Bob Shell wrote: > My feeling is that I should be able to photograph anything I > can see from a public place without concealing the fact that > I am making photographs. So long as I am not trespassing on > private property or hiding what I am doing from the subject > of said photographs, no one should have any right to > interfere with me. I don't know exactly what this Texas > photographer was doing, but since the football stadium is > presumably on private property, the owners of that property > should have the right to place reasonable restrictions on > photographers. I see this as no different from photographing > a rock concert in a private venue, where the owners of the > venue can say "no photography" if they choose. If, however, > a photographer could see into the stadium or concert from > public property and took photos from there, that is another > matter altogether, and no one should have any right to hassle > him. The intent of the photos is really completely irrelevant.
Well, this is a dilemma. If you overlooked a sports ground and took pictures with a 50mm lens, fine. If you then set up a tripod with a 2000mm lens and took close ups, it's potentially a different matter. I'm waiting for a clever barrister to point out that most photographers don't and couldn't walk about with long focal length lenses. I know these issues have been a long time coming, particularly for those who earn their living at taking shots discreetly from some distance that end up in the papers, but I suspect it's time has come. Are zoom/fixed focal length lenses the next grey area? If so, at which level of magnification isn't it going to be acceptable? The more questions that are raised the less clear it all becomes. Malcolm
