Sydney antics

[ving]

People do that every day, when they wear AP hats, AP Polo's, AP t-shirts. When no harm is done, I don't care, and I do not believe Shelley harmed anyone.

i sometimes were my hat... makes me look like i representing some company while being sun-wise at the same time! not that i use it to get places i shouldnt be.

I am with rick. if you walk into a resricted area with and use your camera to blend in, its the same as wearing a police uniform and asking to search someones house... the camera is your uniform... its all misrepresentation.

but no harm, no foul...

good on ya shelley. I doubt i'd have the guts to do that

[Scotty72]

Really - its that easy is it........ hmmmmm now to start my own Media empire but just opening a blog ..... Curious to see what some one from an actual full time working Media Agency thinks about that..

Here is a challenge then - go to Cricket Australia, Tennis Australia, the NRL, Australian Parliment, any major rock concert, any major police incident, education press call, V8 super cars, olympic games ( both summer and winter ), world cup rugby, world cup soccer, with the guise that you have a blog and that you are media and can i please have a media / press pass to get in and see what that say.

Perhaps some of the sports togs on here might be able to help out with what is required for gaining passes for major sports . But i am sure it is more then just having a blog.

As for your claim " It must remain that way if we are to keep the press free " i think you may be mixing up free speech with free press. How many truly "FREE PRESS " agencies are there in this country ??

Free press as in free from the govt telling who is allowed to be part of the press and what they may say.

Just because Cricket Australia won't let you shoot their game doesn't mean your not media. It is not up to them to decide who is and is not media. It is their right to accredit whomsoever they please to attend their functions / games. Don't confuse them.

Trust me, I've had more than my fair share of run ins with cops about access at incidents. If they let Peter Hervey in, they let me in (assuming it is public land). Recently, at the Villawood detention centre riot, the cops had set aside an area (of public land) aside for media to congregate / do interviews etc. I went there for a clearer shot - the cops had no issue.

Another time, at Circular Quay, I happened to arrive in the aftermath of an assault and police chase (bloke tried to escape by swimming across the harbour). I snapped away - constable tried to stop me - I refused - her superior came to find out what the fuss was - I told him I had the right to cover an event of public land and attempt to sell my work to the media (I had no intention - but I reserve the right). He told her to back off.

So, don't mix up 'the media' with media accreditation by individual organizations.

Chanel 7 are not allowed to film the cricket, world cup or (now) the Olympics. Do they now cease to be media?

[Scotty72]

i sometimes were my hat... makes me look like i representing some company while being sun-wise at the same time! not that i use it to get places i shouldnt be.

I am with rick. if you walk into a resricted area with and use your camera to blend in, its the same as wearing a police uniform and asking to search someones house... the camera is your uniform... its all misrepresentation.

but no harm, no foul...

good on ya shelley. I doubt i'd have the guts to do that

If you happen to be wearing a Coca-Cola hat and someone simply assumes you work for Coca-Cola, that's their mistake. You did very little to construct the misrepresentation.

If you claim to be wearing the hat because you work for Coca-cola (when you don't) the clearly, you are deliberately constructing a misrepresentation which would almost certainly leave you open for civil if not criminal prosecution.

If someone sees me with a camera and, without asking who I am, invites me to the press pit - that is not me constructing a lie.

If I went to the event claiming to world for a news agency (when I did not) then, I will have misrepresented myself to fraudulently seek an advantage.

The two scenarios are like chalk and cheese.

As for your impersonating police analogy - that is clear ridiculous.

To be a journo there are no licences, legislative requirement, no formal minimum qualification or training, no uniform, no oath of service etc. It is not a criminal offense to pretend to be a journo. The exact opposite of every point above is true of police and if you get caught passing yourself off as one = good luck in court.

Scotty

[ving]

If you happen to be wearing a Coca-Cola hat and someone simply assumes you work for Coca-Cola, that's their mistake. You did very little to construct the misrepresentation.

If you claim to be wearing the hat because you work for Coca-cola (when you don't) the clearly, you are deliberately constructing a misrepresentation which would almost certainly leave you open for civil if not criminal prosecution

i rest my case...
And if you cant see how the two scenarios are the same, especially to get into a restricted area or to do something only an employee can do.... i cant help ya



Sent from my TR718D

[Scotty72]

i rest my case...
And if you cant see how the two scenarios are the same, especially to get into a restricted area or to do something only an employee can do.... i cant help ya



Sent from my TR718D

Hang on!

