Photographers rights....

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.

The exceptions to the 4th amendment were spelled out by the Supreme court for law enforcement and school officials. The Supreme Court has also long held a lesser standard for Citizens then they hold for law enforcement. If an LEO walks into your residence without a search warrant and conducts a search, baring one of the exceptions previously listed, any evidence found by them would not be admissible in court.

If some citizen, on their own and not at the direction of any LEO or agency did the same thing, any evidence they found and seized would be admissible. It only becomes inadmissible if they are working at the direction of Law Enforcement.

The purveyors of the event do not have to be the owners. If they have leased the venue it is no different than you renting a hotel room. That space becomes yours for the time and terms of the lease or rental. It is their space and they control it, just as you have a right to privacy with that hotel room you rented until that lease or rental expires.

The bottom line is; It was and continues to be private property and they have the right to set the rules for that space. Don't want to give up your gear, get out of line and take it back to YOUR vehicle where you do have an expectation of privacy. Laziness is not an excuse under the law.

I noticed you forgot the blowup doll and lube. What happened to her or him?:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 
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 chased 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.

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.
 
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 chased 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.

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!
 
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.

Well then, if you are a male go to Curves, a business established for women to join and work out and see if they will allow you to join and work out there.

The issue of Civil right is a far more complicated issue and your equation does not apply.
 
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.

The exceptions to the 4th amendment were spelled out by the Supreme court for law enforcement and school officials. The Supreme Court has also long held a lesser standard for Citizens then they hold for law enforcement. If an LEO walks into your residence without a search warrant and conducts a search, baring one of the exceptions previously listed, any evidence found by them would not be admissible in court.

If some citizen, on their own and not at the direction of any LEO or agency did the same thing, any evidence they found and seized would be admissible. It only becomes inadmissible if they are working at the direction of Law Enforcement.

The purveyors of the event do not have to be the owners. If they have leased the venue it is no different than you renting a hotel room. That space becomes yours for the time and terms of the lease or rental. It is their space and they control it, just as you have a right to privacy with that hotel room you rented until that lease or rental expires.

The bottom line is; It was and continues to be private property and they have the right to set the rules for that space. Don't want to give up your gear, get out of line and take it back to YOUR vehicle where you do have an expectation of privacy. Laziness is not an excuse under the law.

I noticed you forgot the blowup doll and lube. What happened to her or him?:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Let me get this straight. You're defending the right of a business owner to prohibit me from taking my camera into his establishment but you're defending someone that wants to illegally enter my residence to search for evidence of a crime. Wow.
 
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.

:thumbup:

The laws are kept extremely complicated and full of loopholes because they are written mostly by lawyers and, I suspect, it's a great way to keep lawyers working and getting rich. And Joe Blow is scared of the law because he doesn't know jack sh•t about it.

I cannot tell you the number of people I've seen give the police the right to search their cars or their person and get arrested for having some illegal substance when the police would never have gotten a search warrant.

The legal system as we know it (and that is true just about every country I've been) has much less to do with actual laws as it has to do with who has the best lawyer. Which could be translated by "who has the most money."


To get back to the original post, the most often used excuse to stop SLRs from entering concert venues is "no pro photo" and that is 100% BS.

1/ if they are media photographers present, they is pro photo going on.

2/ as we well know on this site, the gear does not make a pro.

And I will repeat, if someone wants to put his money up to fight this way of doing things, it will not stand.
 
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.

The exceptions to the 4th amendment were spelled out by the Supreme court for law enforcement and school officials. The Supreme Court has also long held a lesser standard for Citizens then they hold for law enforcement. If an LEO walks into your residence without a search warrant and conducts a search, baring one of the exceptions previously listed, any evidence found by them would not be admissible in court.

If some citizen, on their own and not at the direction of any LEO or agency did the same thing, any evidence they found and seized would be admissible. It only becomes inadmissible if they are working at the direction of Law Enforcement.

The purveyors of the event do not have to be the owners. If they have leased the venue it is no different than you renting a hotel room. That space becomes yours for the time and terms of the lease or rental. It is their space and they control it, just as you have a right to privacy with that hotel room you rented until that lease or rental expires.

The bottom line is; It was and continues to be private property and they have the right to set the rules for that space. Don't want to give up your gear, get out of line and take it back to YOUR vehicle where you do have an expectation of privacy. Laziness is not an excuse under the law.

I noticed you forgot the blowup doll and lube. What happened to her or him?:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Let me get this straight. You're defending the right of a business owner to prohibit me from taking my camera into his establishment but you're defending someone that wants to illegally enter my residence to search for evidence of a crime. Wow.

No, I'm telling you what the courts have up held. As a LEO I detest the idea of someone doing what was described. Frankly, to do so, it usually means that they have committed a crime as well, and if they have then they need to be punished as well for their transgression. But the commission of that crime on their part will not negate the use of the evidence they have discovered.

To put it in very simple terms. The Courts have given the average citizen more leeway based on their lack of knowledge than they do the average LEO.




Or as the wonderful line from the Air Section Lt. to the new officer pilot in the move Blue Thunder said after they got caught and reported for watching the nude woman exercise through her window. "As a rookie I expect you to be stupid.... but don't abuse the privilege.":lmao:
 
Last edited:
The exceptions to the 4th amendment were spelled out by the Supreme court for law enforcement and school officials. The Supreme Court has also long held a lesser standard for Citizens then they hold for law enforcement. If an LEO walks into your residence without a search warrant and conducts a search, baring one of the exceptions previously listed, any evidence found by them would not be admissible in court.

