Kentucky Derby Bans cameras WTF?

[kshapero]

a bunch of BS

 

[tunalegs]

Churchill Grounds says that the measures were developed after consulting with several law enforcement authorities following the Boston Marathon bombings last week.

Wait what? I didn't know photographers caused the bombings. Somebody's gotten into the idiot pills again apparently.

 

[anjoca76]

This is not new. Most large concert venues, if you read the fine print, do not allow interchangeable lens cameras. Just as an example, I went to see Phish last summer at Saratoga Performing Arts Center (SPAC). Interchangeable lens cameras were prohibited, according to the venue's website (which I check beforehand). Nevertheless, I took a chances and had my iiiC loaded with drug-store color film and a cheap Industar 22, and not only was I let through, but the security people were wooed by my "cool" antique camera.

I think that, though they might say it is for safety purposes that they don't want certain cameras, it really has more to do with the concern that people with big dslr's will make commercial-quality photos that will undercut the "pros" who are hire to, in this case, shoot the derby. At the concert I went to, security personnel had no clue that my modest, dorky looking camera was, technically, prohibited. But had I walked in with a big ol' Canon dslr and bazooka-sized lens, I wouldn't have been allowed in.


untitled-42730009 by smokeycalifornia, on Flickr

 

[Justin Smith]

I think that, though they might say it is for safety purposes that they don't want certain cameras, it really has more to do with the concern that people with big dslr's will make commercial-quality photos that will undercut the "pros" who are hire to, in this case, shoot the derby. At the concert I went to, security personnel had no clue that my modest, dorky looking camera was, technically, prohibited. But had I walked in with a big ol' Canon dslr and bazooka-sized lens, I wouldn't have been allowed in.

This. It is sad that security is being used as an "excuse". It would be much better if they said that inter-changable lens cameras were not allowed, with no explanation.

 

[Ben Z]

Ehhhh, this is the same bs as not allowing photography in museums and historic buildings because supposedly it deteriorates the paintings etc. Except they ban all photography, not just flash photography, so their motives are as transparent as a UV filter: sell postcards and picture books in the gift shop. My rule is, if they don't allow photography then I'm not paying to get in.

 

[charjohncarter]

This is not new. Most large concert venues, if you read the fine print, do not allow interchangeable lens cameras. Just as an example, I went to see Phish last summer at Saratoga Performing Arts Center (SPAC). Interchangeable lens cameras were prohibited, according to the venue's website (which I check beforehand). Nevertheless, I took a chances and had my iiiC loaded with drug-store color film and a cheap Industar 22, and not only was I let through, but the security people were wooed by my "cool" antique camera.

I think that, though they might say it is for safety purposes that they don't want certain cameras, it really has more to do with the concern that people with big dslr's will make commercial-quality photos that will undercut the "pros" who are hire to, in this case, shoot the derby. At the concert I went to, security personnel had no clue that my modest, dorky looking camera was, technically, prohibited. But had I walked in with a big ol' Canon dslr and bazooka-sized lens, I wouldn't have been allowed in.


untitled-42730009 by smokeycalifornia, on Flickr

Very good point, so now I will take my IIIf or my Balda when I go public.

 

[redisburning]

The most interesting photo related thing about "Boston" - for me - was that the "Fed" wanted all crowd made photos sent to them and NOT shared with the media.

I don't understand the logic. Maybe one of the smarter people on here can help me out?

you will notice these two men are not, in fact, the two brothers suspected of bombing the Boston marathon.

 

[Al Patterson]

because the Churchill Downs isn't owned by a private company...

oh wait, it is.

seriously some of you people are denser than concrete. this is a private event, they can ban cameras and it has nothing to do with your freedoms, it has to do with the rules they have the freedom to establish as a private company.

if you don't like it, don't support the event. speak with your wallet, not with inane and against the rules political posts on RFF please.

Ah yes,insult the messenger personally with a trite obvious post about the rights of private companies. Yawn. Pot, meet kettle, oh dense one...


Now, were they to ban backpacks, it might actually make sense, but this isn't about sense.

 

[Al Patterson]

This will include Leica.


http://petapixel.com/2013/04/23/ken...hangeable-lens-cameras-for-security-purposes/

I'd be willing to bet the media will be exempted, right?

 

[igi]

because the Churchill Downs isn't owned by a private company...

oh wait, it is.

seriously some of you people are denser than concrete. this is a private event, they can ban cameras and it has nothing to do with your freedoms, it has to do with the rules they have the freedom to establish as a private company.

if you don't like it, don't support the event. speak with your wallet, not with inane and against the rules political posts on RFF please.

Good God, gladly somebody pointed this out.

If it became government policy to ban SLR's and the like to public events, then that's the time to self-immolate.

 

[clayne]

Not about security dudes.

All about protecting established/vetted event photographers.

 

[sig]

Ah yes,insult the messenger personally with a trite obvious post about the rights of private companies. Yawn. Pot, meet kettle, oh dense one...


