SLR's banned in clubs !!!

[NotAClue1]

Last night, out at Funky Buddahs in London ... they threw me out for having an slr (50D)!!!

To be fair to them, they told me at the front to put it in the cloak-room (I ignored this as I had dragged the thing the whole way to London I wanted some decent photos). While they we're throwing me out, they also said that if I deleted all the photos of the night and give them the camera they would let me back in - but clearly having a beasty slr I care about the photos so while they we're escorting me out, I slipped the mem card to a mate.. so the damn thing popped up with 'No Card' when they tried to delete the pics!

My question is has anyone else experienced this??? Or does anyone know a better way around it? They couldn't even give me a reason (plenty of people had compact cameras out).

Is this going to keeo happening across all clubs now?! I ended up waiting outside for 3 hours for my mates to come out!

[Jman13]

A lot of people have bans on 'professional' cameras. Which I find ridiculous. Way of the world, though. What's nice is my E-P1 with 40/1.4 looks like a compact, and it's great for low light shooting for that kind of situation.

[GyRob]

You could have deleted them then bring them back with a undelete progam :)
Rob.

[Markitos]

It's a private club, they can make whatever policy they want regarding cameras, whether or not it's fair.

The world isn't fair. Stop whining.

[blackshadow]

I assume you were trying to shoot a concert at the club. It's standard not to allow DSLRs in - most bigger venues/acts will not allow DSLRs in unless you have a photo pass for the show.

Sounds like you have no-one but yourself to blame for being thrown out.

Firstly, you didn't know the rules but when you were informed of them you chose to flaunt them. And as GyRob said you always could have undeleted the images from a card.

[blackshadow]

It's a private club, they can make whatever policy they want regarding cameras, whether or not it's fair.

The world isn't fair. Stop whining.

Well said.

[iAMB]

I can see two reasons why.
1) They are big and depending on where you are at in a crowded place, someones face could get smacked while your taking a picture. Seems unlikely it may happen but im sure it does on occasion

2) Someone may have spent some money so that the club does not allow "professional" cameras in. A celebrity or whoever may just want some peace away from the cameras. The point-and=shoot cameras seem to be less threatening than a professional style.

or either they are trying to keep details from their clubs out of the publics internet viewing eyes. You have to keep some details away from your competition in order to stay on top.

Either way I think its uncool, but hey its their place and we are only guest.

[NotAClue1]

Thanks for the stop whining comments. Helpful.

Didnt know you could 'undelete' photos - anyone mind going through the steps for me please?

[joedlh]

It's a private club, they can make whatever policy they want regarding cameras, whether or not it's fair.

The world isn't fair. Stop whining.

Yep. When one is on private property under the auspices of a legitimate business and asked to leave because he or she violated the owner's rules, then one has no basis for complaints. Moreover, judging from the responses of others, I appear to be in the minority in my belief that resorting to guile or deceit to keep the photos is unethical as well. Too paparazzi-ish for me.

[Markitos]

Thanks for the stop whining comments. Helpful.

Let me get this straight--you're upset that people are providing unhelpful comments in a thread in which you describe how you, against the explicitly stated rules of a private club, willfully violated said rules and then got kicked out.

Okay.

[Stickman]

I don't take your post as whining, they told you to check it and you admit you didn't. I think the most comical thing is that your mates left you outside for 3 hours.



At least your camera didn't get broken or stolen.

[Psychobiker]

Thanks for the stop whining comments. Helpful.

Seriously. It's tantamount to photographing dinner/a party through someone's window.

PRIVACY

It's a private, paying establishment. There are rules that differ from being in public (on the street).

[johneo]

Went to a concert back in July. Had my 10D w/85 f/1.8 lens in the car just in case it was allowed. I asked before I went in and was told "NO cameras allowed!" (Gordon Lightfoot ... Sixth row center, I could have got some nice shots!)

So the concert starts and flashes going off everywhere. EVERYONE was shooting their cell phones. Guy next to me took video of about 5 songs. Couple in front of me must have shot a couple hundred photos.

Yet no "real" cameras allowed? What's the highest mp cell phone? 12mp??? but because it doesn't LOOK like a camera, it's ok but absolutely NO 6mp cameras! LOL!!!

And just to note ... I'm not whining and I also assumed that would be the rule (that's why I asked before trying to bring it in). I just think it's a stupid rule considering they do nothing to stop photos & video being taken with a 12mp phone and even a camera that could fit in a pocket.

[Naturalist]

I guess there are 2 things to consider here.

1. Private businesses can have their own rules and we have to follow them or don't give them our money.

2. A Canon G11 would probably pass for a non-professional camera and still be able to bring home the images.

[J_TULLAR]

Its even worse in bahrain... they wont let you in with a point and shoot.... I just sneak it anyways lol.

[NotAClue1]

Yep didnt mean to come across as whining - accept its all my fault, I'm just annoyed that they don't allow it and was interested if anyone else had the same issue..

Don't agree with the privacy thing - its a club (what the diff is between this and a 'private establishment' i've no idea) and the place is full of members of the public drunk, having fun and as usual, taking photos.

I'll google 'un-deleting photos DSLR'.. :)

[hotsecretary]

Every concert you go to these days is full of people with cellphones, iphones, blackberries and tiny digital elphs, etc... but the minute you bring out an EOS DSRL you're a pro and not allowed :)

I'd love to bring my 70-200 and my 40D to a lot of shows I've been to, but half the time I don't bother because I know unless I have a media pass, I'm going to be told to leave it in the car, at home, etc...

It's ironic, but what can you do.

As for the club shooting, it's private property.. as people said nothing you can do, they can kick you out because they dont' like your shirt, shoes, etc. Cameras are going to grab attention and if someone doesn't like it, I totally understand their view. That's why when I used to shoot events, clubs, etc I would have a media pass.

[Markitos]

Don't agree with the privacy thing - its a club (what the diff is between this and a 'private establishment' i've no idea) and the place is full of members of the public drunk, having fun and as usual, taking photos.

I agree with this--it's not about privacy, it's about policy at a private business. It may seem stupid, but they have their reasons. If you choose not to follow their rules, then you are subject to the consequences.

[joedlh]

I asked before I went in and was told "NO cameras allowed!"

