DSLRUsers.com

I just remembered a photo related story that happened to me when visiting the Weribee Manson (next to the zoo)

I went in through the main entry point carrying my 500f4 on my shoulder, my tripod in my hand by my side and a backpack carrying my other lenses/stuff. I put down my tripod when paying the entry fee and the lady at the desk wouldn't have noticed it.

Anyway... Went into the gardens and started snapping away with the D70 + 18-70 + SB800 on a tripod. My girlfriend noticed that there was a guy over on the mansion steps looking very hard at what I was doing and talking into a walkie talkie.... I kept doing what I was doing.

When we got closer to the mansion he called me over to him... he looked kinda angry.

Him: "I notice you have a tripod"

Me: "Yes I do"

Him: "Have you signed a copyright release form?"

Me: "No sorry, I didn't know I had to"

Him (getting suspicious): "And you came in the main gate"

Me (getting worried): "Yeah, Just at the building over there..."

He then started talking into his walkie talkie to the lady who I had paid for the tickets.... He was asking her if she had seen me come in. Her answer was no.

Him: Sir I'm going to have to ask you to either leave or sign a form to say that you won't sell any of your images you take in here.

Me: "No worries mate, I'll sign it. I'm only taking photos for myself"

Him: "So you're not a pro then?"

Me: "Eer No"

He calmed down a bit then and got a lady to come over and I signed the form... She said sorry she didn't see the tripod and I explained that it was probably hidden behind my leg or something.

After that the security guy got quite chatty (friendly now). I was curious so asked him what had made him stop me. He answered that it was because I had a tripod. I pointed out the 500mm I had slung over my shoulder and he said "Oh is that for your camera.... cool"

I asked him if he would have stopped me if I didn't have the tripod

"nope"

During the rest of our morning at the mansion I saw a bloke with a D2X and what I think was a 17-55. I asked him if he got stopped by the guy or signed any forms.... nope

My mate came in not too long after me with a Fujifilm Z9000 (I think that's the model number) digicam and a cheap ($40 off ebay) tripod. He got the same treatment as me (.... but the lady had seen his tripod so he had signed the form)

So therefore.... a tripod makes you a pro.

Paul

P.S. I wasn't at all angry or whatever at the way they had acted or treated me... no worries at all. Just thought it was quite a story.

bizarre....

how indepth was the release form? curious if they could/would even follow up if you sold shots.

Not very indepth at all.

It was an A4 piece of paper with (guessing) 10 lines of writing on it saying basically that I promise not to offer any images taken inside the mansion or the grounds for sale either as prints or electronically.

That was about it as I remember.

Does that mean the D2X guy could legally go and sell any pictures he wanted because he didn't sign the form?

Paul

You mean to tell me that I could've skipped Uni for being a pro photographer and just bought a tripod?

Well that sucks.

Especially since I have a degree in photography, but no tripod. What does that make me?

Makes you a few legs short of pro Leigh.

That's just one hell of a bizarre story Paul esp when you had the 500mm slung on your shoulder. Should have tried to find a loop hole in the form

Paul
I go there with 10 adult students all loaded up with gear and we have never been asked to sign zip. This is a case of discrimination because those without tripods are free to sell their images and you are not. I'm guessing the document you signed has as much legal weight as a verbal contract spoken in Urdu Swahili whatever by Idi Amin. Go sell what you like.

Had the similar experience recently inside the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney (shopping Centre) - only with a monopod.

Security guard approached me and suggested I couldnt use any form of support to take photos. I could, however, take as many handheld shots as I liked.
No form to sign.

Ray

Same story taking photos at The Shrine in Melbourne.

A security guy - all staunch and puffed up comes up to me while I was attaching my D50 to my tripod and barks "do you have a permit to shoot here?", "all professional photographers must have a permit!"

Meanwhile, there are photographers there with much higher spec gear than me, eg Canon 5D - 17mm, Nikon D200, 12-24mm and he walks right past them - incredible!

Tripod makes me a pro

Paul, I take it they didn't ask you for any ID, in which case you could have signed that form as Elvis Presley and it wouldn't make any difference.

