Thanks QuadraPixel but it was written in a way that explains the whole issue based on a phone call I had with them, if you feel that a shorter version would have been possible, please type it up and post it, I will use it on my email to the IOC next week.

Thanks

That letter is longer than the last book I read!

Guys FYI I have not had any reply from FIFA

Yeah, keep us posted PZ. Good one, poster.

LOL poster ...But I hope that letter helps ...

Thanks for your email, we will read it and take on board you thoughts and comments.

-FIFA

This is becoming a bigger issue as the cost of camera's declines and the quality goes up and more people get into digital photography.

The key issue is that sports venues can not stop camera phones or compact digital cameras or even HD camcorders like the Kodak Xi8 or the FlipCam and therefore why do they stop owners of DSLR's that look like they are exclusively for professional use which is not the case.

I have just sent this email to FIFA specifically on this subject for the World Cup.

A question on photography - what is a large camera and why is accreditation needed ?

Dear Alex,

I am sorry it has been a few days since our call but I had decided to do a little more research and thinking before I put pen to paper as we discuss on the phone.

Hopefully you remember the point of my call was to discuss the issue that has been raised by the South African FA with regards to the issue of spectators using expensive camera’s that are perceived to be for professional use at matches.

This is based on the fact that I am a serious non-professional sports photographer with an expensive camera (Nikon D3) and fast lenses and would like to take some good quality images at the World Cup for my personal image collection.

Before I continue specifically about the World Cup it is worth mentioning that this issue has been around for a while now not just in your sport but many others including the current Olympics which like you, are very keen to preserve copywrite and prevent commercial gain from none approved or inappropriate sources, which I have to say up front, I am generally in support of. The point is that for the Winter Olympics the IOC and VANOC have taken a very pragmatic approach to the problem and have allowed general ticket holder to take pictures with consumer, pro-sumer and professional camera’s with large lens’s based on the fact it is easier to police the abuse of these images after the event through normal legal channels.

The reason for this is simply a technical issue that has manifested itself over the last 2-4 years in photography.

Let me go back about 5 years before digital camera technology really flourished, there are lots of debate about this as it is hard to directly compare analogue film and digital images but in those days a professional 35mm camera with a fast lens (say f2.4) to the eye had an approximate equivalent resolution 8-10 Megapixels and there was no consumer cameras to match this so professional photographers almost had exclusivity on high end camera’s and lens and therefore in the sports word to get “the shot” they had to be accredited so as to get close to the action and in the most advantageous spot knowing that no fan, supporter or guest could get these images.

However, today there are many small digital camera’s both DSLR and compact camera’s that have far in excess of the quality of a professional camera and lens from 5 years ago, therefore the personal sports photographer with a mid to high quality digital compact camera with a good seat relatively close to the action would be able to get images that have the pixel quality that would be greater than a professional photographer of 5 years ago and as got as some of the images that a professional of today might have, what the personal photographer will not have is “access and vantage point” and as an organisation it would be almost impossible, nah, it would be impossible to stop these camera’s entering a stadium.

The comment that was received from the SA FA was:

The Terms and Conditions of a ticket strictly prohibit any camera. We have made a special concession whereby we allow cellphone cameras and smaller cameras as these are usually for personal use only. However, any camera that may be deemed for professional use, as in this case, is not allowed. The stewards are not in a position to determine the intention of the photographer so we do not allow these as a rule. This is standard procedure at all major events.

FIFA Media also patrol the stadium arena and asks us to stop fans from using cameras they deem professional and evict repeat offenders.

To use this comment as a discussion point, what is a small camera if I turned up at the gate with Leica M9 (image enclosed) with a 90mm f2.5 lens it would be exceeding unlikely a steward with question this camera as it looks like a simple small camera, however, if I had arrived with a Nikon D90 (image enclosed) based on this statement it would have been refused, however, I am sure that if you are into photography or ask anyone that is you would appreciate the the Leica M9 would take far superior and much higher quality images than the Nikon, this is the whole point I am trying to raise is “ what, as an organisation are you a) trying to prevent and b) give professional and commercial photographers”

I would also like to add about the above statement is that if the steward is not in a position to determine the intention of the photographer they would also not be in a position to determine what is a camera for professional use or personal use, an analogy I have been using is that if I am a keen cook and buy an expensive cooker and food processor it does not make me a Michelin star chef, therefore, If I choose to purchase an expensive camera and lens it does not make me a professional photographer.