Now, were they to ban backpacks, it might actually make sense, but this isn't about sense.

I think backpacks already are covered.....

I can understand that cameras with large or detachable lenses are forbidden.
They are big and come in big backpacks.
What about the small ones?
It is just easier to have simple rules and make it easier for the security people to understand and follow them (my impression is that they are not the smartest people in the world, at least if you read RFF 😀).

No coolers, alcohol and grills is the show stopper for me

--------------------------------------------
The newly banned items include coolers, camcorders, cameras with large or detachable lenses, large purses, tripods and noisemakers. That list already included prohibitions on alcohol, backpacks, umbrellas, grills and any type of weapon.

Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/natio...lines-following-boston-bombings#ixzz2RMJFpfip

 

[clayne]

"Churchill Grounds says that the measures were developed after consulting with several law enforcement authorities following the Boston Marathon bombings last week."

post 25 for citation

Yes, because everything private enterprises report is the honest-to-god truth.

 

[clayne]

Well, if all is BS, then why even post? You can go over to PrtaPixel and tell Michael Zhang he propagating falsehoods.. Let me know, I want to watch (read).

I'm simply saying this wouldn't be the first time a private organization/enterprise used a convenient reason to ban something for reasons completely other than reality.

Think about it - is there any sense in the security concerns, given that the FBI/etc. just asked everyone for photographs of the Boston event? If it doesn't make sense...

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

seriously some of you people are denser than concrete. this is a private event, they can ban cameras and it has nothing to do with your freedoms, it has to do with the rules they have the freedom to establish as a private company.

if you don't like it, don't support the event. speak with your wallet, not with inane and against the rules political posts on RFF please.

Red is quite right. Voting with one's wallet is guaranteed to preserve both your sanity and your wealth.

😀

 

[cosmonaut]

because the Churchill Downs isn't owned by a private company...

oh wait, it is.

seriously some of you people are denser than concrete. this is a private event, they can ban cameras and it has nothing to do with your freedoms, it has to do with the rules they have the freedom to establish as a private company.

if you don't like it, don't support the event. speak with your wallet, not with inane and against the rules political posts on RFF please.

In the 80s we had a private Golf Course that held the City County Tournament. In the past the Course did not allow blacks to play. For this reason I refused to play there. We were asked to leave once as we had a black player in the group. I am not sure how or if they resolved the issue before the tournament as I still refused to play.
I think if a private group decides they are going to do something for the public at large they must comply with certain things. Handicapped rest rooms, access, food, water ect. I would think the State of Kentucky has a big say in the running of the Derby as the safety and well being of the people attending are first and foremost. Something like this has the risk of getting a lot of egg on ones face.
Yes the Derby can do as they wish to a POINT. But there are laws out there on the books that protect our well being and rights of the people. They will have to follow these laws or run the risk of public embarrassment. Private or not.

 

[clayne]

I don't know your experience, but I've been a credentialed photographer at many events. The imagery is controlled by restricting access. The event organizers want all things smooth. If security has to check for cameras + all the other crap people bring into events - it cost them money. They want happy customers that will buy food and beer but not get drunk. They want no injuries - not even a sun burn if they can have their way. They want folks to have a great time so they will come back next year/month/week - they want to make money! Anything negative that effects fans cost the promoters money. They want happy customers and money, with no problems.

Again, photos are controlled by restricting access.

What's your experience in working these events? World Series?, Rodeos?, election campaigns ?

Have you read all the posts in this thread?

What is your point other than "I've been a credentialed photographer at many events." ?

WGIS. You didn't even approach the original point I was making but instead turned it around into some ego-thing. The point is something doesn't line up here with regards to why they're enacting these new "rules."

 

[thegman]

I don't understand the logic. Maybe one of the smarter people on here can help me out?

I may not be one of the smarter people here, but I'd say you're looking for logic where there is none.

Banning of lenses 'over 6 inches' due to 'security', is so stupid, so ignorant, that I almost find it impressive. I find it impressive that people can presumably have a meeting, and come out with this as the result, and not be embarrassed. There is something about that which I find triumphant, a triumph of idiocy, yes, but triumph nonetheless.

 

[j j]

Of course such restrictions are about image rights. Just like restrictions on bringing drinks and food are about selling more drinks and food. Carrying a bottle of water? Throw that in the bin provided and buy an identical one at the other side of the security check.

Fortunately for photographers and as pointed out by anjoca76security tend to concentrate on SLRs and are ignorant of equally capable cameras such as mirrorless types.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I may not be one of the smarter people here, but I'd say you're looking for logic where there is none.

Banning of lenses 'over 6 inches' due to 'security', is so stupid, so ignorant, that I almost find it impressive. I find it impressive that people can presumably have a meeting, and come out with this as the result, and not be embarrassed. There is something about that which I find triumphant, a triumph of idiocy, yes, but triumph nonetheless.

Probably not just lenses...

(Sorry for the vulgarity, but you know what they say about men with power complexes. I'm surprised they didn't make it 4 inches).

Cheers,

R.