So the concert starts and flashes going off everywhere. EVERYONE was shooting their cell phones.

but because it doesn't LOOK like a camera, it's ok

A couple of things. The no cameras allowed policy is often there so that they have a "valid" reason for kicking out somebody who has become a nuisance.

Number 2. The no-camera policy may be there because of a no-competition clause in the contract with the performer's or venue's photographer. The typical cell phone shooter is not going to get anything that would be competitive. Somebody toting a dSLR is more likely to, even though in the hands of an accomplished photographer today's cell phone cameras might do a pretty good job.

[oaktree]

Last night, out at Funky Buddahs in London ... they threw me out for having an slr (50D)!!!

To be fair to them, they told me at the front to put it in the cloak-room (I ignored this as I had dragged the thing the whole way to London I wanted some decent photos). While they we're throwing me out, they also said that if I deleted all the photos of the night and give them the camera they would let me back in - but clearly having a beasty slr I care about the photos so while they we're escorting me out, I slipped the mem card to a mate.. so the damn thing popped up with 'No Card' when they tried to delete the pics!

My question is has anyone else experienced this??? Or does anyone know a better way around it? They couldn't even give me a reason (plenty of people had compact cameras out).

Is this going to keeo happening across all clubs now?! I ended up waiting outside for 3 hours for my mates to come out!

And your compliant is?????

[nphsbuckeye]

Thanks for the stop whining comments. Helpful
If this were public people would be on your side. But you need to realize private property is another matter for which the owners make the rules, not trigger happy photographers.

[hotsecretary]

I'll google 'un-deleting photos DSLR'.. :)

Any un-delete program should be able to do it. RStudio is what we use at work.

[snyderman]

Dear NotAClue:

How about GETTING a clue and following the rules. If they said 'no dslr camera in the club,' you had a choice: Follow the rules or leave. Since you chose the latter, consider yourself and your camera lucky to be away from the club without any damage.

dave

[joedlh]

You could have deleted them then bring them back with a undelete progam :)
Rob.

Not if they were smart enough to reformat the card in the camera. Nevertheless, it still might be possible with the right software, but not easy.

[friz]

Make an offer to the club for some promotional shots.

[blackshadow]

Not if they were smart enough to reformat the card in the camera. Nevertheless, it still might be possible with the right software, but not easy.

Most good recovery programs will pick up files after a reformat as long as the images haven't been over written by shooting more shots that write over the top of them.

[spicesupreme]

but clearly having a beasty slr I care about the photos so while they we're escorting me out, I slipped the mem card to a mate.. so the damn thing popped up with 'No Card' when they tried to delete the pics!



so they took your camera from you to try and delete the pictures?

[BottomBracket]

And your compliant is?????

Actually, he wasn't compliant .... :D

[nphsbuckeye]

Most good recovery programs will pick up files after a reformat as long as the images haven't been over written by shooting more shots that write over the top of them.
Indeed. As long as you don't overwrite the files, they should be recoverable.

[oaktree]

Actually, he wasn't compliant .... :D

Oops! Is it: "i" before "a" except after "l"? :confused:

[ajc518]

A couple of things. The no cameras allowed policy is often there so that they have a "valid" reason for kicking out somebody who has become a nuisance.

Number 2. The no-camera policy may be there because of a no-competition clause in the contract with the performer's or venue's photographer. The typical cell phone shooter is not going to get anything that would be competitive. Somebody toting a dSLR is more likely to, even though in the hands of an accomplished photographer today's cell phone cameras might do a pretty good job.

Number 2 is definitely it for clubs, and concerts. They dont want people taking pictures of bands at concerts then making complete money off of it. Where as if the venue has a hired photographer it's easier for legal paperwork, promotions, ect.

I am on vacation now in Russia, and in most places they wont let you take dslrs pictures in stores. Like I was walking around with my 50D in some stores and I have secruity guards yell at me for taking pictures. Of course when I showed them I had the lens hood turned backwards, lens cap on, and the fact that it was just hanging from my shoulder without me touching it, they felt pretty dumb. You can carry them in there, but you are not allowed to take pictures. Not that I would want to take any pictures in there to begin with.

[racketman]

slrs can be very annoying even to photography buffs - I had the misfortune to be seated in the stands at Queens Tennis tournament (£75 a seat) next to a guy firing off a 1DMKIII at 10fps.

[RDKirk]

While I fully agree with all the comments that the club owner has a right to make whatever anti-camera rules he wants...

...in the US, if they lay hands on me to take my personal property (camera and/or memory card), that becomes assault and battery and attempted robbery, and I will become the new owner of the club.

[apersson850]

In the US, they'll probably just shoot you right away and the club you'll own will be in another world.

How come you support that they can make their own rules, but not that they enforce these rules? Are you by that saying that we shouldn't care about their rules, or are you saying something else?

Apart from that, as DSLR cameras are now becoming more and more common among Smith and Jones, perhaps we'll see the ban lifted in more places?

[neilwood32]

To the OP - you were on private property and were asked not to photograph anyone - you didnt comply and were asked to leave the premises. Sorry but i dont see why you are complaining.

Any private property, whether a pub, club, concert venue, mall or sports venue can make any policy they like with regards to photography.

The staff were completely in the right.

In future, you may find that, if you speak to the duty manager, you may be allowed to photograph so long as you comply with their requirements.

[Replaces]

that never happened to me... b/c i never went inside one before lol
(but i got a free admission to a construction/designing exhibition though... ^_^)

[dolfinack]

Side note : Despite taking pictures against the rules of the private establishment, the notion that staff could take your camera or delete your images is incorrect. This is a breach of the law, and should be watched out for. If someone asks you to leave, you must do so, but any naughty pics you have taken before they escort you out are yours to keep. Thats just a beneficial loophole.

Now, on the original point: Personally I'm with the "You shouldn't have been taking snaps in the first place" crowd. I'm just not going to be a jerk about it. Welcome to POTN

[DennisW1]

Last night, out at Funky Buddahs in London ... they threw me out for having an slr (50D)!!!

To be fair to them, they told me at the front to put it in the cloak-room (I ignored this as I had dragged the thing the whole way to London I wanted some decent photos). While they we're throwing me out, they also said that if I deleted all the photos of the night and give them the camera they would let me back in - but clearly having a beasty slr I care about the photos so while they we're escorting me out, I slipped the mem card to a mate.. so the damn thing popped up with 'No Card' when they tried to delete the pics!

