Thanks for adding another point of view to this topic.
I totally agree with EVERYTHING you posted and can appreciate looking at this from your point of view. I have been invloved with organizing and running tourneys in the past, so I know how much work and expense it is. Most times it's a thankless job that you spend countless hours doing and no one sees. If it wasn't for the vendor fees and corporate sponsors, most of these programs would vanish from existence, so I realize the importance of that income. I also comend you for reaching out and assisting with programs the are less fortunate. I'm sure the parents will remember that forever.
As a parent I do appreciate what you (and others) do as the director to make sure our kids are safe. It goes a long way in making our weekends enjoyable. Thank you.
What I did not appreciate was being singled out because the photographer viewed me as a threat. When the director approached me and explained what was going on, I did exactly what he asked me to do and followed his requests to the letter, but that wasn't good enough for the photographer. Until my gear was gone from sight, I was a scab that was there to steal his business, and there was nothing I could say or do that was going to change his mind.
I'd actually ban the official photographer as per the USA understating of it.
If I'm an official photographer at an event, I'm working for the PR, the Event Organiser or some of the Exhibitors.
I really don't see why any single individual should have exclusive rights to shoot the event for any reason ~ in fact under EU competition rules this can be challenged.
And I certainly don't see why I am 'forced' to buy a photo from any single person it only causes bad feelings.
As usual I do have a few exceptions, I'll do dress functions and have a studio setting and staff and probably a room for this purpose ~ sure I don't want anyone else shooing in there.
Also there are usually exclusion areas for the public, it's enough to keep this enforced IMO, I get my blue photographer's flash and I go anywhere.
Confronting the public and blaming them for falling picture sales is rather pathetic and ultimately will cause the death of this stuff.
I've had my own confrontations, as a press photographer I've run foul of the 'official photographer' ~ and so far, none of the 'official photographers' release pics to the press either ~ so where's the kick back for the clubs?
I treat 'official photographers USA style' with the same respect that I treat toll road operators for publicly funded motorways and bridges. In other words, I pay enough to the clubs already and then admission fees .... see where I'm going.
Rocketball wrote:
I guess the reason I'm posting this is just to remind everyone that although you may be the "official photographer" and have a contract, everyone at the event has certain rights, and you need to respect those rights, like it or not, just as we "the other photographers" need to respect your rights.
gbee wrote:
I really don't see why any single individual should have exclusive rights to shoot the event for any reason ~ in fact under EU competition rules this can be challenged.
[snip]
As usual I do have a few exceptions, I'll do dress functions and have a studio setting and staff and probably a room for this purpose ~ sure I don't want anyone else shooing in there.
Also there are usually exclusion areas for the public, it's enough to keep this enforced IMO, I get my blue photographer's flash and I go anywhere.
So exclusivity is fine as long as it's in your favor, but not otherwise? Do you also believe that concert promoters should not be able to ban video cameras from events (which often allow exclusive press access)? Should you be allowed to bring a camera into the audience of a Broadway play (which hire exclusive photographers and videographers)? And wouldn't you get tossed from Wimbledon if you sat in the stands with a pro camera and long lens? I know that you wouldn't even get into the US Open with one...they frisk you at the gates. Do you object to that as well?
I treat 'official photographers USA style' with the same respect that I treat toll road operators for publicly funded motorways and bridges. In other words, I pay enough to the clubs already and then admission fees .... see where I'm going.
I don't see where you're going, actually. Do you refuse to drive on those roads, essentially voting with your dollars? Or do you flaunt the rules in protest, driving those roads anyway and refusing to pay the tolls? Once you start to pick and choose which rules to follow based on political beliefs, doesn't that then give license for everyone else to do the same? So if I object to intellectual property laws I'm now fully empowered to violate your copyright at my whim? Or I can come take your car because I reject the nature of personal property ownership?
It seems to me that if an event organizer sets a policy in place that abides by the governing laws you can also abide by it or you can register your objections, but it doesn't give you justification to violate the policy just because you disagree with it.
If I'm setting up the event, yes. If it's public then no. Now having a blanket photo ban is entirely up to the organisers, obviously.
Major and even upstart minor concert promoters allow press access for typically the first three numbers, then you're outa there. All major sports have blanket photo bans and strict rules for the professional covering the event or course as in Golf.
Golf especially is often restricted to just two greens with a special pass for a select few ~ in fact some Golf is covered by skilled amateurs attached to the clubs for free and distributed from the press tents ~ it's a fairly closed shop at the top ~ who'd want to be there anyway.
