Harassed at Popejoy Hall Tonight

My 10 year old daughter is in a dance group at a school called Dance Dimensions. This is a large dance school in the Albuquerque area and held their annual show tonight at Popejoy Hall on the University of New Mexico campus. They sent home a paper that listed the schedule and did mention that still photography was permitted so long as NO flash was used. They further explained that flash blinded the dancers and could cause them to fall.

So far so good, I load the Mamiya 645 Super with fast film and the 105-210 zoom. We had seats in the balcony but that gave me a very good shot of the whole stage. Just before the show began, an announcer got on the loudspeakers and said that flash was not allowed. A few minutes later the announcement was repeated, re-iterating the problem with dancers getting blinded on stage. I didn't even bring a flash. By the way the arm rests were fixed and provided an excellent solid anchor for my arm holding the camera very stable.

A woman with short brown hair and some sort of name tag was going across the front of our section. She spied the camera and long lens in my lap and spoke to me. She said "no photography is allowed". I told her that I had no flash in my posession and this was a still film camera. She came back with "it doesn't matter, no photography is allowed".

At this juncture I totally lost my cool. I proceeded to flip her the bird and yell "$%^ %$#" to her. Then I said I would photograph my daughter anyway and she couldn't stop me. At this she walked off, leaving the auditorium after motioning to one of the ushers.

Minutes rolled by as the show began. Nothing happened. Finally intermission came and I went to the bathroom. No sign of her out in the lobby. My daughter's group came on stage and I got some great shots of her, using a whole roll of film in the short performance. The show ended and we got up and picked up our daughter at the loading dock outside. Nothing ever became of it.

I have to wonder if the dance school didn't set this woman straight when she reported me. I am sure she didn't work for them but for UNM or maybe a concession contractor. Maybe she worked for the official photographer (Prince) who didn't want anyone taking any photos so he could sell more of his. I was shooting black and white film while he of course was shooting what looked like a D3 or similar Nikon.

At any case, I do know that I was wrong for cussing her out. Still, I'm glad that I stood up for my rights and got my shots. There were dozens of people in there firing their digi point & shoots with flashes ablazing. For all the good those flashes did way back from the stage.

I would have done the same thing.

Maybe you should report her ?

I would have done the same thing. Some people are on a permanent high horse.. they feel that they are doing the right thing. Kudos to you. You have every right to take pictures of your child during a performance. You followed the rules. Perhaps that lady should have minded her own business and watched the show instead of interrupting and distracting you.

I would have said f*(& you and take a picture of her and her reaction just to be an asshole.

Grrr. Glad you got the shots though.

University auditoriums can be tricky. One time, while working for the school paper, I was assigned to photograph a performance of a singing group (doesn't matter which one). I went to the box office at the appointed time, announced myself to them, and politely asked if I could take photos. The lady at the ticket window said certainly, as long as I didn't use flash. I had only a Nikon FG and an 85mm f/1.8, so no problem. Within minutes of my admittance, I found myself accosted by the stage manager, who grabbed the lens hood off the lens, in a typical attempt to stop me, after coming up behind me. He jumped all over me verbally, asking me accusingly "Who are you with?" and then telling me that the people backstage were going ape that there was a photographer in the audience. When I told him that I was indeed with the school paper, on assignment, and that I had asked for and been given permission to photograph, he was somewhat taken aback. I told him rudely that if no cameras were allowed, then the box office staff should certainly have been made aware of that fact. Right after this I became the photo editor, and I always made it a point to call ahead and ask to speak to this guy in particular before assigning one of my photographers to any event in the auditorium.

nc5p said:

<snip>
They sent home a paper that listed the schedule and did mention that still photography was permitted so long as NO flash was used. They further explained that flash blinded the dancers and could cause them to fall.

<snip>
A woman with short brown hair and some sort of name tag was going across the front of our section. She spied the camera and long lens in my lap and spoke to me. She said "no photography is allowed". I told her that I had no flash in my posession and this was a still film camera. She came back with "it doesn't matter, no photography is allowed".
<snip>

At this juncture I totally lost my cool. I proceeded to flip her the bird and yell "$%^ %$#" to her. Then I said I would photograph my daughter anyway and she couldn't stop me.

