Ironic Rights Issue

Generally people post here about their rights as photographers being taken away by some authority figure. I had the opposite happen and I knew in advance what I was getting in to. Saw a comedy show at a local playhouse last night and rather than leave really expensive gear in the car I brought it into the theater. I knew there was most likely a restriction on taking images. Bought the ticket and passed security without a mention. Not even a word. No signs banning photography. I wasn't there to take photos I was there to help a friend lift his spirits. It turns out he has a high school buddy who is a professional comic and he had a set to perform that night. It was a fluke to be there. So knowing my friend would like an image of his buddy I took one from the stage. That's when the young Canon totting monopod using kid tapped me on the shoulder and the following conversation ensued

"Who are you shooting for?"
"Me"
"There's no shooting in the theater"
"Right" as I pointed to the zoom at the end of his camera and sat down.

Meanwhile the "house pro" is meandering around the theater all night long being the consummate professional shooting from all angles and "protecting" his territory when he needs to. I had to laugh and scream at the same time. Look guy if management doesn't support your back by warning me with well placed signs or security dialog (while the camera bag is obviously hanging from my side) and you make a claim to "inalienable" rights as the "house" photographer I am going to consider your words "irrelevant". How do I know you aren't blowing smoke up my ass like a good APPWIR? (arrogant photo prick with inalienable rights) and you're lucky you didn't make that call on the street or I would have taken your monopod and used your camera for sidewalk demolition ;i.e. don't be a petty jerk about it mate. If you have an issue get management to do the talking for you or wear an official designation or police the entrance for photographers in advance.

OK now it's your turn to tell me I am full of crap I have no rights with or without a camera in a house where the rules of such engagement are not posted anywhere or mentioned by the ticket seller or ticket taker who was acting as door security.

I don't know about your "rights", it seems like the theater wasn't interested in enforcing a no camera policy. Although if you had busted out a flash things might have been different.

That said, I think you need to deal with your deeper anger issues...

jetcode wrote in post #14862035
you're lucky you didn't make that call on the street or I would have taken your monopod and used your camera for sidewalk demolition

mbellot wrote in post #14862172
That said, I think you need to deal with your deeper anger issues...

That is why he went to the comedy show, to get some laughter in, and anger out...

I believe, posted or not, you were on private property, and if an agent of the theater tells you no photos, then it's no photos. Whether or not the house photographer has the authority to tell you that is unknown. But, why be a prick about it? He obviously has been granted permission to take the photos, where you were assuming the right to take photos. Private property with public access does not mean everyone has the right to photograph there, posted or not.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

KirkS518 wrote in post #14862543
Private property with public access does not mean everyone has the right to photograph there, posted or not.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

The only thing I wouldn't be sure about is that often the purchase of a ticket to an event allows the holder to some rights to photograph depending on venue restrictions of camera size and such. Just a thought that crossed my mind. When I go to public place with my big camera I always check the fine print to avoid the hassle. usually its just no commercial use or something similar.

jetcode wrote in post #14862035
Generally people post here about their rights as photographers being taken away by some authority figure. I had the opposite happen and I knew in advance what I was getting in to. Saw a comedy show at a local playhouse last night and rather than leave really expensive gear in the car I brought it into the theater. I knew there was most likely a restriction on taking images. Bought the ticket and passed security without a mention. Not even a word. No signs banning photography. I wasn't there to take photos I was there to help a friend lift his spirits. It turns out he has a high school buddy who is a professional comic and he had a set to perform that night. It was a fluke to be there. So knowing my friend would like an image of his buddy I took one from the stage. That's when the young Canon totting monopod using kid tapped me on the shoulder and the following conversation ensued

"Who are you shooting for?"
"Me"
"There's no shooting in the theater"
"Right" as I pointed to the zoom at the end of his camera and sat down.

Meanwhile the "house pro" is meandering around the theater all night long being the consummate professional shooting from all angles and "protecting" his territory when he needs to. I had to laugh and scream at the same time. Look guy if management doesn't support your back by warning me with well placed signs or security dialog (while the camera bag is obviously hanging from my side) and you make a claim to "inalienable" rights as the "house" photographer I am going to consider your words "irrelevant". How do I know you aren't blowing smoke up my ass like a good APPWIR? (arrogant photo prick with inalienable rights) and you're lucky you didn't make that call on the street or I would have taken your monopod and used your camera for sidewalk demolition ;i.e. don't be a petty jerk about it mate. If you have an issue get management to do the talking for you or wear an official designation or police the entrance for photographers in advance.

OK now it's your turn to tell me I am full of crap I have no rights with or without a camera in a house where the rules of such engagement are not posted anywhere or mentioned by the ticket seller or ticket taker who was acting as door security.

