been eroded since 9/11 and 7/11 because everybody seems to want to control you, your movements and your thinking. nuff said
Click to expand...

Genuine question,...What's the significance of 7/11?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top