My question is has anyone else experienced this??? Or does anyone know a better way around it? They couldn't even give me a reason (plenty of people had compact cameras out).

Is this going to keeo happening across all clubs now?! I ended up waiting outside for 3 hours for my mates to come out!

So, knowing the rules you decided to go ahead and do as you pleased despite them and now you're bitching because you got caught and got your hands slapped?

Grow up..........


and to the guy who wrote this: "......in the US, if they lay hands on me to take my personal property (camera and/or memory card), that becomes assault and battery and attempted robbery, and I will become the new owner of the club..."

let me know how that works out for you, ok.?:rolleyes:

[RDKirk]

In the US, they'll probably just shoot you right away and the club you'll own will be in another world.

How come you support that they can make their own rules, but not that they enforce these rules? Are you by that saying that we shouldn't care about their rules, or are you saying something else?

Sorry, but asking me to leave--and I do so immediately and without resistance--does not include having the right to take my personal property from me or destroy my personal property. As I said, if I offer no resistance to leaving the premises, they can't lay hands on me.

That would be assault and battery, as well as attempted (or actual) robbery and vandalism.

As far as shooting me is concerned, in Nebraska in 1982, they had that exact situation--the bar owner shot first, missed and killed some poor bystander walking out of the restroom. The patron pulled his gun and killed the barowner. The patron was ruled to have acted in self defense (and Nebraska didn't even have a concealed carry law at the time).

For that matter, a police officer (local or federal) can't force you to delete your images, either--under any circumstances in the US.

He can order you to stop taking pictures. He can, if necessary, arrest you and take the camera into custody as evidence. But he can't order you to destroy your property, and if he does arrest you and take the camera into custody as evidence, he can't destroy the evidence of your picture-taking.

In the US, nobody can ever, ever legally require you to delete your images until you are ordered to do so by a court of law.

[RDKirk]

and to the guy who wrote this: "......in the US, if they lay hands on me to take my personal property (camera and/or memory card), that becomes assault and battery and attempted robbery, and I will become the new owner of the club..."

let me know how that works out for you, ok.?

Back in the 70s, doing freelance PJ work during riots and demonstrations...yes, it did work out for me.

[jlbrach]

i am an amateur photographer,i take pictures for myself only and love to take pictures of concerts I attend... I find it the height of absurdity that I am told that I cannot use my DSLR camera in a club while I sit quietly bothering nobody...not using a flash...not getting up or distracting anybody,while people using smaller point and shoots can not only use them but use them with flash..get up and walk to the stage and stand in front of people to take their pictures etc...i have literally been at clubs where I was told i couldnt use my DSLR and then have had to endure person after person standing up in front of me...snapping pictures using flash etc.....it is incredibly unfair and in my opinion wrong...either confiscate everyones cellphone and point and shoot camera's or let people take pictures unless they are bothering other customers....

[nphsbuckeye]

Number 2 is definitely it for clubs, and concerts. They dont want people taking pictures of bands at concerts then making complete money off of it. Where as if the venue has a hired photographer it's easier for legal paperwork, promotions, ect.
Even if you're with the media, they'll kick you out after 3 songs. I believe it's from back in the day anyone could get a press pass and bands didn't like a bunch of rookies shooting throughout the concert. Then, most bands make it practice for only three songs. And the times I've had at concerts I've had to be at the back on the floor in front of the sound stage anyhow...

[NotAClue1]

I don't really know why some of you cannot understand what I am saying ...

I AM completly in the wrong I know. The club set the rules, told me the rules and even gave me a chance to redeem myself. I chose to ignore all of these because I wanted to take the photos (and assumed it was a rule that was rarely enforced).

What I am 'whining' about is the fact that the rule exists! There is a gay club in london that STRICTLY enforces no cameras (including all camera phones etc) - this is because they get closet celebs in there, so fair enough. What is annoying is plenty of people taking pictures with small cameras - why is it that just because a DSLR is a bit of a beefcake, it's not allowed?! (someone suggested safety of it bumping into people - I don't really buy this).

I also agree that with DSLR's become cheaper and more popular, surely the rules will have to be flexed in the future?!

I WILL also risk it next time I go out because the photos are worth it. I'll just use un-delete software to get around it (or take more than one memory card and swap them around so i'll only lose some pics).

[NotAClue1]

And yes the bouncer snatched the camera off me and was trying to wipe them himself, at which point I politely reminded him of the worth of it and snatched it right back (this obv didnt improve my chances of staying in, but the cameras more important!). It's also all covered against theft and accidental damage so I don't see a risk!

Can anyone say for sure that the law is on my side regarding security staff physically taking the camera off me? (the guy last night was confident he could do what he wanted with it; "I can keep this camera if I want so you'd better not mess me about")

[dolfinack]

And yes the bouncer snatched the camera off me and was trying to wipe them himself, at which point I politely reminded him of the worth of it and snatched it right back (this obv didnt improve my chances of staying in, but the cameras more important!). It's also all covered against theft and accidental damage so I don't see a risk!

Can anyone say for sure that the law is on my side regarding security staff physically taking the camera off me? (the guy last night was confident he could do what he wanted with it; "I can keep this camera if I want so you'd better not mess me about")

Its in my post. And RDKirks post. No-one can take your camera, no-one can delete images. Thats the law. Cool ain't it.

[NotAClue1]

Its in my post. And RDKirks post. No-one can take your camera, no-one can delete images. Thats the law. Cool ain't it.

Sweet thanks - im assuming you're referring to UK laws?

[Photon Phil]

I slipped the mem card to a mate.. so the damn thing popped up with 'No Card' when they tried to delete the pics!




So they touched your camera, they tried to operate it? I don't think that's appropriate or legal. They think they are MI5?

[Veemac]

...Can anyone say for sure that the law is on my side regarding security staff physically taking the camera off me?...
If you want correct, reliable information, I'd strongly recommend that you contact a knowledgeable attorney familiar with the laws in your locality. What somebody from the US tells you may have nothing to do with laws in the UK; which may have nothing to do with laws somewhere else. While I have no problem taking advice about gear and the "how-to's" of photography from an internet forum, I'd be much more circumspect about taking advice that could ultimately lead to legal action being taken against me or my gear being confiscated. Somehow I doubt that claiming "but so-and-so on POTN told me it was legal!" would carry much weight in such situations.

