DSLRUsers.com

Absolutely I have rights.
I have the right to be harrassed by the police
I have the right to be harrassed by security guards
I have the right to be harrassed by soccer mums
I have the right to be silenced by any of the above

Mr Darcy wrote:Absolutely I have rights.
I have the right to be harrassed by the police
I have the right to be harrassed by security guards
I have the right to be harrassed by soccer mums
I have the right to be silenced by any of the above

That sadly sums up the rights that a lot of us feel that we have.....

well i have a good news story, sort of, in this regard. i recently went to walking with dinosaurs and 10 minutes into the performance i was summoned out of the venue by a security guard for using my d5100+50/1.4. the rules as stipulated by the acer arena website and the production, (walking with donos), website are, "no video, no flash photography, no professional photographers." i explained to him that i was none of the above and further went on to say most of the damn audience was either using a flash on a P&S or filming the whole damn thing on their fuckin iphones.

the bloke says hes just doing his job and if i wanted to continue the discussion i should go see management cos he had been given his orders but if he sees me usign the camera again he will have to ask me to leave. well the catch 22 here is this...do i spend the next 45minutes going to talk to management and miss the show or do i go back and join my family ? of course i chose the latter and seethed the whole time.

following the show i saw management and absolutely spat the dummy. i had a good 50mins to seethe and when i vented i vented like nothing else. the bloke said he would have to talk to his manager yadda yadda yadda. i told him that if i didnt get a full refund for the show i would take them on by either the dept of fair trading or i would take legal action. the smug little prick didnt give me anything other than that.

by the time io got home, more seething in sydney traffic, i got a call from acer arena management and they gave me this big story about how they were sorry and how they couldnt tell if it was a pro camera or not, they weren't qualified to judge etc no zoom lens's are allowed, (what a fuckin JOKE...i;'m there with a 50mm and the bloke next to me with a superzoom can see the pupils in the presenters damn eyes with his 450mm lens), anyway cut a long story short, i got a refund of all 3 tickets, (around $250). that was i suppose a small win for our side.

this photography at venues business has GOT to be cleaned up. it is impossible to police it so it is a damn nonsense.

rant over...

Chris, I think a lot of us have been in similar positions to the one that you have described. You are correct, they have to clean up the business of photography at venues, and make sure it is police-able and fair to all involved.

How do you define professional photography? By the gear? By income?

Matt, this one is a can of worms!

Rooz wrote:i got a refund of all 3 tickets, (around $250).

Maybe you can now go and enjoy the show properly.

Rooz wrote:this photography at venues business has GOT to be cleaned up. it is impossible to police it so it is a damn nonsense.

Agree 100%

I don't bother taking a camera to any organised entertainment event anymore. In truth, I'm there for the experience and to enjoy it with my family anyway, but I've learnt that it's not worth the candle to pull out a camera. We went to the stage show 'Wicked' a few weeks ago - outside while waiting to go in, an announcement came over the PA "No Flash Photography, no mobile phones" but when we went inside the announcement had changed to "No Photography, no mobiles" Makes you wonder if the people making the rules know anything about cameras.

Plenty of people took photos (flash and not) during the performance, but I didn't see any DSLR's. If you look around before the lights dim, a significant part of the audience is mucking around with their smartphones, all of which have cameras built in. Losing battle for the organisers IMO.

Michael

Rooz wrote:well i have a good news story, sort of,

See, this is not really a good news story. Granted, getting the refunds was good, but that was the only good aspect of it. That you spent god knows how long justifiably seething about this does not make it a good news story in my books.

But, I agree 100% with your rant and the reason for your rant.

When I went to the last Melbourne Ashes Test in 2006/07 (no, there have been no more recent MCG Ashes Tests despite what facts may tell you), I made the most pedantic arrangements to take my camera in - emails to management well in advance, printing off the reply from management saying I could take my gear in without tripod/monopod or any other bit of gear that could interfere with anyone else's enjoyment, etc. I still had the female knuckle scraper at security trying to cause problems. In the end, I went in, took these photos (and more) and had a good day. On Day 2, I noticed another bloke in the nose bleed section near us with a DSLR on a monopod!

The point it:

1. Security need to get a clue and understand what the policies and procedures are;
2. Management need to stop being so frickin scared of joe public taking photos. I understand about the potential infringement on the commerciality of those pros who are employed to take photos, yadda yadda yadda.