<snip>

At any case, I do know that I was wrong for cussing her out. Still, I'm glad that I stood up for my rights and got my shots. There were dozens of people in there firing their digi point & shoots with flashes ablazing. For all the good those flashes did way back from the stage.

Click to expand...

Hey,
On one hand I can certainly sympathize with your frustration. I recently attended an event where they requested no photography during the ceremony and I capitulated while around me the the P+S flashes were firing. Irritating that...

However I think the most important statement in your description of the events is this, "I do know that I was wrong for cussing her out." I can't see where the woman's incorrect demands offset the middle finger + profanity. I hope that, as the woman appears to have been affiliated with the production, your actions have no awkward consequences for your daughter.
Celac

Assuming the woman worked for the facility I would write a complaint letter to the manager of that place. Hopefully they will clarify the policy & if necessary pull her into line & prevent her from harassing people photographing at future events.

I'd just be glad they let you shoot at all, and also be glad that you got to see your daughter's performance without being ejected. Many such places don't allow pictures to be taken. The fact that it is a public university may be the only reason they allowed photography at all. The bird was not necessary and did not help you. In fact, that bird was more of a threat to your ability to photograph than the lady, as photography was clearly allowed, and you could have been ejected for the scene. The lady deserved it (whatever "deserve" is worth anyhow in this world...), but all you needed to do was repeat the rules to her, and after doing that twice with no results, just ignore her. Very easy situation, since you were the one in the right. This was a black and white issue (har har), luckily for you. The rules were on your side. Usually the problem for me is trying to sneak photos where they are not allowed, in which case I have no room for bird flipping, because I am either in the wrong or working in a grey area (such as shooting in a place that has non-stated rules on photography, or a place that *by the book* may have restrictions, but lets you in with an SLR in plain sight)! What would you have told your daughter if you missed her performance for flipping the bird at an employee? Really. I hope you realize that you were there to see her dance, not to shoot pictures.

What I was really upset about recently is that I was not allowed to bring my 200mm lens into the hockey playoffs here in Anaheim a few weeks ago! $65 second-to-last row tickets and I can't bring in a 30-year-old lens for a film camera. First, they said no lenses over 6 inches. Then I had them measure my lens, which is 5-1/2 inches, but a supervisor came over and pulled the retractable hood out! Then he said that the rule was no "professional" lenses...I explained that there is no way in hell an F-1 and a long lens brought in by a hobbyist qualified as "professional". No dice. Hey; It's private property. What are you gonna do? The silly part is that the only reason I brought the lens (and an extra body) was so my girlfriend could use it as a monocular. I know that I am not going to get any good action shots with a 200mm from the last row. I shot "atmospheric" and "people" shots with my 17 and 28 for the most part. They let me in with three film bodies and three lenses, but I almost missed the puck drop because I had to take the 200 back to the car.

Very strange. I have brought a 400, and often bring the same 200, and plenty else into Dodger Stadium frequently with no problems at all. I wonder if the difference is a stadium/team thing or a league thing. (I like to joke that it is an L.A. vs. Orange Country thing.) I would hardly expect the NHL to be more strict than MLB, as nobody would pay me jack shit for hockey pix (nobody even knows what hockey is here), while I have been paid for my Barry Bonds shot from the stands at Dodger Stadium!

I really need to get a G10 or two....and a pair of binoculars!

nc5p said:

My 10 year old daughter is in a dance group at a school called Dance Dimensions. This is a large dance school in the Albuquerque area and held their annual show tonight at Popejoy Hall on the University of New Mexico campus. They sent home a paper that listed the schedule and did mention that still photography was permitted so long as NO flash was used. They further explained that flash blinded the dancers and could cause them to fall.

Click to expand...

This is just another ridiculous urban myth. Flash photography won't blind the dancers and cause them to fall. They'll hardly notice it at all unless they are looking directly at the source of the flash and it's of sufficient intensity (remember your inverse square law here). And if they are dancing they aren't looking at anyone's flash unit. People believe all kinds of silly things, but their beliefs don't have any effect on the facts.