[fotoworx]

What are you whining about?

I'm glad the club handled you like they did.

[NotAClue1]

What are you whining about?

I'm glad the club handled you like they did.

Thanks so much for your helpul contribution.

[Lazuka]

Thanks so much for your helpul contribution.

Not really instigating, but what you are looking to find in this thread?

[fotoworx]

Thanks so much for your helpul contribution.


What are YOU after? Want sympathy from me? Sorry no way. The club had rules, rules that you willingly broke. Why cry like a baby after the fact?

[NotAClue1]

Not really instigating, but what you are looking to find in this thread?

Solutions, loop-holes etc etc which I have found an am most grateful.

I have checked online and know that security staff can't touch my camera or force me to delete pics I have already taken. I also know that I can un-delete photos at a later stage so can easily temporarily satisfy the club if I get in that situation again.

Apologies for my sarcasm with the 'helpful' comment; I couldn't resist :)

[Photon Phil]

This is a classic situation in which I think there are two main approaches. (Yes , I agree they had rules and that the rules were broken)

So philosophical approach #1: Be peaceful and all mellow and say " peace be with you, I am so very sorry" and let their poor behavior roll right off of your back.

Approach #2: Give them what they gave you. Be all rude and foul mouthed and hassle them. Get revenge immediate or delayed.

My age is telling me go with #1, "Let them suffer from their own negative energy man, be cool and mellow and positive, center yourself and have some chai tea"

My gut tells me either smack him in the head with the cam or sue the h3ll out of them for touching your stuff. (that's just the working class roots in me)

[dolfinack]

Sweet thanks - im assuming you're referring to UK laws?

Its defoes the law here in the good 'ole U of K. And its certainly the law in the States. So its all good in the hood.

I believe these are the PDFs that peeps inevitably refer to...

UK
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

USA
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[Lazuka]

Solutions, loop-holes etc etc which I have found an am most grateful.

I have checked online and know that security staff can't touch my camera or force me to delete pics I have already taken. I also know that I can un-delete photos at a later stage so can easily temporarily satisfy the club if I get in that situation again.

Apologies for my sarcasm with the 'helpful' comment; I couldn't resist :)

Haha, a lot of people thought you were mad that you got caught, so it's just a miscommunication, but yeah, talk to the club owner, hide it better, i dunno.

Usually it's about money or safety, for the cameras, so if they are aware and make preparations, maybe they'll just let you go in, and you won't have to go through all the troubles, hell you might even get access you didn't have before.

[SR071]

I think one of the initial points to the OP's post was he wanted to know WHY this may be a rule, he's asked it a few times, nobody seems to have answered, so he keeps asking.

Here's why:

1. It's a weapon, it can be swung around and it hurts when bashed against a cranium. Safety of guests at a venue is the responsibility of the venue.
2. It's expensive, and can lead to fights simply because it's big and expensive - bouncers (most of them) want to prevent fights - that's what they're there for.
3. Leading from 2. if you take a photo of an aggro drunk you can bet you'll have to have parts of your camera removed by a medical professional or parts of you removed by Canon - and who are you going to rely on to prevent your heart from stopping in the fight? That's right - the bouncer who tried to stop you taking the camera in in the first place, who is now less inclined to do so.
4. Lawyers - lawyers love this crap because it causes cases, which they make money off but ultimately the plaintiff walks away with very little, the venue walks away with a headache.
5. It's the law - I can place any condition on you I like (so long as it's legal) if you choose to enter my property. Some places choose to apply the law - some don't. It's their choice. (this point has been made several times already I know)

Hope this helps your understanding.

[bluefox9er]

To the OP..if I was in a club with friends having a good time and partying and all of a sudden some jackass pulls out a DSLR and starts taking pictures, it would definatly IRRITATE me even if you didn 't take pictures of me or my group/people i am with, just the material fact that you *could* take pictures of me would be more than enough for me to feel irritated. god knows where those images may end up.someone who is drunk and irritated in a club means trouble for security, which means trouble for the club.

do yourself a favour...if you want to take photos, go to a zoo instead...sometimes it's OK to leave your camera at home and have a good time without it.

[jlbrach]

To the OP..if I was in a club with friends having a good time and partying and all of a sudden some jackass pulls out a DSLR and starts taking pictures, it would definatly IRRITATE me even if you didn 't take pictures of me or my group/people i am with, just the material fact that you *could* take pictures of me would be more than enough for me to feel irritated. god knows where those images may end up.someone who is drunk and irritated in a club means trouble for security, which means trouble for the club.

do yourself a favour...if you want to take photos, go to a zoo instead...sometimes it's OK to leave your camera at home and have a good time without it


how silly,so it would bother you less if someone took a picture of you with a point and shoot or their phone camera?comon,people who enjoy taking pictures with their DSLR are most likely to be more courteous and considerate..i know i dont bother anybody..i dont use a flash..i dont get up and wander all over the place to take pictures like those with the camera phones and p&s's do..i dont stand in front of people etc.....i shoudl be able to take some pictures without being made to feel like a leper

[fotoworx]

.....i shoudl be able to take some pictures without being made to feel like a leper


You can, but not on private property that disallows it.

This whole thread is pointless.

[jlbrach]

again,if people with point and shoots and camera phones can take pictures then everybody should be able to...i do not understand why it is ok for people to use a flash and wander around obstructing people to get shots with point and shoots but it isnt ok for me to sit in my seat and bother nobody with my DSLR

[mikeassk]

^^^ Because your MarkIII and 35L will put a welt in someones head if the crowd gets routy:D

[jlbrach]

i assume you mean rowdy not routy and as i said several times those with P&s's who wander all over the place and block others and use flash etc. are far more of a distraction to others....i agree this is silly....i bother nobody with my DSLR

[leroy_sunset]

Awesome thread, kids.

I think the lesson here is, "don't be a dick." A lot of the comments here fall under that category.

If I took my camera somewhere and got tossed out peacefully, and in the process they touched me or my gear, I'd call the cops to document, and then a laywer. I sure as **** wouldn't let some wanker bouncer pull that on me.

Wow, that sounded awfully British for a NW American.

[Lazuka]

Awesome thread, kids.

