Photography at Events - Know your Rights

[dt86vyss]

Yesterday, my wife, my son and I all formed part of an audience of close to 7000 people packed into Rod Laver to see The Wiggles perform live. Those of you who are parents of young toddlers, would probably know that this tour is The Wiggles last concert as a group together before the new performers step in.

As I normally do, I came equipped with my camera in hope to snap a few nice shots. But this was a plan floored right before it got up and running. Approximately 10 minutes into the show, seated close to the front of the stage, we were approached by 2 event security guards and asked to put my camera away as it is “too big”. To my shock I replied, “What? Are you serious?“ Security responded with… the Event copyright clause stipulates that there are “no big cameras allowed at the event.”

Now, here I am sitting next to a lady with a Nikon d5000 and next to her another man with some DSLR and every other person on the audience of 7000 with their point and shoot, mobile phones, DSLR’s and video cameras and I’m the one who’s been targeted… I said to the security… What makes me different to all the other people in the audience with a camera? Why is me taking a picture with my camera doing anything different to the lady sitting next to me?

The answer…. The event organisers have spotted you using the camera via video surveillance and have asked that you put it away because it is considered Pro…

I was shocked, I sat my camera in my lap, listened to all the comments from others around me (in my support) and decided that I was not going settle for the poor excuses I have been given, ‘it’s too big and considered Pro’ and started to shoot again. Ended up shooting 300 or so shots and taking 3 videos… Hoping to make a nice photo/video slideshow (for my kids, not for commercial use)

My point here is, if you’re approached by security at an event because they feel threatened by your gear!, as it stands, I did read the agreement before the event and it was not stipulated that particular makes and models of cameras are forbidden… Rather, there is a restriction on the size of the lens, which in this case is no more than 200mm… If I was to be approached again, I would have acted dumb, asked to sight the Copyright agreement, pretended I could not read and asked him to read out aloud the section on photographic equipment… That would have been so fulfilling!

My set up… Canon 7D, 24-70 f2.8L and an EX430II external Flash… Doesn’t say much for the event organisers knowledge of photographic equipment in order to regulate its use… Everyone knows the 200mm and greater Canon lenses are White!! (in the ‘Pro’ range)

[ameerat42]

From me, good on yer Daniel for your comprehensively consistent approach and congratulations on its outcome. The subject and the circumstances are touchy betimes, and require discretion, but this at least a good news story.
Am.

[old dog]

glad you `flaunted` those stupid laws. It sure is a joke.

[MelE]

At least you weren't ejected from a Wiggles concert :2smile:

Well done!

[Warbler]

Actually, they could have ejected you anyway. Fair? No. Within their power to do so? Absolutely. The fact that DSLRs now pretty much all take video (HD) will probably see some promoters banning them altogether at performances by entertainers. It's just easier to say "no" to everything, rather than try to spell out every possible piece of equipment that is or isn't allowed. Perhaps they saw you taking video whilst the others were just shooting stills?

Cheers,
Tim

[Xenedis]

Here's the situation in a nutshell:

Firstly, event organisers and owners of private properties can ban photography in their properties.

Secondly, said people can also turn a blind eye to the five thousand iPhones snapping away, but target you because you have a professional-looking camera, and therefore must be a terrorist, or worse, a professional photographer who might make a dollar for a print of a middle-aged man in a skivvy.

It's completely illogical, but there's nothing you can do about it.

[Rattus79]

Rent-a-cops with a chip on their shoulders because they're not allowed to carry a gun or physically touch you in any way.

[ricktas]

Now be careful where you put those photos you have. If you put them up on AP or any other 'public' place, The Wiggles could sue you!

[danny]

Last time I went to a wiggle concert. Approx 12 months ago. They encouraged photography and recording. Anthony (Blue wiggle) would tell the crowd when something was going to happen "ok dad get your camera out, you are going to want to get a photo of this". I remember thinking how wonderful that was after going to places that frowned/restricted cameras.

Cheers
Danny

[Wazza999]

I think from past threads there has always been an issue with Rod Laver Arena irrespective of the event. But everywhere is tightening up, several years ago you could take a camera and long lens into the Sydney Intl Tennis tournament but not the Aust Open, but I note from the ticket conditions that all tennis tournaments leading up to the Open now have bans.

