"No professional 'type' camaras..." [sic]

[tfire]

This has probably been done to death here, so I apologise, but .... :rolleyes:

The venue I'm going to tomorrow night has this on their web site:

"No professional 'type' camaras [sic], video camaras [sic] or tape recorders will be allowed in the venue." So I may get harassed by the security people because I've got an SLR, but everyone else with a mobile phone will go in without a problem. Next morning, they'll have posted their videos on Youtube, with dreadful sound and image quality, and do the artist a big disservice.

Meanwhile, I'm just a fan, who's bought some gear with which to try to do the job properly. I'm not trying to make anything out of taking photos, just trying to take good shots of an artist I respect.

Last week, family members of this same artist asked me for some of the images I'd taken and posted on the web, so I can't be doing too much harm - or can I?

It's a mad world, isn't it? Anyone had similar problems, with advice on how to slide past the restrictions?

Grrrr.......

[90c4]

I've snuck cameras into venues plenty of times. The best way is to wear a black t-shirt, put the camera over your shoulder and slide it around to your back, and wear a long sleeve shirt over it. When you walk through a pat-down, if there is one, just put your hands in the air and 9 times out of 10 they won't even frisk you. Sometimes I pretend I'm talking on my cell phone as I go in so I look distracted and they tend to leave me alone. If they do frisk and find it, just claim ignorance. I've also slide a 400D with a 70-300DO in the back of my pants... and was asked to pull my shirt up in the front, but was let in because they didn't ask me to pull it up in the back or frisk. If you get caught doing that it would be a little tougher to talk your way out of. Regardless, at a lot of venues they check before scanning your ticket, so if you get popped you go back to your car and drop it off. It's also good to check the lines for a few minutes and see which ones are less likely to frisk.

[bacchanal]

The rules exist for a reason (well a lot of reasons potentially), and I generally don't see any good reason to disrespect them. If the artist is semi-big (or not), you can bet there will be people there (with proper credentials) getting the shots. I think it's best to just enjoy the show unless you really want to pursue concert photography on at least a semi-serious level...and that takes a little time and probably lower initial expectations.
It's just my opinion, but to me the number of cameras at concerts today is killing (or has killed) the concert experience. Obviously I'm a little hypocritical, but I tend to go to shows that most people (let alone photographers) don't care about.

[Perry Ge]

Just enjoy the show ;). I'm going to see one of my favourite artists on Friday, and I shoot concerts, but I'm not gonna bring any gear since it's not allowed, and I'm gonna enjoy the show and get as drunk as I want. It's gonna be covered by their own togs anyway :p. Sure it'd be fun, but sometimes you just gotta take a hint and just enjoy the show.

It's not fun for anyone in the crowd if everyone's a photographer. When I actually am shooting a show, I get special space up front, so nobody gets disturbed. I think shooting from the audience would actually be a) very lame from a photographer's POV and b) annoying for others.

[narlus]

When I actually am shooting a show, I get special space up front, so nobody gets disturbed. I think shooting from the audience would actually be a) very lame from a photographer's POV and b) annoying for others.


i've shot close to a hundred shows (w/ credentials), and the number of times i've shot from a photo pit is around 7.

it'd be nice to have a pit, but it doesn't always work out that way. this obviously depends on the venue size, but there are a couple of 2-3K buildings (avalon, orpheum) which don't have pits.

[René Damkot]

advice on how to slide past the restrictions?


Give the venue a call and try to get permission to photograph.
If you don't get permission, don't bring the camera.

[tipsy]

Sound advice from Rene, as per usual.
I'd take it if i were you, don't cheat on it.

x

[DDCSD]

So, did you get in?

[tfire]

So, did you get in?

Yes, I did.

[tfire]

Based on the results I've got with this band, I've got a promise of photo passes when they tour again. I don't know how I'd have got that access without 'breaking the rules', and trying to show the band in the best way I can.

But, the horde of cameraphone users who post their poor-quality videos on YouTube, and therefore do the band they're supposed to be fans of a disservice, will have the same level of access, without the photo passes - that was my main point.

[tfire]

This is an inspiring video of Joe McNally giving a talk at Google (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Av6gCq_awQ). In it, he describes breaking a few rules.