I think the lesson here is, "don't be a dick." A lot of the comments here fall under that category.

If I took my camera somewhere and got tossed out peacefully, and in the process they touched me or my gear, I'd call the cops to document, and then a laywer. I sure as **** wouldn't let some wanker bouncer pull that on me.

Wow, that sounded awfully British for a NW American.


I agree, and I think it's just wise to talk to the club owners if you're that into the pictures, maybe you could work something out, if not, you could find a club that wouldn't mind some pictures for their website or ads in the process, there's multiple ways of doing it, but trying to be sneaky, is just disrespectful to the host.

[johneo]

Just thought of something funny to add to my previous post (not being allowed to bring my 10D in while everyone was shooting hundreds of photos and taking lots of video)

I can understand why it's not allowed ... lots of valid reasons made here ... BUT ...

The July 31st Gordon Lightfoot concert I was at was in the exact same hall / venue as the dog show I attended the previous Saturday (July 25th). At that event (AKC sanctioned event) I was asked by an employee of the building if I was using a flash (No, I wasn't). I was also told where I could go have lunch (on the dog club holding the event ... she thought I was the event photographer). I was told there was a line of people waiting for photos. People were asking me to take photos of their dogs and what website they could purcahse them at. One lady, also with a dSLR, asked what I charge for shooting such an event.

I was only there shooting ours and friends Labs (about 8 in all) and to set the RV up for the Lobster Boil my wife and her friends had after the show.

I know ... different kind of event but the people owning the venue were the same for both events! Not many cell phone photogs at the dog show either.

[alt4852]

Solutions, loop-holes etc etc which I have found an am most grateful.

I have checked online and know that security staff can't touch my camera or force me to delete pics I have already taken. I also know that I can un-delete photos at a later stage so can easily temporarily satisfy the club if I get in that situation again.

Apologies for my sarcasm with the 'helpful' comment; I couldn't resist :)

solution: don't take photos in private property.

i think you're a jerk for not respecting the owner's rules. the loopholes you seek exploit the country's bid to insure that people respect each other's personal property, and you're trying to abuse these laws to victimize a property owner. his/her rules are that in their club, they don't want SLRs present. why can't you respect that? how would you feel if someone decided to enter your home without your permission?

the owner gave you conditional consent to enter their property. you are allowed on premises under the condition that you don't have a SLR. i hope if you try this again, they sue you for tresspassing. i'm all for photographer's rights, but i can't stand how disrepectful you are towards the rules they established for their own property.

how silly,so it would bother you less if someone took a picture of you with a point and shoot or their phone camera?

it bothers some business owners less because as someone else has already mentioned in this thread, many times owners of establishments have exclusive contracts with official event photographers. they know that camera phones won't be able to achieve the same results and therefore won't be a significant threat to print sales. they are probably paying a lot of money to have rights for advertising and event coverage.

comon,people who enjoy taking pictures with their DSLR are most likely to be more courteous and considerate..

courteous and considerate.. like the OP who wants to break the property owner's rules and find ways to threaten lawsuits against the club owner? clearly that's what he has deemed as helpful information and that seems contrary to being courteous and considerate to others.

[oaktree]

Talk is cheap!

Just sue them and let us now how it turns out.

[Zafar]

Guys
Panasonic G1/GH1, Olympus E-P1, etc are made for just this purpose. Take the small camera in with you, no one will feel threatened.

[ajc518]

If you want correct, reliable information, I'd strongly recommend that you contact a knowledgeable attorney familiar with the laws in your locality. What somebody from the US tells you may have nothing to do with laws in the UK; which may have nothing to do with laws somewhere else. While I have no problem taking advice about gear and the "how-to's" of photography from an internet forum, I'd be much more circumspect about taking advice that could ultimately lead to legal action being taken against me or my gear being confiscated. Somehow I doubt that claiming "but so-and-so on POTN told me it was legal!" would carry much weight in such situations.

The part about 'so and so told me on potn' I especially agree with. A lot of people say it's the law. So instead of arguing and repeating the same thing in dozens of posts with different wording. How about people start putting links to websites with the actual legal law. So if someone says they dont believe you, you can tell them exactly what law it is, and all the info on it.

Also another point is that you may have the law to back you in US and UK, but dont think that applies everywhere.

For example, I am in Russia on vacation, and you cannot do much to have the law protect you. The law is very confusing, no one is certain about it, and the local militsyia (police) can pretty much change it when they want. In a situation like this if your a citizen, or especially a foreigner, unless you are at the embassy or are close friends with someone in the FSB (Russian FBI) you wont have much to protect you in this type situation.

[echo]

Guys
Panasonic G1/GH1, Olympus E-P1, etc are made for just this purpose. Take the small camera in with you, no one will feel threatened.

If you must try and break the house rules you will need the best P&S that you can find or go to one of those spy shops and buy glasses with a camera in them etc :D

[ceriltheblade]

The part about 'so and so told me on potn' I especially agree with. A lot of people say it's the law. So instead of arguing and repeating the same thing in dozens of posts with different wording. How about people start putting links to websites with the actual legal law. So if someone says they dont believe you, you can tell them exactly what law it is, and all the info on it.

Also another point is that you may have the law to back you in US and UK, but dont think that applies everywhere.

For example, I am in Russia on vacation, and you cannot do much to have the law protect you. The law is very confusing, no one is certain about it, and the local militsyia (police) can pretty much change it when they want. In a situation like this if your a citizen, or especially a foreigner, unless you are at the embassy or are close friends with someone in the FSB (Russian FBI) you wont have much to protect you in this type situation.

I liked this one. The law tends to go with the people with the AK47 first, then with the lawyers..... :)

But with that said - you tried. you got caught. you left. ok.
the fact that others do it with different types of cameras is indeed not fair. ok.

and?

unfortunately, there is very little recourse that I can see bottomline/practically. Rights often enforced after the fact and not during the incident....

so, i think that people here offered ideas of more than acceptible cameras which would be considered "ok"....though it entails you purchasing them.... and the idea of speaking with the owners/managers before the issue is also a fair idea.....

Do you have a lot of business with photography in clubs?

[NotAClue1]

"it bothers some business owners less because as someone else has already mentioned in this thread, many times owners of establishments have exclusive contracts with official event photographers. they know that camera phones won't be able to achieve the same results and therefore won't be a significant threat to print sales. they are probably paying a lot of money to have rights for advertising and event coverage."

