ok.
Seeing as the thread is about bans on Dslrs or rather singling out Dslr users at the OLYMPIC games then where in the article that Gaz linked to shows that is in fact the case?

The article is about Coventry city football ground which has their own rules on photography and cameras.
The article is about posting images not taking images.

Nowhere in the article are Dslrs mentioned and in the article it also says

QUOTE
When the Telegraph approached Laurence Archer, LOCOG’s venue media manager for the City of Coventry Stadium, he said the Olympic rules referred to the “commercialisation of images” and insisted: “LOCOG has no objection to people uploading privately to social media sites. It is obviously something LOCOG has no control over anyway.”

He added that the stadium regulations had been drawn up by LOCOG “in association with each venue”.

A spokesman for the City of Coventry Stadium said: “These are Football League rules for Football League games.

UNQUOTE

So let's break it down shall we.
LOCOG says there is no objection to uploading to social media sites.
FOOTBALL LEAGUE rules may be different and the venue may have different rules but there is no specific olympic ban.

NOW do we see what Andyw is getting at.

There is NO Olympic ban on Dslrs, there IS a restriction of the physical size of equipment (any equipment) and there IS a restriction on commercial sale of images (as there is for most events).
SOME football and other venues have their own restrictions but they are NOT Olympic bans on Dslrs, mobile phones, videos etc etc.


NO, I do not work for LOCOG or any other Olympic related company, I am just someone who does not cry "the sky is falling" at every silly story published in the media.

An interesting and well reasoned point of view.


However, I'm fascinated to find out how you interpret my soul and only comment on this thread, a comment that I believe went *Hmmmm...* as indicating that I had not read a piece, the link of which I posted, or that I was in fact panicking about the banning of long lenses, DSLRs, using any images in any medium on the immediate heat-death of the universe...

I had in fact read the entire article, and was simply amused that the paper had chosen to run with doom and gloom headlines that clearly contradict even what their own piece had reported.

Lets break it down, shall we?

Hmmm... does not in fact mean that I've not read the piece. It does not mean that I am getting worked into a flap about long lenses, DSLRs, use of pictures in social media, or an imminent celestial collapse. It means Hmmm...


Gaz

Untwist your panties dearie !!

Your "hmmmm" and the link coming directly after my post seemed to imply that I was incorrect and that you were showing another example of these so called restrictions.

You might not realise this, but on this interwebby thingy it is not possible to pick up the implied intonation in a typed "hmmmm" so one has to make certain assumptions based on the overall thread and where the "hmmmmm" is in relation to other posts.

I don't believe I mentioned "panicking about the banning of long lenses", I simply pointed out the actual facts. You know, those things which get in the way of a good rant about nothing.

As I am obviously not as bright as you then maybe next time you decide to post "hmmmm" and a pretty irrelevant link you might try putting some more words on the post, such as "here is another example of idiocy" or "here is more proof of x y or z".


Just a thought.

Whoa! Calm down yourself!

Firstly, I'm not *dearie!* That is just rude.
Secondly the position of my post was merely co-incidental, and had nothing whatsoever to do with your post.

Thirdly, your facts were predicated on the false assumption that I had put the post there to somehow denigrate your post.

Fourthly I am aware of the term *fact*, but thank you for explaining it with added sarcasm.

Fifthly I made no assumption as to how educated or otherwise you are, and I'd appreciate it if you would afford me the same courtesy.

Sixthly I don't really think I have to check with you as to the relevence or otherwise of links that I may or may not chose to post.

Finally, on this interwebby think it really doesn't make a lot of sense being rude and insulting, making sarcastic remarks and comments. This will lead to people feeling alienated, and will not do your fledgling reputation any good.

Just a thought.

I am absolutely calm, thanks for caring though dearie. Or would you prefer mate, pal, lovey, sir, madam, ms. after all they are just words which people use in greeting and conversation.

As I believe I mentioned, one has to make assumptions when trying to figure out posts which just have "hmmmmm" and a link (relevant or not). If I was wrong then so be it, I will remember next time you or someone else does that.

My facts were predicated on the actual facts about equipment allowed or otherwise into Olympic venues (the Olympic park and stadium mainly as other venues have different rules) and certainly not on any false assumptions about your post.

I sincerely apologise if my stating that you are obviously brighter than I upset you. I guess I just made another (albeit incorrect) assumption.

Obviously you don't have to check with me for anything at all, after all I do not know you nor you I. Why on earth would you feel the need to check anything with me. However, it would be helpful when someone is participating in discussions that information they post is relevant to the thread.