Back to my key point “ what, as an organisation are you a) trying to prevent and b) give professional and commercial photographers”

If you are trying to prevent high quality images getting used without licence or approval you would have failed, have a look at this image that is on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/katie_nelson/2356108632/in/set-72157604218131642/

This was taken with a compact camera at only 5 Megapixel, I have shown this specific image to 2 newspaper picture editors and they both would have been happy to use this, based on image resolution and quality as a “follow up story image”, had it been take with a Leica or even a Sigma DP1 at 14 Megapixel it would have been almost good enough for magazine print, what this image does not have is composition, I am sure you will agree and this is what a professional photographer gets by being accredited, they would get access and vantage point to make sure they get the best image with the best composition and this is something that a photographer in the stands with £5000.00 camera and a £5000 lens would not get which is key to my point.

I am sure you would get today the non-accredited professional photographer who will try and beat the system but this would happen whether you change the camera policy or not, again like the IOC/VANOC this would get picked up after the event and to be frank no serious commercial publication would use not accredited images for the fear of reprisal.

So my issue is that there are many amateur photographers who would like to take expensive camera’s into the stadiums for the World Cup that have no intentions beyond recording that “great image” for personal use, all it would take is for FIFA to change their policy / wording to something like VANOC which I have enclosed as an email when questioned about this policy, but to summarise:

If you have a spectator accreditation there should be no problems using a DSLR. Obviously you are not allowed to use any images for commercial use
Best regards, Media Operations, International Olympic Committee

I will leave this with you for some thought and whilst I am sure this is not a simple question with a simple answer I would appreciate a full answer with some either formal (which I would share) or some informal (to be kept private) answers as opposed to a “thanks for your email, we will read it and take on board you thoughts and comments”.

Best Regards





All,

As this whole issue is not going to go away and I am sure will resurface shortly for the World Cup, I have just sent the following email to FIFA that I thought I would share, I am also going to start a new thread, specifically on this subject.

A question on photography - what is a large camera and why is accreditation needed ?

Dear Alex,

I am sorry it has been a few days since our call but I had decided to do a little more research and thinking before I put pen to paper as we discuss on the phone.

Hopefully you remember the point of my call was to discuss the issue that has been raised by the South African FA with regards to the issue of spectators using expensive camera’s that are perceived to be for professional use at matches.

This is based on the fact that I am a serious non-professional sports photographer with an expensive camera (Nikon D3) and fast lenses and would like to take some good quality images at the World Cup for my personal image collection.

Before I continue specifically about the World Cup it is worth mentioning that this issue has been around for a while now not just in your sport but many others including the current Olympics which like you, are very keen to preserve copywrite and prevent commercial gain from none approved or inappropriate sources, which I have to say up front, I am generally in support of. The point is that for the Winter Olympics the IOC and VANOC have taken a very pragmatic approach to the problem and have allowed general ticket holder to take pictures with consumer, pro-sumer and professional camera’s with large lens’s based on the fact it is easier to police the abuse of these images after the event through normal legal channels.

The reason for this is simply a technical issue that has manifested itself over the last 2-4 years in photography.

Let me go back about 5 years before digital camera technology really flourished, there are lots of debate about this as it is hard to directly compare analogue film and digital images but in those days a professional 35mm camera with a fast lens (say f2.4) to the eye had an approximate equivalent resolution 8-10 Megapixels and there was no consumer cameras to match this so professional photographers almost had exclusivity on high end camera’s and lens and therefore in the sports word to get “the shot” they had to be accredited so as to get close to the action and in the most advantageous spot knowing that no fan, supporter or guest could get these images.

However, today there are many small digital camera’s both DSLR and compact camera’s that have far in excess of the quality of a professional camera and lens from 5 years ago, therefore the personal sports photographer with a mid to high quality digital compact camera with a good seat relatively close to the action would be able to get images that have the pixel quality that would be greater than a professional photographer of 5 years ago and as got as some of the images that a professional of today might have, what the personal photographer will not have is “access and vantage point” and as an organisation it would be almost impossible, nah, it would be impossible to stop these camera’s entering a stadium.