This is the only reason I consider valid (but probably still not enough to defer me from taking the beast again).

I care more about getting the best photos than 'respecting' some club (this probably does make me a 'jerk' but oh well - I don't agree with the rule so if I can find a way to get around it, I will) I'm also only taking pics of my mates (I wasn't out trying to get the best clubbing photo of the year, I just want some decent pics of our group) so don't consider the reason of offending others, worthy.

I also did have the beasty 580EXII on top - I'm still in two minds as to whether this was a mistake. I think the mistake was taking the 17-55 f2.8 (the length of this means I need the height of the flash).

Next time, I think I'll leave the flash and go with the 50 f1.4 - am confident this would be less obvious!

I also emailed the club to see what reasons they could offer for the rule (again, im not questioning the fact they can put whatever rule they want, I would just like their take on specifically why its there). Am awaiting their response.

"so, i think that people here offered ideas of more than acceptible cameras which would be considered "ok"....though it entails you purchasing them.... and the idea of speaking with the owners/managers before the issue is also a fair idea.....

Do you have a lot of business with photography in clubs?"

Yeah a few people have made this point; next time I'll email ahead to ask if I can bring it - I can still see myself ignoring them if they say no, unfortunatly. I take a lot of pics in clubs (only of our group) sure, normally on camera phone (maybe I'll get the Olympus..). I took it along because a week before in No.5 I saw about 10 SLR's casing the joint so assumed it was fine..

[nemo man]

A couple of points in this most pointless of threads.

1. My 50D with the Sigma 70-200 weighs 5 pounds!!! If I swung it at someone they would die. I don't think a point-and-shoot could do that.

2. A professional DSLR gives the impression that you might be a professional and are going to profit from some of the shots that you take. A guy taking a shot with a mobile phone is not exactly going to be selling it to a top mag, are they?

3. UK laws allow the owner (or their representative) of a private place to make any reasonable conditions that they wish. If you refuse to comply you can be asked to leave. This does not apply to public places.

4. If you really want to take some club shots, why not try asking the owner of the club?

5. This thread is pointless. And you know it is.

I can't believe I just typed all of that.

[Psychobiker]

Someone please lock this thread.

[nemo man]

Someone please lock this thread.

If only I could...

[blackshadow]

"it bothers some business owners less because as someone else has already mentioned in this thread, many times owners of establishments have exclusive contracts with official event photographers. they know that camera phones won't be able to achieve the same results and therefore won't be a significant threat to print sales. they are probably paying a lot of money to have rights for advertising and event coverage."

This is the only reason I consider valid (but probably still not enough to defer me from taking the beast again).



It doesn't matter that the hell you consider valid - if you're on private property the property owner has the right to restrict you from entry with a DSLR if they want to. They can restrict you from entry for whatever reason they feel like.

Build a bridge and get over it.

[bluefox9er]

To the OP..if I was in a club with friends having a good time and partying and all of a sudden some jackass pulls out a DSLR and starts taking pictures, it would definatly IRRITATE me even if you didn 't take pictures of me or my group/people i am with, just the material fact that you *could* take pictures of me would be more than enough for me to feel irritated. god knows where those images may end up.someone who is drunk and irritated in a club means trouble for security, which means trouble for the club.

do yourself a favour...if you want to take photos, go to a zoo instead...sometimes it's OK to leave your camera at home and have a good time without it


how silly,so it would bother you less if someone took a picture of you with a point and shoot or their phone camera?comon,people who enjoy taking pictures with their DSLR are most likely to be more courteous and considerate..i know i dont bother anybody..i dont use a flash..i dont get up and wander all over the place to take pictures like those with the camera phones and p&s's do..i dont stand in front of people etc.....i shoudl be able to take some pictures without being made to feel like a leper

so if you feel like that, why don't you go back in there with your point and shoot/cell phone? believe me, there will be people in a night club who will NOT appreciate *your* innocent little hobby.

how dare you suggest that just because you *think* you arn't bothering others with your DSLR then it's okay to carry on regardless? have you sought the permission or feelings of others that you arn't doing any harm or is it all about you and your own needs and assumptions?

theres a reason why clubs have rules like these, and if you wish to challenge them, then go right ahead.

and FYI, theres nothing to suggest DSLR shooters are more likley to be polite than anyone else.

[nemo man]

They can restrict you from entry for whatever reason they feel like.



Not quite. They can't legally restrict you on the basis of skin colour, religion etc. At least not in the UK, which is where the OP was.

[bluefox9er]

and let's hope the OP grows out of the night club phase quickly :-)

[CyberPet]

I think one of the problems with bringing an dSLR to a club is not only that it's annoying to have your photo taken by a person you don't know, either you're a member of a band or a member of the "public". But also, dSLR's are big, and someone could accidentally get hurt by it, or it could be damaged due to it being crowded etc. I'm thinking the club might not want big gear like that in there for their insurance as well as keeping the club private, as it's their private property.

Although I do admit that I did take a few sneeky snaps when I was in Florence, to see the statue of David that Michelangelo carved, and at the end I even tested the security and see what would happen, by actually just standing in the middle of the corridor aiming my camera at the statue. A guard came up to me and said "no, no, no fotografia!" and that was it. She just shook her finger at me. I smiled and said I was sorry. She never checked my camera, or even touched it, and the security when going into the museum didn't bother about my camera as well. I would not have entered the museum if I wasn't allowed to hold my camera (I would have had no problems not shooting there, but shooting from the hip without a flash, who would have noticed?). But it was crowded in there, and I can see the issue with gear being damaged, or people getting hurt even there in a big museum.

[kitacanon]

Many years ago I was in New Delhi and my camera wasn't allowed in a MOVIE THEATER....I knew that bags weren't allowed, for fear of bombs I was told, but wasn't told "no cameras"....
I was escorted out of the theater, taken down a dark alley, as was asked to give my Nikon to a little old lady in exchange for a ticket/receipt...she took it and marked the back with a crayon to show that the camera wouldn't be opened....and after the movie I got it back....
...this was after half my bags was stolen off the over-head luggage rack on a train between Delhi and Agra...I went along with the theater rules because I wasn't going to give in to the paranoia that so permeated every train thereafter...for good reason....on every train-leg of the rest of the trip in India I saw at least one person desparately/hopelessly searching for THEIR luggage...
Even the memory shortens my breath with anxiety...

