Photographers rights....

[musicaleCA]

Actually you can prohibit to serve any person you want. It can't be based on race or sex but you can refuse to serve them. Bars do it all the time, and I don't mean underage.

You've actually contradicted yourself within a single sentence!

Wow, I didn't realize I would have to spell it out for you. They can't look at someone and say "No, you can't come in here because you are a woman, man, black, white". They can say I'm sorry we are full, this is a private function or what have you. Do you understand now?

If doesn't matter what they said, or how they said it. What matters is the truth. Their intent is what matters. Discrimination is not a matter of someone saying "we're full" versus "get out, you're from Ohio", it's a matter of whether or not what was said in the former is true, or discriminatory.

And by the way, if by lifestyle choice you mean sexual orientation, it's not a protected class in most states. In fact, while US federal hate crimes law covers gender, race, etc., it does not cover sexual orientation. Only a handful of states have done that; the US is lagging far, far behind other developed nations in this regard. (Canada, for example, legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2005, and in 1995, sexual orientation was recognized as a prohibited basis of discrimination by the Supreme Court in the case Egan v. Canada.)

EDIT: Here manaheim, have a cookie, for putting those two points simply.

However, the promoters/purveyors didn't prevent photography at all. They tried to prevent "professional" photography, which is an untenable situation, since there's no bloody way to define it. A guy from Time could go in there with a Kodak P&S and take photos for print. Anyone with a chequebook can easily buy the same gear "pros" use.

Thank goodness Canadian law is simpler. WAY simpler. (You either say "No photography" or not. Period. Nothing else. As for professionals, recording industries here give them two minutes at the start of any set/show regardless of the no photography rule. After that, they're done.)

 

[CSR Studio]

You've actually contradicted yourself within a single sentence!

Wow, I didn't realize I would have to spell it out for you. They can't look at someone and say "No, you can't come in here because you are a woman, man, black, white". They can say I'm sorry we are full, this is a private function or what have you. Do you understand now?

If doesn't matter what they said, or how they said it. What matters is the truth. Their intent is what matters. Discrimination is not a matter of someone saying "we're full" versus "get out, you're from Ohio", it's a matter of whether or not what was said in the former is true, or discriminatory.

That is very true, however try to prove someone's intent.

 

[Nolan]

This is very useful thanks! I am now keeping a copy in my camera bag.

 

[musicaleCA]

Wow, I didn't realize I would have to spell it out for you. They can't look at someone and say "No, you can't come in here because you are a woman, man, black, white". They can say I'm sorry we are full, this is a private function or what have you. Do you understand now?

If doesn't matter what they said, or how they said it. What matters is the truth. Their intent is what matters. Discrimination is not a matter of someone saying "we're full" versus "get out, you're from Ohio", it's a matter of whether or not what was said in the former is true, or discriminatory.

That is very true, however try to prove someone's intent.

Difficult, but in the case of a place being full or not, it's very easy to determine the truth. Then you just build-up on the character of the person—are they generally discriminatory toward a particular group?—and you can reasonably conclude their intent.

But this is neither here nor there in this thread.

 

[dhilberg]

Most venues have a website that clearly states their policies. For example, a quick look at the Rose Quarter website spells out its policy for cameras and recording devices. Here's the link, but for those too lazy to click I'll copy and paste it here:

The Rose Quarter camera policy may change on an event by event basis, please check with the event details page for each event's specific camera policy. The general Rose Quarter Camera Policy is: Non-professional cameras (those without detachable lenses) are permitted in the arena for Rose Quarter concerts, as long as no flash is used. Professional photography & audio recording is prohibited. Video cameras are usually prohibited, unless prearranged before the event. If you have a digital camera, the same restrictions apply. If your digital camera has any video recording capabilities and there is a no video recording policy at the event, your camera will not be permitted in the building. The same policy applies to digital video cameras that can take still photos. In no instance may photography interfere with access ways, seats, aisles or other guests' enjoyment of the event. Tripods are strictly prohibited. Please check the event calendar on our website in advance to check each events policy, or check the policy signs when entering the building. For camera information for the Trail Blazers game, please check the Frequently Asked Questions page on Blazers.com.

With the proliferation of the Internet, ignorance is really no excuse. This took me all of about 60 seconds to find.

 

[musicaleCA]

With the proliferation of the Internet, ignorance is really no excuse. This took me all of about 60 seconds to find.

Unless the people running the event did actually drop the ball and not put-up the policy anywhere easily accessible, if at all. The fact that it's so ad-hoc and poorly thought-out (that is, not at all), makes me suspect this is the case. Only the OP can clear this up though.

 

[table1349]

With the proliferation of the Internet, ignorance is really no excuse. This took me all of about 60 seconds to find.

Unless the people running the event did actually drop the ball and not put-up the policy anywhere easily accessible, if at all. The fact that it's so ad-hoc and poorly thought-out (that is, not at all), makes me suspect this is the case. Only the OP can clear this up though.

I was looking around the internet, didin't come across the rules for people entering your property. Hmmmm.

The simple point is, it is their property, their venue, whether owned or leased. If they tell you at the gate you can't bring certain items in you can return them to your vehicle and leave them, leave it with them if that is an option or just leave all together. End of Story.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Most venues have a website that clearly states their policies. For example, a quick look at the Rose Quarter website spells out its policy for cameras and recording devices. Here's the link, but for those too lazy to click I'll copy and paste it here:

...

With the proliferation of the Internet, ignorance is really no excuse. This took me all of about 60 seconds to find.

Since when does anyone have to have the internet? There are still plenty of people who do not have it. Some do no want it.

