No camera's allowed? Then boycot the event/ venue.

i think it should be ok if you stay seated and generally arnt taking the **** like in the setup you suggested
 
I'm baaaack!
where would you draw the line?
Click to expand...
Copyright law etc. is fairly well dealt with & adhered to in the 1st world. So too are the rules relating to "no sale", simply because of ease of tracing offenders & sueing etc.
Since there really is no reason to target considderate photography enthusiasts enjoying an event/ venue just because they have a DSLR and enjoy combining two passions (photography & whatever), merely impose the "no sale" rule. Anything else they do with the pics is ultimately additional free advertising anyway. Any tog acting the loon & being unruly/ disruptive gets hoofed out as would anyone else acting in a disruptive manner.
You want to know really disruptive..... there's a plastic tube shaped trumpet instument in SA called a vuvuzela. When blown, it emits the most terrible sound imaginable, & is horendously loud. Imagine 50000 people all in a stadium watching world cup 2010 any 40000 are blowing these. And the odd AK47 shot going off here & there. They're part & parcel of footie in SA. Anyone coming back here after 2010 after experiencing that will never complain about the sound of a DSLR shutter again. Mostly because they'll never hear a shutter again.
As for
for the record i would support a complete ban on all photography from the audience at the 2008 Olympics... ends the slr "discrimination" in one one go
Click to expand...
I've made that point elsewhere. All or nothing. Don't single me out because I have a DSLR. I'm no more likely to be a terrorist or public nuisance, than any other minority that burocratic authorities with a little power can point fingers at & pick on, by virtue of my having something or experiencing/ doing something that they can't understand.
 
Proglam said:
I'm baaaack!
You want to know really disruptive..... there's a plastic tube shaped trumpet instument in SA called a vuvuzela. When blown, it emits the most terrible sound imaginable, & is horendously loud. Imagine 50000 people all in a stadium watching world cup 2010 any 40000 are blowing these. And the odd AK47 shot going off here & there. They're part & parcel of footie in SA. Anyone coming back here after 2010 after experiencing that will never complain about the sound of a DSLR shutter again. \.
Click to expand...

With regard to the above comment, I find it very offensive, brash and unsuitable to be used as an example.

As far as the banning of DSLR rules go, its a private event so the organisers set the rules, you have freedom to a degree and that is not to attend if you believe that they're being unfair....
 
Steep said:
99.999999% of people go to an event to see the event, not to take photos of it.
Click to expand...

Except in this day and age where every Tom, Dick or Harry has a DSLR and is a would-be freelancer.........

Gone are the days where only the pro's could afford kit that produced great results. That option is open to everyone now that the technology exists for cheaper cameras to produce cracking results, even in some cases, in the hands of numpties.

I can see why they've done it. You only have to be a mag editor to be bombarded by people wanting you to use their pics in your articles. Some even go to the extent of paying you to use their pics.

Aside from the distraction to competitors issue of 40,000 Nikon D40's or EOS 400D's going off in one huge crescendo, there is the aspect that the media rights mean potential income for some people or organisatons and that is soon dilluted when said mass influxes of imagery come in from all directions mostly from non-bonefide accredited media sources.

Just my 2-penneth on their rationale
 
apart from all the legal bits, where are you going to do this? If you're in the stands at some event and making a nuisance by getting in people's way and spoiling the event, i'd wager that some of you kit may go missing or get 'altered'.
 
Xplosion... you're quite entitled to your opinion & I respect you for giving it. I was merely responding to
if my extreme example
ok so you are sitting there with your d3 your 200-400mm zoom your flash with attached zoomer - you have your qantium battery and your lowpro rucksack to put it all in - you're blasting away a 8fps and you have the whole lot on a 6 foot monopod to get a good view - do you think this may be distracting the people around you?
Click to expand...
with another extreme example. I've been there. I merely described a "distracting" experience accurately according to my opinion..
 
The reason is that organizers like to protect their image rights and to maximize the financial side from selling image rights use. Some large events you will only get acredidation for news papers and web news use only.
Why are DSLR's banned, because organisers beleive that they will provide higher quality images and can be sold on. UK football is a prime example, Brittish Super Bikes to a lesser extend but even their you need to be licenced by the owning company to be able to commercially sell images from any BSB race. Its all about maximizing financial gains for owners and organizers.

