[Mallee Boy]

I find this not only sad (already said that elsewhere)....but incredibly interesting.

Just bear with me here as I think out loud:

We can have any number of people, in virtually any venue taking photographs with their point & shoot cameras or camera phones, and no-one seems to mind or care to intervene or stop that action.

Yet;

if you produce a DSLR and stand shoulder to shoulder with the p&s shooters you are singled out and told to stop. ( I know, it has happened to me).

Is it that someone (venue management for example) is trying to protect the true professional photographer whom has paid for the right to be there? thereby in turn protecting a revenue stream for the venue??
But then that only applies in some instances.
I have been at a motorsport event where the orange vested pro's would stand in front of certain amateurs on the other side of the fence if they thought you looked as though you knew what you were doing. Quite childish...but very true.

Or is it simply ignorance.

It would be really interesting to get some sort of official response from "officialdom"....perhaps an approach from Adam (site owner) to some of the places mentioned here over time that have had these un-explained contradictions in their photography policy, on the basis of our members want to do the right thing, but have come up against this selective ban and would like to know what they can & can not do.

To that end I offer my story & venue:
went to a rodeo at the Gold Coast Convention Centre. I rang the centre management the afternoon before I attended to ask about their photography policy, explaining that I wanted to bring my DSLR. I was told that that was OK, provided I did not use flash. I asked the girl to repeat that, she sought an opinion from a higher authority and came back with the same answer.
Arrived at the entrance door, and standing next to a sign boldly exclaimimh "NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY" was an attendant who asked to look in my camera bag, and then told me I could not take the camera inside...
...to cut a long story short....off I went down to Centre Management Office who were decidely nasty and non-responsive to any attempt to talk this through, given my earlier phone call. Returned the camera to the car, sat back down in the audtorium and the show started......
....and all around me and right throughout the auditorium a myriad of P&S cameras, complete with flashes popping off... burst into life.
I happened to be sitting in view of the attendant at the door and looked at him and with a "well come on buddy, do something" look...he bolted.

So it would be really good to get some sort of response or clarification because any photography policy seems hopelessly contradictory and confusing.

sorry for the ramble, but i did say I was thinking out loud.
Cheers
Grant

[MRRiley]

What Yves said! Only make the letter to the CEO of the corporation that owns the restaurant/building. You complied with the request to put the tripod away and were then treated inequitably when you were threatened for using your big-ole-scary camera while all the POS, I mean P&S, cameras were thouroughly ignored.

Mike

[wwwmorrell]

"It’s Official, the K20D IS a Professional Camera!"

I've always thought so.

Wal'

[Kguru]

Not related to photography, but the most puzzling case I remember reading about was a sports stadium (I think it was in South Africa) that had CocaCola as a major sponsor. Part of the sponsor deal was the refreshment stalls inside must get supplies from CocaCola, no Pepsi. That seems fair enough, but I thought it got ridiculous when spectators were banned from bringing their own Pepsi into the stadium.

Makes me wonder if the staff at times push the rules too far.

[philbaum]

These are outrageous stories, but on private property, at least in the USA, i think the owners of the property get to make the rules.

BUT, the private corporations often respond to bad publicity and or boycotts. Wouldn't it be cool if we had a Forum where chain stores could be listed that aren't friendly to photographers. :-)

My experience, the Kitsap Mall in Silverdale Washington, an indoor busy mall. We were at the food court, sitting on bar stools and i was trying to help my brother figure out the controls on his new K10 a year ago. I made sure we were always pointing the camera out of the mall through the big bay windows to the sidewalk beyond. Up comes a security guard and says something like: we don't allow photography in the mall.

Apparently noone told the guard that there was a Kits Camera (Ritz/Wolf chain) in the mall that regularly encourages folks to take pictures of the mall from inside their shop while trying out new cameras. Not to mention all the cell phone cams and PS cams.

[flyer]

Arrived at the entrance door, and standing next to a sign boldly exclaimimh "NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY" was an attendant who asked to look in my camera bag, and then told me I could not take the camera inside...