I avoid toll roads.
In any event I'm really referring to these little Hitler photographers at these low level family gatherings and I support any parent's right to take their own children's pictures at any event.
shatterkiss wrote:
So exclusivity is fine as long as it's in your favor, but not otherwise? .
gbee wrote:
Major and even upstart minor concert promoters allow press access for typically the first three numbers, then you're outa there. All major sports have blanket photo bans and strict rules for the professional covering the event or course as in Golf.
I'm well aware - I've shot for the music industry here in the US on and off for 12 years. But promoters/publicists/artists/labels will also pick and choose what press are given access - it's not a blanket "you identify yourself as press and you're allowed to shoot". And further, other shooters will be given backstage access, side-stage access, access to shoot an entire set...while ticket-buyers aren't allowed cameras at all and might be kicked out for sneaking one in. A publication like Rolling Stone will give promotional consideration like a guaranteed cover article in exchange for better access than anyone else gets. I've seen photo passes revoked for all but one agency's shooters at a big-ticket show - that agency obviously bought exclusivity to make sure they could move their images.
My point is simply that commercial exclusivity is the norm for private events. If you bought a ticket to it, it's no longer public and you're subject to the organizers' policies. If you disagree with the policies, don't buy the ticket. If we were talking about a kid's little league game at a public park that relied on taxpayer funding I'd probably feel differently. But at a commercial event designed to be profitable for various parties...it's not the photographer's interests I'm respecting, it's the event organizer's policies, whatever the reasons behind them. I don't necessarily have any right to photograph my child in a sporting event, my horse in a rodeo, my car in the Indy 500, my painting in someone else's museum...it may be my child, but it's someone else's event and venue. My choice is to attend or not, not attend but individually reject rules I don't agree with.
I was a fine art photographer for five years, been inside plenty of museums, with the artist to shoot their stuff for them ~~ don’t be silly now, please.
shatterkiss wrote:
I don't necessarily have any right to photograph my child in a sporting event, my horse in a rodeo, my car in the Indy 500, my painting in someone else's museum...it may be my child, but it's someone else's event and venue. My choice is to attend or not, not attend but individually reject rules I don't agree with.
gbee wrote:
I was a fine art photographer for five years, been inside plenty of museums, with the artist to shoot their stuff for them ~~ don’t be silly now, please.
Since you were with the artist to shoot their stuff for them, it is probable that you had permission. Were I to step into that gallery and shoot without permission, I would be likely asked to leave.
Shatterkiss has made salient, real world points that reflect the realities of live event photography of people playing/performing, situations that more reflect the predicament of the original poster. Rocketball has made salient points as well, from the point of view of a parent (who just happens to have professional photography equipment) who bought a ticket to see his own kid play. This is a continual conondrum.
From the official photographer's standpoint, the meet host is generally the most effective enforcer of any exclusivity they hope to enjoy. Establishing the role of the meet hosts in diseminating a clear and posted policy for attendees is best made part of the initial agreement package between the host and photographer.
The point has been made that the attendee is not a party to that agreement. True. The attendee, upon entering private property and paying admission to do the same, is subject to a different agreement... one with the meet host.
That agreement is never signed, but it is enforced (and equally violated) all the same. No video taping, for example, while handycam lights litter the stands. It is within the host's power to ask that the video taper put down the camera or leave, if the policy is no video taping.
Your son or daughter could be the lead in a Broadway musical, but the theater ushers will still ask you to cease and desist from videotaping all the same. Unless you have secured permission ahead of time.
The host grants or deny's that permission. It is in the official photographer's interest to deny photo access to others, but it is not necessarily in the official photographer's purview or power to do so. It is a matter best left to the host, and the agreement between the official photographer and the host should have a consequence to the host if the host fails to protect or provide the whatever exclusivity the official photographer needs to justify the terms of the contract.
I never found the official website or a pamphlet reference to where my son's college graduating class pictures were posted. I watched three official photographers from the stands take about 1500 student pictures. The first photographer had 50% of his flash photos misfire (no battery pack) or couldn't find focus quick enough; one was shooting from below a 6 foot stage for the diploma handouts, and the other one caught each student walking down the stairs, never asking to stop but capturing them as they walked directly at him. I wonder how they turned out, not that I was very impressed by their experience. Fortunately we shot our own pictures in the stadium parking lot as did many parents. Those pictures are the only memory.
I think that the few times that the official photographer should be concerned about parents shooting sports photos of their kids is not worth the aggravation or the bad press. Anyone can sit in the stands with a 400mm lens on a crop camera and a 1.4x teleconverter, get the same shots and be perfectly within his right to do so, at least according to the 1st Amendment. Most of these sports events are on public property (any taxpayer financed land or structure).