Where do these silly myths come from? What is it about photography that instills such paranoia? It's as if photography has suddenly become dangerous in the last eight years, when it wasn't in the 170 years prior to 2001.

Anyway, if you want proof that flash photography isn't dangerous, look no farther than the NBA and Sports Illustrated. SI bombards the players, indeed the whole arena with their strobes. If it were dangerous or effected the outcome of the games in any way (remember that there's a huge amount of money, legitimate and not, riding on the outcomes of these games), it would have been shut down long ago.

I would have used some language I learned in the Navy with her and I would not have had second thought about doing so. You did the right thing and you got the shots.

Flash will indeed not blind anyone. It is not dangerous.
But it can (not 'is', but 'can') indeed be both a distraction to performers and (also important) an annoyance to spectators.

And a stage is lit strong enough to do without, and flash won't have a reach far enough to be of any use anyway.

So it's perfectly understandable why they ask not to use flash. Though dangerous it is not.


Cursing and profanities are rarely necessary.
Just stand your ground and tell someone calmly that you know what you can and cannot do, and do not need any advice. Then proceed to do whatever you want to do and ignore them. Works better than losing your cool.
If 'cool is to be lost', let it be them that lose theirs.

Bruce Watson said:

This is just another ridiculous urban myth. Flash photography won't blind the dancers and cause them to fall. They'll hardly notice it at all unless they are looking directly at the source of the flash and it's of sufficient intensity (remember your inverse square law here). And if they are dancing they aren't looking at anyone's flash unit. People believe all kinds of silly things, but their beliefs don't have any effect on the facts.

Click to expand...

I shoot dancers for a living, and they have all asked me not to use flash. Maybe it doesn't blind them, but it is distracting, both for performers and the audience. It's also unnecessary.

eddym said:

Maybe it doesn't blind them...

Click to expand...

It's not a maybe. It doesn't.

The OP stated that they banned flash at the dance performance because it was dangerous. It's not. That's what I'm saying.

If you want to ban flash for aesthetic reasons, or common courtesy, or any number of other reasons, that's another discussion all together.

I have a Sunpak 622 which can light up a very long ways off. My son told me at his school several years ago that the other students found it annoying in the gym there. So I generally keep it at home anymore. I had just enough light as it was. The people shooting the little built in flashes just don't know any better.

I was at a swim meet a year ago and they also said no flashes. Even the hired professional with total access was not using flash. I have no problem with flash bans. Also video bans are to keep them from getting sued when they use music in the show. I don't own a video camera so don't really care.

At this juncture I totally lost my cool. I proceeded to flip her the bird and yell "$%^ %$#" to her.

Click to expand...

Irrespective of the woman's assertion, a lack of diplomacy is not an appropriate response to an evidently casual remark of "doesn't matter, no photography allowed".

I'm a father, and I totally sympathize with you. I probably would have done(and have in factdone)more than you. BRAVO!!
Rick

Apology and Other Issues

Let me first offer a public apology to nc5p. Clearly you were within your rights to take non-flash photos. The usher should not have given you any trouble over that question. I suspect that, from your description, she found out that she was in the wrong. She should have apologized to you. I'm sorry she did not.

I would also like to contribute to the discussion regarding some of the other issues that have been raised. I don't know what performance rthomas was attending when he was accosted by the stage manager, but any photography of an artistic event raises a myriad of problems.

First, you can run afoul of clauses in union contracts. For example, the musicians union here has a clause that stipulates they must be notified 24 hours in advance that a performance or rehearsal will be photographed or videotaped. Actor's Equity members have a number of restrictions on the use of their images. In both cases, these artists bind the producers to safeguard their images and producers can suffer legal consequences should they fail to do so.

For theatrical or dance productions, many designers, directors and choreographers retain a copyright on their work. Photos or videos of that work can potentially compromise that copyright. Just as, I assume, you would never go to a gallery and take pictures of other people's photos and distribute them, doing so for performance-based art forms also takes control of that imagery away from the person who created it.

