Barry:

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.

Bottom line, You are welcome to take as many images as you want but you can not sell them. This holds true for any paid event or park.

Barry Pehlman wrote:
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.

My training was in college, and then my business training was in College and a lot of very useful seminars from the companies I worked for. Oh and let's not forget the 30 years of marketing and sales experience.
Barry I try very hard to not use the term professional. Actually I present my company as a provider of photographic services. I use the fact that we have business licences and 2 million in liability in my marketing to the shows I do.
When I deal with a potential customer they know we are professionals just from the way we conduct our business.

Read some of the photographers websites. "Steve picked up his first camera two days ago and took a good picture. His friends told him he could sell that so now he is a professional"

"So and So is a self taught photographer"

That's not to say that there aren't great photographers out there who are self taught. It's just that there are more and more self taught photographers out there calling themselves professional without the experience they need to do the job properly. Just look at some of the posts on FM. "What lens do I use for a wedding?" Thread. The gist of the story was he had just booked his first wedding and didn't know what lens to use. Come'on now, what true professional photographer would have to resort to an internet forum to find out what lens to use.

Essentially this thread is about someone with no business sense or who thinks they can circumvent the system and pay for that new lens jumping in and setting up unfair competition. Your original comment was about training. Training goes beyond just photographic skills. I would say 20% of my success is because I am a good photographer. 80% is because I am experienced enough to do the rest of it correctly.

Cheers
Chris

Cpurves:

All excellent points. I meant to address the generalizations made by Barry concerning a photographers training. I myself also majored in Journalism with minor in photography. I spent years shooting non-PJ related jobs with film which many think is extinct. In addition, I've taken and continue to take courses in business, marketing, and accounting. I regularly sign up for photo-related seminars. In other words I've made a commitment to my business, my clients, and myself through continued education.

Anyway, yes there are many who are able to pick up a camera and through hard work and diligence teach themselves the art of photography. Look at Chase Jarvis...self taught Hasselblad Master and very successful entrepreneur but then again he worked his a** off to get to where he is.

Barry, please don't generalize. I really do think your comment was completely unfounded and nothing more than a false assumption on your part. Read some background about Paul A. or Hammy and tell me those guys aren't putting in the hours or expense. Show me any "pro-hobbyist" who is willing to sacrifice that much in order to run a professional operation. Tell me that a photographer who shows up to a league meeting with professionally printed samples, professionally printed and bound company literature including copies of insurance certificate and criminal background check, and possibly a large LCD to display their work doesn't deserve any more consideration than some hack who simply grabs his camera, shoots a game and jams flyers under every cars' windshield wiper? You and others like you sound more like angry parents than you do photographers. Yes we're trying to keep food on our tables, who isn't. But more importantly we're trying to keep a level of professionalism and integrity in our business that is constantly undermined by the arrogance of others.

From my perspective, never have I tried to (nor would I want to) stop a parent from photographing their child at an event that I have a contract to shoot. Parents are more than welcome to shoot; in fact, during down-times, I'll answer questions and help set up cameras to get better shots. Am I killing my sales? Not really, as I've found people are wanting to buy my shots or not prior to even seeing them.

However, I will notify the event coordinator if a parent is violating the photography rules. At a gymnastics event last weekend, several times "No flashes" was announced over the PA by the emcee. In every session, I'd sometimes see a flash. In that event, I didn't have to say anything, as the event personnel would walk up to that person and ask for the flash to be turned off.

At my soccer league, parents need to be within certain areas, and are not allowed behind the goal-lines. This if for both safety and to prevent distraction or coaching. I, on the other hand, am allowed wherever I don't interfere. When a parent gets behind me at the goal line and starts shooting, I have once told them that they're not permitted; most times, they take a shot or two, then go back to their seats. Sometimes, if they're there for a while, the referee or a field marshal will ask them to return to their seats.

For the soccer league, it's held at the biggest of the city parks. However, the league actually leases the land for the duration of the games, and has the right to ask anyone to leave. Last fall, there was someone who was a bit beligerant (possible drunk) demanding that he was allowed there. The league rep instructed him he was trespassing, and the police took him away. So public land does not always mean public access. If you think so, go set up your picnic blanket in the outfield during a baseball game, and see how much legal power you have to be there.

John

Steve Ickes said:

First of all as stated I could care less if parents are taking photos of their kids. Who am I to prevent that?

I appreciate the sentiment except the event sponsers apparently do care since they receive a piece of the pie. Youth sports photographers can be blase about it because they've got your bases covered with a contract. I know I don't have to purchase the photos, but at the same time I may have no alternative if I am forbidden to shoot on my own, or in the 20th row under the bleachers with an obstruction in front of me.