[skifurthur]

I think the bigger issue here is that people bringing in quality cameras to show without permission is that it is making driving down the income for working photographers. Fairly good images are being given away to bands and media with the hope that something will happen in the future. I find that is not usually the case. It's a slippery slope that I think we all have to deal with more and more each day.

As a pro, I have to work hard to differentiate my work from the freebies. I gladly do it, but I have often run into the "Why should I pay you when I can get what I need for free?" If you plan on making a living at concert photography, sneaking in cameras seems to be shooting yourself in the foot longterm.

[Burrelly]

Do not risk sneaking camera's in. Do what I have to do an apply for a pass. People sneaking in camera's makes it very difficult for professional togs to get credentials as they simply keep raising the bar.

I know some acts now only allow national newspapers to shoot them. Where does that leave the smaller papers or magazines?

[jd40]

I think the "no professional equipment" rule exist is because they afraid people take high quality images and sell them to make money without the artist knowledge/approval.

with the low quality of cell phone/P&S, no magazine would buy them.

[Burrelly]

I think the "no professional equipment" rule exist is because they afraid people take high quality images and sell them to make money without the artist knowledge/approval.

with the low quality of cell phone/P&S, no magazine would buy them.

Yeah that and they dont want someone waiving a heavy camera about in the middle of a crowd.

My thoughts on the matter. If they have a no camera rule like that anyone seen with such with no photo pass should be ejected from the venue. It is the only way to stop it.

[thelightofsound]

great point! this is the best side of this argument that i have heard and i do agree. however, i (and i'm sure a lot of others here) must admit that i've been on both sides of that situation. these days anyone who goes out and buys a digital camera thinks they are a photographer. i read in PPA's mag recently that there are 20% more photogs in the business each month. and people sneaking in cameras to concerts are doing less harm than people working for publications for free and ESPECIALLY the people shooting weddings for $200. and then there is the the whole TFCD issue where you have 10 people wanting to shoot for free to build their portfolio. but the way i see it, is you have to be good enough that the kid who just bought his first slr isn't going to affect your business. it's kind of like a 5 star restaurant not having to worry about the mcdonalds that just opened next door.
of course i type this from my office at my day job. i might even be part of the problem. but i like to think that i've been doing this long enough (first big credentialed show was allman brother's band 10 years ago) and have gotten decent enough that i have earned my spot in the pit.

I think the bigger issue here is that people bringing in quality cameras to show without permission is that it is making driving down the income for working photographers. Fairly good images are being given away to bands and media with the hope that something will happen in the future. I find that is not usually the case. It's a slippery slope that I think we all have to deal with more and more each day.

As a pro, I have to work hard to differentiate my work from the freebies. I gladly do it, but I have often run into the "Why should I pay you when I can get what I need for free?" If you plan on making a living at concert photography, sneaking in cameras seems to be shooting yourself in the foot longterm.

[narlus]

a lot of people who pay for photos are either forced to or happy to subsist on a McDonald's budget, though.

if you think small bands are stingy w/ their $ now, get back to me in a few weeks when they figure out how much $$$ it'll cost to drive their 7 mpg van/trailer for a 1000 miles during a regional tour.

[bacchanal]

if you think small bands are stingy w/ their $ now, get back to me in a few weeks when they figure out how much $$$ it'll cost to drive their 7 mpg van/trailer for a 1000 miles during a regional tour.

For reals, gas comes before food for some of these folks...let alone photography.

[thelightofsound]

its not so much about budget as it is about quality.

i do not have a problem giving a smaller band images for free (with a detailed grant of rights), but if a national touring band wants to use my images for commercial usage, then they have two options: pay me for it, or settle for the kid who just bought his first slr. if they go with latter then it makes it easier to know that they are settling and not getting the best image.

there is always going to be someone giving images away for free, whether that person sneaks their camera in or if they are credentialed and working for free (i don't see much difference). i've done both, and will do both again. but when it comes down to working as a pro, then all i can do is to make sure i produce images that are valued; i've got to make sure that i'm a notch above those handing out freebies.