[Xenedis]

I think from past threads there has always been an issue with Rod Laver Arena irrespective of the event. But everywhere is tightening up, several years ago you could take a camera and long lens into the Sydney Intl Tennis tournament but not the Aust Open, but I note from the ticket conditions that all tennis tournaments leading up to the Open now have bans.

At one point at the AO there was a focal length restriction of 200mm. I'm not sure if that's still the case.

I've no experience with that, but I suspect if you turned up with a 'professional-looking' 70-200mm f/2.8 lens which is big, white and, err, professional-looking, you'd be told to take a hike; but if you rocked up with a much less-imposing 55-200mm cheapie, you'd have no problem.

I wonder how the AO authorities handled the fact that some P&S cameras have camera capable of achieving framing the equivalent of 500mm in 135-format.

[geoffsta]

Just look on facebook to see how many of those 7000 posted images. It's starting to get rediculous....:2smilSS:

[enVision]

Just add a 2x extender on your 24-70 or 18-135, or a 24-105 if you have it. They wouldn't even realise.

[Xenedis]

Just add a 2x extender on your 24-70 or 18-135, or a 24-105 if you have it. They wouldn't even realise.

If you're referring to Canon gear, those lenses are incompatible with the extenders.

[neil70]

the MCG also has a 200mm restriction. I was asked by a security guard what size my lens was and i told the truth (400mm) he told me to put it away and that i could shoot with a smaller lens if i wanted to, when i asked him if he could show me the terms he said look it up on the net. he didn't have access to a copy. So i went to the boundary and shit close ups when the play came to me.

[Xenedis]

So i went to the boundary and shit close ups when the play came to me.

It might have been better to head to the restrooms for that sort of thing.

[Granville]

:2biggn:

[Epoc]

So i went to the boundary and shit close ups when the play came to me.

Betcha that made security forget all about your 400mm lens :)

[ElizabethAtkinson]

I take my D7000 to AAMI when Melbourne Storm and Melbourne Heart play at home, and have just been waiting for security to tell me the same thing. I did go to the website and searched on photography and found that you are not allowed to have "professional" cameras at the venue. Because my camera is not full frame I will argue (rightly or wrongly) it is not a professional camera, considering I am only taking the photos for my benefit not to be sold (although I would love to become a pro sports photoghapher) :tog:

[geoffsta]

So i went to the boundary and shit close ups when the play came to me.
:lol::tog::lol: Call Kym... He is good with I-O errors

[rookie]

So i went to the boundary and shit close ups when the play came to me.

Well the flies wont be in your eyes :2biggn:

[Mark L]

Oh, dear. Thread hijacked.

... So i went to the boundary and shit close ups when the play came to me.
Don't matter what length your lens is, they'll get you for indecent exposure!

[dt86vyss]

If you're referring to Canon gear, those lenses are incompatible with the extenders.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[bushbikie]

So i went to the boundary and shit close ups when the play came to me.

Geezz! I hope those pics didn't turn out crappy!!! :2biggn:

Sorry, mate, but you've just given me the Laugh Of The Week!! Thank you!

[ricktas]

Just a general note here for those reading this thread. Venues etc are NOT public spaces (owned by the people of Australia), like roads, beaches, footpaths are (generally). Once you enter a privately owned/operated 'space' you have to abide by the wishes (terms and conditions) of the owners of the 'space'. So whilst you might get away with shooting under such conditions, be very aware of not just what YOUR rights are perceived to be, but also what the rights of the location owner is as well. Cause you could end up in Court, and do you really want to spend your money fighting something in a legal setting?

[Xenedis]

Just a general note here for those reading this thread. Venues etc are NOT public spaces (owned by the people of Australia), like roads, beaches, footpaths are (generally).

Note that in Sydney, Randwick council requires people to have a permit to photograph on streets and beaches within its jurisdiction.

That's right -- you cannot take photos on 'Bandi' (formally known as Bondi) beach without a permit.

Public places aren't public places.

As long as there's a nasty combination of paranoia and greed, permits, even for non-commercial photography, will be the unpleasant result.