[SuzyView]

It is amazing that more images are taken with the iPhone than a DSLR. So, anyone with an iPhone can take pictures, but me with my 5DII can't. Life is not fair, and people making these judgments don't know or understand. Maybe you should just avoid the clubs that don't allow cameras all together. You won't be changing their minds any time soon, but this is a universal issue as I've gone to events and cameras are not allowed, but everyone and their mothers have camera phones and are clicking like crazy.

[RDKirk]

how silly,so it would bother you less if someone took a picture of you with a point and shoot or their phone camera?comon,people who enjoy taking pictures with their DSLR are most likely to be more courteous and considerate..i know i dont bother anybody..i dont use a flash..i dont get up and wander all over the place to take pictures like those with the camera phones and p&s's do..i dont stand in front of people etc.....i shoudl be able to take some pictures without being made to feel like a leper

Someone has already said this once, but I'll say it again. The DSLR is clearly a camera of more serious intention than a cell phone. More serious intention implies a significantly higher "threat" to people for whom photography could constitute a threat.

Back in the 80s, I was associated with the US Air Force SR-71 and U-2 programs. The planes were based at Beale AFB in California, from which they flew both training and operational missions. It was very easy to photograph take-offs and landings from public roads just outside the fenced area, and many people did so, snapping away with their Instamatics. The Air Force security police only took notice when someone set up an SLR with a supertelephoto and a large film back on a tripod. When the intent became that serious, it began to look like a threat because there were classified fitments on the plane flying operational missions that could be resolved with a long enough lens while the plane was gathering speed on takeoff.

The same is true--whether logically based on such solid grounds or not--everywhere we photograph. It's why you can take a picture of a government building with a cell phone without molestation, but you would attract the attention of the gendarmes if you did so with an SLR on a tripod. It's why someone at a club with his mistress isn't going to be as worried by someone pointing a cell phone in his direction as he will be if someone pointed an SLR in his direction. The intent appears too serious to be merely incidental--it begins to look like a threat.

[GerBee]

Would not count on that, a camera delete, on some models / cards cannot be recovered.

You could have deleted them then bring them back with a undelete progam :)
Rob.

[iAMB]

How do you expect for the law to be on your side when they touched your camera after you violated their rules and took pictures anyway?

[jms_uk]

Canon series 1 cameras would allow for pictures to be deleted and you to have a backup copy on the second memory card :D

[nphsbuckeye]

I suppose the people with SLRs are more "dangerous" than those with P&Ses or cell phones. The people will SLRs are more photo knowledgeable, so they're more likely to do "damage" if they want.

I somehow doubt the argument for camera as a weapon is a primary argument. Perhaps secondary, or an afterthought, but not as a main one.

[Woolburr]

Not if they were smart enough to reformat the card in the camera. Nevertheless, it still might be possible with the right software, but not easy.

You are absolutely and completely incorrect. Formatting the card in camera doesn't complicate the recovery process one bit. The only thing that would cause an issue is if you started taking photos again on the same card. That has the potential to then over-write the existing images. There is plenty of rescue and recovery software out there that will bring back stuff on the card you might not even remember. Recovering deleted images is a very simple and straight forward process.

[soliwit]

Just thought of something funny to add to my previous post (not being allowed to bring my 10D in while everyone was shooting hundreds of photos and taking lots of video)

I can understand why it's not allowed ... lots of valid reasons made here ... BUT ...

The July 31st Gordon Lightfoot concert I was at was in the exact same hall / venue as the dog show I attended the previous Saturday (July 25th).

I know ... different kind of event but the people owning the venue were the same for both events! Not many cell phone photogs at the dog show either.

The difference is not in the owners but the event, I used to work at a music venue and the rules about taking pictures are made by the performer, not by the venue, we always had to ask every band separately what their wishes were considering taking pictures, some said no flash, some wanted no pics at all, others didn't care, mostly indeed for pro's they only allowed the first 3 songs etc etc, so it is Gordon Lightfoot's management who is to blame.........

[twodogsah]

This is one reason why I go out of my way to be nice and make friends with the owners of clubs and events coordinators. It really pays off! Now, I have them calling me to come photograph events and even nights of people just hanging out and having fun.

[jlbrach]

bottom line....i go to clubs all the time where i am told i cannot use my DSLR camera and then watch everybody in the club taking pictures with their point and shoot or camera phones....wandering up to the stage to take these pictures,standing in front of me to get their shots etc...meanwhile i would have been sitting in my seat bothering nobody,never getting up,never standing in front of anybody,never using a flash...somehow this seems completely unfair and kind of absurd....it is the camera phones and point and shoots that are the biggest annoyance,especially since they require flash and have so little range that people need to wander close to the stage and stand in front of others etc....ban them all or none at all but do not only ban DSLR cameras

[nemo man]

bottom line....i go to clubs all the time where i am told i cannot use my DSLR camera and then watch everybody in the club taking pictures with their point and shoot or camera phones....wandering up to the stage to take these pictures,standing in front of me to get their shots etc...meanwhile i would have been sitting in my seat bothering nobody,never getting up,never standing in front of anybody,never using a flash...somehow this seems completely unfair and kind of absurd....it is the camera phones and point and shoots that are the biggest annoyance,especially since they require flash and have so little range that people need to wander close to the stage and stand in front of others etc....ban them all or none at all but do not only ban DSLR cameras

Take comfort...


I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.

Marcus, Babylon 5

[tharmsen]

bottom line....i go to clubs all the time where i am told i cannot use my DSLR camera and then watch everybody in the club taking pictures with their point and shoot or camera phones....wandering up to the stage to take these pictures,standing in front of me to get their shots etc...meanwhile i would have been sitting in my seat bothering nobody,never getting up,never standing in front of anybody,never using a flash...somehow this seems completely unfair and kind of absurd....it is the camera phones and point and shoots that are the biggest annoyance,especially since they require flash and have so little range that people need to wander close to the stage and stand in front of others etc....ban them all or none at all but do not only ban DSLR cameras
Well, often "fair" has little or noting to do with anything.