[joedlh]

I went to a concert at Stephens Talk House a few years ago to see the Strawbs. It's a pretty casual place, but they have a rule of no flash photography. In the course of the concert, somebody whipped out a P&S. That gave everybody carte blanche to start blasting away. I had my new 20D and I was eager to see how it did at ISO 3200. The security guards came around asking people to stop using flashes. When they came to me, I showed him the camera, sans flash, and he apologized.

Another time, I went to a concert somewhere else for a singer who's family/agents saw her as an up and coming thing. (She wasn't.) There was no obvious rule about photography. I posted some shots on my web site and sent her manager the link. On day 1, they said thanks and could we use any on her demo CD? On day 2, I get an e-mail demanding that I take down the images, citing privacy and legal arguments. Oh well. Each venue is different. Most times, the band is happy to get them.

[tfire]

My original post, probably misguidedly, made several points at the same time, and this thread has gone in a direction I didn’t expect. I’d like to explore some of the points raised.

I tried to make these points originally:

I think it’s unfortunate that fans present a poor representation of their favoured artist by posting really crap videos and photos on the web. I recognise that my photos, while people tell me they’re better than the average, may still be crap by professional standards. If the venue wanted to protect the artist’s image, then maybe their policy should be ‘no cameras at all’.
I’m not trying to make any money out of taking photos, just trying to help an artist that I respect by taking some decent photos to share with fans, to show that the artist is active and reaching an audience. But I might be breaking the rules by taking in my Canon 40D/350D - maybe somebody thinks they’re “professional ‘type’ camaras” – and it would be good to share tips with other people who’ve met these restrictions.Apart from a couple of ‘this is how I get around the rules’ responses, the other responses seem to fall into these categories:

a. “Rules are rules, so obey them”.

I try to be a law-abiding person, but to me there’s a world of difference between “laws” and “rules”. Even some laws seem to be questionable: I live in a country where thousands of new ‘offences’ have been legislated against in the last few years, and some of those ‘offences’ seem ridiculous, but the law is the law.

Whereas anybody can write a ‘rule’, no matter how daft. In the case of the venue, their ticket and how it was sold to me contain no reference to the ‘rule’ about “professional ‘type’ camaras” not being allowed, so it wasn’t a condition of sale. It’s simply a rule that they’ve posted on their web site which isn’t referred to in the ticket sale.

I’ll use my judgement and obey rules that make sense. I accept that others may form a different opinion, but neither of us will be doing anything illegal.

b. “You’ll be taking bread out of the mouths of the children of professional photographers”.

You know, if you were to take that thinking at face value, none of us would have taken a decent camera to our friend’s or relative’s wedding, where there’s a good chance a professional was operating.

Well, there were no professional cameras (except my humble SLR) or professional-looking photographers (and that includes me) at this gig. But even if there had been, would I have been putting their livelihood in peril? If they’re not very good, then maybe, eventually, that would happen. I’m simply not very good at concert photography yet: the professionals can relax.

I tried to get photo passes for these gigs, but no-one (venue and promoter) answered. Apparently I have to, somehow, without ever taking a decent camera into a gig, get to be good at concert photography, so that people will be eager to give me a photo pass, and I can pass through into the protected world of professional photographers. That sounds like the age-old conundrum of how you get an Equity card, and it’s the same deal: protectionism.

Photography is a hobby for me, and very likely to remain so, because I don’t have the talent necessary to take it further. My day job is being a marketing consultant. Oh, if only I could prevent the flood of people that think they know what marketing is all about from trying to take the bread off my table.

But I wouldn’t want to do that. If I want to be ahead, I have to get ahead. I have to prove, every single day, that my ideas, techniques and results are better than what’s available to my customer from their friend, brother-in-law and last taxi driver. May it always be so.



My thoughts:

Trying to do the right thing by an artist you admire does matter.
The quality of a photo is not determined by the type, price or modernity of the equipment used to take it. That quality is determined by the photographer’s skill, heart and eyes. [Edit: and very probably by their willingness to break some rules]
If a rule appears to be stupid, there’s a good chance it is. Protectionism is an example of a stupid rule.

[argyle]

...The best way is to wear a black t-shirt, put the camera over your shoulder and slide it around to your back, and wear a long sleeve shirt over it...If they do frisk and find it, just claim ignorance...