The comment that was received from the SA FA was:

The Terms and Conditions of a ticket strictly prohibit any camera. We have made a special concession whereby we allow cellphone cameras and smaller cameras as these are usually for personal use only. However, any camera that may be deemed for professional use, as in this case, is not allowed. The stewards are not in a position to determine the intention of the photographer so we do not allow these as a rule. This is standard procedure at all major events.

FIFA Media also patrol the stadium arena and asks us to stop fans from using cameras they deem professional and evict repeat offenders.

To use this comment as a discussion point, what is a small camera if I turned up at the gate with Leica M9 (image enclosed) with a 90mm f2.5 lens it would be exceeding unlikely a steward with question this camera as it looks like a simple small camera, however, if I had arrived with a Nikon D90 (image enclosed) based on this statement it would have been refused, however, I am sure that if you are into photography or ask anyone that is you would appreciate the the Leica M9 would take far superior and much higher quality images than the Nikon, this is the whole point I am trying to raise is “ what, as an organisation are you a) trying to prevent and b) give professional and commercial photographers”

I would also like to add about the above statement is that if the steward is not in a position to determine the intention of the photographer they would also not be in a position to determine what is a camera for professional use or personal use, an analogy I have been using is that if I am a keen cook and buy an expensive cooker and food processor it does not make me a Michelin star chef, therefore, If I choose to purchase an expensive camera and lens it does not make me a professional photographer.

Back to my key point “ what, as an organisation are you a) trying to prevent and b) give professional and commercial photographers”

If you are trying to prevent high quality images getting used without licence or approval you would have failed, have a look at this image that is on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/katie_nelson/2356108632/in/set-72157604218131642/

This was taken with a compact camera at only 5 Megapixel, I have shown this specific image to 2 newspaper picture editors and they both would have been happy to use this, based on image resolution and quality as a “follow up story image”, had it been take with a Leica or even a Sigma DP1 at 14 Megapixel it would have been almost good enough for magazine print, what this image does not have is composition, I am sure you will agree and this is what a professional photographer gets by being accredited, they would get access and vantage point to make sure they get the best image with the best composition and this is something that a photographer in the stands with £5000.00 camera and a £5000 lens would not get which is key to my point.

I am sure you would get today the non-accredited professional photographer who will try and beat the system but this would happen whether you change the camera policy or not, again like the IOC/VANOC this would get picked up after the event and to be frank no serious commercial publication would use not accredited images for the fear of reprisal.

So my issue is that there are many amateur photographers who would like to take expensive camera’s into the stadiums for the World Cup that have no intentions beyond recording that “great image” for personal use, all it would take is for FIFA to change their policy / wording to something like VANOC which I have enclosed as an email when questioned about this policy, but to summarise:

If you have a spectator accreditation there should be no problems using a DSLR. Obviously you are not allowed to use any images for commercial use
Best regards, Media Operations, International Olympic Committee

I will leave this with you for some thought and whilst I am sure this is not a simple question with a simple answer I would appreciate a full answer with some either formal (which I would share) or some informal (to be kept private) answers as opposed to a “thanks for your email, we will read it and take on board you thoughts and comments”.

Best Regards





bmxdad said:
BTW I would like to state for you American NR guys that your Snowboarder " Shaun White " by far was the most deserving Gold Winner of this game so far. He was the leader and winner after the 1st round and on his last run did not have to do anything, but He did it anyway and showed the world how good he could be by making an even better ride. My son is a bit of a Shaun White fan

Pete

Shaun White is not wired like the rest of us. Most people wouldn't take risks like he did on that second run, but it sure makes for a great show. Didn't I hear he's the only person to have won an event in both winter and summer X-games? Maybe he ought to take swimming lessons from Michael Phelps and try to do the same thing in winter/summer olympics.

