Photographer's rights - another double whammy

[dhbebb]

<p>http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/anger-as-photographers-and-journalists-told-to-pay-100-to-cover-notting-hill-carnival-59392#cQhDp7wGvauhZwbD.99<br>

Organisers of the London Notting Hill Carnival (held on public streets) are asking photogs for a £100 fee for admittance to "press" areas (also on public streets) and a "press tower." They are also requiring photogs to provide them with copies of their material for free use in promoting the carnival. Pro photography bodies seem to be fairly determined to slap this "request" down.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>What relevance does this have to photographer's rights? What right do photographers have to be granted special access privileges superior to others at a private event? What right do they have to do so for free? What right is there even to be allowed to bring a camera to a private event?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>If I understand the article correctly, then the easy solution is to not use the special press areas to avoid paying the fee. What is weird though is that those who choose to pay the fee are expected to share their images for free - seems to go a bit far.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em> private event</em><br>

The Notting Hill Carnival could not be LESS private - it is a huge public event held on London streets to which access by the public cannot be denied. </p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Not really surprising is it? Just the next step down the slippery slope.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>It seems clear that anyone- amateur or professional- can access the carnival and take pictures from publicly accessible areas, and its only the use of areas designated "press" that attract a fee and a demand to share /use the photographers work. <br>

The only thing I'd consider unreasonable is if the organisers are allowed to appropriate areas normally considered public and use them for their own private purposes whilst denying access to the public at large. I don't know whether the press areas are on public or private land. So I don't know whether there is an issue here or not. <br>

Don't know how organisers would know whether they've been given sight of paying photographers' total outputs anyway. I imagine there'll be a lot of lip service being paid there. </p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's not at all unusual for private events to assume control over usually public spaces. That's why private event-holders end up having to foot the bill for trash cleanup, extra power/utilities, sanitation, extra police, and for what can be very substantial permitting fees negotiated months and sometimes years in advance. This happens at the scale of small park picnic pavilions (it's public unless someone has made arrangements to use it privately for a group), up to entire major thoroughfares going through capital cities. Depending on the venue, control over what happens in that space when it's private <em>for the day</em> is to be expected. One of the reasons you might choose to attend such an event is because there's the very reasonable expectation that the event hosts/sponsors will be taking steps to make sure some things that normally occur in public <em>don't occur</em> in the middle of the event.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>OK, for the sake of discussion, lets frame the questions in terms of it being a public event...<br /><br />What relevance does this have to photographer's rights? What right do photographers have to be granted special <a id="itxthook1" href="/business-photography-forum/00dSqw?unified_p=1" rel="nofollow">access<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> privileges superior to others an event? Any event. What right do they have to be granted special access superior to others for free?</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Not being located or working in Great Britain I have no idea of what kind of rights anyone has in a public space. From the

outside this seems like either:

 

An attempt to control paparazzo, who in the UK attend anything a celebrity attends like a horde of locusts descending on

a wheat field.

 

Or...

 

an attempt by the organizers to control how their event is publicized, which in the age of cameras with high quality phones

seems silly.

 

Or...

 

Perhaps they have cut a deal with Getty or another press agency, and while they can't keep others out they can make

harder on them to work.

[dhbebb]

<p>@Ellis: The Notting Hill Carnival parade consists of normal people., mainly residents of the area, who ar members of carnival clubs and work for a long time to build their floats, costumes etc. The parade does not feature celebrities - these, if present, will be among the spectators. <br>

As I understand the law, event organisers can submit plans for their event which may call for public roads to be closed to vehicular traffic and for barriers to be erected in the interests of public safety. I am virtually certain that it is not legal to arbitrarily fence off parts of the public highway simply so that you can charge money for people to enter these.<br>

The second concern is the rights grab, which is just a plain old-fashioned rip-off.<br>

As far as I am aware, photographers have traditionally checked out the carnival route in advance, identified good vantage points and made arrangements with people living in upper-floor apartments to be allowed in to photograph from these, possibly with payment in cash, pizza or beer. It is true that events like this are costly, but I think attempts by the organisers to charge fees in this way are ham-fisted and counterproductive. If I were covering this event, I would make a point of doing a deal with an apartment tenant and not giving the organisers a cent.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> I am virtually certain that it is not legal to arbitrarily fence off parts of the public highway simply so that you can charge money for people to enter these.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It would be worth checking the laws. It's certainly possible here in the States, not that it means anything for the UK, but our laws often follow UK laws. We have street events where you have to pay just to get onto the street (unless your ID says you live there) and photographers cannot just climb onto judging stands and into VIP areas, etc.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>photographers cannot just climb onto judging stands and into VIP areas, etc.</em><br>

I'd consider that pretty normal, since the organiser is providing a service which clearly costs money and needs to be paid for. It would be equally absurd for people to claim the right to enter fast-food trucks etc. just because they are on the public highway. The possibility of checking ID does not exist in the UK because we do not have identity cards and do not use driver' s licenses for this purpose as you do in the US</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>As I understand the law, event organisers can submit plans for their event which may call for public roads to be closed to vehicular traffic and for barriers to be erected in the interests of public safety. I am virtually certain that it is not legal to arbitrarily fence off parts of the public highway simply so that you can charge money for people to enter these.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure how the second sentence reconciles with the first since the latter concerns arbitrary closures when the former has already established that it is not an arbitrary closure. I don't know if other vendors or parties are charged a fee for anything or if that is allowed but we really haven't explained,here, why it wouldn't be. We haven't seen anything as to photographer's rights per se even though the thread title indicates there are two of them being denied. Rather, it is an issue of whether ANYONE can be charged for access.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>In any event, the actual point here seems to be a complaint about a phenomenon that is occurring in the modern photography market. I understand why it is undesired but this really seems an issue of the free market at work, not some restriction of the right to photograph or conduct photography as a enterprise.</p>