Boycotting does work though, I am a little hazey here but I rem that the Rugby World Cup organizers tried this with all the major media agencies, image use on websites only 24hrs after a game etc. The agencies said they were'nt coming to the party and eventually the board changed their media policy. So some times, if agencies stick together it does work......but they have a serious amount of clout.

Iain
 
Boycotting does work though, I am a little hazey here but I rem that the Rugby World Cup organizers tried this with all the major media agencies, image use on websites only 24hrs after a game etc. The agencies said they were'nt coming to the party and eventually the board changed their media policy. So some times, if agencies stick together it does work......but they have a serious amount of clout.
Click to expand...

professionals boycotting can work - but the public boycotting at the olympics?

if you want to get close with pro gear without problem pick an event that is on public ground - (like photos of the marathon, road cycling and triathlon) but be aware this is china not UK so the laws are different.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Then get accreditation.
Click to expand...

Easy to say not always easy to do, I asked for accreditation for an event a couple of years ago, they wanted to know which Media organisation I worked for or if freelance then provide 4 samples of work published in quality magazines. Not easy when your starting out.

I have been to other events where no SLR allowed and when asked about accreditation, they did not know what I was on about.

To the people who say "them the rule, just follow them" I just hope Labour don't think up some daft rule banning SLRs in public ( don't think they won't cause in time they will)

Boycotting events would not work, but it is about time we stood up for our rights a little more, we in Britain are far to quick to shrug our shoulders and say oh well, they say I can't so that's it.

I must agree that it is f***ing annoying to be told you can use a slr when 10,000 other folk are flashing away with p&s and camera phones
 
Iain MacIntosh said:
Boycotting does work though, I am a little hazey here but I rem that the Rugby World Cup organizers tried this with all the major media agencies, image use on websites only 24hrs after a game etc. The agencies said they were'nt coming to the party and eventually the board changed their media policy. So some times, if agencies stick together it does work......but they have a serious amount of clout.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that was agencies who had a great deal to lose through the restrictions. This is about Joe Public, most of whom just want to go to the evenbt and therefore don't give a toss if some can or cannot bring their DSLR in.
 
jerry12953 said:
That'll be the day....:suspect:
Click to expand...

Indeed but just because we share the same hobby doesn't mean we share the same opinions.

And saying "I should be allowed to use my DSLR because I'll be sensible and use it considerately" is a bit like saying "I shouldn't have to obey speed limits because I'm a very good driver!"
 
CopeImages said:
Gone are the days where only the pro's could afford kit that produced great results. That option is open to everyone now that the technology exists for cheaper cameras to produce cracking results, even in some cases, in the hands of numpties.
Click to expand...

And thank God for that, eh? :D
 
Except in this day and age where every Tom, Dick or Harry has a DSLR and is a would-be freelancer.........
Click to expand...

Theres your answer.....and as I said , the organizers are protecting their image rights use. Your intentions maybe honerable but alot out there are not....

As to boycotting, my example was the only time I've heard this working but as I said thats agencies, never heard and would very much doubt joe public would ever have the same impact.

Iain
 
Proglam said:
What possible difference can it make to them whether of not I sit in the stands with D3 or P&S with 15x zoom.
Click to expand...

Proglam said:
I know what it's like shooting from the tog's crows nest, trying to earn a living & having someone with a P&S lean over the barrier right in front of the pro togs blocking their view at a crucial moment of the game.
Click to expand...

So you've experienced having someone lean in front of you (as a pro) with a P&S yet you want DSLR owners to have the same rights ?

Most P+S or camera phone users at an event are simply there to get a quick shot of the action. they arn't worried about composition, focus, how close the subject is, they just want something to show there mates, so would therefor take a couple of quick shots and thats it. In your case however you want access to the event primarily to shoot pictures with your DSLR. Im sorry but if ive just paid £55 to watch Arsenal at he Emirates and ive got you sat next to me firing off shots from all angles for 90mins, I be pretty cheesed off after about 10 as it would be pretty distracting.
If it distracts other paying customers or interferes with there viewing then its a no no im afraid.
 
Take it to the other end of the spectrum, a play or a classical music concert, three or four cameras going off would be very distracting never mind three or four hundred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top