Im going to start signing forms as Pro Hart or Ken Done

Atleast guys at the GP are a little more knowledgeable, atleast some are and know what a teleconvertor is. So basically if you stood there with a tripod and a 10 year old lens you'll get questioned while the guy with the MKIIS and 500/600IS lens will get away scott free because he doesn't have a tripod. Pathetic isn't it.

kipper wrote:Im going to start signing forms as Pro Hart or Ken Done

Or something a little less mainstream ...

I <u>Ansel Adams</u>, do solemnly swear on this the <u>16th</u> day of <u>February, 2005</u>, not to ... :p

This is so funny....hmmm I am not a pro since I do not own a tripod

What does it mean if you have more than one tripod??????

Killakoala wrote:What does it mean if you have more than one tripod??????

Then you have to sign more than one form

Clearly, there need to be Pro <> Tripod guidelines.

If anyone said that using my old Velbon Tripod meant that I was a pro, I
woulda popped my stitches because that sucker always made a shot
worse than it would have been without the stupid thing.

Then we have monopods

And those miniature table tripods

And those bag thingies

What if you got your significant other down on all fours and used her/him as a quadrapod?

Maybe they should make a monopod that looks like a crutch so you could
scream discrimination?

What if you had a tripod but no camera?


To be fair to the security guards, they probably don't have much idea
and are just following guidelines - Paul's experience was a good example
of the best way to handle the situation.

I guess this makes me a semi-pro as I borrow my mates tripod when I need one.

Awhile back, two of my images were submitted by a graphic artist to Kleenex to be placed on their tissue boxes. One of the images was a snap of two lion cubs. As I work for a law firm, I asked our IP lawyer what the position was in relation to shooting images of zoo animals and selling them. He said

You can freely take pictures of the animals at the zoo so far as I'm aware.......There's certainly no copyright issue unless you get other things in the photo over which they might have some claim, such as an exhibit design or something.... I assume there's no condition of entry that gives them rights over photos you take there

When visiting Taronga Zoo, I have never noticed any signage anywhere which would indicate the prohibition of selling images. And I am sure it would be very difficult for them to prove that the lion in question was "their" lion - especially when you can add a few scars in PS which did not appear on the original

I never use a tripod so have never come across this problem.

This is the "pop out" version of the image in question.



It was not chosen (but a frangipani one of mine was - that paid for my 24-105 f/4L IS)
Cheers
Sheila

Greg B wrote:Clearly, there need to be Pro <> Tripod guidelines.

What if you got your significant other down on all fours and used her/him as a quadrapod?

Greg, I suspect you might then find yourself in trouble for reasons other than being too professional with your photography...

Shelia I've seen / used plenty of the frangapani tissue boxes, well done!
I don't know how much a 25-105 f/4L IS costs, but it has a L in the name so can't be too cheap

I had the same problem at the National Gallery a few weeks back. They allow non-flash photography with what ever cam you want but tripods required a signed permit from the manager. Dorks.

By the way - the security guard that stopped me taking photos also told me that the gallery will soon change its photography policy to ban all photography in the "near" future. I will soon post up some pics that i did manage to take before i was ushered out of the gallery with my tripod hanging between my legs. Some nice stuff.

Willy wombat wrote:I had the same problem at the National Gallery a few weeks back. They allow non-flash photography with what ever cam you want but tripods required a signed permit from the manager. Dorks.

By the way - the security guard that stopped me taking photos also told me that the gallery will soon change its photography policy to ban all photography in the "near" future. I will soon post up some pics that i did manage to take before i was ushered out of the gallery with my tripod hanging between my legs. Some nice stuff.

Sounds like the NGA have borrowed the security grunts from the National Museum. They have a catch-cry of "you can't take photos here".... but I'm on the public cyclepath!

