RCA takes stance against 'Amateur' photography on racecourses

[cambsno]

All well and good but at professional sports events/concerts etc. there's usually restrictions/bans on photography - respect that

But most of those would inconvenience other attendees. Imaging getting out a 200-500mm lens at a football match and concert where there is seating, getting in peoples way etc. But different to a race meeting.

What about Airshow a then. Very similar but full of amateurs with big lenses. But aware of any pro Airshow tots wanting dslr’s banned at Duxford.!!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

But aware of any pro Airshow tots wanting dslr’s banned at Duxford.!!

I was talking to a member of the Red Bull display team at the weekend and he said that the whole point of their participation was publicity. If the airshows banned amateurs with big cameras I don't think many of the teams would be happy.

 

[DemiLion]

These threads which set "pro" photographers against amateurs

Except it's not a pro v amateur thread. Some people are pushing that line to further their own agendas.

The ruling (when it was introduced) was aimed at a small, very specific, group of people.

 

[DemiLion]

But different to a race meeting.

Have you ever been to a large race meeting, like the Cheltenham Festival, Aintree or The Derby?

The spectators at a football match have acres of room compared to your average racing punter.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

If the 'enthusiast' is there taking shots for their own use, there's no problem. If they are there to upload 200 images to Flickr/Facebook and give them away for the sake of their own ego, there is.
It's a balanced and fair ruling.

Right, I'm not 'trolling' but i am now completely baffled by this thread!

The original post states that this is a good ruling that amateurs are excluded from taking DSLR's to racecourses and your second post is quoted above.

I don't understand what problem you have with an amateur giving away his photo's for free?

I attend many motor racing venues each year with my camera - I don't have access to many of the areas the proffesionals have but any photographs i take I always email the competitor with the images I have taken and tell them they are welcome to use them - I really don't have a problem with that and quite often we end up with a very pleasant email conversation which is why I enjoy photography as a hobby; why as a professional do you object to me enjoying my hobby in this way?

here is a link to some of the motorsport shots I have sent just to show I'm not trolling:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147585014@N03/albums/72157685677174954

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147585014@N03/albums/72157682097125740

 

[KIPAX]

Right, I'm not 'trolling' but i am now completely baffled by this thread!

The original post states that this is a good ruling that amateurs are excluded from taking DSLR's to racecourses and your second post is quoted above.

I don't understand what problem you have with an amateur giving away his photo's for free?

I attend many motor racing venues each year with my camera - I don't have access to many of the areas the proffesionals have but any photographs i take I always email the competitor with the images I have taken and tell them they are welcome to use them - I really don't have a problem with that and quite often we end up with a very pleasant email conversation which is why I enjoy photography as a hobby; why as a professional do you object to me enjoying my hobby in this way?

here is a link to some of the motorsport shots I have sent just to show I'm not trolling:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147585014@N03/albums/72157685677174954

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147585014@N03/albums/72157682097125740

You already know the answer.. your just looking for an argument..

 

[Twigman]

You already know the answer.. your just looking for an argument..

So what is the answer?
What problem is there with him giving his pics away?
I don't see why the pros should be protected either.

 

[gramps]

So what is the answer?
What problem is there with him giving his pics away?
I don't see why the pros should be protected either.

If it was a game then fair enough but it isn't, it's a living.
In the instance above the hobby photographer is actually sending photos to each competitor, offering them for free.
As oft argued, what is your job and how would you feel if someone offered to do your job for free, making you redundant?

 

[Fraser Euan White]

You already know the answer.. your just looking for an argument..

The OP has posted quite a controversial statement on a discussion forum - I don't want an argument just a discussion without people being rude - is that a big ask?

@gramps ; thanks for the reply. (I did think this is what the concern was but wasn't sure after some of the replies made.) I would hope that the professional photographer is able to take images that are far better than I can take; we often hear the argument 'It's not the equipment that makes a good photographer but the person behind the lens.'

I am a director of a motorsport business and I have invested close to £300K in specialist equipment, nothing stops a 'hobbyist or amateur' doing exactly what we do and their are no barriers to assist us - in fact quite the opposite as we have numerous overheads to pay so we will always be more expensive than someone 'working on their drive'. We have to show that we are more knowledgeable or better than them to 'sell our product'.