It'd be a little tough to claim ignorance when you have the camera hidden behind your back and under a shirt. :D

[OdiN1701]

Tell them that you only have a camera and that you have no camaras on your person.

[skifurthur]

Basically, a ticket for a concert is only a piece of paper that grants you (the concert goer) a license to see a performance. You really don't have any rights to do whatever you want. In the US, for most performances, states that they can change the rules at will. They can remove you, for any reason they see fit. It is not a rule, it is a valid contract.

As for getting credentials, the usual way of getting them is to find bands that will allow you to shoot, build a portfolio, market yourself to other venues and bands with that portfolio and go from there.

Are bands and venues going to stop everyone? Nope. See "stealth" taping of shows for an example. Some look the other way, some are anal in their implementation of venue/band policies. In NYC is have seen many a accidental dropping of cameras...ooops...by those who want to argue policy with management.

My original point still stands...by bringing in camera equipment not authorized, you make it harder on yourself to break into the business. Once the word gets around that you aren't following the "rules," it is very hard to be seen as a legitimate photographer.

As I said...shooting yourself in your own foot.

[dska22]

I'll revive this thread as I'm going to a concert tonight at the Bowery Ballroom, but I can't bring my slr. I called and asked them, and they said point and shoot only, unless I had a press pass from the band/label itself. Now, I could have contacted the band ahead of time, but I'll reiterate the main paradox of this issue: How does one become good at concert photography and develop a portfolio worth showing a band/label/venue to obtain a pass, without ever being allowed a pass in the first place? Especially in a place like NYC where I live, it seems every small club and band (more likely the label) are against serious amateur photogs. I only want these photos for myself and to show close friends/fam; definitely no freebies to others.

[90c4]

I only want these photos for myself and to show close friends/fam; definitely no freebies to others.

Then why should they give you a photo pass? How does this help the band? Build a portfolio with small bands who are eager for publicity.

[dska22]

Then why should they give you a photo pass? How does this help the band? Build a portfolio with small bands who are eager for publicity.

That's the whole point, though. Why not? I'm not trying to build a portfolio per se, because I only want the pictures for myself. They allow point and shoots, which can actually take some pretty good pictures themselves depending on the lightning and camera type. So, it seems a little out of touch to ban slrs just because that's the equipment that a professional would use, even though decent pics can be obtained anyway with point and shoot. So, one may ask, why not bring your point and shoot instead then? Well, I only have the dslr. The venue is private property so we're not talking legality issues here, but I think since they allow point and shoots, they should (in good spirit, of course) allow dslrs since everybody and their mother has one anyway. It'd be a different story if I wanted to shoot from the stage, sides, or any other restricted area. I'm not looking for the perfect shot or special privileges, I'm just looking to do what the others will be doing with their P&S cameras.

And just to comment on your analysis of the situation. You are right in the sense that they don't have to do anything for me. Furthermore, clearly me taking shots of them does little to further their own image/PR. So, as in your interpretation, why not ban my slr because they're not getting anything from it (commensalism perhaps?). This rationale isn't exactly sound, though. The whole reason they currently allow point and shoots is to satisfy their fans. My argument is that with the rise of dslr amateurs, it'd be logical (and at the very least, a non-******* maneuver) to allow people to bring the dslr in. I understand the perceived effect on pro photogs; however, I think a press pass should allow shooting from additional and highly coveted locations. A pass just to let me record what my eyes see in the middle of the crowd? Give me a break...

[CAL Imagery]

And then some bands will only have the media there for a limited time. The Eagles only let PJs shoot the first three songs and I've heard Britney Spears only lets them shoot the first 30 second (of I'm not sure how many songs).

[birdfromboat]

I think the bigger issue here is that people bringing in quality cameras to show without permission is that it is making driving down the income for working photographers. Fairly good images are being given away to bands and media with the hope that something will happen in the future. I find that is not usually the case. It's a slippery slope that I think we all have to deal with more and more each day.