If you are assigned to photograph an event, or wish to sell or distribute images you take at an event, check with the staff several days in advance of the event to get clearance. Be prepared to back up your assignment or explain in detail how you intend to distribute the images.

As for the "blinding" flash issue, I don't know why this myth is perpetuated. It may be a myth, and myths get spread without control. It may have originated in truth many years ago when "technology" was different. Certainly these days a flash at 100 feet will not blind anyone. But it may be more effective to tell patrons that than to tell them that their flash is a distraction. If you tell someone that they may do someone else harm with their flash, they're less likely to use the flash. Tell them that their flash is a distraction and they may well ignore your request.

But distraction it is, and in a big way. Look at it from the performer's point of view. A performer looks out on a sea of darkness. If that darkness is broken by a sudden flash of light, it is very noticeable, a very clear distraction. Certainly as artists yourselves, you should empathize with not needing any distractions while you concentrate on making your art. Now multiply that by the stress of having to create your art live in front of hundreds or thousands of people and you get some idea why many performers don't like them.

If ever you run afoul of some usher's dictum that photography at the event is not allowed and you know that is not true in that case, simply state the policy as it was explained to you. If you make no headway, ask to see that person's supervisor. Ushers are the last link in the chain of communications but are the first persons you encounter. In Popejoy Hall, those ushers are volunteers, as they are in many venues across the country. Even if a venue pays its ushers, they are likely low-paid, on-call staff.

If you enter a venue with a camera, keep it out in the open. That way, every usher you meet will see you before you ever get to your seat. If anyone believes you're violating a house rule, they'll stop you well before you get to your seat and you can get it resolved outside with supervisors or even the house manager. And thank the ushers you see. Ushering is most often a very thankless job.

A quick update for nc5P: we at Popejoy were told by the studio that no photography would be allowed. You as a parent were told a different story, apparently. Our usher was simply enforcing the policy we had been told to institute.

Clearly, fault in these case, can lie in many places.

tdavis said:

If you enter a venue with a camera, keep it out in the open. That way, every usher you meet will see you before you ever get to your seat. If anyone believes you're violating a house rule, they'll stop you well before you get to your seat and you can get it resolved outside with supervisors or even the house manager. And thank the ushers you see. Ushering is most often a very thankless job.

Click to expand...

A good point. Just as shooting with a flash is distracting to all, so is having an argument with an usher in the middle of a performance. When I shoot in a venue that I have not been to before, I always check with the ushers as soon as I enter (which is usually a half hour before the performance) to let them know that I will be taking photos for the company. Then we can work out any issues of where I can sit or stand, etc., and everybody is aware of my presence beforehand.

Mr. Davis,

I have it in writing from the dance school on their handout given to parents beforehand that only video and flash were banned. Other ushers did see the rather large camera and lens and said nothing. I did not sneak it into the auditorium. The announcer also said no flash or video twice over the PA system. There were dozens of people who were however using flashes throughout the show.

Again, I also apologize for the foul language and hand gesture. I have no excuse for such behavior and was fully expecting a visit from UNMPD during the performance.

tdavis said:

I would also like to contribute to the discussion regarding some of the other issues that have been raised. I don't know what performance rthomas was attending when he was accosted by the stage manager, but any photography of an artistic event raises a myriad of problems.
If you are assigned to photograph an event, or wish to sell or distribute images you take at an event, check with the staff several days in advance of the event to get clearance. Be prepared to back up your assignment or explain in detail how you intend to distribute the images.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll 'fess up. It was the Vienna Boys' Choir, at Appalachian State University, a long time ago. I was NOT the photo editor at the time, and I got that assignment the very same evening; I wish my photo editor had called ahead, but he didn't, so off I went to make my $5 per published photo.

This is why it became my practice, once I was the photo editor, to contact the venue first whenever I sent one of my photographers to such an event. I've never snuck a camera in anywhere. I wasn't trying to cast aspersions on your venue, I was just trying to relate my own, similar, experience to my fellow photographers here. This is why I'm NOT a photojournalist.

PS - at that time, members of the staff of The Appalachian carried ID cards.