 

[dhilberg]

Most venues have a website that clearly states their policies. For example, a quick look at the Rose Quarter website spells out its policy for cameras and recording devices. Here's the link, but for those too lazy to click I'll copy and paste it here:

...

With the proliferation of the Internet, ignorance is really no excuse. This took me all of about 60 seconds to find.

Since when does anyone have to have the internet? There are still plenty of people who do not have it. Some do no want it.

People aren't required to have Internet access, and no where in my post did I say they were, but thanks for implying. Internet access is very common, and is so common in fact that it's considered just another utility like power, water, or phone. Since nearly everyone in modern Western societies has either Internet access in their homes, access to it at work, or through a local library or school, it is assumed that would be the first place to go for more information.

While I don't know anyone like this, I'm sure there are a handful of people who choose not to have Internet access. Likewise, they are choosing to be uninformed and may just get themselves into situations as described by Harris. That's no one's fault but their own.

When I go to events like that, I automatically assume that SLR-type cameras are not allowed, but that's just my common sense.

At any rate, there's always a phone number to call to verify policies. Oh wait, this assumes everyone has a phone...

 

[musicaleCA]

Internet access is very common, and is so common in fact that it's considered just another utility like power, water, or phone.

Link? In which Western nations has Internet service become a utility? Internet access is still controlled by independent corporations, that simply pay for access to Tier 1 service providers. Methinks you are confused about what a utility is.

At any rate, the OP had the right to take photographs under their policy. He wasn't a professional. You see, if the policy stated that but left the definition of "professional" open to interpretation, the policy is unenforcible. And the situation reverts to what I said before; yes, they can bar you from access, but only with a full refund given the vagaries of their photography policy.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

People aren't required to have Internet access, and no where in my post did I say they were, but thanks for implying.

No you did not say it. But your post implies it. Not me.

 

[manaheim]

People aren't required to have Internet access, and no where in my post did I say they were, but thanks for implying. Internet access is very common, and is so common in fact that it's considered just another utility like power, water, or phone. Since nearly everyone in modern Western societies has either Internet access in their homes, access to it at work, or through a local library or school, it is assumed that would be the first place to go for more information.

[snip]

At any rate, there's always a phone number to call to verify policies. Oh wait, this assumes everyone has a phone...

You know, I was once rather shocked to discover that some parts of the US didn't have touch tone on their phone systems... this was actually not all that long ago.

I bet you would be quite amazed to know the kinds of things that people in our COUNTRY, let alone the world, do not have access to.

It's funny how spoiled we are... internet likened to running water. I say this seriously laughing, because I would basically saw my arm off before I bought a house where I couldn't get high speed internet. Sometimes I think our priorities are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of whack.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

People aren't required to have Internet access, and no where in my post did I say they were, but thanks for implying. Internet access is very common, and is so common in fact that it's considered just another utility like power, water, or phone. Since nearly everyone in modern Western societies has either Internet access in their homes, access to it at work, or through a local library or school, it is assumed that would be the first place to go for more information.

[snip]

At any rate, there's always a phone number to call to verify policies. Oh wait, this assumes everyone has a phone...

You know, I was once rather shocked to discover that some parts of the US didn't have touch tone on their phone systems... this was actually not all that long ago.

I bet you would be quite amazed to know the kinds of things that people in our COUNTRY, let alone the world, do not have access to.

It's funny how spoiled we are... internet likened to running water. I say this seriously laughing, because I would basically saw my arm off before I bought a house where I couldn't get high speed internet. Sometimes I think our priorities are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of whack.

Only three years ago, when I lived in the country the only internet I could get was dial-up. Since cable TV didn't reach my property, to have high speed internet I would have had to go with satellite service. Too expensive for my taste so I chose to have no internet.

Companies that post their policies only on the internet deserve to get sued one of these days by someone without access. How dare they assume that everyone has access?

 

[table1349]

Internet access is very common, and is so common in fact that it's considered just another utility like power, water, or phone.

Link? In which Western nations has Internet service become a utility? Internet access is still controlled by independent corporations, that simply pay for access to Tier 1 service providers. Methinks you are confused about what a utility is.

At any rate, the OP had the right to take photographs under their policy. He wasn't a professional. You see, if the policy stated that but left the definition of "professional" open to interpretation, the policy is unenforcible. And the situation reverts to what I said before; yes, they can bar you from access, but only with a full refund given the vagaries of their photography policy.

Find me anywhere in the Constitution that says the OP had the RIGHT to take photographs on private property in a private venue based on your interpretation of the word "Professional." There isn't even a standard accepted definition of what a Professional in photography is. There is no certifying state or national boards and no commonly accepted definition when it comes to Photography and Professional.

As for not being able to enforce their interpretation, again this is simple. This is private property and they make the rules. No where does Harris state in his post that their rule stated "Professional." Harris' post stated that they denied his taking it in because it had a detachable lens.

The only right your purchase of that ticket gave you was to SEE THE SHOW. That is what your purchase of that ticket was for. As for a full refund, that also is doubtful. If you get your Kodachrome all twisted up in a bunch because they won't let you take you camera in and you choose not to attend there is no expectation to a refund. They didn't deny you access to see the show, they just denied allowing you to take prohibited equipment into the venue. The only way you would have an expectation to a refund is if they denied you access period or cancelled the performance.

As for internet access, the courts have ruled that the internet is so widely available in this country that it is an accepted medium for the dissemination of information.

 

[manaheim]

^^^ and actually most of the tickets state pretty clearly that your right to see the show is really a privelledge, and one that can be revoked at any time at their sole discretion.