As I stated before, I am sure you are good at what you do - that's not the issue. This is about the way the sports event system is handled by the sponsers. Sometimes the system can become heavy-handed without the photographer's knowledge. Coming down on people with nice cameras, or assuming that everyone with a DSLR is out to take business away from the official photographer or their cut is like how people with cameras were treated in the aftermath of 9/11 - everybody is guilty. It took time and a lawsuit to finally restore the right of the people to photograph in the NYC subways again. I don't mean to be dramatic, but there it is.

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.

I thought the agreement was with the event photographer. Their interest is primarly protecting the photographers's sales which in turn protects their cut.

Why does the wedding photographer have the right to be upset but not the youth sports photographer?

More cameras in more places without enforcement. Family and guests shoot too, not wedding crashers with cameras.

Chris: I appreciate the concern of all well-trained and educated photographers in protecting their profession, but personally I think we are in a losing battle in the digital camera age. Does anyone remember the PPA panic in the 70's after camera manufacturers introduced things like AF, in-camera metering, and smart flash. Digital makes that look silly by comparison. It is easier than ever for anyone with $2K to take on jobs that we took years to learn. This is the main reason why the service end of pro photography is a thing of the past for me.

Barry:

Well then it seems as if your beef is with event sponsors and organizers. There's nothing in any of my contracts specifically instructing organizers to confiscate cameras, prevent parents from shooting photos, or severe their right hands if they are caught doing so. Again if an organizer chooses this as their method of enforcement why blame me? Again, I really have never encountered such heavy-handed enforcement at the youth sports level. However, from high school on that's a different story and you can't really expect the same level of access, there are just too many different entities with different interests involved.

Yes, the agreement is with the event photographer however each contract will be different depending upon what is agreed upon between the organizer and photographer.

Barry Pehlman wrote:

Youth sports photographers can be blase about it because they've got your bases covered with a contract.


I'm far from blase, again you generalize. In my case, it doesn't bother me that parents are taking photos, it should be their right to do so.


I know I don't have to purchase the photos, but at the same time I may have no alternative if I am forbidden to shoot on my own, or in the 20th row under the bleachers with an obstruction in front of me.


Again generalizing. In the leagues I work with, no parent has ever been prevented from taking photos. In some cases they could only do so from the bleachers but again isn't that more an issue of safety? Could you imagine every parent on the sidelines of a football game? Even at the Pony level, there's already enough going on down on the field. I recently worked a high school state championship. They had more VIP's down on that field than any NFL game I've ever seen. To make matters worse no one was enforcing who had to be behind which line. So we had photographers and tv crews all weaving their way in and out of spectators who could have cared less that we were there to do a job. Dangerous for us, the spectators and the players. I'd rather not see this happen at the rec league level.


It is easier than ever for anyone with $2K to take on jobs that we took years to learn.


I think digital has made it somewhat more cost effective, over the long term. Initial equipment costs can be higher though. However, $2K worth of camera equipment doesn't guarantee quality images nor customer satisfaction. Whether using digital or film, I'm still worn out at the end of the day. Regardless of that, that really isn't the issue.

I think that I've said all I can with regard to this issue so carry on...

Steve:

Peace. We are both photographers and that's cool. Sorry, if I gave you a hard time.

Barry:

No problems seriously. I'm a big boy and don't mind a lively discussion and differing points of view. I just chose to move on because it became apparent that the two sides of this issue will never really agree. Plus I think we were really arguing two different issues.

After reading all the posts, i have to put my 3 cents back in, When I contract a wedding, i make the couple sign an agreement that I'm the exclusive photographer, no one can take pictures, NOT even grand ma. reason, I set the shot up, brought in the equipment, they paid me to take the formal shots, then grand ma says HOLD IT look over hear just as i'm taking the picture, and the little kids look at grandma, or she says wait my camera jammed, or it didnt flash, and she holds up the formal photo shoot, and she says, Oh i will just have doubles printed off and pass them out. Sorry, when i'm the offical photog, I dont like it when someone comes in, no liability insurance, gets in the way, then hands out free pictures, ( I had this happen just so he could get in and get pictures of his so called work out) I dont take the time to offer advise on how to use the camera while I'm working, I'm working, I teach classes, pay the enrollement fee, join the class, but dont take my attention away from me doing the work that the venue hired me to do. I do a lot of rodeos, along with a lot of other events. There are people out in the rodeo world that make you sign a wayver saying you wont take there picture.

