Photographers rights....

[c.cloudwalker]

When I came out I got even more pissed because when I was signing out my gear I found they had a detailed list of what was in my sealed bag?

I don't think they were being nosy, I think they did it to protect themselves from you. You gave them the bag to hold for you, and what would keep a person from coming back to get there bag and saying "Hey, there were 3 L-series lenses in here when I gave you the bag, someone here stole them. This place owes me $3000"

Not saying you would do it, but there are people out there who would.

Sorry but that does not make any sense unless the do the inventory in front of the owner.

 

[Plato]

When I came out I got even more pissed because when I was signing out my gear I found they had a detailed list of what was in my sealed bag?

I don't think they were being nosy, I think they did it to protect themselves from you. You gave them the bag to hold for you, and what would keep a person from coming back to get there bag and saying "Hey, there were 3 L-series lenses in here when I gave you the bag, someone here stole them. This place owes me $3000"

Not saying you would do it, but there are people out there who would.

Actually, I would think that they gave him a gold-plated opportunity to make such a claim. He never signed anything agreeing that their list accurately represented the contents of the bag. In fact, they opened his bag in his absence and without his permission.

 

[table1349]

When I came out I got even more pissed because when I was signing out my gear I found they had a detailed list of what was in my sealed bag?

I don't think they were being nosy, I think they did it to protect themselves from you. You gave them the bag to hold for you, and what would keep a person from coming back to get there bag and saying "Hey, there were 3 L-series lenses in here when I gave you the bag, someone here stole them. This place owes me $3000"

Not saying you would do it, but there are people out there who would.

Sorry but that does not make any sense unless the do the inventory in front of the owner.

I'm going to make the assumption here that you have never been arrested out of your vehicle and the vehicle was impounded. It's called an inventory search and it isn't done at with the arrested person present. It is a search allowed by law to protect the person taking custody of the property from false accusations. It's not the venues fault that people show up with stuff that they are not supposed to and they have no obligation to cater to those that show up with prohibited items.

Granted this was not an arrest situation, however the principle is the same. If you don't want to put forth the effort to take the stuff back to your vehicle that is your problem, not the venues. The easiest way to solve a lot of these problems would be if people used a little more commons sense in the first place.

When you purchase a ticket to a form of entertainment they are paying your money to go and watch that entertainment. Not take photographs, video recordings, audio recordings etc of that entertainment for later use. You wouldn't go to a an eating establishment with your pets and expect to get in. Or to a movie with a video camera and expect to be allowed to take it inside.

If you wish to step outside the normally understood bounds for things of this nature it is incumbent upon you to make the proper contacts before hand to request permission to do so and make the proper arrangements if a permission is granted. It is amazing what a little effort on your part can do before hand if you only try.

I have shot events that people just don't normally get to shoot because I did something that most people won't do. I asked before hand in a timely manner. Sometimes I get turned down. When that happens I go enjoy the show.

Common sense tells most people that when they are in your house they follow your rules. When you are in their house, why would you not expect to have to follow theirs?

The situation changes if someone puts a loaded gun to your head, but I have yet to have any form of entertainment ever do so and force me inside. :mrgreen:

 

[GeneralBenson]

I don'tthink confiscate is the right word. More likely is was, 'you can't take your camera in there. You can either leave it with us, or you can just leave.'

 

[musicaleCA]

I don'tthink confiscate is the right word. More likely is was, 'you can't take your camera in there. You can either leave it with us, or you can just leave.'

It is important to consider the conditions under which such a demand is made. If it is made in such a fashion that the person with the camera were under and duress, or perhaps intimidated by a guard, it would be confiscating, and not an act of free will on the person with the camera's part. Well, at least that's how it is up here.

If you want to get into the gritty details about this though, it's best to consult a lawyer in your state/province about local laws.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I'm going to make the assumption here that you have never been arrested out of your vehicle and the vehicle was impounded. It's called an inventory search and it isn't done at with the arrested person present. It is a search allowed by law to protect the person taking custody of the property from false accusations. It's not the venues fault that people show up with stuff that they are not supposed to and they have no obligation to cater to those that show up with prohibited items.

1/ The staff of the venue is not the police. That makes quite a difference.

2/ I have been arrested out of my vehicle and the police did not search my car. They did not have a search warrant and I didn't give them permission. I may not be a lawyer but I certainly talk to mine.

3/ What prohibited items? Did it say on the ticket that SLRs were not allowed?

 

[shed301]

3/ What prohibited items? Did it say on the ticket that SLRs were not allowed?

you know that is the million dollar question because if it said that and you were only allowed to take a p & s in the venue then you'd have a case to answer to.. if it had said that on the ticket then you'd be digging a much deeper hole. just my 10 cents worth

grant

 

[CSR Studio]

Doesn't matter if it said on the ticket or not. It is PRIVATE PROPERTY. I know a lot of you don't seem to like this answer but it is the truth. It is the same as a restaurant or bar refusing to serve someone. It is private property and they can refuse to let anyone enter that they want. You need to learn where you can and can't take cameras and where you may have problems. If it is private property find out before you go with your camera or be willing to leave or leave your equipment with them. Your choice.

 

[Actor]

I have a question regarding photographers rights - I don't mean to hijack this thread, so if this offends the OP, I will move it.

I recently went to a concert (here in TX), and they confiscated my camera(and all gear) at the front door, they said it was because it had detachable a lens; yet allowed P & S cameras? Although I was upset I gave up my bag, and went into the venue. When I came out I got even more pissed because when I was signing out my gear I found they had a detailed list of what was in my sealed bag?

So here's my question, do venues have the right to discriminate as to what type of cameras they allow in?