Photography is a hobby for me and it lets me meet and chat with people - it's not just the production of an image which is why I like it - it is a shame if the photo opportunities get harder and harder for enthusiasts IMO. Is it not a 'selfish attitude' when a professional photographer agrees with a ruling that reduces the photo opportunities for the majority just to make their job easier? Most other people refer this to being similar to a monopoly which is never a good thing?

Whilst I understand the Professional 'makes a living from it' surely if the market no longer exists then neither should the profession? (Not sure if this is a good example as I don't want to stir up Political tension from the early 80's but how many Coal miners are left in the UK?). We can not stop markets evolving so the professional IMO should either produce such a good product that people will still buy their images, evolve into a different branch of the profession or find something else to do - not rejoice in the fact it has limited the opportunities of hobbyists and made their own job easier? Then to add insult to injury post on a discussion forum about it and get upset when an amateur thinks the ruling is unfair and call them a 'troll' when say so much?

The Professional photographer (Jonathan Elsey) who follows our race series takes such superb images he still sells plenty to us and other race teams.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Whilst I understand the Professional 'makes a living from it' surely if the market no longer exists then neither should the profession?

I think the whole problem is one of expectations. Many amateurs go to events for the pleasure of coming home with pictures they can share with others. Working photographers go to events for the purpose of coming home with pictures they can sell. In the 1960s there was little if any conflict because prints and slides were generally too expensive to give away. The current situation is that pictures are all but costless so amateurs are happy to give them away. So the question becomes "does the world owe working photographers a living? That's the same question which confronts all digital based industries such as journalism and programming. The protectionist stance of the Racecourse Association is one answer but it will be interesting to see if this starts a trend or turns out to be a failure.

 

[gramps]

I am a director of a motorsport business and I have invested close to £300K in specialist equipment, nothing stops a 'hobbyist or amateur' doing exactly what we do and their are no barriers to assist us - in fact quite the opposite as we have numerous overheads to pay so we will always be more expensive than someone 'working on their drive'. We have to show that we are more knowledgeable or better than them to 'sell our product'.

If your 'market' was flooded with people doing what you do for free then I am sure you would see things differently.
True markets may rise and fall, as per your illustration of the coal industry. but as then not without a fight from those whose livelihood is threatened.

 

[mark.roper]

I wasn't going to jump into this as originally it was about horse racing and my own interest is motorsport, and a specific branch of it, but as someone else has raised the subject I'll dive in with my 2 cents ...

I attend many short oval motorsport meetings, stadiums such as Foxhall near Ipswich in Suffolk where I live, mostly to support family and friends who compete in various formula at these events. I take pictures and share them on social media, and I know a few other guys who do the same, one who takes a LOT more photos than me and is very good at what he does (I'd say he's a far better photographer than the "official" togs, I wouldn't say I am).

At all these events there are official togs, who take a load of photos and attempt to sell them from their websites, and one in particular who sells photos from a small shop on-site. My understanding is some, though not all, official togs see us "other side of the fence" amateurs as a risk to their business, for the reasons described in this thread, and I can't say I disagree with them, but the question remains, does the sport exist to provide the tog with a living, and if the tog went out of business because he / she couldn't compete with the amateur who gives away his efforts for free, who suffers, other than the tog?

One could argue the official tog, due to having access the amateur doesn't, should be able to take "better" pictures, and as such should still be able to sell them. At the events I attend the official togs take poor pictures which I'd be surprised anyone would want to buy, but by contrast I went to Cadwell Park not long ago, and the official tog there not only shares (with unobtrusive watermark) 100's of very good images on social media, but partly by virtue of access he has that we don't, and mostly by virtue of sheer talent, he produces such stunning images he can still sell enough to make his business viable.

So one answer to behind the fence amateurs giving away stuff for free is to ban them (or their gear) from the venue so they can't, but I'd argue a better answer is for the track-side togs to raise their game and produce images people are going to want to pay for, and if they can't go do something else, because the sport won't suffer their loss if all they do is take snapshots anyone else could take.

 

[Twigman]

If it was a game then fair enough but it isn't, it's a living.
how would you feel if someone offered to do your job for free, making you redundant?

Nobody is going to offer to do my job for free.
Of my 2 jobs - I am part owner and a director of the company that brings me the bulk of my income. I am the finance director....how many accountants do you know who work for nothing?
The other job - i am a semi-professional musician in a band with a large back catalogue and an extensive touring history.

My view re photographers at events is that if they are any good then their clients will pay for their product. Why do they feel threatened by amateurs? Perhaps they feel they're not providing value for money?

