Taking photos at the football.

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Pat the photo freak, Jul 31, 2004.

  1. Does anybody know the full situation with the legalities of taking photos
    at the football (MCG & Telstra Dome).


    I saw a guy nearly get his digicam confiscated on the weekend by MCG

    Pat the photo freak, Jul 31, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pat the photo freak

    Cocoboy Guest

    video cameras are not allowed, normal cameras are okay.
    Cocoboy, Jul 31, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pat the photo freak

    FootyFacts Guest

    There are only "quasi-legalities" in taking photos or video
    It is a condition of entry into the ground that you cannot
    use video cameras though still shots are OK
    I am not sure however that they actually had the right
    to confiscate his camera this treads a fine line of legality IMO

    This is not disimilar to the notice that Shops put up
    about searching your bag only that they have no legal right
    to do so and if you refuse they do have the right to ask
    you to leave the premises immediately, they have the right
    to refuse to sell you goods, they have the right to call the
    police but they have no right to search your bag
    regardless of the "conditions of entry"

    Of course the MCG being the MCG I wouldn't be
    surprised if there was legislation in place.


    PS: In Australia there is no automatic protection
    as to the use of your image. Pretty much anybody
    can take your photo and publish it, however if they
    use that photo to defame you or to insinuate
    that you endorse a product they can sue you
    for defamation or damages etc but not for the unathorised
    use of the image itself as no such authorisation exists!

    If you manage to use a video at the footy again
    there is no actual law that prohibits you from broadcasting
    the footage but the AFL would sue for damages etc
    as to the loss of income from broadcasting rights
    though I find it a tenuous argument because if they
    have presold the rights for 5 years they would find it hard
    to argue that they have lost anything as they already
    have the dough.
    FootyFacts, Jul 31, 2004
  4. Pat the photo freak

    Epigram Guest

    For some reason David Clayton espied...
    I am taking a stab at this - because the AFL "owns" the images and so forth
    of the players, any photo of players in action would breach the AFL's
    copyrights. Just a guess.

    Epigram, Jul 31, 2004
  5. Pat the photo freak

    Epigram Guest

    For some reason kosh espied...
    The policy of searching bags before entering a venue is not enforcable.
    I've refused to have my bag checked on a number of occasions, and there is
    nothing they can do if you are already inside.
    Stores/supermarkets rely on polite intimidation to get their customers to
    comply to their policy.
    The only exception are points of entry or departure where Customs Officers
    _do_ have the right to search, or controlled areas such as a court or

    It would take a brave and rich person to take, say Coles, to the High Court
    to argue that private entities don't have the right to a search.

    Epigram, Jul 31, 2004
  6. ......
    If I remember correctly this all came about when the AFL and the venues
    started fighting over boundary line advertising signs being
    "virtualised" which would impact venue revenues etc.

    It even got to the stage of Little League parents having their cameras
    banned (from being used on their own kids at 1/2 time!) until common
    sense broke out.

    At places like the 'G people have to remember that it is still "Crown
    Land", so how anyone can restrict the public recording something
    happening on essentially public property outside of restricting the
    ability to get the equipment in is a little hard to figure out.

    It's a bit like setting up a camera out in the park looking into the
    ground through the construction gap, would that be illegal in any way?

    - -
    Regards, David.

    David Clayton, e-mail:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
    (Remove the "XYZ." to reply)

    Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
    David Clayton, Aug 1, 2004
  7. Pat the photo freak

    Justin Thyme Guest

    Is it? I'm not sure about the specifics of the 'G', but most football ovals,
    cricket fields etc are either owned or leased by the local football club,
    cricket club etc. Even if the grounds are owned by the crown but are leased
    to the relevant club/association then that gives the club the right to
    control what patrons to the ground can and can't do.
    That wouldn't be illegal at all - but depending on what you did with the
    images/video afterwards could result in civil action against you. If you
    are doing it for personal use there is absolutely nothing they can do about
    down to their level then beat you with experience.
    Justin Thyme, Aug 1, 2004
  8. Pat the photo freak

    Justin Thyme Guest

    I wonder if it would be the AFL that would sue, or if it would be the
    broadcaster that bought the rights. In this situation it is the broadcaster
    who would be losing out, after buying exclusive rights for 5 years then
    having some schmo start producing their own broadcast.
    Justin Thyme, Aug 1, 2004
  9. Pat the photo freak