As to the interwebby thingy, there are a lot of things which don't make a lot of sense.
If you believe I have been rude or insulting then that is entirely down to you. A tad sarcastic ?? yeah I will give you that but I have certainly not insulted you.
If I was to do so I would call you a moronic prat or the like. But I won't and I haven't.

If my comments make you feel alienated then again that is not really my problem and as to my "fledgling reputation", hahaha nice one. I like that.

I think this has run it's course now so I will wish you good night.

I don't know who you are 'andyw' - but I do think you're being very rude, especially considering this is the only thread you've posted in... it does come across as a bit trollish! Also, it would have some wondering perhaps what your agenda is here?

xx

I apologise then, I missed the bit in the forum rules where it states that one must contribute to multiple threads before one can post up some facts or an opinion.

Agenda? yeah, I guess I have an agenda, if you consider attempting to dispell some myths an agenda.

Tks for your advise.

Andy, I can see your point - but I can also see what the OP and others are saying.

It's only really DSLR's and the like which can have lens of that type, and is it *really* because they're thinking about other spectators? Or is it because they don't want you selling photos that could lose them money and/or possibly be better than the 'official' ones?

One could argue that if you paid to get in, you should be allowed to take photo's and sell them, and that of course that their official photographers would have the best spots anyway - so they needn't worry. Too much.

Also, many people are a bit annoyed about the flack photographers seem to be getting in the last few years, such as in the recent threads about photographing police, photography in public places, being screwed by the Digital Economy Bill etc, so the tone and posts are pretty understandable to me.

Azz, Yes, it is only Dslrs which have the "massive" lenses. That really is immaterial though. Dslrs or any other type of camera are NOT banned unless they are larger than 30cm.
ANY large items are banned. I have been to the stadium and can absolutely see the reason why and that is there is no room. Simple as that.
Obviously there are restrictions on selling images, just as there are at race tracks, rock concerts, the opera or virtually any other event of this type.

I am afraid the argument that if you paid to get in you should be allowed to take and sell photos does not wash. Do you argue the same for any other events?
Even the accredited snappers are restricted in how and where they can sell the images as they are at football, rock concerts etc etc etc.
Agree or not those are the simple facts.

Just purely on the "spectator comfort" aspect, have you ever been stuck behind someone with a camera, tripod and long lens? it is not a pleasant experience when you are trying to watch an event.
Also in a stadium where there is limited room in the seating areas (as per the Olympic stadium) it is not only a comfort but also a safety issue.

I am afraid us photographers are sometimes our worst enemies, well actually, (and at the risk of upsetting a lot of people) it tends to be the amateur photographers who cause a lot of the issues - mainly because the accredited snappers are stuck in their pens or the lucky few have freedom of movement around the fields.

As to the "flack".
Yes there have been loads of stories, many of which have absolutely no substance and those few that do are usually down to misunderstandings or a lack of knowledge on the part of the "authorities, (usually security guards) and often the photographers themselves.
The links you gave really come into the first category.
The first two were from 2007 and the first is just simply not true. It is NOT illegal to photograph the police. It was a bit of a storm in a teacup and the media (and others) trying to stir things up.
The second was again just someone with a bee in the bonnet and as per the response, there are no restrictions on photography in public places. Not forgetting that not all places where the public have access are in fact "public" and also not forgetting that we are ALL subject to other laws such as harassment etc.
For instance there are restrictions on commercial photography in Trafalgar Square. One of the most "public" places there is in London.
Lastly, the digital economy bill. A total travesty but again not strictly as per the link.
It is not simply a case of no watermark makes the image an orphan, there is a lot more to it than that.

Don't get me wrong here. I am a photographer, I make my living from it so I want to ensure that we are free to follow our hobby or trade wherever and whenever we want - within reason.
I have had "discussions" with security guards and police. I have spent time educating members of the public that I am fully within my "rights" to take their or their kids photograph when they are in public etc.

The problem seems to be though that everytime someone gets stopped from taking photos in a shopping centre or a sports or concert venue puts restrictions on what can and cannot be taken in then there is an army of "photographers" shouting about their freedom to take photographs.


Rather than shouting about it all the time and flooding the forums with the "police state" type of posts that tend to abound we should be educating the over zealous security guards, we should be ensuring that "uncle bob" down the road realises that there are restrictions on photography when on private premises and we should be looking inwards a lot more at the behaviour of many of those who wield cameras whether they be amateur or pro.

Phew - sorry about that rather long winded post, it is just one of the few things these days which really boil my p...

Blimey Andy.................. that was a boring post. I only got to the second paragraph and I nodded off..

Let us in, don't let us in......... let our cameras in don't let them in.......

whatever.