DSLRUsers.com

<rant mode>

I went to a wedding fair at the Sydney Exhibiton centre this weekend because the good woman is itching for me to get the hint I think. Anyway, so I was walking around, pretty dis-interested in everything bar the cars and the photographers. I took some shots of the stretched Porche and the cadillacs and then stumbled upon the wedding dress catwalk.
The set looked pretty nice, with some nice lights, and the crowds so I decided to get a picture.

A short, personality shy woman quickly approached me and asked whether I had a permit. I said no, and she explained that because of copyright, I was not allowed to take a picture. So I replaced the lens cap, and held the cam at my side, as we were leaving soon anyway.
Suddenly, another woman approached and told me rather angrily that I had to put my camera in my bag. I said that I had already been told that I wasnt allowed to take pictures so no need to worry. She wouldnt accept this and said that I HAD to replace the camera in its bag.
I looked at her with sheer amazement and said:
"I dont mean to be rude, but I'm not a little boy and have rather a great deal more self control than one. I have been told not to take pictures and take pictures I shant."

So I walked off, muttering under my breath and eventually put it back in the bag.

But what did I see not 15 steps further on?????
Loads of people in the crowd with little silver point and shoot cameras!!!!!!!
Thats ok though isnt it, because they wont steal a design of a dress because their cameras dont automatically mean that they are serious design thiefs!!

I couldnt believe it. I didnt want to say anything though because I didnt see why they should suffer, they werent doing anything wrong.


Blooody jobsworths!!!

sorry guys had to to share taht with fellows photogs.

</rant mode>

Good rant rokkstar.

One tip, if your lady is taking you to a wedding fair, there is no "I think" about her wanting you to take the hint. And that isn't a hint.

You should have told them it was a phone, not a camera!

gstark wrote:You should have told them it was a phone, not a camera!

I like it Gary, mind if I use that one next time I get told

Rockkstar, I don't know where the world is heading with these sorts of attitudes but its bugging the heck out of me too.

You know, if she had politely asked me to not take pictures because the dresses are subject to copyright, that would have been fine. But I think she attempted to patronise me too by implying that if I hold my camera I will take pictures, like I'm no better than a child.

And this issue with P&S cameras not having the same stigma as DSLRs!!!
Unbelieveable!

It was like at the F1GP Rockstar, I got told off on Day 2 of the GP because I had a 70-200VR coupled with a 1.7x teleconverter and that breached the maximum focal length of 200mm. Then not further 3 rows behind me was a guy with a non DSLR digital camera, not sure if you could call it a APS but it was one of those inbetween cameras...not quite DSLR, not quite APS. Anyway I looked at the writing on the side and it said it had a focal length of ~28 to 500mm. Didn't see him getting told off though!

Kipper, I am assuming you are talking about the Melbourne F1GP - does it stipulate somewhere on your entry ticket what is allowed and what is not? You paid good money to watch an event, so I cant see what they are getting uptight about.

rokkstar wrote:You know, if she had politely asked me to not take pictures because the dresses are subject to copyright, that would have been fine. But I think she attempted to patronise me too by implying that if I hold my camera I will take pictures, like I'm no better than a child.

And this issue with P&S cameras not having the same stigma as DSLRs!!!
Unbelieveable!

You have hit the nail on the head rokkstar - anyone asking me politely to desist will be acknowledged in return, politely.

If, however, anyone comes on heavy with me that will not know what day of the week it is

ozczecho wrote:Kipper, I am assuming you are talking about the Melbourne F1GP - does it stipulate somewhere on your entry ticket what is allowed and what is not? You paid good money to watch an event, so I cant see what they are getting uptight about.

It's in the conditions of entry for Melbourne; there was some discussion of it at the time, and a search of this site will find the relevant sections and a quote therefrom.

That said, Leigh was using a 70-300G and god some OOF images; I was using the 80-400 and got a few I was happy with.

I hate that type of mentality as well. I feel your pain and frustration! A few weeks ago I went to the Dave Matthews Band concert and my D70 was confiscated upon entry. Wasn't happy as there was no notification whatsoever on the ticket.

While we were waiting for DMB to come on, a whole heap of p&S came out and flashes went off everywhere. I went back to the usher/security and questioned why these people were allowed to have their cameras. He smugly replied that it was the best they could do and no doubt there would be cameras that slipped through the checks. This was total BS to me as in my mind, if you cant' keep out ALL the cameras then you shouldn't be keeping any out at all.

At the end of the concert, while we were waiting to collect our cameras I heard one of the staff members DROP a camera .... (luckily it wasn't mine) Gee that's great, pay a fair amount to go watch an excellent band (who actually encourage for people to photograph them as well as record what they perform) and have some butterfingers drop your camera.

I'm not sure what it is but the whole mentality against photographers and budding photographers is a sham, whether it's the security person's job or not.

Rokkstar, I think we all feel your pain... If they want to sprout that copyright/terrorism/unauthorised nonsense, it should apply equally to everyone, not just SLR users.

So when's the big day?

its sad to hear rokkstar,
were you standing in a public area when you were shooting?
i don't even think they know what copyright means. as long your in a public area you can shooting into ppl house or whatever, you just can't profit from using their faces.

if someone had annoyed me to that point i would have kept photographing just to annoy her, max power flash at point blank, heheheh. then run away.

redline wrote:its sad to hear rokkstar,
were you standing in a public area when you were shooting?
i don't even think they know what copyright means. as long your in a public area you can shooting into ppl house or whatever, you just can't profit from using their faces.

if someone had annoyed me to that point i would have kept photographing just to annoy her, max power flash at point blank, heheheh. then run away.

I'd say it was inside the exhibition center, therefore considered private property, however you only need to abide by their rules re photography.

So what if there is copyright on the dress designs...of course there is by default...all designs are automatically copyrighted as soon as they are made.
Just because their designs are copyrighted, doesn't mean you can't take pictures of them - it just means you can't make a wedding dress of the same design.
It's the same as Buildings are copyrighted, but you can still take pictures of them, but you can't build/design another one the same without permission.

Re wedding dresses, will the designers and their rude staff hang around all weddings where these dresses are worn and prevent photography????

If the Exhibition center allows you to take pics inside, then you can take pics of anything (except maybe the models getting changed ).

Interesting PiroStich...wasn't there someone here at the forum that went to see Mark Knoffler live and took a great piccie...

If the band allows it I cant see any problem....

then you can take pics of anything (except maybe the models getting changed Wink ).

They are fair game too. If they leave the curtain open then you can photograph them, t'would be the same as down the beach. (PS Don't quote me on that when you are arrested)