I get hired to take a lot of graduation pictues, and the reason why, is sure the parent can take the picture of there graduating kid, but when they come down and clog up the isle, to where the graduate cant even walk down, thats why they hire me to take the offical pictures, and they let the parents know, if they want a pro picture, i'm there to do a job, not to watch an event, let the parents take them from the stands, miss the shot because there yaking with there relatives, and miss the shot.

If i'm the offical photographer which I am at many events, I have parents with there point and shoot cameras, and some with big lens, say'n hey let me take your kids picture too. for free, Let me set up a hot dog stand in front of your hot dog stand and give hot dogs to customers that use to come up to your hot dog stand. Just because I have nothing else better to do and have the finances to give free hot dogs.

I see so many unoffical photogs come in and shot, and the parents dont know who they are, and they could be someone with the intent to use them in the wrong way, Here the schools take a back ground check when they see any one they dont know taking pictures at an event.

Sorry,, I dont take kindly to someone thats stepping on the toes of us professionals, after us professionals have spent the time to net work the job, get the contacts,put out advertisements. Thats our job were professionals. Hope you dont let a " not professional work on your teeth, just be cause he's/she's a hobbiest!

Finally . . . someone gets my hot dog analogy

To the original part of the post, I don't get how some guys think they should be able to lock other shooters out. Yeah, official exclusive photographer ... blah, blah, blah. I've been on both sides of the fence and have had to deal with the newbies giving stuff for free ... and guess what ... if you can't compete .... find a job where you can.
This exclusive stuff is fine to a point but it reeks of a corrupt system which is backwards as far as everyones interest in the long run.

Let's see. Some guy goes and gets to know someone on the board. After a bit of smoozing (been there ... and I've been "in" myself ) he offers a "fee" which in fact in other countries we would call a kickback. Funny how here its gotten in favor and each year the guys running the show want more and more. Funny how the "pro" hack tells himself he has a right to this and how it's because he is the best shooter.

Why don't you try to sell on the merits of your shooting. Free market, free competition and all that ... you know the American way?

As for points of law, I would be careful about touting your rights too much and trying to get them inforced. The leagues often only have a sketchy idea of what they can and can't legaly do ... and so often act in self interests and run over other peoples rights. But if someone knows the law - you can straighten the leagues out in a hurry and you the exclusive photographer.

If the event is held in a public place such as a park, legaly the organizers, whether they and you like it or not can not stop anyone shooting from the same place that crowds stand. Long set of details, go look it up if you want. Nobody for sure at any event can confiscate any equptment, even if the shooter is in the wrong, only ask the shooter to leave. If the details are not printed on the back of the ticket, even that is sketchy.

Now on our side, the photographers side I mean- do you have a release for every person you post on a commercial site? Unless it is on the stub of the event (and I've only seen organizers think of covering me that way a few times) you have no right whatsoever to post anyone on a commercial site and are leaving yourself open. I know its not practical ... but that does not absolve you of your responsibilities.

The next person in the sidelines you try to treat like someone criminal becuse you are worried about some amateur competition may be an attorney during the day and unless you have covered your bases in a way that most "pro" photographers don't ... you could find out the hard way whether you really are a pro and have covered your bases in a thorough way.

How many of you gents, you pro event shooters, have payed for the advice of an attorney and have all your i's dotted and T's crossed. Not many I suspect. So how are you a pro in any significant way over the guy in the stands?

Like it or not, digital has made photography easy and accessible for everyone. It makes it easy for you (funny how event photography was a tough biz in the old days worse than today) and for semi-pros too. It made the whole field a candidate for the "walmart-ization" of this biz.
I find it pathetic to hear "pro's" screeching about unfair competition as if they had some inalienable rights ... and paradoxically, with a shaky knowledge of the law, trying to take away other photographers rights. Why not just adapt to the new reality,compete on the merit you think your pictures have - or go into a different line of work.

But don't try to kill the freedom of photography. What goes around ... eventually comes around.

Oh ... and Fotocowboy ... just a heads up .... the link to your site is not working.

Pavel: That about sums it all up perfectly.

The link is working now.