[Kym]

Note that in Sydney, Randwick council requires people to have a permit to photograph on streets and beaches within its jurisdiction.
That's right -- you cannot take photos on 'Bandi' (formally known as Bondi) beach without a permit.
Public places aren't public places.
As long as there's a nasty combination of paranoia and greed, permits, even for non-commercial photography, will be the unpleasant result.

Yikes!
http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Places_for_people/Recreation_and_leisure/Using_a_public_space/Filming_and_photography/index.aspx

So all those smartphone and compact camera 'togs better be prosecuted for not having a permit. :p

When will this madness end!

[Xenedis]

Yikes!

Indeed. Sydney is the city of one of the world's most famous beaches, yet people aren't allowed to photograph it without going through pointless red tape.


When will this madness end!

Just as soon as paranoia and greed go out of fashion.

[MattNQ]

Where is the line drawn I wonder? Can they really stop you photographing a sunset in a public place - it might be for personal consumption only (some of you ARE addicted to sunsets aren't you?.)
If your family are scoffing fish & chips in the foreground, is that different to a model posing in the same location. How will they tell she is not your sister!
It would be interesting to see how they enforce the rules.

[Xenedis]

It would be interesting to see how they enforce the rules.

My guess:


iPhone - turn a blind eye.
DSLR - call the cops; it's obviously a pervert terrorist type.

[Sifor]

Just a general note here for those reading this thread. Venues etc are NOT public spaces (owned by the people of Australia), like roads, beaches, footpaths are (generally). Once you enter a privately owned/operated 'space' you have to abide by the wishes (terms and conditions) of the owners of the 'space'. So whilst you might get away with shooting under such conditions, be very aware of not just what YOUR rights are perceived to be, but also what the rights of the location owner is as well. Cause you could end up in Court, and do you really want to spend your money fighting something in a legal setting?

And if I may add to what Rick has said, at these events where you purchase a ticket you do not have a contract with them, it's a mere license to enter the premises... so if you're kicked out of the venue you can't jump up and down screaming breach of contract :P

Highly unlikely you'd end up in court though as the legal costs would far exceed any recoverable amount the aggrieved would be seeking. At worst it'd be arbitration, but even then, it comes down to how much the photo you 'illegally' took is worth to them, probably bugger all in reality. Might not be welcomed at another event run by the occupier though.

For the council regulation of photography, again you'd probably just cop a fine if you contested it with the ranger. I think for hobbyists playing dumb/innocent would get you off with a warning and if you were selling the images captured without a permit that'd be pushing it into fine territory (although proving you didn't have a permit after the image was taken would be a little harder and more involved for the council). Again, unlikely to end up in Court due to the exorbitant fees vis a vis recoverable amount.

I'll be in Sydney next month and will be doing some sunrises along the big beaches.. I'll be dammed if I am going to get a permit, I'll take my chances and let the ranger who is hiding behind the rocks at 3am fine me. :2smile:

[MattNQ]

A beachfront private property boundary is usually at the high water mark (can't remember if it is the median or highest astronomical tide mark ) Does a council's jurisdiction end at the high water mark as well I wonder??
That question might bamboozle a ranger at 3am:2biggn:

[Wayne]

Note that in Sydney, Randwick council requires people to have a permit to photograph on streets and beaches within its jurisdiction.

That's right -- you cannot take photos on 'Bandi' (formally known as Bondi) beach without a permit.

Public places aren't public places.

As long as there's a nasty combination of paranoia and greed, permits, even for non-commercial photography, will be the unpleasant result.

Not quite true about Bondi, it applies to images intended for commercial purposes. I have personally fought Waverley Council on this front on 2 occasions and the rangers tootled off and did something more constructive. They had no idea how to proceed when they asked me for a permit and I told them I didn't need one.
Enclosed Lands Act is your friend.

[Sifor]

A beachfront private property boundary is usually at the high water mark (can't remember if it is the median or highest astronomical tide mark ) Does a council's jurisdiction end at the high water mark as well I wonder??
That question might bamboozle a ranger at 3am:2biggn:

The tidal boundary is taken to be the average high water mark defined in the s9 Land Act 1994 (Qld). Be mindful of any easements though!