So you are saying...

If I happen to be wearing a coca-cola hat and YOU as the manager of the coca-cola plant assume I am an employed by coca-cola (I don't say a word about if I am or am not). Because of YOUR assumption you say, 'Well come in.'

So, you are seriously saying you'd have me charged for trespass (or something) after you invited me in?

Sorry, I am trying to imagine just how much the cops would laugh at you - or would they try to keep a straight face?

[Scotty72]

Or, perhaps if I had a shirt that had SCOTT written across it.

Then, someone who has a long lost cousin named Scott sees me.

He says, 'Scott, is that really you.'

I say, 'Yes, I'm Scott.'

He is so excited he forgets to check my last name, date of birth, family history etc. He just assumes I am his Scott.

So, he buys me a beer because I am Scott.

Would you have me charged with theft?

Or him with 'dumbness'?

[ving]

Hang on!

So you are saying...

If I happen to be wearing a coca-cola hat and YOU as the manager of the coca-cola plant assume I am an employed by coca-cola (I don't say a word about if I am or am not). Because of YOUR assumption you say, 'Well come in.'

So, you are seriously saying you'd have me charged for trespass (or something) after you invited me in?

Sorry, I am trying to imagine just how much the cops would laugh at you - or would they try to keep a straight face?

if that cap was considered to be all it takes to signify that you are an empolyee (ie no badges or other uniform required) then it is quite concievable that you would be let in and that is thru deceiving the staff...

but enough of the hat. what about my police uniform analogy... regardless of legal ramifications and the inherent wrongness the situation it is essentially the same. deceit thru deception of uniform.
in the same way you used a uniform (reads camera) to gain access to a restricted area. admittedly if caught you'd probably just be show the door (i dont know this for a certainty) but essentially the same, yes?

[ving]

Or, perhaps if I had a shirt that had SCOTT written across it.

Then, someone who has a long lost cousin named Scott sees me.

He says, 'Scott, is that really you.'

I say, 'Yes, I'm Scott.'

He is so excited he forgets to check my last name, date of birth, family history etc. He just assumes I am his Scott.

So, he buys me a beer because I am Scott.

Would you have me charged with theft?

Or him with 'dumbness'?

no i'd make a tshirt that has scott across it to get free beers to... and then tell my mates

ur a strange fellow scott

[WhoDo]

Sins of commission ... Sins of omission ... they are all the same under the law and ethics. By omitting to tell someone you are not who they think you are you are just as guilty as if you'd misrepresented yourself directly. Either way you have profited from a deception.

Shelly, a little faux pas aside, congratulations on mustering the courage to get outside your comfort zone. I'm sure you had fun doing it and I'd be willing to bet it will be much easier next time.

[Scotty72]

I agree, if they say to me, oh! You must be from News Corp (for eg) and I go along with with it knowing that they have misidentified me = getting very close to the line.

But, I don't do that. In every case, no one has asked me or told me what they think I am doing.

They just assume and wave me through

I don't know for sure that they waving me through because they think I'm from News Corp (etc). For all I know, it might be my charm and good looks

On the occasion I'm asked who I work for, I always say I'm freelance hoping to get picked up ( which is true)

In fact, if I start questioning people's motives for waving me through, that would be rude of me. If you are invited in, it is polite to graciously accept without questioning your host's motives.

Scotty

[atky]

I personally think the term "Media" and "Press" is used way to much by people / photographers attempting to get into events, games etc.... listened to a interesting conversation between some brisbane and gold coast actual media / newspapers togs at educational press call we had at Tweed Heads early this year re public education changes under the current federal government. They all made comments on weekend warriors / part timers / and amateurs getting media passes to events / incidents / concerts etc under dubious applications, and they just jam up photo points and get in the way of actual working press togs. Apparently this is an all to common problem .....

You know what, did you ask any of these self riches photographers how they got a start in the industry. If you can apply through the system and get accreditation that means that someone besides the photographers think you deserve to be there. Sines when dose a photographer trying to protect his income get the right to decide who shoots what and where from?