I'm not afraid of my work and it sells its self a most of the time, but when an person shows up, and dont know what is going on, not paying attention, getting in the way of the event, because there "chimping" and they get ran over. I had mishap happen at an event, I will go back to the issue of rodeo. I am the offical photograher for this youth association. The reason why they have an official is this. I have been doing this for over 30+ years. I was getting ready for the steer riding event. this one lady jumped the fence, and she is one that is giving pictures away, they stopped the event because she was in the arena trying to take pictures, she yelled at the officials. " that Is my son, and I WILL take his picture no matter what because I can take better pictures with my 5.0 megapixal camera than your official photog. ( she was using a point and shoot with the built in flash). they stopped the rodeo for about 10 minutes. finally the judge said your kid will be DQ'd if you stay in the arena, she was not to be there, she did it any way, she was right in front of the action as the gate opened. and i have the pictures of this, she took one picture, stopped to "chimp" it wasn't paying attention to the event, the steer came right at her, ran her over, threw the camera in the air broke the camera, broke her leg, knocked her son off the steer, but i'm still clicking away. If she would have taken the pictures from the stands she wouldnt have gotten hurt. One has to know what is going on, Thats the reason for offical photogs. to make sure things go smoothly, and to make sure the pictures are used correctly. At an event that is on a public venue, the promotor can stop you from taking pictures and take the camera(film/card) from you. When i was in New york it happened so many times at an event I was at. I'm not a poperotzi.

When there is a pro sports event what makes them pro, and not pro? Pro Football, non Pro Football. I'm sure I could just walk in on the field and start playing pro football. I have a football that make me a pro. Just like a professional Dentist, not a wana be Dentist. I'm sure the Pro Dentist wouldnt let some one walk in on his job and start working on his clients.

It boils down to professionalizm, respect, sure its free interprise, but have respect for the person that has spent the time, networking the contacts, lining up the media contacts, getting the releases signed.

I under stand both problems but, have respect!

FotoCowboy said:
quote]At an event that is on a public venue, the promotor can stop you from taking pictures and take the camera(film/card) from you. When i was in New york it happened so many times at an event I was at. I'm not a poperotzi.

Here's a link to everything you need to know concerning the publics' right to photograph in public written by an attorney. This should set the record straight on what event promotors set themselves up for when trying to enforce their own illegal guidelines, including kidnapping.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

The first part of the General rule in a shorten version rathter than typing the whole thing states. " how ever this is a judgement call, and you should request permission suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when the property owner tells you not to take photographes while on the permises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

kinda says if they askyou not to you shouldnt do it?

Pavel: as FotoCowboy illustrates so well, the issue of exclusivity, either one official photographer or several with organizer issued media passes, is not treading on anyone's rights. It is a method to control the madness of people with an overinflated sense of entitlement. Yes the digital revolution has made it cheaper and easier however simply being able to purchase a multi-megapixel camera doesn't give anyone some inalienable right to access. There is a tremendous amount of responsibility that comes with the "right" to take photos. Again what happens when or if some kid gets pushed out of bounds, runs into a random photographer, gets hurt and injures the photographer as well? What happens when that child's parent sues the organization for allowing the photographer that close to the field? What happens when the injured "photographer" also sues the event organizer for not properly ensuring the safety of the general public? Don't think that doesn't happen, think again. For instance, if that woman who jumped into the rodeo arena is anything like most people, she would turn around and sue the rodeo organizers for something like not ensuring that the arena fence was of a specific construction as to not enable her to jump over it. That's what our society has been reduced to like it or not.

As a professional I do carry insurance, both equipment and liability. As a professional I've learned where to be and when. As a professional I've learned when to get the photo and when to get the heck out of the way. There's a much greater divide between the true professionals and those who are just pretending to be and it's nothing to do with selling prints for money.

I've never condoned confiscating someone's equipment, not in this thread nor at any event. I wouldn't think it is legal. Plus it's just not the way you want to treat your parents and/or spectators who are there to support your event. On the other hand I've seen some pretty bad behavior exhibited by those same parents and spectators as well.

I'm all for a free-market economy and healthy competition. If someone wants to come out and shoot along side me and go head to head, awesome. I love a good challenge. Plus I've met some great people this way including some that have worked for me and I've done work for. The only problem I still have is that a true professional will conduct their business completely above-board. They will take the time to present themselves to the organizer and league, they will incur the expense of proper insurance as well as background checks. Why should some other photographer simply be able to walk on to any field and shoot any game without the courtesy of at least an introduction? Are you saying this is okay? Are you condoning this type of guerrilla photography? And, no, I am not talking about "schmoozing" or buying your way into a league. I'm talking about conducting yourself as a "professional".

If we all have this inalienable right you so righteously talk about, why are more people not walking out onto a high school football field to shoot the game. I mean we all pay school taxes so shouldn't that allow us access to any school property at any time we wish? Why are guards posted at the gates which allow access to the sidelines. According to your logic this is unconstitutional as well as illegal.

I will readily admit that some exclusive contracts have more to do with friends taking care of friends but I doubt everyone who enters into one of these contracts is corrupt as you point out. All my contracts are with organizations in which I knew no one. I simply made my presentation, showed them my samples, and they made their decisions. That sounds like a free-market economy to me. To me it sounds more like it's the pro-hobbyists who are crying foul. It's the so-called professionals who want to have their cake and eat it too. You want free-market competition? Well, then put together YOUR proposal and put it up against the other professional(s) vying for the business.