I would just like to add that I would have loved to be at the Snowboard competition and taking pictures, that would have been a blast, sort of like shooting BMX on snow

BTW I would like to state for you American NR guys that your Snowboarder " Shaun White " by far was the most deserving Gold Winner of this game so far. He was the leader and winner after the 1st round and on his last run did not have to do anything, but He did it anyway and showed the world how good he could be by making an even better ride. My son is a bit of a Shaun White fan

Pete

No idea, but I would not try it. Lots of people with small cameras had their flash go off in auto mode, and the announcer gave a reminder that flash was not allowed. I would not try flash with a DSLR and big lens - don't push your luck (and again, not sure what you would get out of using your flash in such a large venue).

So what happens if you use flash? Do they confront you? Or ask you to leave if you continue?

Flash will get you noticed and in trouble. I used flash for close-up shots after the event.

Flash is of little use - you sit too far from the action for flash, and the ice rings are well lit and reflect light, so that I was able to get fast shutter speeds with decent ISOs: 1/1000/F5.6/ISO 1000. Or 1/640/F8.0/ISO 1000.

Thanks for sharing your experiences lemieux and fabriceh. Seems like it might be a case by case or venue by venue kind of rule enforcement.

What about the no flash rule? Are you guys getting away with using flash too? Any problems?

Just back from the Games. What a blast! Everyone was super friendly and helpful. Events were great, street celebrations very fun.

I attended two indoor events - ice skating at Pacific Coliseum and hockey at Canada Hockey place. I had a photo backpack with a D300 with my 18-200, and a Sigma 100-400mmm (9.5 in long "at rest"). No issues (or questions) going through security (think similar restrictions as if boarding an airplane). No issues using the big boy at either event. Did see (and took pics of) several other people in spectator section with bigger glass than me.

Unless pro media complains that unlicensed photos are making their way to clients, I see these games to be photo-friendly. They want people to have good experience, so if a VANOC volunteer says anything, I would politely chat with them, even ask to see a supervisor if needed, just to be sure. Having smaller glass as backup is a good idea. And then, the main point is to enjoy the games, and unless you have those amazing seats with that incredible view of the event, your pictures might not be worth getting kicked out of the place. :-)

The Olympic list excludes Mothers in law...

As to the hockey game it is less stringent than what some of the stadiums in the "NHL" make you comply to... No lenses over 3inches at the staples center... those 50mm still can work a miracle

I had no problem entering Pacific Coliseum or GM Place with a small bag, DSLR (D5000) and 3 lenses (35, 18-55, 70-300). Security check thought it was fine, never gave it a second glance.

I was at the Czech-Slovakia hockey game last night, sitting up in the very last row of the 100 sections. With 5 minutes to go in the hockey game, a VANOC person wearing a blue jacket with a reflective-tape orange vest labelled SECURITY approached me. He told me to put the camera away because it was considered "professional". I asked him what made it professional, and he said anything with a lens over 6" in length. I offered to change lenses, which he at first resisted but then agreed. I was using the 70-300, and it does extend pretty far (esp with the hood).

A few minutes later he told another spectator the same thing. That spectator seemed to tell him where to go. Standing next to the security guy was a police officer. The security guy seemed to want the police officer to eject the specator, but the police officer shrugged him off.

I was going to challenge the security guy after the game, but he disappeared.

When I got home, I checked the VANOC Terms and Conditions (note, these are not printed in full on the back of the ticket, you have to go to the web site). It reads:

"In conformance with the Rules, alcohol, illegal drugs, cameras, recording devices, clothing not being worn and bags or containers of any kind, may be excluded from the premises."
http://www.vancouver2010.com/more-2010-information/cultural-festivals-and-events/ticketing-terms-and-conditions/

Note the weakish wording "may be excluded" which gives them discretion. I'm glad clothing not being worn is in the same category as illegal drugs! Why not just say no commercial activity is allowed?

Was at the cross country ski event in Whistler today and there were dozens of DLSRs with big lenses (not pros...they had HUGE lenses). I took in my D200 with mid range zoom. Wanted to take my D700, vertical grip and larger lens but was usure if it was a good idea. If I go to another event I will take it for sure.

Thank you jonnyapple. I used a 70-200 2.8L IS with a 1.4x extender. I'll check in on occasion :)

Great shots so far, Proggie. So that ski jumping one was with a 40D at 280mm. Do you mind my asking which lens? I hope you stick around the forum even after the games. It would be good to have a canon user's opinion about some of the things that get discussed.