[Chris Michel]

Actually i did ask them.. Most started as junior cadets at the paper or they started out in the dark room, or photo desk of the papers they worked at. 2 of them applied for jobs at the paper after finishing studying Photo Journalism at uni. So i guess that does give them credit in the real world.... Not sure where you get off stating that they are protecting their income.. I would believe that they actually get paid a salary thus voiding your claim that they are protecting their income....... my 5 cents worth...

[atky]

As an individual that has been published and has had accreditation for V8 supercars, Australian Super bikes, Rally Australia, etc. I can tell you with out any doubt that many of the photographers shooting these events started as freelancers submitting images to publications on spec. Many have other incomes (dose that make them armatures clogging up the photo points) they have professional attitudes and produce professional results, as for the employees of news papers most would be struggling to produce the quality of images these "part time weekend warriors" produce. So yes I think they are protecting there income. I'm not saying there not very capable or even excellent photographers but they shoot people flowers and the results of car crashes. There are however some very good sports shooters working for papers but you know most of them struggle to produce good interpretations of motorsport.
My 2 cents worth.
For the record I find the term as used by those photographers "weekend warrior" offensive.

[kiwi]

Where there is bitterness is where the part timer or hobbiest gets credentials on the basis of providing free images to that media outlet.....and I think that's fair enough

[Scotty72]

Where there is bitterness is where the part timer or hobbiest gets credentials on the basis of providing free images to that media outlet.....and I think that's fair enough

No way!

There are plenty of industries where volunteers undermine the professionals.

Have you ever driven someone to/from the airport? You're taking food out of the cabbie's mouth. Often people will drive someone to 'get in good' with someone (a girl - I was guilty of that in the past ).

So, I am doing that same - providing a service for free in order to gain recognition - at the expense of a pro.

Teachers are constantly undermined by unqualified 'tutors' who often do it for little or no money to gain credit for various community initiatives.

I'm sure tax agents are constantly undermined by Uncle Bob. etc. etc.

Photographers are not a special case. If they are good enough... they will survive.

[kiwi]

There is a difference, this is direct competition, people are doing it on a repetitive and unpaid basis flooding the market with zero cost images. I never said photographers were a special case and Im sure there are other industries that are similar, but Im not sure there are many where so many people will do work repetitively like this for fun and provide similar output to a similar market. If you are good enough ? There were 24 photographers at the Super 15 final, all good enough, all supplying 500 images to x number of outlets. What impact do you think on the net return 5 people there providing images totally for free have to the overall $ per photographer for the other 19 available ? None ?

Im not saying you should care a rats about that, Im just trying to indicate why they might grizzle from time to time.

[Scotty72]

There is a difference, this is direct competition, people are doing it on a repetitive and unpaid basis flooding the market with zero cost images. I never said photographers were a special case and Im sure there are other industries that are similar, but Im not sure there are many where so many people will do work repetitively like this for fun and provide similar output to a similar market. If you are good enough ? There were 24 photographers at the Super 15 final, all good enough, all supplying 500 images to x number of outlets. What impact do you think on the net return 5 people there providing images totally for free have to the overall $ per photographer for the other 19 available ? None ?

Im not saying you should care a rats about that, Im just trying to indicate why they might grizzle from time to time.

Maybe there are just too many photographers on the market. We keep hearing about falling newspaper / magazine sales and people are very reluctant to pay for online content (Crikey.com.au had a very good article on why 'Paywall' online newspapers in Oz will be nothing more than a boutique market).

If I am a newspaper owner and someone who is a decent 'tog offers to supply pics for nix (free entry and sideline spot) = why would I pay someone $$$ unless their quality was so much better. Simiarly, I guess if someone came to me with free Super 15 finals tickets on the sideline in exchange for photos - I'd do it. State of Origin = na... yawn! Women's beach volleyball

When I tutor, I am constantly undermined by uni students. All I can do is be better - I am 'better enough' as I have all the work I want despite charging double.

It's all about competition... Unfortunately, you are competing in a shrinking market.

[WhoDo]

Ummm ... talk about hijacking a thread, guys! I'll bet Shelley is wishing she didn't post at all at this point.

[kiwi]

i dont get the thread hijack thing really, i mean, do you all get up at a pub and move to a new pub or table just because the conversation changes tack ? It never worries me personally, it's just conversational.

[ving]

i dont get the thread hijack thing really, i mean, do you all get up at a pub and move to a new pub or table just because the conversation changes tack ? It never worries me personally, it's just conversational.

yeah all the time