The rules against DSLR's are typical of venues where they don't want Paparazzi driving their high-end clientele away. They also try to prevent people from taking pictures that are of professional quality which are then sold without permission of the venue owner or the subjects being shot.

That's why you don't see DSLR's at concerts or major league games - typically. The only people with them are those who have passes for them or people breaking the rules.

[RDKirk]

How do you expect for the law to be on your side when they touched your camera after you violated their rules and took pictures anyway?

Because the court is jealous of its own power. Only the court has punitive authority--the legal power to penalize, to exact a fine, or to punish.

A police officer (at least in the US) does not have punitive authority. He has the authority to take all the action necessary to establish order, to arrest, to protect the rights of others, and to carry out the will of the court. But he does not have his own punitive authority...which is why a police officer can be held guilty of a crime (technically if not always practically) if he uses "unnecessary force."

Let's say I enter a federal facility with signs posted saying, "No photography allowed" and I take a picture anyway. The guard orders me to leave the premises and I do so immediately and peacefully. Unless the law specifically requires me to surrender my memory card, the guard cannot decide on his own to require it.

That civilian club owner can order me to leave his property and he is permitted by the law to use physical force if necessary, but the law does not allow him to do anything more than is necessary to remove me from his property.

The law does not allow him to rob me--he can't take my wallet or my shoes in the process of removing me from his property. He can't go out into the parking lot and break my car windows or slash my tires in the process of removing me from his property.

Nor can he take my camera from me or destroy my images in the process of removing me from his property.

Taking my camera or my images is a punitive act, and the courts reserve that authority unto themselves.

[alt4852]

Because the court is jealous of its own power. Only the court has punitive authority--the legal power to penalize, to exact a fine, or to punish.

A police officer (at least in the US) does not have punitive authority. He has the authority to take all the action necessary to establish order, to arrest, to protect the rights of others, and to carry out the will of the court. But he does not have his own punitive authority...which is why a police officer can be held guilty of a crime (technically if not always practically) if he uses "unnecessary force."

Let's say I enter a federal facility with signs posted saying, "No photography allowed" and I take a picture anyway. The guard orders me to leave the premises and I do so immediately and peacefully. Unless the law specifically requires me to surrender my memory card, the guard cannot decide on his own to require it.

That civilian club owner can order me to leave his property and he is permitted by the law to use physical force if necessary, but the law does not allow him to do anything more than is necessary to remove me from his property.

The law does not allow him to rob me--he can't take my wallet or my shoes in the process of removing me from his property. He can't go out into the parking lot and break my car windows or slash my tires in the process of removing me from his property.

Nor can he take my camera from me or destroy my images in the process of removing me from his property.

Taking my camera or my images is a punitive act, and the courts reserve that authority unto themselves.

in that case, it might be prudent for club owners to post a sign at the door which states, "by entering these premises, you are consenting that you are not in possession of any prohibited items such as SLR cameras, knives, or firearms. if you are found to be in possession of any aforementioned items, they along with any digital or intellectual property associated with the items will be deemed property of the club owner if discovered. if you do not consent to these terms, you are not permitted to enter the premises."

legal consent granted, no complaining about fairness if caught.

[MetroPhoto]

This is one reason why I go out of my way to be nice and make friends with the owners of clubs and events coordinators. It really pays off! Now, I have them calling me to come photograph events and even nights of people just hanging out and having fun.http://www.tracker-analytics.com/track/img/3358/s09v0317fvxp/00.gif

Haha, now that's a great strategy/approach. :)

[RDKirk]

in that case, it might be prudent for club owners to post a sign at the door which states, "by entering these premises, you are consenting that you are not in possession of any prohibited items such as SLR cameras, knives, or firearms. if you are found to be in possession of any aforementioned items, they along with any digital or intellectual property associated with the items will be deemed property of the club owner if discovered. if you do not consent to these terms, you are not permitted to enter the premises."

legal consent granted, no complaining about fairness if caught.

No, sorry, you can't even consent to give someone authority the court does not grant him. The court can and does invalidate even full-consent agreements in such cases.

[pilsburypie]

Reminds me of the thread about someone trying to smuggle his camera and 70-200 f2.8 into a baseball game......

I think the concensus was to hollow out a french stick and disguise it as a giant "Boss Hog" sandwich! Amazing how hungry you can get dancing and drinking the night away!

Or you could disguise your camera bag by marking it up "drugs for sale".:confused:

[fotoworx]

I care more about getting the best photos than 'respecting' some club


You have the most apt nickname that I have ever seen on POTN.

[nphsbuckeye]

Well, often "fair" has little or noting to do with anything.

The rules against DSLR's are typical of venues where they don't want Paparazzi driving their high-end clientele away. They also try to prevent people from taking pictures that are of professional quality which are then sold without permission of the venue owner or the subjects being shot.

That's why you don't see DSLR's at concerts or major league games - typically. The only people with them are those who have passes for them or people breaking the rules.
Word.

[Tom Reichner]

Stop whining.

I read and reread the original post. I didn't see any whining. He simply provided a written account of the experience, and then asked a question about if this was going to happen elsewhere. Then he stated another fact: that he waited for 3 hours for his friends to come out.

A telling of the facts of the incident.
A question.
Where is the whining?

[fotoworx]

Where is the whining?


Perceived whining. You ain't a parent are you?

[blackshadow]

You have the most apt nickname that I have ever seen on POTN.
bw!

[blackshadow]

Not quite. They can't legally restrict you on the basis of skin colour, religion etc. At least not in the UK, which is where the OP was.

Owners can exclude you at any time - they don't have to give a reason, it's their private property and if they don't want you there so be it.

[fly my pretties]

A lot of people have bans on 'professional' cameras. Which I find ridiculous. Way of the world, though. What's nice is my E-P1 with 40/1.4 looks like a compact, and it's great for low light shooting for that kind of situation.

It's not really ridiculous. Some clubs are now paying photographers to get shots, and the best way to limit competition from other photographers is to introduce a ban on SLR's

[hover]

2. A Canon G11 would probably pass for a non-professional camera and still be able to bring home the images.

This. ;)

[HappySnapper90]

A big honking SLR with whatever lens can be seen as a safety issue. You have your camera around your neck and go dancing, someone backs into your camera - shocked to hit an object like like that - falls down gets injured, trampled, and sues the club. Just one scenario.