I'm a Canon user and I joined the forum to get and share information on the photographic policy at the games, but if anyone is interested in the photos I took at the opening ceremony and at ski jumping you can find them in my flickr set (only 3 so far, but more will come as soon as I have time to process them...enjoying the games too much thus far :) ):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tym/sets/72157623300622913/

I hope for no commercial gain :-)

So when are you guys actually going to share these photos with us?

All,

This is great news and it appears that there are no restrictions, however, I think there is still and overall issue over this problem generally, and collectively we need to get this issue addressed. Also, you only need to get one "jobsworth" at a security gate and the whole issue flares up again. I will continue om my quest and Soap Box and feed back to the forum. If anyone has any good idea's, suggestions or high level contacts please let me know.

-Gary

BRING YOUR DSLR AND HAVE FUN!!!!!
I HAVE BEEN NOW TO 2 EVENTS, AT THE LAST ONE, SHORT TRACK SPEED SKATING, THERE WERE DSLRs WITH LONG LENSES IN USE ALL OVER THE PLACE - NO PROBLEM AT ALL, PLUS I FOUND THIS POST...
""I'm working a Venue as manager in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Olympics; I thought you might like to know the camera policy. Here is the official policy I took from the Olympic web site:

"Photography for personal use is permitted, but flash photography is not permitted at Canada Hockey Place, Pacific Coliseum, Richmond Olympic Oval, UBC Thunderbird Arena and The Whistler Sliding Centre. The use of broadcast or photographic equipment for commercial purposes is prohibited."

I was surpised any manner of camera and lens combo is being allowed in; I did question this personally concerning screening policy. The policy does not talk about tripods or monopods, much to my surprise. Here is the complete list, thought I would pass this on for anyone coming to Vancouver:

" * Aerosol sprays, flammable liquids, fireworks, water balloon launchers

*

Ambush marketing of any kind, distribution of leaflets, pamphlets and non-approved publications, promotional material and wearables
*

Animals (except service animals)
*

Balls, Frisbees, racquets, hockey sticks, pucks and other sport items
*

Bicycles, scooters, skateboards, skates, skis, snowboards, sleds
*

Broadcast and lighting equipment from entities other than rights-holding accredited broadcasters and the host broadcaster
*

Broadcasting and recording through the use of mobile phones or other transmitting devices (such as two-way radios, recording devices, PDAs or video cameras) for commercial purposes
*

Dangerous, disruptive behaviour or behaviour which disturbs spectators (including, without limitation, public drunkenness, fighting, gambling, spitting, threatening staff or spectators, throwing objects onto the field of play and/or public seating area, political or religious activities)
*

Displays of signage and banners containing religious, political, provocative or obscene content and or visible branding and trademarks of sponsor and non-sponsor companies; flags of non-participating countries; flags and banners larger than 2 m x 1 m; poles larger than 0.9 m (flags cannot be attached to any surface in the venue)
*

Devices capable of causing a disturbance such as air horns, trumpets, lasers, thundersticks and noisemaking that might disrupt the session or be disturbing to other spectators
*

Drugs, needles, prescription-strength medicines not validly prescribed for the ticket bearer by a physician
*

Flash photography and other lighting devices (such as laser pens) anywhere around the field of play (exceptions may apply)
*

Food and beverages, including alcohol, purchased outside of the venue (except for medical needs)
*

Folding chairs or benches (stadium cushions are allowed in mountain venues)
*

Glass containers or bottles
*

Golf umbrellas, open umbrellas in seating areas disrupting spectators’ views
*

Large bags (bags small enough to fit under a seat and not obstruct aisles are allowed) containers, coolers, ice chests
*

Smoking (except in designated areas)
*

Strollers in a seating bowl or viewing area
*

Unauthorized collection of money or commercial activity (such as hawking, ticket resale), sale of counterfeit goods
*

Use of radio frequency devices (Wi-Fi, pocket wizards and land mobile radios) that have not been registered and coordinated with Industry Canada prior to entry into the venue"

Enjoy the games. I'll be working the curling venue. ""