If some citizen, on their own and not at the direction of any LEO or agency did the same thing, any evidence they found and seized would be admissible. It only becomes inadmissible if they are working at the direction of Law Enforcement.

The purveyors of the event do not have to be the owners. If they have leased the venue it is no different than you renting a hotel room. That space becomes yours for the time and terms of the lease or rental. It is their space and they control it, just as you have a right to privacy with that hotel room you rented until that lease or rental expires.

The bottom line is; It was and continues to be private property and they have the right to set the rules for that space. Don't want to give up your gear, get out of line and take it back to YOUR vehicle where you do have an expectation of privacy. Laziness is not an excuse under the law.

I noticed you forgot the blowup doll and lube. What happened to her or him?:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Let me get this straight. You're defending the right of a business owner to prohibit me from taking my camera into his establishment but you're defending someone that wants to illegally enter my residence to search for evidence of a crime. Wow.

No, I'm telling you what the courts have up held. As a LEO I detest the idea of someone doing what was described. Frankly, to do so, it usually means that they have committed a crime as well, and if they have then they need to be punished as well for their transgression. But the commission of that crime on their part will not negate the use of the evidence they have discovered.

To put it in very simple terms. The Courts have given the average citizen more leeway based on their lack of knowledge than they do the average LEO.




Or as the wonderful line from the Air Section Lt. to the new officer pilot in the move Blue Thunder said after they got caught and reported for watching the nude woman exercise through her window. "As a rookie I expect you to be stupid.... but don't abuse the privilege.":lmao:

I appreciate where you're coming from now. I was on the local Board of Ed quite a few years ago. Although we didn't have quite as much latitude as private citizens, we did have more than the local LEOs (we called them
"cops" in those days). Whenever we had a suspicion regarding drugs or weapons or any other similarly illegal items, we'd search the student's locker BEFORE contacting any law enforcement personnel. That would ensure that there couldn't be a claim that we working on their behalf.
 
Let me get this straight. You're defending the right of a business owner to prohibit me from taking my camera into his establishment but you're defending someone that wants to illegally enter my residence to search for evidence of a crime. Wow.

No, I'm telling you what the courts have up held. As a LEO I detest the idea of someone doing what was described. Frankly, to do so, it usually means that they have committed a crime as well, and if they have then they need to be punished as well for their transgression. But the commission of that crime on their part will not negate the use of the evidence they have discovered.

To put it in very simple terms. The Courts have given the average citizen more leeway based on their lack of knowledge than they do the average LEO.




Or as the wonderful line from the Air Section Lt. to the new officer pilot in the move Blue Thunder said after they got caught and reported for watching the nude woman exercise through her window. "As a rookie I expect you to be stupid.... but don't abuse the privilege.":lmao:

I appreciate where you're coming from now. I was on the local Board of Ed quite a few years ago. Although we didn't have quite as much latitude as private citizens, we did have more than the local LEOs (we called them
"cops" in those days). Whenever we had a suspicion regarding drugs or weapons or any other similarly illegal items, we'd search the student's locker BEFORE contacting any law enforcement personnel. That would ensure that there couldn't be a claim that we working on their behalf.


I'm afraid that that has been curtailed by the courts lately for that exact reason. The school personal know this and do this all the time. The courts still allow more latitude, but they now need reasonable suspicion instead of a mere hunch to conduct that search.
 
You are no longer permitted to prohibit whatever person you want from your public business establishment.
I can refuse service to anyone. I can not refuse service on the basis of sex or race or lifestyle choice. However if a drunk wanders into a bar are you telling me the owner can not refuse to serve the man and ask him to leave? Ha.

As to the concert photography issue, folks stop being dense. Private venues can and will be allowed to set conditions for entry into an event. YOU may not have noticed it on your ticket or displayed when/where you were buying your ticket, however I am certain the restricitons were in place. Of course a concert act can choose to work with the owners of the venue and amend policies, but that doesn't mean they have to.

Well then, if you are a male go to Curves, a business established for women to join and work out and see if they will allow you to join and work out there.

Men can actually join Curves. Why you would want to - I have no idea.
 
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 chased 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.

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?
 
You are no longer permitted to prohibit whatever person you want from your public business establishment.
I can refuse service to anyone. I can not refuse service on the basis of sex or race or lifestyle choice. However if a drunk wanders into a bar are you telling me the owner can not refuse to serve the man and ask him to leave? Ha.

As to the concert photography issue, folks stop being dense. Private venues can and will be allowed to set conditions for entry into an event. YOU may not have noticed it on your ticket or displayed when/where you were buying your ticket, however I am certain the restricitons were in place. Of course a concert act can choose to work with the owners of the venue and amend policies, but that doesn't mean they have to.

Well then, if you are a male go to Curves, a business established for women to join and work out and see if they will allow you to join and work out there.
Men can actually join Curves. Why you would want to - I have no idea.


In this area they can not. It is a womens only facility. I know this cause the wife used to belong to curves. I got her a Wii and now she works out with it and gets a better workout. Or so she says.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know there are only a few states in the United States that allow businesses to openly restrict access based on gender to certain facilities. I'm guessing you live in a state that does.
 
Geez, guys. :lol:

Gryph has the right of it. This particular scenario is totally as it should have been. Annoying as hell, but a private establishment has every right to ban you from bringing in whatever kind of camera they like at their sole discretion. They can also ban you from taking pictures entirely, and you are absolutely required to comply.

That being said...

- At no time are you required to delete pictures off a camera that you took.
- At no time are you required to relinquish your gear.

They are certainly welcome to attempt to sue you for taking pictures you were not supposed to take, and they can certainly bar your access to the facility if you insist upon bringing in your camera, but that's about the extent of it.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top