As a pro, I have to work hard to differentiate my work from the freebies. I gladly do it, but I have often run into the "Why should I pay you when I can get what I need for free?" If you plan on making a living at concert photography, sneaking in cameras seems to be shooting yourself in the foot longterm.

really?
I am a toolmaker. If some guy up the road started undercutting me, giving away free design time and machining for minimum wage, I'd be ticked you bet.....but I wouldn't have much to do about it except stop being a toolmaker. I could try to make my work so much better than his that people would pay me for what they could get for free. That aint gonna happen.
Whats going to happen is the guy is going to starve, give it up, or start charging after he gets up and going. Not much I can do about it except keep my stuff up to snuff, charging what its worth. Its dog eat dog out there for most of us, but pro concert/sports photographers seem to have one advantage: They can get to the subjects with adequate tools without having to break any laws. The rest of us struggling busines operators don't have anyone frisking at the door for us.

When I read your post, I fealt motivated to make just one point, and I apologize if it has gone around the bend a little, but I offer this advice to you in what I hope you will accept as positive energy: Don't waste time on warning fledgling photographers not to tread on your turf, even if you truly beleive it is in their own interests. If I was you, I would spend my energy on keeping my relationship with the venue and the artists clean as can be, and thank them for keeping the competition out often and regularly.

[rdenney]

I think the bigger issue here is that people bringing in quality cameras to show without permission is that it is making driving down the income for working photographers. Fairly good images are being given away to bands and media with the hope that something will happen in the future. I find that is not usually the case. It's a slippery slope that I think we all have to deal with more and more each day.

As a pro, I have to work hard to differentiate my work from the freebies. I gladly do it, but I have often run into the "Why should I pay you when I can get what I need for free?" If you plan on making a living at concert photography, sneaking in cameras seems to be shooting yourself in the foot longterm.

I would hope that a professional has more to offer than a fat enough bank account with which to fund the purchase of a professional camera.

And if he doesn't, then competition is going to be really difficult.

Restricting the supply by coercion is not the answer, because it makes the pros complacent and quality goes down. THAT is what will shoot pros in the foot long term.

Unauthorized photography can annoy other patrons, and that is a good enough reason to restrict it. But the restriction should be limited to what is truly annoying, particularly the use of flash.

Unauthorized photography can also get in the way of authorized photography, and it is reasonable to restrict it to prevent such interference. That includes a restriction on the use of flash, but it also includes making pictures before the photographer has made pictures, or keeping the photographer from moving the picture process along. That seems to me to be much more of an issue at events than at concerts, where all photographers are supposed to be basically invisible.

These are good reasons and easy to explain. But preventing them just to protect the monopoly of authorized photographers is not a reason that will encourage obedience even from reasonable people.

Just ask you local symphony musician. It's mighty hard to complete as a professional in an activity where many are willing to do it just for the love of it.

Rick "who shot concerts as a teenager and attracted more derision than fear from the real pros" Denney

[RichSoansPhotos]

This has probably been done to death here, so I apologise, but .... :rolleyes:

The venue I'm going to tomorrow night has this on their web site:
"No professional 'type' camaras [sic], video camaras [sic] or tape recorders will be allowed in the venue." So I may get harassed by the security people because I've got an SLR, but everyone else with a mobile phone will go in without a problem. Next morning, they'll have posted their videos on Youtube, with dreadful sound and image quality, and do the artist a big disservice.

Meanwhile, I'm just a fan, who's bought some gear with which to try to do the job properly. I'm not trying to make anything out of taking photos, just trying to take good shots of an artist I respect.

Last week, family members of this same artist asked me for some of the images I'd taken and posted on the web, so I can't be doing too much harm - or can I?

It's a mad world, isn't it? Anyone had similar problems, with advice on how to slide past the restrictions?

Grrrr.......


It even means entry level SLRs, I would suggest getting a press pass from the family or even artist, so one can easily bring in SLRs into the venue(s), this means they can't argue with you at the door

[Karl Johnston]

Bring a sigma DP1.

Muahahahah!

[René Damkot]

Unauthorized photography can annoy other patrons, and that is a good enough reason to restrict it. But the restriction should be limited to what is truly annoying, particularly the use of flash.

Unauthorized photography can also get in the way of authorized photography, and it is reasonable to restrict it to prevent such interference. That includes a restriction on the use of flash, but it also includes making pictures before the photographer has made pictures, or keeping the photographer from moving the picture process along. That seems to me to be much more of an issue at events than at concerts, where all photographers are supposed to be basically invisible.