Imagine if a group of parents approached the photographer and requested that he is not given permission photograph their children or post their photos on the internet unless he has a signed release from them. I don't see how the side deals between the event sponser and the photographer are binding to the public, especially if you obey the "posted rules" of the event. There could be legal reprocussions if as a paying customer you were escorted out of the event area because you were shooting pictures with "professional" equipment, and absolutely for confiscating camera equipment in the process.
Barry Pehlman wrote:
I think that the few times that the official photographer should be concerned about parents shooting sports photos of their kids is not worth the aggravation or the bad press. Anyone can sit in the stands with a 400mm lens on a crop camera and a 1.4x teleconverter, get the same shots and be perfectly within his right to do so, at least according to the 1st Amendment. Most of these sports events are on public property (any taxpayer financed land or structure).
I don't think that majority of us are concerned about parents shooting photos. As a matter of fact, from what I've read in the past, most are willing to even answer questions parents may have concerning their gear. Personally I would never waste my time nor chance alienating potential clients by policing parental camera usage. The problem is the supposed "pro/hobbyist" who arrives unannounced with no prior introductions or presentation, shoots the event and then works the crowd handing out cards or leaving leaflets on windshields. I've also seen guys that no one knew nor had ever seen before shoot an event never to be seen or heard from again. Are they a hobbyist having fun? Are they shooting for stock? Are they some kind of pervert looking for subject matter? No one knows and that's a problem.
Imagine if a group of parents approached the photographer and requested that he is not given permission photograph their children or post their photos on the internet unless he has a signed release from them. I don't see how the side deals between the event sponser and the photographer are binding to the public, especially if you obey the "posted rules" of the event.
First of all any parent is free to approach me and request I not take or post pictures of their child. And each league I meet with is told this up front. Most of those same leagues/teams also post that detail on their web sites when they announce that we will be attending and shooting games. Secondly although print sales to parents would not require a model release, I have them sign one when they register to play. I do occasionally get requests to use images commercially so this saves me a lot of hassles. As a parent do you require that your local paper obtain a release prior to printing your child's picture along with game results or do you proudly and boast that your child's picture was in the paper? Any agreements signed between a league and myself are not binding to parents of the organization nor is there any reference to parents shooting photos in any of my contracts. Any exclusivity defined in the contract pertains only to uninvited, unknown, and unapproved entities that intend to solicit. I guess a league or township could technically post "No Soliciting" signs at each sports venue if they chose to do so or would that, using your logic, violate someone's 1st Amendment right as well? Would you attend your child's game and then attempt to sell hot dogs you cooked in the parking lot and at a price below hot dogs being sold by the local vendor? The vendor is an officially approved entity of the league so why wouldn't the approved photographer have the same consideration?
There could be legal reprocussions if as a paying customer you were escorted out of the event area because you were shooting pictures with "professional" equipment, and absolutely for confiscating camera equipment in the process.
Using the same example above, what legal repercussions would you have after being prevented from selling your hot dogs? Why should there be a selective double standard applied to shooting and selling event photos as opposed to selling hot dogs or t-shirts?
Barry, you raise some great points that echo other sentiments expressed in this thread. There is no denying them. Sometimes the work of the official photographer sucks. On top of that, how dare they even think to want to intefere with a family desiring to memorialize a milestone moment in their lives. There is no argument on this one.
However, the specific logistics of access can be debated:
Barry Pehlman wrote:
"Anyone can sit in the stands with a 400mm lens on a crop camera and a 1.4x teleconverter, get the same shots and be perfectly within his right to do so, at least according to the 1st Amendment. Most of these sports events are on public property (any taxpayer financed land or structure)."
This is not always true. I've been to several indoor sports venues where the structure was publically financed, located on city/county property, but privately run by a contracted concessioner. Rules for cameras in the stands include specifics like "no lens longer than 6" (literally), and "no focal length longer than 200mm" (again, literally). The rules are enforced by security at the gates, where coolers and purses are given a going over prior to admittance.
While the above circumstance doesn't typify commencement ceremonies or field sports, it can be found with regularity in elite level gymnastics and concerts. Whether this is morally or constitutionally right or wrong hasn't prevented these lens/camera restrictions from taking place, and to my knowlege, such lens length/type restrictions have not yet been legally challenged to the point of unenforceablity.