1. I never take a camera to a concert. I automatically assume that they don't want you taking pictures.
2. How can they tell if you're a pro? Assuming a detachable lens makes you a pro is one way. Tripods also can mark you as a pro, as can external light meters and camera bags. Any day now having a film camera instead of a digital will mark you as a pro, assuming they can tell the difference.
3. Since you had already surrendered your "sealed" bag, taking an inventory of the contents was reasonable just in case you claimed something was missing. They should have taken the inventory in your presence and had you sign it. Exactly how was it sealed?

My wife and I attended an Elvis Presley concert about 5 years before he died. Pursuant to #1 above I left my camera at home. Once inside they announced over the P.A. system that everyone was welcome to take pictures. Now the tell me. After Elvis died his estate tried to prevent commercial use of these fan pics.

Visitors to the U.S. capital building are not allowed to take pictures but they'll let you take your camera inside if you promise to keep your hands off the shutter. The guide pointed out that there are bullet holes in the ceiling of the house chamber, left by terrorists who were part of the Cuban assassination attempt on President Truman. I could not see the bullet holes so I attached my 300mm lens to my camera to get a better look. Shortly afterward I was approached by a guard who reminded me that photography was forbidden. I explained that I was only using the lens as a telescope and offered to let him see the pictures I had already taken. He said "No, thanks" and went on.

 

[table1349]

1/ The staff of the venue is not the police. That makes quite a difference.

It is THEIR property, not yours. When you get to the door if they have a policy that you don't like, or you don't want to leave your prohibited gear, check your coat and hat or what ever you don't like then turn your happy butt around and leave. In their house you play by their ground rules. By choosing to enter you have agreed to their rules. They are not going to leave their butts legally hanging out because of YOU. And if you choose not to follow their rules once inside they can kick you out.

2/ I have been arrested out of my vehicle and the police did not search my car. They did not have a search warrant and I didn't give them permission. I may not be a lawyer but I certainly talk to mine.

Your lawyer is not the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court long ago ruled that Inventory Searches are lawful when a something like a vehicle is being seized. Here are the exceptions to the 4th Amendment. Search and Seizure Guide

By the way, I'm no lawyer either, but with 27 years currently as a LEO I have dealt with a whole lot of them. They call it Practicing Law for a reason. If they had it right we wouldn't need as many as we have.

3/ What prohibited items? Did it say on the ticket that SLRs were not allowed?

Does someone have to tell you when to take a breath in and when to exhale? Do they need to put on the ticket that you can't bring in your illegal drugs, guns, bombs, pets, blowup dolls and lube, stereo systems, lazy boy recliners, fireworks, power tools, stove and food to make your own... etc...etc...etc??? You bought a ticket to see a show, what did you really expect you were there for???

 

[musicaleCA]

Illegal drugs, no, because they're illegal. Bombs, guns, fireworks, power tools, stove, and even a recliner, probably not, since those can pose a threat to people's safety and are either illegal or regulated already. As for stereos and, yeah, they probably should list that somewhere.

The kicker is whether or not the OP was told all this before-hand, at the time of purchase. Or at the very least pointed toward a list of prohibited items. Given that they were allowing P&S cameras, there's little reason for the OP to think that they wouldn't allow an SLR; they certainly weren't preventing photography at the concert.

Griffin, your link applies to searches conducted by officers of the law. It does not provide civilians who are not officers of the law to conduct any of the searches and seizures explained in the document. So again, it's a moot point. The people taking the gear are not police officers and don't have a right to force the OP to do so. And as I said, while they can refuse entry, they couldn't do so without offering a full refund of the ticket price, given that the OP was (I assume) not informed about their policy beforehand at the time of purchase.

There are other related questions that need to be answered, such as whether or not the purveyors of the concert were indeed the owners of the establishment at which the concert was being held, and whether or not the security guards who demanded forfeiture of the OP's gear were under said owner's employ.

The bottom line I'm trying to establish here is that security guards are not police officers, and hold none of the powers of arrest, search, and seizure that police officers do. And even so, police themselves are very much restricted in under what circumstances they may conduct a search without a warrant.

 

[Plato]

I read the "Search and Seizure Guide." Please advise exactly how it relates to the topic of discussion of this thread.

 

[CSR Studio]

It doesn't matter if they own the property. You and I both know that the talent has a contract with the venue and that covers what people can bring into the show. I understand that some of you don't like this answer but arguing about it won't change it. It is private property and they can prohibit whatever camera or person they want.

This is taken from the Photographer's Rights:

when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request​

 

[musicaleCA]

Yes, yes they can. But that's only part of the issue. The other part is whether or not the OP was told this beforehand. If not, it is not unreasonable for the OP to assume that they are allowed to take photos. And the OP happens to have a DSLR. Since the venue was permitting photography, it's doubtful that they told anyone that DSLRs were not allowed (or rather, cameras with detachable lenses; with the advent of the E-P1, this no longer means by default SLRs). In such a case, such terms are a posteriori, and the OP could reasonably demand a refund if they chose to leave.

I also agree that the inventory of the gear is an invasion of privacy (since they don't have rights to search it), and the inventory itself is invalid since the owner was not present. Having only one interested party present when such things are conducted (similar to a contract), is never good, and invalidates it.

 

[Plato]

It doesn't matter if they own the property. You and I both know that the talent has a contract with the venue and that covers what people can bring into the show. I understand that some of you don't like this answer but arguing about it won't change it. It is private property and they can prohibit whatever camera or person they want.

You and I both know that you're incorrect. This might be "private property" but it's also a public business establishment. I remember when a private property owner used an axe handle to chase customers out of his restaurant because they dared to show up in the wrong skin color. You are no longer permitted to prohibit whatever person you want from your public business establishment.