Agree 100%.
Always annoys the hell out of me to see amateurs with a camera and absolutely no regard for the audience around them and other photographers...

[argyle]

You can always try the argument that a camera with a pop-up flash is not a "professional type" camera...:D

[DDCSD]

Agree 100%.
Always annoys the hell out of me to see amateurs with a camera and absolutely no regard for the audience around them and other photographers...

On the same note, I hate being the crowd at a concert these days. There's always a few morons holding their P&S or cel phone up for the entire show right in front of me. I don't mind them snapping a few shots, but they really don't need to hold the thing up for the entire show.

[DennisW1]

I think the bigger issue here is that people bringing in quality cameras to show without permission is that it is making driving down the income for working photographers. Fairly good images are being given away to bands and media with the hope that something will happen in the future. I find that is not usually the case. It's a slippery slope that I think we all have to deal with more and more each day.

As a pro, I have to work hard to differentiate my work from the freebies. I gladly do it, but I have often run into the "Why should I pay you when I can get what I need for free?" If you plan on making a living at concert photography, sneaking in cameras seems to be shooting yourself in the foot longterm.


Aside from the financial aspects, it's also a matter of the idiot sitting in the regular seats with a long lens on his camera, being inconsiderate of the people around them. Most concert venue seating is tight at best, and after paying a good amount of money for seats the last thing I want to deal with is a wannabe concert photographer blocking my view or banging me in the head with his lens.

Don't count out being asked to leave in the middle of the show if you're spotted by security or ushers either.

[René Damkot]

On the same note, I hate being the crowd at a concert these days. There's always a few morons holding their P&S or cel phone up for the entire show right in front of me. I don't mind them snapping a few shots, but they really don't need to hold the thing up for the entire show.

Nice ey, a film feature... I can only imagine what happens once that will be added to a DSLR :rolleyes:

Oh, wait....


:lol:

[dska22]

Aside from the financial aspects, it's also a matter of the idiot sitting in the regular seats with a long lens on his camera, being inconsiderate of the people around them. Most concert venue seating is tight at best, and after paying a good amount of money for seats the last thing I want to deal with is a wannabe concert photographer blocking my view or banging me in the head with his lens.

Don't count out being asked to leave in the middle of the show if you're spotted by security or ushers either.

Seats?? The places I go to barely have walls!! Yet, they still don't want dlsrs. Only tiny cameras with constant flashes. Yay...

[birdfromboat]

think about this: how difficult is it to determine what a professional set up is?
Safeco field (seattle mariners) told me I could bring in anything with less than a 200mm lens. Basically, that means no white lenses or anything that says 200 on it. what about a 135l and a doubler? thats a 270mm at about f4, now put it on a 1.6 cropper and you are out to 432mm effective, in broad daylight so you might be able to get some shots of stationary players OK, from the upper deck even. using the 200mm line just doesn't mean that much, pop up flash? lens color? I mean how can you do it without creating confusion for everyone involved?
Some venues have beer free zones for families, the NHRA has even instituted swearing and cursing free zones for people who want to go see races without having to wear ear protection to preserve their happiness.
I would like to see photographer sections, with a camera required for entry. No cheap pand s, no cellphone movie producers, just photographers with passable gear. I might pay extra.
The dead used to provide live feed electronics hook ups for people in what they called the 'taper section'. They gave away their art for free to anyone that was willing to buy a ticket. Those tapes live on and only add to the mystique of the band years later.
wouldn't it be great if we could all enjoy our favorite hobby and apply it to as many professional subjects as possible? in a truly free society......

[DDCSD]

I would like to see photographer sections, with a camera required for entry. No cheap pand s, no cellphone movie producers, just photographers with passable gear. I might pay extra.

That would be pretty cool and a good way for them to bring in some cash. I know I'd pay extra and go to events that I normally wouldn't go to if I could photograph from a decent spot.

[dska22]

That would be pretty cool and a good way for them to bring in some cash. I know I'd pay extra and go to events that I normally wouldn't go to if I could photograph from a decent spot.

here's another vote for that!