Punters with big lenses at MotoGP.

Gavin, I shoot from the other side of the fence - a full time event photographer who's primary customer is the event participant (or their parents). Because of this I wholly support the stance of the event organiser in the instance raised to start this thread.. Which is why I queried Cosworths viewpoint, its my livelihood and I do want it protected. You cannot go to an event and set up your own BBQ next to the hotdog vendor, so why cant the humble tog have the same protection?

Yes I do sell to magazines, but usually when they approach me having seen an image on my website and its because a staffer hasnt been sent or they havent got an image that I have. My personal opinion is that we can co-exist, your market isnt mine and most sports togs arent interested in onsite printing, websales and everything else that goes with my line of work.

Just my opinion

I'd agree with that Gary. There is frequently very little crossover.

On a side note (and hoping not to get too far off topic), I think the only time that I would have a difficulty is if the event in question had significant news interest and publications were not able to apply for accreditation for their photographic representatives - i.e. they were blocked by the organisers at the behest of the official event photographer.

I have come across this scenario on at least one occasion this year - it didn't bother me as I had alternative assignments to cover... but it did frustrate the publication in question because they couldn't get the images they actually wanted. Publications will work with particular togs because the tog understands the 'style' of image required. It may not be possible to get the same result from an unknown party - even if they are supplied free as part of the event photographer's deal with the organiser.

In the OP's case, the restrictions are pretty standard and are usually in place to stop large lenses becoming a nuisance in spectator areas as well as to provide some control over image licencing/usage.

At a large event, accredited photographers will frequently have to sign an agreement that they can only provide images to the publication that requested their accreditation. This is certainly true at all English Professional Football League/Premiership matches. This obviously removes 'on spec' submissions from the equation by default. An accredited tog that submits 'on spec' is effectively breaking the agreement and could be denied entry in future. Clearly if a spectator submits images 'on spec', ethical publications will not use the images as they will know they have not been taken 'legitimately'.

This agreement may also detail many other limitations in usage, even to the point of how many images can be used on a 'live feed' website over a specified time period.

I'm not saying that I agree with all of the restrictions... but it is the reality of the situation, and understanding/working ethically within the restrictions is part and parcel of a working tog's lot nowadays. Therefore there will inevitably be (seemingly) draconian equipment restrictions in the spectator areas.

Enough waffling from me

EDIT: I'll waffle a bit more. I'm not sure if anyone here applied for accreditation for the London Marathon this year, but as part of the accreditation agreement, accredited photographers could be asked to provide all their images free of charge to the organisers for unlimited usage Jubbly. I, for one, didn't apply and neither did my publication.

---- Gavin