I agree with the other poster, sounds like you have deep seated anger management issues.
Sure, they didn't post signs or anything but that incident would not have me wanting to bash or demolish the "Canon totting monopod arrogant prick" with "rules of engagement".

I've gotten to the point where I don't want to deal with a camera in public. And shooting a show is so pedestrian. Anger issues? Wait until you have 35 years of clients and general malfeasance under your belt and get back to me about anger issues. After awhile being nice simply isn't an option. Not that you run around looking for a fight. Damaging gear? No, however there is some utility in releasing attachment by destroying the item in question. Mostly I would inform the guy how to cordially inform an amateur about house policy without being an emotional bully about it. Did he actually think I was a pro who wouldn't contact the house for permission to shoot? But it beats me why management didn't say a word and the ticket stub had nothing concerning the use of cameras. Other people took pictures too. Where was the bulldog then? Perhaps the line is the difference between using an iphone and a real camera. I certainly wasn't there to shoot the show. What a waste of time.

jetcode wrote in post #14862819
? Perhaps the line is the difference between using an iphone and a real camera.

But since the iPhone has been used to take professional photographs and used at the prestigious Olympics should it not also too be banned? I can agree how it is frustrating that in the rules of photography-taking, size matters for some reason. Had it been a P&S it wouldn't have been an issue I'd imagine.

jetcode wrote in post #14862819
Anger issues? Wait until you have 35 years of clients and general malfeasance under your belt and get back to me about anger issues. After awhile being nice simply isn't an option. Not that you run around looking for a fight. Damaging gear? No, however there is some utility in releasing attachment by destroying the item in question.

Okay ....
get that iPhone, it may help with those non-anger issues

The show was good by the way and likely what flipped the switch is a mere 10 minutes earlier I was holding court with Robin Williams, Geoff Bolt, and a friend who is a high school buddy of Geoff's near the back stage door. Geoff was on next. It was a thrill to shake hands with Robin and listen to him. Geoff is buds with Robin and a top shelf comedian. He had a role in Mrs Doubtfire. Then I get the dump for taking a shot of Geoff on stage for my buddy. Oh well.

I think the bottom line is I don't believe in territorial photography in public. I showed a couple a common spot to catch the lighthouse in the headlands. Shot a million times. I walk down to where they are and set up a few feet away and got the lecture: hey that's my shot you can't shoot here and he was sporting a P&S. Since the shot was basically average I opted to take some photos of them for their travels. He acted like he walked away with gold. Hard to believe. The sheer infiltration of photographers in the world has brought the territorial to the surface in many instances. I feel that there is plenty of room for everyone but of course I am not trying to corner a market.

I agree with you jetcode about photography in public (and the laws agree as well), but, the laws are also very clear about photography on private property, of which the theater was. House gets to make the call, and that's what the law says. Again, whether or not Mr. House Pro had the authority to make that call is undetermined, but, if he did identify himself as an agent of the venue, then the best you could have done was questioned him about the others taking photos, or ask to see the manager. In reality, it sucks, but you can't take pictures on private property without consent, even if it is open to the public. Not having signs doesn't automatically give permission, whereas being told not to simply removes all doubt.

KirkS518 wrote in post #14864485
Not having signs doesn't automatically give permission, whereas being told not to simply removes all doubt.

But the manner in which one is told is kind of important from a customer service standpoint, I'm willing to roll with private property rules (typically won't patronize those I don't agree with free market and all), and in a situation where some bigger names roll through the club and their performance is their livelyhood, I can respect the want for image control.

But who and how I'm told that that's not going to be allowed is going to go a long way towards how I feel about the business. It's one thing for a manger to tap me on the shoulder, and say "excuse me we don't allow photographs, if you'd like and explanation we can step into the lobby or along those lines, if you step out the house manager can provide you with our policy or some such, vs someone being territorial, telling you your in the wrong, while they do the exact same thing without having identified themselves.

Clearly the way this other photographer acted, ruined a fun night, and left a sour taste in the OPs mouth about the club, what's that do for repeat business, is that something if you were the manager you'd want the employee interactions to be reflecting? Regardless I'd notify a manager, perhaps even after the fact in writing when it's easier to be a little calmer about it. And if the concern isn't at least addressed (put up signs mention it on the way in, in announcement on nights it's a request of the acts, have management talk to the photographer about the appropriate manner to address people with cameras, etc) then I'd consider looking at other businesses that will be cordial in enforcing policies specific to their establishment.

And if the other photographer was being as rude as the OP makes him out to be, there's a part of me that depending on which camera body was in use, may say "ok" and just switch to video mode; not that I recommend going that route of course.