    Justin Thyme Guest

    It is determined by the conditions of entry at the venue. If it is a
    condition of entry that you not use video cameras, or that you not use still
    cameras then by entering you agree to abide by that condition. Most of
    these venues prohibit video but allow still cameras. With modern digicams
    that are capable of recording video the lines become a little blurred.
    Assuming that it is a condition of entry that cameras are not permitted, and
    someone does take a camera in with them, then AFAIK they are not allowed to
    confiscate the equipment, but they can ask (make) the person to leave. They
    could probably offer to allow the person to stay on the proviso that they
    held the equipment in safe-keeping until the person left - if they then lost
    the equipment they would be liable.
    Justin Thyme, Aug 1, 2004
  10. Pat the photo freak

    kosh Guest

    actually sounds familiar to a story I read.
    On of the Sex and the City characters was going out with a guy who was a
    model for absolute in the show.... big ad in Times Square nude with a bottle
    of vodka between his legs. Turns out Absolute Vodka DID actually used the ad
    in real life without the permission of the actor/model or the show....

    interesting to see how that one fares.....

    who has the rights... Absolute -cause it was their product? The show? The

    a bit off topic, but an interesting to see who wins the rights etc.

    kosh, Aug 1, 2004
  11. Pat the photo freak

    kosh Guest


    thats assuming the conditions are reasonable... hung in a position that no
    person can miss etc etc.

    I believe that is also part of the searching bags in shops issue. If you
    enter the premisis and are either overwhelmed by signage, or it is hard to
    see, how can it be a condition of entry when the conditions were not clear
    before entry?

    clear as mud on a foggy day!

    kosh, Aug 1, 2004
  12. Pat the photo freak

    kosh Guest

    actually, not that first bit. Befor eyou sling abuse, make sure it is aimed
    at the source

    this was my bit!
    kosh, Aug 1, 2004
  13. Pat the photo freak

    Epigram Guest

    For some reason kosh espied...
    Without slinging abuse, I replied to exactly what was there. Give me some
    credit (which you haven't done at the top of the article).
    Yes, I know... I can read - I don't understand your point; if it's about
    acknowleging the author, and replying to that, then why didn't you
    acknowledge who you were responding to at the _top_ of the response?
    Believe me, it makes reading an article a lot easier.

    [... edited my reply, no need to repeat it...]

    Epigram, Aug 2, 2004
  14. Pat the photo freak

    lime Guest

    actually sounds familiar to a story I read.

    I'd say Absolute have a case.

    I'd say the model should've have known better as the contract was not
    through Absolute.

    I'd say Sex in the city should have known even betterer ;o)

    Interesting to follow up on.
    lime, Aug 2, 2004
  15. Pat the photo freak

    Wolf359 Guest

    Wolf359, Aug 2, 2004

  16. I have my experience at Lang Park (or whatever it is called these days), at
    Origin II this year.

    Security were unconcerned by everyone with us using a digicam, but panicked
    when they saw an E-1 on a monopod with a 300mm telephoto lens.

    Had it out with one of the stadium staff supervisors, ended up coming to an
    arrangement where we could bring that equipment to future events, after
    signing a declaration that none of the images would be used for commercial
    purposes. That was their chief concern, that somebody would make money from
    images without providing the appropriate percentage to the stadium.
    Scott Hillard, Aug 7, 2004
  17. Wrong. Private owners of land get to set the conditions on which others may

    Think you can enter my home, if I say you can't come in without having your
    bag searched? Think again.

    A commercial property is no different.
    They can toss you out on your ear.
    Nope, it's clearly stated that a condition of entry is your agreement to
    comply with a request to have your bag searched.
    Nope, just a very stupid person with too much money burning some holes in
    their pockets.
    Scott Hillard, Aug 7, 2004
  18. Pat the photo freak

    greg Guest

    It is exiting that they do not have a legal right to, though that is
    not to say that they cant call the law with a reasonable request to
    have your bag searched
    greg, Aug 7, 2004
  19. Pat the photo freak

    FootyFacts Guest

    you are right on most points Scott except this one
    though you did state the solution prior to that.
    Fact is the signs are meaningless and have no legal standing
    whatsoever and it is polite intimidation.

    Stores have no right to search your bags on entry or exit
    Only agencies authorised by legislation have the legal right
    to stop search & sieze, what they can do however is
    refuse you entry or ask you to leave the premises.

    Several times I have refused to allow my bags to be inspected
    upon exit from a store and once have had to advise an over zealous
    door person that if he attempted to stop me that he would be facing
    an assault charge and that Target sure as hell wouldn't indemnify
    him against any damages when I sued the arse off him as well as Target.
    I also generously advised him to go to his management and get them
    to give him a signed indemnity and he could put his house on it
    that he wouldn't get one!

    Pursuing this line the conditions of entry into a car park have
    also been found to have very little legal standing as there is
    certainly precedence in a Sydney case where a guy won
    damages caused in the car park. Where this type of
    signage generally falls down is that there is no "proof"
    that the 3rd party has read and understood the conditions of entry
    and there is certainly no legal right to abrogate your liability
    simply by putting up a sign.

    FootyFacts, Aug 7, 2004
  20. Pat the photo freak

    Bruce Graham Guest

    If you are right (and I suspect you are) it is a pity that the law is
    such an ass and that you are such an asshole.
    Bruce Graham, Aug 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.