Official Fleet Photographer

[Hempstead Gaz]

I contacted Wembley by e-mail before the game, got a personal reply saying the camera was ok.

I took a copy of the e-mail as insurance, but didn'yt need it.

I had a pleasant, intelligent chat with the security at check-in, they admired my camera, hoped I would enjoy the match, and told me I was free to use it, so long as i didn't sell the pictures.

When the dust settles down , I'm sure David D will address the issue.

[rsheard]

Yes, Wembley had a very clear policy that cameras were fine so long as they didn't have detachable lenses. I suppose that's when they start considering them "professional" cameras?

 

I'd like to see us adopt a much more flexible policy. I would love to be able to take some top-quality shots the next time I visit, but that's going to require a better lens than my little point-and-shoot can produce.

[Digitalis]

Just spotted this thread. These days with Digital SLRs looking and giving much more professional results I suppose it is hard to distinguish between amateurs and professionals.

 

I'll check out the Conference rules, I'm sure John Moules will know, and am meeting the Safety Officer tomorrow night so will discuss with him then. I'll let you know and revise the instructions to stewards if applicable.

[Hempstead Gaz]

Thanks David. I'm sure you will come up with a sensible and definitive ruling, which we all will happy to comply with.

The Wembley rule seems a good one. No detachable lens, no tripods, not for commercial use.

The security there left no in doubt as to the rule, but were thoroughly professional and understanding at the same time.

 

No more children wearing safty vests pretending to act tough and demanding camera's off fans.

It helps credibility when stewards voices have broken!!!

[Harry J Allstars]

Aha but at Wembley I had a detachable lense and received no trouble.

 

I've had that camera now for just over a year and taken it to Wembley for England games, the NFL match last October, The Trophy, Conference Play Off, and League Play Offs where I got some excellent results every time. I never sell my pictures on and am really just looking to take it up as a hobby with the possibility of going pro if I feel happy doing so, obviously only through all the right channels.

 

If anyone wants to look at my pics then just let me know.

[eufckev]

Originally Posted By: Harry J Allstars

If anyone wants to look at my pics then just let me know.

Don't think pornography is everyone's cup of tea, Paul

[Jeff]

Originally Posted By: Harry J Allstars

Conference Play Off

0.0000000000000001/10.

[The Cameraman]

Originally Posted By: Hempstead Gaz

Thanks David. I'm sure you will come up with a sensible and definitive ruling, which we all will happy to comply with.
The Wembley rule seems a good one. No detachable lens, no tripods, not for commercial use.
The security there left no in doubt as to the rule, but were thoroughly professional and understanding at the same time.

We also need something similar for videography as well in order to stop supporters filming matches and putting the goals on YouTube, their own personal or unofficial club websites, and even flogging DVD's for their own personal gain.
It stops people subscribing to Setanta and in our case the MyFC hi-res broadcasts if that is allowed to happen.
Remember the problems we had with DonsOnline when A.F.C. Wimbledon visited ?

However, when supporters are using very small photographic cameras that shoot video and/or small hand-held palmcorders, it is going to be more or less impossible for stewards to stop them.

[Dave EUFC]

Harry wasn't it the conference playoffs where half of your insides ended up in front of your seat?????

[Digitalis]

I met with John Moules today and confirmed there are no Conference rules regarding cameras. I met our new Safety Officer this evening, he knows of no ruling against cameras.

 

So, unless I have missed anything, from the next match onwards the stewards will be instructed to allow stills photography, no matter what type of stills camera is used.

 

Our regulations will be updated to state that stills photography is allowed providing it is for personal application only and not for commercial gain in any form, even if just advertising the skills of the person taking the photo. (I will formalise the words later.) Our new safety officer is Gary Barber. If anyone has an issue on this subject from now on, tell the steward involved to radio him for confirmation. I intend to be monitoring the radios over the next match or two as well.

 

My initial reaction to video is that it should not be allowed. I'll review this in the immediate future.

 

[Hempstead Gaz]

Splendid news David. Many thanks for that clarification.

Common sense is now prevailing in big dollops.

Keep up the great work

 

Gary

[rsheard]

DD, you 'da man! That's great news. No one would buy a shot I took anyway, so it's a moot point. But I want to be able to try with a more legitimate camera to take some photos for my own walls.

[Graham S]

Hard if not impossible to prevent all video filming, as virtually any digital camera costing over a couple of hundred pounds will take pretty good quality video clips too.