To quote a national champion basketball coach of my accquaintence, "If one of my players is aware of a flash on the side lines he's not into the game enough to be playing for me."

In retrospect, the "rules" I was quoted after I was thrown out of Bass Concert Hall at the University of Texas about 25 years ago for attempting to photograph a high school awards ceremony - as a duly accredited member of the media - are an amusing example of the arrogance and mendacity of "public" university employees.

First reason I was given - by the auditorium supervisor - was that the rule was to "protect the participants" who might be blinded and fall into the orchestra pit while receiving their award.

Second reason - after I called BS on the first and went to the director of the organization staging the event (also a university employee) - was that it was a "facility rule" to protect architectural details of the relatively new building.

Third and true reason - given a week later when I (still pissed off) called the head of the university fine arts department - was that a photo company had an exclusive contract to photograph and sell images of all events in the building. Any organization using the building was required to contract with said photo company as a condition of using the facility.

tdavis said:

First, you can run afoul of clauses in union contracts. For example, the musicians union here has a clause that stipulates they must be notified 24 hours in advance that a performance or rehearsal will be photographed or videotaped. Actor's Equity members have a number of restrictions on the use of their images. In both cases, these artists bind the producers to safeguard their images and producers can suffer legal consequences should they fail to do so.

For theatrical or dance productions, many designers, directors and choreographers retain a copyright on their work. Photos or videos of that work can potentially compromise that copyright. Just as, I assume, you would never go to a gallery and take pictures of other people's photos and distribute them, doing so for performance-based art forms also takes control of that imagery away from the person who created it.

If you are assigned to photograph an event, or wish to sell or distribute images you take at an event, check with the staff several days in advance of the event to get clearance. Be prepared to back up your assignment or explain in detail how you intend to distribute the images.

Click to expand...

A decent (and I am sure appreciated) response, but these few paragraphs raise a question that must be answered to determine if the issues contained in the paragraphs can be considered relevant: Was the event, legally speaking, in the public view? If so, it's tought titty for all the people with concerns (unions, playwrites, composers, etc.) that you mentioned. If, as an artist, you place your work in the public view, it may be photographed or recorded; so sez the judicial's interpretation of the Constitution (at this time, at any rate).

If the joint is private, you can make up whatever crazy rules you want, and even change them on the spot if you'd like.

In any case, the taking of photos alone is not copyright infringement. Commercial sale or commercial use of photos taken without permission at a private event can be, depending on the circumstances, but taking the photos against the rules is simply trespassing; nothing more. Owning photos illegally obtained through rule breaking in a private area is not a crime either, and it is without a doubt seriously illegal to take and/or threaten to take someone's film, digital files, or any other property (AKA theft and/or coercion/harassment), no matter how they were obtained. It would be wise to inform your ushers of this.

I cannot speak for the situation in the US, but in the UK there are many aspects of a performance (in public, or in a private place) that are covered by copyright under the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

These include the design of costume and set, choreography, words spoken or sung, and music played during the performance. And, yes, photography of the performance, even for private use could be an infringement of copyright.

I often work as an event steward for a local theatre, and part of each briefing before a performance is "is any form of photography allowed during the performance". The duty manager will have clarified with the stage manager/tour rep as to what their policy is in regard to photography. Video/sound recording is just outright prohibited, unless being performed by the company themselves as a record of the performance.

As to the duty manager taking a patron's camera, one of the conditions of ticket purchase and entry to the theatre, is that items may be confiscated if they, or their use, is in contravention of theatre policy (OK - this is normally used for stand-up gigs where there is a possibility that someone might try to bring an offensive weapon or glass bottles in to the venue), but as photography is generally prohibited, would cover a camera or other recording equipment (if it came to this film would not be destroyed, or digital files erased).

However, the most likely outcome would be, if someone refused to stop taking photographs when requested, they would be ejected from the venue.

In the end, the venue management and stewards/ushers are not just being awkward, but are trying to protect the copyright owners rights (well at least where I work ).

snallan said:

These include the design of costume and set, choreography, words spoken or sung, and music played during the performance. And, yes, photography of the performance, even for private use could be an infringement of copyright.