 

[gramps]

Nobody is going to offer to do my job for free.

But if they did?

 

[cambsno]

If your 'market' was flooded with people doing what you do for free then I am sure you would see things differently.
True markets may rise and fall, as per your illustration of the coal industry. but as then not without a fight from those whose livelihood is threatened.

Most markets are. Maybe not with free but certainly with cheap or DIY. Of course the wedding market is still huge, but many couples are now booking less time as they rely on guest pics. My last wedding only wanted the ceremony and formals, bride getting ready and the rest of the day they were happy with the guest and their own pics. Now this would have been less likely to happen pre-digitial and social media.

Gone are the days of having a physical cost to film and developing, as well as time. Now each picture you take has no cost to it, and it is easier to take better pictures now than before. If the customers see no value in the pros work, then the pros need to up their game.

 

[Mr Badger]

It probably depends if there's a franchise being paid for or not. If a person forked out money on an 'exclusive' deal (or a share of one) to take and sell photographs at an event, and the venue did nothing about people bringing along pro-spec cameras and taking photos for free and making money out of them by offering them for sale, then I imagine the person who'd paid for 'exclusive' photography rights would probably feel somewhat cheated?

However, if no money and/or exclusive rights deals have changed hands, and it's some people trying to make money out of their photography then I don't think they can complain if they get some competition from someone else with the same idea (or someone trying to become a pro-photographer by circulating free images in the hope it might lead to some paid work).

I wonder if press photographers boycotted free local papers when those sprang up in the late 70s and early 80s? I bet the traditional local papers weren't happy about that change in the market and the resulting competition for advertising revenue? However, I don't seem to recall the free papers being published without any photographs though?

Now a lot of local papers seem to have gone out of print due to competition for advertising and 'buy and sell' sites on the internet... so much for that business model. It's a changing world, you have to look what's coming over the horizon as well as running a business these days. It's a case of change and adapt or go under, whether we like it or not. Mind you, it's always been like that... how many unemployed longbow makers do you know?

 

[fhoneill]

The argument of professional photographers 'raising their game' to 'provide a better product' can almost be disregarded in the current environment. While some customers will buy high quality images that are technically sound, the sad fact is that a high percentage of customers are driven by a cost over quality mentality. If they can acquire an image for free or little cost then that factor regular carries more weight than buying a more aesthetically appealing photo at greater cost.

I also don't buy into the idea that because the professional has access to particular positions that is always advantageous. In some sports I'd be willing to agree but it should also be noted that the accredited photographer is often restricted to these areas. There is a general feeling that a shot taken from a low perspective is always a 'winning shot' but this doesn't always hold. The most striking shots are usually those taken from irregular perspectives that are different to those of the six guys that would be sitting alongside you in the front row. A simple example here would be football where as a professional I'm generally limited to being behind either goal at ground level. I'm not permitted to shoot from the back of the stand or around the side of the pitch but those locations often offer up great images taken by enthusiasts. My point here is that you can often get fantastic images from different perspectives and those 'outside the fence' are not always as disadvantaged as you may think.

My view re photographers at events is that if they are any good then their clients will pay for their product. Why do they feel threatened by amateurs? Perhaps they feel they're not providing value for money?

Value for money is a very strong point. Often the question is what does the client need? Do they need a high quality professional taken product that reinforces the strength of their brand? In many cases I've lost clients simply because that is not what they need. They are happy to put out a social media gallery with poorly composed images that suffer from being out of focus, badly cropped, have exposure issues and fail to capture key moments or expression. However that is often suitable for how the client wants to represent their brand so I'm fully understanding that they don't want to part with money for a higher quality product as it doesn't serve their needs. One of my major concerns though is that plenty of local news outlets and sizeable events are trending towards using lower quality images as those are now accepted by their audience as being the norm. For me that's a shame but it's a sign of the times.

 

[Elmer_fudd25]

I have read most of this thread and I'm shocked at what I have read.


I don't see why the Pros are so anti amateurs. Surely they get the pic of the spots to shoot from and if they are that worried by the amateurs they should be looking to up the game a little.


If i could get as good pictures as you with less practice and having to contend with shooting from the spectators stands then I would be worried.