Okay
I think I have this figured out, Firstly, the zoo....if you don't have a tripod then presumably you can take pics and sell them...if you have a tripod you can't. Well...that's Bullcrap. They don't give a damn if you sell or not. This is their gameplan. Tripods are dangerous. Many places ban them and many councels ban them because it's very easy for folk to trip over them.
So....they get you to sign a scrap of paper saying you won't sell the pics. Now...if someone trips over your tripod and get badly hurt they will sue the zoo, who in turn will pass on the costs to you...because they have it on paper that you were at the zoo and you were using a tripod. Many places now ban tripods and demand that you get a permit....which is not free.....before you can use one. Probably for protection against litigation in some way. That's just my guess.

Basically they want you to sign a piece of paper because they have a piece of paper and it makes them important.

I would suggest we start carrying equally official looking pieces of paper stating that we are allowed to take photos not for profit and for amateur competition use only and saying: "OK I'll sign yours, but you must sign mine so I have your written permission to take photos"

My bet is none of them would be willing to sign anything.

Matt. K wrote:Okay
I think I have this figured out, Firstly, the zoo....if you don't have a tripod then presumably you can take pics and sell them...if you have a tripod you can't. Well...that's Bullcrap. They don't give a damn if you sell or not. This is their gameplan. Tripods are dangerous. Many places ban them and many councels ban them because it's very easy for folk to trip over them.
So....they get you to sign a scrap of paper saying you won't sell the pics. Now...if someone trips over your tripod and get badly hurt they will sue the zoo, who in turn will pass on the costs to you...because they have it on paper that you were at the zoo and you were using a tripod. Many places now ban tripods and demand that you get a permit....which is not free.....before you can use one. Probably for protection against litigation in some way. That's just my guess.

Matt.K,
You're exactly right there!
It happens in many events and public sharing places.

Alpha_7 wrote:Shelia I've seen / used plenty of the frangapani tissue boxes, well done!
I don't know how much a 25-105 f/4L IS costs, but it has a L in the name so can't be too cheap

Actually, Craig, my image will not appear until the end of Feb. Here's the one that they picked -


What Arfur Daley says - a nice little earner - $1,750!

Cheers
Sheila

Well its actually better then the frangapani on my tissue box, I'll keep my eye out for your artwork in stores soon

daniel_r wrote:
Sounds like the NGA have borrowed the security grunts from the National Museum. They have a catch-cry of "you can't take photos here".... but I'm on the public cyclepath!

Now I'm excited!
I'm off to stir up the security guards!
Tried to get in trouble on Australia day by taking photos at the train station.
The coppers were all over the place but were too busy taking booze off underage kids.
Got some photos of that instead...

Crownies being poured into a green garbage bin is enough to make some men cry...

Crownies being poured into a green garbage bin is enough to make some men cry...

You know it's only Fosters Lager repackaged?

Back on topic.

I took my D70 to the NGA two years ago and had no problems taking photos there, although i had to put my camera bag in the relative safety? of the cloak-room. The light is very dim (to preserve the paintings) so a high ISO and a fast lens are needed. A 55mm F1.2 would be ideal. Tripods were also banned due to the possibility of knocking or damaging artwork. Fair enough. (That was the same day i finally understood Blue Poles by Jackson Pollock)

Greg B wrote:What if you had a tripod but no camera?

A professional tripod wielder.

Or an air-photographer.

It'd be funny that you setup your tripod and pretending to focus and stuff on your invisible camera. No, not really.

I've just spent some time this morning at the Mooroopna Fruit Salad Day (a Rotary charity event) and walked around with a 350D, 17-40mm, and a flash. I had a number of people ask me who I was shooting for. Actually I did later see a local girl with a Shepparton News ID tag running around with a D2X+big lens + flash taking photos and names.

Here I was thinking this was a small setup (as distinct from a 20D+grip) but to many of these people it was "professional" gear. To quote: "not the sort of camera you'd buy to take snaps with"! They obviously live in a different world to me...

It didn't cause any problems as no-one was worried: just curious. And no tripods were involved. But it was interesting to see the different impressions that people get about photographers.

i guess a dslr camera can make u look more pro these days, since with all the cameras becoming so compact for the joe average.

tripods are also rarely seen