As to the duty manager taking a patron's camera, one of the conditions of ticket purchase and entry to the theatre, is that items may be confiscated if they, or their use, is in contravention of theatre policy (OK - this is normally used for stand-up gigs where there is a possibility that someone might try to bring an offensive weapon or glass bottles in to the venue), but as photography is generally prohibited, would cover a camera or other recording equipment (if it came to this film would not be destroyed, or digital files erased).

Click to expand...

As for the second paragraph, a private agreement does not trump the real law. Signing a document or making an agreement with illegal clauses does not make the practice of those clauses legal. Violators may be asked to stop, ejected, and the police may be called to issue a ticket for trespassing, but you may not take their property.

The issue in copyright matters de facto boils down to USE of the photos; Not CREATION of the photos.

The public view vs. private view issue applies to where and when you can take pictures, not to pure copyright issues. *Use* of the pictures is what determines copyright issues, not the *taking* of the pictures. This use is often very grey and can get very specific in court.

As for the first paragraph, as I stated, photographing alone is *not* copyright infringement cut and dried, but in certain circumstances, the use of these pix may be. It is trespassing if in violation of private rules, and nothing more. Furthermore, photos obtained this way, and the equipment used to obtain them, remain the property of the trespasser. As for copyright infringement, there must be a "use" of the pictures, first of all. Then, once there is use, the similarity of the copy to the actual must be compared (basically, is it REALLY a "COPY"?). Once this is shown, some things that pretty much doom something as infringement: A. being commercial used and/or B. being shown that the use of the photo somehow causes the owners of copyrights of the subject/s of the photo to lose money.

Simply showing a picture of a publicly visible subject that is copyrighted (or trademarked) is not infringement of the exclusivity rights of the copyright or trademark owner; not by a long shot. Even using (c)/TM subjects as materials for ones own "art" piece is not black and white copyright infringement (see Allan Kaprow's Hershey bar wrapper pieces for one example). A photo with another photo in it is not copyright infringement unless you are selling the photo contained in the picture as an alternative to the purchase of the original or licensed work, and are thus receiving money from those who view the purchase of your image as a true alternative to the purchase of the copyrighted subject contained in your work. Basically, it is infringement if you COPY the work, sell it as the work itself, and/or prevent the copyright owner from making money off of it...not if it is used as an element in another piece.

For instance, a picture of a guy with a Nike shirt? Fine. A picture of the Nike logo on the shirt, blown up and sold as a Nike product? Not fine. You would have to be selling the logo or using the logo specifically to sell the piece for it to be infringement. Even then, you are granted almost infinite leway when making "art" (AKA selling pictures in their final form; as pictures alone). It is more tight with commercial sales of pictures (AKA selling pictures that will be used to sell other things).

So, YES; public performances can be photographed as much as anyone wants to photograph them, and the photographers can even sell the photos, unless what is being sold can be legally proven to be a COPY of the original work and is sold as such. You would have a hard time proving copyright infringement of a musical, dance, or theater act against any still photo taken in public. Moving photo/sound recordings, perhaps, as these can be alternatives to the real thing, and may keep money from the copyright owners. Private performances can be shot with permission (or without, if snuck), but the images cannot legally be sold without permission.

England may be different. I am a born and bred United Statesian, so that is how I am approaching it.

Now, the OP really isn't a copyright issue. (I was just responding to the fellow from the auditorium re: a few of his statements by stating that artists can hardly complain about "losing control" of their work via being photographed if they are performing it in the public view.) It is more of a public/private issue. Back to the OP, as far as I can tell, it is sounding like the events were not in the public view, so shooters would have been subject to house rules, not the rules of the dance troupe.

Where do these silly myths come from? What is it about photography that instills such paranoia? It's as if photography has suddenly become dangerous in the last eight years, when it wasn't in the 170 years prior to 2001.

Click to expand...

I blame it on the internet. It's the paparazzi effect; I think people assume that you are going to put their picture up on 4chan or they'll end up as a motivational poster. That's what photography is nowadays; that's what 90% of people use their cameras for...to put pictures on the internet.