Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Links and Resources
A Ban on Photography
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Aug 15, 2017 07:40:06   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Going to a concert in LA? Leave your camera home.

http://www.diyphotography.net/los-angeles-bans-photography-concerts-public-park/

Reply
Aug 15, 2017 09:54:50   #
Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA
 
I wonder if that includes cell phones??

Reply
Aug 15, 2017 09:55:12   #
Spider223
 
Reading the comments is scary. Quite a few people thinking its fine to curtail legal photography.... One chip at a time, till it's all gone.....

Reply
 
 
Aug 15, 2017 10:20:54   #
blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire
 
Its crazy. I was stopped at a Beach Boys concert because I had a "Professional" Camera. Yet everyone with a cell phone was allowed to take photos. I totally understand the ban on flash photography as that would be distracting to the performers. With stage lighting and modern cameras you really do not need or want a flash. What is more distracting the glow of all those cell phones or the "Pro" camera that shoots without flash and no large glow. What are the performers afraid of? People who are posting on facebook or similar site are giving them free advertisement...

Reply
Aug 15, 2017 10:58:29   #
erinjay64
 
Who the F wants to shoot photos at concerts? Over lit images of the backs of the heads of the people in front of you? Tiny, under lit, images of distant performers who can't be recognized? What is the point? If I wanted concert photos, I would take my Press Pass, and arrange to get on stage / back stage access, and permission over which no ban would have power.

Reply
Aug 15, 2017 11:01:45   #
erinjay64
 
Basically, performers own a Copyright on their images...of their faces, instruments, etc. If they do not defend that Copyright-if they let anyone, and everyone photograph them-they lose the copyright. Then, they won't get paid big money to be photographed by pros to endorse: food, candy, beer, clothes, cars, etc.

Reply
Aug 15, 2017 11:18:23   #
Spider223
 
erinjay64 wrote:
Basically, performers own a Copyright on their images...of their faces, instruments, etc. If they do not defend that Copyright-if they let anyone, and everyone photograph them-they lose the copyright. Then, they won't get paid big money to be photographed by pros to endorse: food, candy, beer, clothes, cars, etc.


Then they shouldn't give a free performance in a public park. No different if they were walking down the street and someone took their photo.

Reply
 
 
Aug 15, 2017 11:23:17   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
erinjay64 wrote:
Basically, performers own a Copyright on their images...of their faces, instruments, etc. If they do not defend that Copyright-if they let anyone, and everyone photograph them-they lose the copyright. Then, they won't get paid big money to be photographed by pros to endorse: food, candy, beer, clothes, cars, etc.


Not when they are in public. Otherwise, the tabloids wouldn't be able to publish all their celebrity photos. You can't use photos of celebrities commercially, that is for advertising, but when they are in public they are fair game for photos.

Reply
Aug 15, 2017 11:27:07   #
blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire
 
erinjay64 wrote:
Who the F wants to shoot photos at concerts? Over lit images of the backs of the heads of the people in front of you? Tiny, under lit, images of distant performers who can't be recognized? What is the point? If I wanted concert photos, I would take my Press Pass, and arrange to get on stage / back stage access, and permission over which no ban would have power.



Reply
Aug 16, 2017 06:57:02   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Tom Daniels wrote:
I wonder if that includes cell phones??


It includes photography - period. It's in a public place!!! Nasty, nasty!

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 09:04:45   #
jmvaugh Loc: Albuquerque
 
I wonder how in heavens name they can enforce it? Sure for a DSLR or mirrorless maybe but it's pretty tough to stop someone in a crowd shooting rather crappy video on their smartphone.

Geez, this might be one of the first times in recorded history I support the ACLU. Whoddah thunk it. 😁

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2017 09:07:34   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
jmvaugh wrote:
I wonder how in heavens name they can enforce it? Sure for a DSLR or mirrorless maybe but it's pretty tough to stop someone in a crowd shooting rather crappy video on their smartphone.

Geez, this might be one of the first times in recorded history I support the ACLU. Whoddah thunk it. 😁


Enforcement in a big crowd could be difficult, but they have a contract with the performers, and that's significant. It was a really bad idea.

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 10:43:11   #
cessnalvr Loc: West virginia
 
This is going to get me hate remarks but seems all the stupid stuff seems to originate in california. And the rest of the country lets them get away with it

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 10:56:35   #
slo Loc: Longmont Colorado
 
I was in a local mall recently and was going to take a picture of the interesting ceiling beams with my little Fuji mirrorless. As soon as I got it out, an agitated mall cop rushed up to me and told me there was no professional photography in the mall without permission. I explained I was not a pro, just an enthusiast and I was not aware of that policy. I continued saying that I was not using the photos for commercial purposes. He started getting red in the face and got out his radio to call for backup. I put my camera away and asked him to explain the policy to me. He did, and I asked about cell phones, he said that was OK. He also said that if I had a person I was related to in the photos, that was OK. So apparently, one can use a 12MP cell phone to take pictures of the mall, but not a 12MP "real" camera, and I can take pictures of anything I want as long as my wife or daughter is in the picture. The whole thing made no sense.

Reply
Aug 16, 2017 10:59:10   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
slo wrote:
I was in a local mall recently and was going to take a picture of the interesting ceiling beams with my little Fuji mirrorless. As soon as I got it out, an agitated mall cop rushed up to me and told me there was no professional photography in the mall without permission. I explained I was not a pro, just an enthusiast and I was not aware of that policy. I continued saying that I was not using the photos for commercial purposes. He started getting red in the face and got out his radio to call for backup. I put my camera away and asked him to explain the policy to me. He did, and I asked about cell phones, he said that was OK. He also said that if I had a person I was related to in the photos, that was OK. So apparently, one can use a 12MP cell phone to take pictures of the mall, but not a 12MP "real" camera, and I can take pictures of anything I want as long as my wife or daughter is in the picture. The whole thing made no sense.
I was in a local mall recently and was going to ta... (show quote)


A mall is private property and they have every right to make their own rules, whether they make sense or not. This thread is about photograph on public property.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Links and Resources
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.