Back again to first address the actions of those in charge of "security" at the local level on public property. I think that Steve and FotoCowboy have presented many "what if" scenarios when realistically examined seem the exception rather than the rule. Many people do outlandish things all over the world, not just confined to local amateur sporting events. Imagine if we had millions life event security guards babysitting our every move just so none of us would do insane things like suddenly run out in the middle of a rodeo with a camera. But the nut cases aren't the problem - it's our response to those who simply brought a nice camera to an event, or stand in the wrong spot and are told to hand it over because the event photographer has to do his job....and by-the-way, he has millions in liability insurance, and has child abuse clearance, both irrelevant to Article 4 of the Bill of Rights.

When we panic at the unexpected, never to be repeated actions of a few at the expense of the masses and create new laws (like the Patriot Act) we set new precedents for future on how we will enforce similar actions, even if they never occur again. Has anyone read the link I provided a few posts up? It quite clear what is legal and not legal with specific guidelines. It addressed public safety, one of the "what ifs" some are arguing.

I hate to say this but photo services like event photography are a perk not a necessity. Taking it one step further we really don't need wedding, school portrait, fine art, or bread & butter commercial photographers (me included) either, nor do we really miss diving boards at public swimming pools. Technology has brought us to the ultimate P&S mentality. Now everyone is a photographer and iStock thinks so too. Maybe the general public's pictures will suck, but who cares since each new generation will learn from the last on how to continue the tradition of shooting crappy pictures.... and think of the savings in professional photography fees over a lifetime. If you disagree, go on strike.

Little strong there don't you think Barry. Sounds as if your feathers are getting a bit ruffled at this point. As far as my example of security at events, it's not the exception as you point out, not in my area. I'm not talking about hordes of kevlar-clad SWAT teams, simply a few guys with badges and handcuffs. Let's not blow this out of proportion. And if our examples are nothing but "what if" scenarios" and you believe that people aren't going to continue to do stupid things and then sue someone later then why are courts inundated with frivolous lawsuits? Again, you keep wanting to drag the issue of grandma getting ruffed up for simply bringing a point and shoot to the game to shoot photos of her grandson. That really isn't the issue. Again I've never seen anyone have any cameras taken from them. Is that really your only gripe because it's weak at best.

Why do you and others like you fear exclusivity? Have you personally been locked out of events because of someone else's contract? It most certainly sounds as if that may have happened to you at some point. Good lord, this isn't a flag waving, Bill of Rights thumping issue. It's not about parents or relatives taking photos. It's really about a few wannabe's who don't have the guts to try and really compete for the business. They'd rather quietly slink onto the sidelines, shoot photos over the other pro's shoulder, then slink out again dropping leaflets about cheap photos for sale as he goes. If you go to the local diner and order Coke but they only sell Pepsi do you immediately pull out your soapbox and begin chastising them for signing an exclusive contract with PepsiCo? Somehow I doubt it.

You're correct though. Most photography services are a not necessary nor life sustaining for those that contract for them. But then again, that's really not your decision nor mine. Again free-market, democracy allows people to make their own choices. Seriously go down to the next Bridal Show and picket the unfair business practices going on inside cause there will be a few photographers, and planners, and bakeries, and florists, ALL trying to get brides to sign a CONTRACT.

If you really feel compelled to continue to respond please write something that has nothing to do with parents getting cameras confiscated. That really is more of a "what if" scenario than anything else presented.

By the way and for the record, I really do miss diving boards at the public swimming pool.

I totally agree with Steve. As a professional that up holds the PPA standards of professionalizm. If one works to get an event then they should be proud of it, I'm sure that if he got exclusive rights to do a job, and someone came in and started doing the photography, with out networking who he needs to contact, making sure he knows what is going on. He'd be unhappy too. And if your a professional your work will prove it self, and show.

Glad to know i'm not the only one that feels the same way as Steve

I'm lost as to what the Bill of Rights has to do about an event organizer limiting access to specific areas? Even so-called "public land" isn't really all that public. As I stated above, my local soccer league leases the fields for their games. When their games are going on, it's not "public land" anymore. They can (and will) ask someone who is not behaving properly (in areas not allowed to the public, being abusive, distracting, or whatever) to leave and will have police come and take them away.

Your local city park as a baseball field, right? Next time, right before a scheduled Little League game, to set up your picnic blanket in the outfield, and declare it's your right to be there if you want.

Don't bother calling me, I won't bail you out.

John

John true. thanks