 

However, these are clips only & usually capture the atmosphere of the moment far better than they do the actual action. Whilst I appreciate The Cameraman's concerns, I really don't think any of the Fleet clips I've seen posted on YouTube would stop anybody subscribing to the much better quality offerings of the official media & to ban them would deprive people of a lot of enjoyment. I for one still revisit those blurred, whirring clips which a number of people posted of the hysteria of the last couple of minutes of the FA Trophy semi at Aldershot. I watch them to re-live a marvellous moment. If I want to recall the details of the match itself I can watch the highlights on the official DVD I have just received, just as I was previously able to watch them on my paid for high res MyFC tv.

 

Donsonline is different to Joe Bloggs posting clips from his digital camera or mobile phone; they were filming complete matches with professional equipment & potentially depriving people like Lawrence of their livelihood.

[The Cameraman]

Originally Posted By: Graham S

Hard if not impossible to prevent all video filming, as virtually any digital camera costing over a couple of hundred pounds will take pretty good quality video clips too.

However, these are clips only & usually capture the atmosphere of the moment far better than they do the actual action. Whilst I appreciate The Cameraman's concerns, I really don't think any of the Fleet clips I've seen posted on YouTube would stop anybody subscribing to the much better quality offerings of the official media & to ban them would deprive people of a lot of enjoyment. I for one still revisit those blurred, whirring clips which a number of people posted of the hysteria of the last couple of minutes of the FA Trophy semi at Aldershot. I watch them to re-live a marvellous moment. If I want to recall the details of the match itself I can watch the highlights on the official DVD I have just received, just as I was previously able to watch them on my paid for high res MyFC tv.

Donsonline is different to Joe Bloggs posting clips from his digital camera or mobile phone; they were filming complete matches with professional equipment & potentially depriving people like Lawrence of their livelihood.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

It's people sitting in the main stand near the half-way line filming all the goals and putting them on YouTube and the like which is the problem, not blurry, wobbly shots of meaningless bits of action near the corner flag and supporters larking about on the terraces.
I don't think we will ever stop supporters' footage (taken from behind the goal on mobile phone cameras) of penalty kicks being posted on YouTube though. They are too easy to capture on video.
If somebody is posting goals from open play on the internet, then they have obviously deliberately come into the ground with the necessary equipment and the intention to do so, or at least so they can watch their own footage privately without having to pay a subscription to Setanta or the MyFC hi-res setup.

It's that sort of thing that has to be stopped...somehow.

[bsmith]

Originally Posted By: Digitalis

Our regulations will be updated to state that stills photography is allowed providing it is for personal application only and not for commercial gain in any form, even if just advertising the skills of the person taking the photo.

What about if it is for not-for-profit use on the unofficial Fleet website which doesn't generate any revenue of its own?

[Digitalis]

Not a problem as far as I'm concerned.

[Uncle Urchin]

Originally Posted By: The Cameraman

Originally Posted By: Graham S

Hard if not impossible to prevent all video filming, as virtually any digital camera costing over a couple of hundred pounds will take pretty good quality video clips too.

However, these are clips only & usually capture the atmosphere of the moment far better than they do the actual action. Whilst I appreciate The Cameraman's concerns, I really don't think any of the Fleet clips I've seen posted on YouTube would stop anybody subscribing to the much better quality offerings of the official media & to ban them would deprive people of a lot of enjoyment. I for one still revisit those blurred, whirring clips which a number of people posted of the hysteria of the last couple of minutes of the FA Trophy semi at Aldershot. I watch them to re-live a marvellous moment. If I want to recall the details of the match itself I can watch the highlights on the official DVD I have just received, just as I was previously able to watch them on my paid for high res MyFC tv.

Donsonline is different to Joe Bloggs posting clips from his digital camera or mobile phone; they were filming complete matches with professional equipment & potentially depriving people like Lawrence of their livelihood.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

It's people sitting in the main stand near the half-way line filming all the goals and putting them on YouTube and the like which is the problem, not blurry, wobbly shots of meaningless bits of action near the corner flag and supporters larking about on the terraces.
I don't think we will ever stop supporters' footage (taken from behind the goal on mobile phone cameras) of penalty kicks being posted on YouTube though. They are too easy to capture on video.
If somebody is posting goals from open play on the internet, then they have obviously deliberately come into the ground with the necessary equipment and the intention to do so, or at least so they can watch their own footage privately without having to pay a subscription to Setanta or the MyFC hi-res setup.

It's that sort of thing that has to be stopped...somehow.

get real mate and get a reality check....we are talking basic NL here not the premiership....

who is going to pay for the pictures....?

[Harry J Allstars]

Err, Setanta?

[kaizen]

Are they that desperate?

[The Cameraman]

Originally Posted By: Harry J Allstars

Err, Setanta?

You must be joking !?