Barry Pehlman wrote:
"Imagine if a group of parents approached the photographer and requested that he is not given permission photograph their children or post their photos on the internet unless he has a signed release from them."
That would be interesting indeed. I've only seen one or two parents object, and only once or twice in a very long while. The lone objectors tried to rally other parents to join them to bolster the strength of their cause, but failed to convince the other parents of any real threat, and those parents that otherwise might not have even been aware of the photography service were it not for the squawking end up wanting to buy pictures. (Funny how that works out sometimes.) Still, the wish of the parent who initially objected is always respected, and their child doesn't get photographed.
Using the same example above, what legal repercussions would you have after being prevented from selling your hot dogs? Why should there be a selective double standard applied to shooting and selling event photos as opposed to selling hot dogs or t-shirts?
Steve, obviously you run a professional sports photo business, but for every one of you there are other "photographers" trying to ruin it for people trying to just take pictures of their kids or neighbor's children. Frankly I don't want to be forced to buy my kids pictures from someone else. I went through the 1-12 grade school photos including multiple sports pictures for 3 kids. After so many years of this it became a PIA, not to mention expensive. This recently spun off to official Santa pictures of the kids and in another place Santa with our dog, church photos, etc. I mean enough is enough. I don't get the hot-dog reference since they wouldn't create the same memories.
If the majority of sports event photographers aren't worried about the parents then why are the event enforcers confiscating equipment from parents and escorting them to the gate if they don't cooperate as one post claims? And the "pro-hobbiest"... is he really your worst nightmare, or is his appearance the end to food on your table? If any group should complain it should be the wedding photographers who must deal with guest's cameras competing with theirs all day. In that case the photographer has a choice of making a scene, or just going with the flow and live to book a referred wedding from the bride the next time. In all the years I shot weddings I never had another photographer trying to compete with me. It really shouldn't be that big a deal in the sports event arena either. In a perfect world the best photo wins, not a photographer's exclusivity, including the good possibility that the "pro hobbiest's" photos might really suck.
Focus Locus: The elite levels of sporting events in a privately financed buildings is not the issue. They can kick you out for bringing your own popcorn if they want. This is about local sporting events at places that parents can shoot photos of their children without worrying about the some guy from event central who would be more than happy to put you in an armlock before it occurs to him that he crossed any lines.
I am just curious to know what all the official photographers and those backing their corner do when they go to watch their own children taking part in say sporting events. Do you buy photos from the event photographer or take a camera?
Nice point Snapperjack. Although my daughter is only 1, i am sure when she is older i will be snapping her taking part in sports.
I usually shoot indoors and at most events they have barriers separating the public from the players. For me, the parents can shoot all day from behind the barriers as long as they don't sell the photos. I would not even mind the parents selling the photos as long as I did not have to pay any commission charges. All we want is a level playing field.
Another point: Where did the official photographer get his training? I think the same way the pro-hobbiest got his training. You guys should only be angry at yourselves.
I don't want to get sucked back into this, but there's one thing I have to say:
The word is "hobbyist", not "hobbiest". As in, "one who practices a hobby", not "one who is the most hobbi of them all". Also, isn't "pro-hobbiest (sic)" a contradiction in terms? Doesn't practicing a hobby professionally make it a vocation and no longer a hobby?
First of all as stated I could care less if parents are taking photos of their kids. Who am I to prevent that? I'm a parent myself and would take offense to anyone telling me I couldn't take photos of my own children. And I do occasionally take a camera along to their games but most of the time, I just go to enjoy and to share in the accomplishments of my girls.
You are missing the point though, my point at least. I've not said anything about forcing people to buy photos from me. The only time this occurs is with T&I and in that case why should I allow parents to shoot T&I photos over my shoulder when I'm the one making all the effort and doing all the setup? But then again, no one is forced to purchase these pictures either. Next time one of your kids has their school picture scheduled, I challenge you to go into the school with your camera and shoot your kid's photo while they are sitting for the "official photographer". I've never heard any parent griping about exclusivity in this case so why would you complain about exclusivity with sports photos? So go to the game, take you photos buy mine or don't...makes no difference to me. People who appreciate the work I put into getting good images, and the time I spend working with them on a personal level will buy photos. People who feel that they can do better or are critical of pricing will never buy no matter what. Like anything else it comes down to the old 80/20 rule - 80% of my sales come from the same 20% of the people and that's where I spend my time, effort, and energy. I don't spend time trying to convince or, as you put it, force the others into purchasing. Additionally many leagues do now require criminal background checks and child abuse history clearances for all participants, volunteers, etc. Our local little league has a committee specifically for that. What exempts the "pro-hobbyist" from having to meet these requirements? If I as a professional am willing to incur the expense and make that commitment to the league then why should anyone be able to just walk on the field at any time and shoot their pictures. What happens when my kid gets pushed out of bounds and gets seriously injured when they collide with a "pro-hobbyist" or eager parent taking photos? How much liability insurance do you have for such an event? Personally I carry a $1M policy specifically for my photo business which I am actually increasing to $2M.