I own an IT company. Plenty of gifted amateur people help their friends fix the problems they have. In fact, this very forum has professional photographers asking for help to fix their computers and get help building websites. This takes money away from my profession but I'm not protected. Should we ban people on this site giving information away for free? What about the members of this group that make money from photography training. you don't hear them moaning that people offer help and advice to other members for free.


so what makes professional events and sports photographers feel they should get special treatment then?

 

[Nostromo]

This is an interesting discussion (then argument).
I am a complete Hobbyist, I have no intension of being a professional, semi professional photographer (1. because I'm not capable enough and 2. I like the job I have).
I attend horse shows, one day events, x country and show jumping events with my wife. These are all local, not big events (we're not talking Badminton here). She is the horse rider, I just go along to help her and take photo's of/for her. I haven't yet come across an event that hasn't allowed a dslr or photography, but if I do then so be it, I won't take photos. I also won't take photos of other riders if there is an official photographer there, they're there to make a living, I can understand that and respect that.
If there is no official photographer there, then I'll snap away and post on social media, Flickr etc and people can have those photos for free.

 

[Nostromo]

This is an interesting discussion (then argument).
I am a complete Hobbyist, I have no intension of being a professional, semi professional photographer (1. because I'm not capable enough and 2. I like the job I have).
I attend horse shows, one day events, x country and show jumping events with my wife. These are all local, not big events (we're not talking Badminton here). She is the horse rider, I just go along to help her and take photo's of/for her. I haven't yet come across an event that hasn't allowed a dslr or photography, but if I do then so be it, I won't take photos. I also won't take photos of other riders if there is an official photographer there, they're there to make a living, I can understand that and respect that.
If there is no official photographer there, then I'll snap away and post on social media, Flickr etc and people can have those photos for free.

 

[mark.roper]

The argument of professional photographers 'raising their game' to 'provide a better product' can almost be disregarded in the current environment.

Depends how you define "better product".

A "better" single image is possibly not going to swing it, but many of the pro togs I see, particularly in motorsport, don't just provide "a" better image but rather a collection of images a spectator doesn't and can't, for example a complete set of images, for each car / bike / rider / driver / race, for the entire event (which might span more than one day). Many drivers / riders / teams willingly pay for this service, and indeed book in advance with the official tog, knowing they won't get as comprehensive a record of their endeavours by any other means. The "product" needn't be just "the image" but a range of additional services the official tog can bolt on that the spectator can't provide.

I also don't buy into the idea that because the professional has access to particular positions that is always advantageous.

Depends what access.

Again, regarding motorsport, the official tog is almost certainly "the other side of the fence" from the spectator, giving him / her a significant advantage right away, and they probably have access to parts of the track and / or viewing spots the spectator doesn't, and access to the pit / paddock area, which enables them to take candid shots of the competitors that spectators can't and which the competitors possibly place more value on than anything else.

I guess it all depends on the sport

 

[jamesev]

If the 'enthusiast' is there taking shots for their own use, there's no problem. If they are there to upload 200 images to Flickr/Facebook and give them away for the sake of their own ego, there is.
It's a balanced and fair ruling.

Seems to be done in most other areas of commercial photography!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

So one answer to behind the fence amateurs giving away stuff for free is to ban them (or their gear) from the venue

This is reminiscent of the argument about open source software in the early 1990s. In a nutshell, certain large software companies got very upset at the efforts of some people led by a bloke called Richard Stallman to produce free software (free as in "free beer" and free as in "free to do with as you wish"). They were sure that this would bring the software industry to its knees and so proposed draconian measures to prevent it. They didn't get the measures they wanted but the anticipated meltdown didn't happen either. What did happen was that some software companies went bust; some software companies upped their game; some software companies went into partnership with the hobbyists and became partially open source themselves. The best outcome of all this is the internet - which wasn't started on open source software but now pretty much relies on it. So my conclusion supports Mark's: if you are a working photographer who thinks the amateurs will break your business then get into a new one or figure out a way to get them working for you.

 

[Astleygreen]

That's a catch all enabling them to remove someone. The RCA aren't banning the use of DSlr's on racecourses as long as you play fair.

This is the salient point:

"Whilst racecourses do not wish to dissuade customers from taking pictures of their day out, and sharing them on social media, this must remain at a personal and private level."

That's an oxymoron, how can you share on social media at a private level?

 

[DemiLion]

That's an oxymoron, how can you share on social media at a private level?

You know those handy little settings on Facebook that regulate who can see your posts? I have a feeling they are called 'privacy settings'.