Except a photographer who has covered royal weddings at St. Georges before have said there wasn't an issue of space at those weddings.
As a former journalist, I can't help but roll my eyes at the photographer's complaints. This is all about them as individuals, not their publications, and they seem to lack the imagination to realize they still have some really good, if different from the past, opportunities in this situation. No, they won't all get their credit on the exact photo as every other royal photographer because they won't all be in the exact same place with the exact same angle. The one photographer inside will be working pool, which means everything taken by that photog will be available to the media as a whole; I wouldn't be surprised if a similar requirement is being made of those few outside the door to St. George's. But beyond that every one of these photographers gets a fairly unique spot to potentially take photos that no one else has. They all still get a chance at that golden photo of whatever moment or gesture we can't predict, only now whoever gets it will get their credit in a lot of places rather than having the impact be diluted by the fact that every other guy in a crowded media pen got it, too.
It was Clarence House who acted. It was because The Sun published paparazzi pics. So The Sun tabloid was banned from future photo calls. It just happens Arthur Edwards is their snapper. It wasn’t anything personal. They still get along.
Edit: Arthur didn’t take the pics
So you are ok with the photographer being punished for the coverage by the paper they work for. There goes the photographers shouldn't be punished for the coverage by their paper argument. Or is it only ok when some do it, but not others?
So you are ok with the photographer being punished for the coverage by the paper they work for. There goes the photographers shouldn't be punished for the coverage by their paper argument. Or is it only ok when some do it, but not others?
the only thing the British public pays for is security, i.e., the wedding.
No matter how you want to look at it (and I've heard all the explanations for where their upkeep comes from) he owes his position in life to the citizens of the UK. If he doesn't like the downside of that, he can leave.
Their upkeep of Harry/Meghan and the Cambridges is paid for by Charles. The Queen pays for the upkeep of Anne/Edward/Sophie/Andrew, the Kents etc. The Queen also pays taxes.
Here’s an example of what they’re complaining about.
Take the Lindo Wing. Rather than just have one PA photographer out front and that one person shares his or her pics with everyone else, there is a large media pen set up with hundreds of snappers and tv crews.
They all compete with each for front pages and magazine covers.
That’s their issue with Harry’s wedding.
But you think they are wrong for doing. Or at least you've been trying to say how this is a bad move and photographers shouldn't be made to pay for what the reporters write. Yet, you seem to be ok with Arthur being banned when The Sun published photos he didn't have anything to do with when it was regarding the Cambridges.My opinion doesn’t count. I didn’t ban anyone. You’ll have to ask Clarence House.
I could be wrong but Arthur Edwards is the only royal photog I can think of that actually works solely for a newspaper. All of the ones Im familiar with via Twitter work for Getty, Rex Shutterstock, PA or are freelance. So photographers are being restricted for stories reporters are writing. Its odd IMO
You do realize Lindo Wing is on a public street right? They can't prevent them from taking pictures on a public street, just like Harry can't prevent them from taking pictures during the procession.
You do realize Lindo Wing is on a public street right? They can't prevent them from taking pictures on a public street, just like Harry can't prevent them from taking pictures during the procession.
You don’t have to agree with the complaints of royal photographers but that doesn’t mean their complaint isn’t valid.
On a normal day St Georges Chapel is open to the public. Anyone is allowed to attend services there. Anyone can stand outside and take pictures.
You’re clearly in the camp who supports just the PA taking pictures as the couple leave the church but that doesn’t help Getty, Rex, Shutterstock et al from competing.
You don’t have to agree with the complaints of royal photographers but that doesn’t mean their complaint isn’t valid.
On a normal day St Georges Chapel is open to the public. Anyone is allowed to attend services there. Anyone can stand outside and take pictures.
You’re clearly in the camp who supports just the PA taking pictures as the couple leave the church but that doesn’t help Getty, Rex, Shutterstock et al from competing.
Many agencies don’t care if they get a photo of the carriage ride. It’s the couple leaving the church that’s the money shot.
The streets of London are public as well but The doesn’t mean the Metropolitan Police can’t close them. Central London was closed for the Cambridge wedding.
The photographers outside the Abbey were in media pens, not hanging around on the pavement.
Harry has the freedom to restrict or allow whoever he wants outside his wedding but that’s doesn’t make it right.
T“ instead of helping, they were taking photographs of her dying on the back seat”