Here, nobody can force you to open your bag(s), unless they have a court order. If they force the issue, it becomes an illegal perquisition. They can ask, but you don't have to comply.

[Robert S Donovan]

Happens to me all the time. I have also had the opposite occur- where the proprietor was convinced I was working on a review and insisted my meal be free. I assured him I was just a hobbyist but he wouldn't believe me because my camera was "too nice" to be an amateur's. I sent him full rez copies of the shots I took copyright free. He now uses them in his marketing materials

[cardinal43]

Here, nobody can force you to open your bag(s), unless they have a court order. If they force the issue, it becomes an illegal perquisition. They can ask, but you don't have to comply.

In this case, I believe management would be within their rights to deny you addmission to the show/concert/etc. I have seen signs posted to the effect that management "reserves the right to refuse entrance......".

[Cosmo]

I think he just assumed because it was a DSLR, it was a Pro camera. If you were using a Nikon D40, he'd have probably said the same thing.

If it was me, I would have asked him exactly why he would not allow me to use my camera while others could use P&S cameras. And wouldn't quit until he gave me a decent reason, or threatened to throw me out.

[iCrop]

You must always refer to that hotel as the bastard Bonaventure, ....

I may do just that...

[iCrop]

... any photography policy seems hopelessly contradictory and confusing.

Hi Grant -
And I might add, unevenly enforced. Hence the need for a G10 or equivalent.

[iCrop]

... and insisted my meal be free.

Good for you Robert. If only the 2 glasses of wine I ordered could have been free...

Outrageous stories. I definitely feel your pain. But jeez, the K20d looks like a pretty impressive monster especially with a tripod and a large lens on it. It gets me in trouble all the time. Folks sometimes get nervous when they see one. They think I'm with some organization snooping around. Fact of life.

[Wheatfield]

Here, nobody can force you to open your bag(s), unless they have a court order. If they force the issue, it becomes an illegal perquisition. They can ask, but you don't have to comply.

Not quite true in every circumstance. For example, we are taking our wives to a Riders vs. Allouettes game and the gatekeeper wants to look in said wive's purses. They have the right to tell the gate-boy to piss off, but then gateboy has the right to refuse admittance.
Getting onto an airplane, you have the right to refuse to be patted down or go through the metal detecotr, but the airline has the right to refuse to fly you if you don't comply.
Our police also have the right to unwarranted search if they have reason to believe you are in the process of committing or have commited a crime, though I believe they have to formally arrest you first. This only applies to real peace officers, but a renta-a-cop or even a private citizen has the right to detain you if they see you committing a crime, though they don't have the right of search and siezure.

[Confused]

On the subject of tripods, my wife & I spent 3 wonderful days visiting Chicago last August. One sunny morning we took the opportunity of viewing the cityscape from the Skydeck platform on the 99th floor of the remarkable Sears Tower. Whilst quietly kicking myself for forgetting to pack a polarizing filter to combat the unavoidable internal glazing reflections, I nevertheless continued taking countless photos. Upon leaving, I casually enquired if the Skydeck platform remained open in the evening and was informed that the last admission for visitors was 9.30 p.m.
Therefore I subsequently returned that afternoon about half-an-hour before dusk, complete with tripod in the expectation of capturing some memorable night-shots. Having paid the admission fee, I almost immediately encountered the inevitable security guard and learnt to my great annoyance that although I was permitted to take my tripod with me, I was strictly prohibited from actually erecting it on the Skydeck in order take any photographs…..f*+<@^-/>ing-hell !!! Just like Queen Victoria, I was
NOT AMUSED….grrrrrrr ! Obviously, had I known about this pesky restriction beforehand, I would never have bothered dragging the confounded contraption along in the first place ! Doubtless there may well have been previous incidents in the past where members of the public had inadvertently tripped over tripod legs etc, but at the time I was there the place was virtually empty…."c'est la vie", as they say in Chicago.
Whilst in-body SR has it's limits, by steadying myself against either the glazing or building structure, surprisingly I still managed to capture some passable "keepers".

Best regards
Richard