Mr Darcy wrote:I have the right to be harrassed by soccer mums

Some of them can harrass me any time they want.

Reschsmooth wrote:See, this is not really a good news story. Granted, getting the refunds was good, but that was the only good aspect of it. That you spent god knows how long justifiably seething about this does not make it a good news story in my books.

i agree. its simply making best of a bad situation. i spent over $500 on this event. tickets, parking, couple of toys, lunch, guidebook, popcorn and drinks, some lollies etc. and thats not including the daycare fees that we still paid even though lucas wasn't there, my time, (day off)...we're talking some serious cash here for a 90minute event. thats one of the things i was seething about...i spend all this money and this is the way you treat me ?

man i was furious. and to your point...did the refund make me feel better ? not a jot. afterwards i though well at least i got my money back out of principal.

CraigVTR wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:I have the right to be harrassed by soccer mums

Some of them can harrass me any time they want.

I would agree with you!

Rooz wrote:its simply making best of a bad situation. i spent over $500 on this event. tickets, parking, couple of toys, lunch, guidebook, popcorn and drinks, some lollies etc. and thats not including the daycare fees that we still paid even though lucas wasn't there, my time, (day off)...we're talking some serious cash here for a 90minute event. thats one of the things i was seething about...i spend all this money and this is the way you treat me ?

man i was furious. and to your point...did the refund make me feel better ? not a jot. afterwards i though well at least i got my money back out of principal.

If you put it into perspective like that, I think anyone would be furious....and frothing at the mouth! But yes, in principal you did get your money back...I hope the rest of the day went well for you.

Rooz wrote:... out of principal.

Would that be Principal Skinner? apologies.

Matt. K wrote:Do you think you have rights as a photographer?

yes and no.

The game has changed with respect to rights of people and photography/filming - this has been brought about by the accessibility of cameras in every form and the instant nature of video and photography translated onto the web.

As a society I think there needs to be rights for both sides of the fence, imo people should have the right to be able to say no i do not want to be filmed or photographed. If i am walking down the street with my family and someone sticks a camera in my face or one of my family members face beacuse they want to have a picture on their blog of some little kid that looks cute in something or cause someones wearing weird shoes, i should have the right to say no. That is simple respect in my opinion, unfortunately this cannot be policed, however by changing the way people think and what people think is acceptable behaviour can be influenced - as elmo says: its polite to ask someone if to you can take their picture

The amount of times you see an event unfolding and the 90% of people, rather than helping or evening call assistance bring out their camera and start photographing and filming - I saw this last night on the way home from vivid, some dude was getting carted away in an ambulance and sure enough some wanker had his phone out filming, why? so he could give it to channel 9 or smh in exchange for a candy bar? Just let the people do their job and move on, it ain't rocket science! Something has gone wrong somewhere along teh tracks imo.

Chris I feel your pain about the event you went to, but it must be very frustating for venues which need to prevent photography - take for example the Art Gallery - I was there the other week and sure enough, in the Archibald exhibition there were people with there phone camera etc taking snaps of the art (note there is pretty blatant signs stating no photography). People need to know when its appropriate to use a camera and also when a location says 'no', respect it.

In relation to the linked smh page, why should they not be able to say 'no do not film this operation'? there are plenty of situations where public avaliable footage of persons at work involved in certain operations can be at a detriment to them or the work. Also if you have ever been to a protest, every man and his dog wants to get some footage of some police brutality - even to the extent that people try and incite some response.

Anyway its good thought provoking discussion..

Before you take a picture of anyone without their permission, it would be reasonable to put yourself in the same situation as theirs. If you have any qualms, there is usually a good reason.

I think another extreme example is the paparazzi. They are within their 'rights' most of the time, but it's obvious that they are really harassing their subject in every conceivable way.

If any private area prohibits photography, then that's up to the owner. I doubt there would be much discussion there. It may well apply to any private events etc. They could throw you out without a clear reason couldn't they? For example a mall which appears to be a public space but really is private property.

Although most people know about this, this is worth another read.
http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

With every Joe Blogs having a DSLR these days, I think attitudes will change slowly. The amount of DSLRs we saw during Vivid was mind boggling. There were far too many cheep tripods there as well.

At the end of the day, common sense is a nice fallback although as already discussed, doesn't always prevail.