As far as confiscating parents' equipment, I've personally never seen it done nor would I ever demand that it be done. However, if it would occur I would assume that the event organizer is doing so at their own discretion in order to protect their interests in what ever agreement they may have.
The "pro-hobbyist" is another issue which has far less to do about "food on my table" than it does about lack of professionalism. If you want to be a "professional" then conduct yourself as a professional. If photography is a hobby then don't hold yourself out as a professional. I've yet to encounter any "pro-hobbyists" in my area that have taken the time to even meet with league organizers just to introduce themselves if nothing else. Most of the teams/leagues have regularly scheduled meetings and most invite the public. If the meetings aren't open, a simple phone call will get you on the agenda. Why is the "pro-hobbyist" afraid or opposed to meeting with organizers to at least make their intentions known? For me the "pro-hobbyists" seem to harbor this sense of entitlement, "this is a public venue therefore I can do whatever I want." I hear that time and time again in many posts in this forum. If you don't have a child playing or any other vested interest in a team or league, what exactly entitles you to shoot pictures of my child and then try and peddle your photos off on me?
Why does the wedding photographer have the right to be upset but not the youth sports photographer? What makes their contract any more binding than ours? That just doesn't make sense. You never had anyone competing with you because no one other than friends and family would be in attendance. I doubt any "pro-hobbyist" would even think about showing up at some random wedding, shooting the event and then hand out their cards to all the guests or leave flyers on the windshields. That would be kind of amusing though.
Just to be clear Barry, if your child is playing, shoot away till your hearts content. I've no problem with that. As far as the reference to hot dogs and t-shirts: it was an analogy to illustrate the issue of exclusive contracts. Our local rec football league uses an outside vendor to sell hot dogs at the games. No one questions or disputes that vendor's right to contract exclusivity why should they question mine? Also I don't try nor do I want to prevent parents from taking their own pictures. What do you think would happen if a parent suddenly decided to buy a hot dog cart (absurd, I know) and tried to sell hot dogs at those same games? Just because a parent can buy a digital camera why should they dispute any contract a professional photographer has with the league? They are not being prevented from taking their own photos nor are they being "forced" to purchase photos, so what's the problem?
Barry Pehlman wrote:
Anyone can sit in the stands with a 400mm lens on a crop camera and a 1.4x teleconverter, get the same shots and be perfectly within his right to do so, at least according to the 1st Amendment. Most of these sports events are on public property (any taxpayer financed land or structure).
Nope, not true. Even public venues can limit photography and video. Just head down to San Antonio and go to the big school districts games. Pull out a camera with a big lens and you will be paid a visit by the athletic staff asking to see your letter from the school's AD giving you permission. Thats the rule and they do enforce it. The first amendment does not protect mom and dad taking photos on any public property. Freedom of the press, yes, but that is a different matter altogether (and one that is allowed at these venues).
shatterkiss wrote:
I don't want to get sucked back into this, but there's one thing I have to say:
Also, isn't "pro-hobbiest (sic)" a contradiction in terms? Doesn't practicing a hobby professionally make it a vocation and no longer a hobby?
Thank you.
I think for me that contradiction is the problem. As previously stated you're either a hobbyist or a professional. However, there do seem to be more and more hobbyists presenting themselves as professionals who are anything but. Case in point, anyone who feels put out by a contractual agreement between a league and photographer is obviously not a professional. Professionals compete for business all the time, they understand issues surrounding contractual agreements and know what is involved in competing for those agreements. Most experienced professionals are not going to be pouting over said agreements and crying "that's not fair!"
agreed. Went to a hockey game with a 35L, had box seats, VIP everything...and the guard stopped me, asked for my camera, took out a ruler to measure the lens, then proceeded to ask how much zoom does it have. I said none, and after some skepticism, I was allowed to proceed. The morale of the story for the original poster is, you can't do anything unless you bring the event coordinator in and have 'all' staff involved. you can't enforce anything. So what you go to the person and confront them? Well, won't you be missing your shots? Security and all parties in the event must be involved, otherwise you'll have to just bear and grin it.
