noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Boycott the Kentucky Derby, then.
If the derby is run with half empty grandstands, they will get the message.
Man... This "no photography" control freak idiocy is getting old!
If the derby is run with half empty grandstands, they will get the message.
Man... This "no photography" control freak idiocy is getting old!
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Not if you are the press. And "press" is a pretty broad definition when it comes to that - it is not up to a event organizer to determine what kind of press he wants.
L Collins
Well-known
Wrong. trust me on this. It's what I do for a living the last 26 years.
Private property owner has the right to control "the press" or any one else who is on their private property. you are confusing large events on private property with "public" events. They aren't. They are Private events, held by private citizens. The Kentucky Derby is a Private event held by the peopke who own the racetrack. when you buy a ticket, you buy a license to enter the private event subject to the event iwners' restrictions.
Churchill Dowbs has every right to completely prohibit "the press" and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. If you don't believe me, show up to any large church in America ("public event" in private space, right?) and demand to be let in. tell me how that works out.
Cut and pasted from a legal website that deals with this precise issue:
Newsworthy events such as arrests, fires or demonstrations frequently occur on private property. But property owners or police sometimes deny journalists access to homes, businesses, and even seemingly public places such as shopping centers and privately owned housing developments. Even when reporters gain access without being stopped, they can be arrested for trespass and property owners may sue them after the fact, seeking damages for trespass or invasion of privacy.
Reporters do not have a right to knowingly trespass just because they are covering the news. When Bryon Wells, a reporter for the East Valley Tribune in Phoenix, Ariz., ignored a "no trespassing" sign, opened an unlocked gate and rang a former police officer's doorbell in November 2003, he was charged with criminal trespass, even though he immediately left when the officer's wife told him to. A Superior Court judge ruled in July 2004 that the First Amendment didn't protect Wells. "Reporters who are in violation of a criminal trespass statute are not exempt from prosecution simply because they are exercising a First Amendment right," the judge wrote. (Arizona v. Wells)
Boycott the Kentucky Derby, then.
If the derby is run with half empty grandstands, they will get the message.
Man... This "no photography" control freak idiocy is getting old!
Unfortunately, I would imagine this is a non issue to most non-photographers.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm not aware of any country where the organizers of a private event on private land are obliged to admit any press at all, and if they do choose to admit any, they are perfectly free to pick and choose whom they do let in.
Cheers,
R.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Last I checked, the United States Constitution - and Article One of the Bill of Rights - are not trumped by "American Law" or the petty control freak mindset of the people who own and operate the Kentucky Derby and/or Churchill Downs.
Article VI of the Constitution makes this point undeniably clear, which is why it is called the supremacy clause.
L Collins
Well-known
Clearly this a an area where a lot of otherwise intelligent, informed people are misinformed or do not understand the nuances of First Amendment law, constitutional law generally, and the very crucial distinction between private and public events.
I invite everyone to do some research.
I invite everyone to do some research.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Everyone? After all, the distinction is more between private and public land than between private and public events. You somewhat weaken your own case by overstating it and not always phrasing it precisely. You may legitimately accuse me of nit-picking, as you did last time I pointed this out, but I'd 'invite' you to be more careful too.
Cheers,
R.
Exdsc
Well-known
The key term is "interchangeable lens cameras". Simply because they can produce good quality images which can be sold and rip off the official PJs of the event... The security reason is just an excuse to make it sound serious.
The biggest enemy of amateur photographers are professional photographers, not government.
L Collins
Well-known
Roger,
Yes, I did invite 'everyone' to do some research. I'm not sure how that 'weakens' my argument.
And yes, I can assure you I know as much about American law with respect to this specific situation than you do, just as I['m sure you know more about the photographic arts than I do, even though I have more than one advanced degree in the photographic arts from fairly reputable institutions of higher learning.
And yes, you are nit-picking, which seems to me not to serve the purpose of this thread but more to divert it for whatever reason. Which is a shame, because I see this forum as a means of education - you to impart your photographic experience to us, but also for those of us who have experience in other areas to impart that to others on the forum when a photographic matter bumps up against our area of expertise.
And I do think that this area of photography, i.e. photographers' legal rights, is grossly misunderstood by many, and think as well that its helpful to educate people about what their rights are. That's all. If my expertise isn't needed, I'll humbly bow out of this conversation and let others take up the slack.
Yes, I did invite 'everyone' to do some research. I'm not sure how that 'weakens' my argument.
And yes, I can assure you I know as much about American law with respect to this specific situation than you do, just as I['m sure you know more about the photographic arts than I do, even though I have more than one advanced degree in the photographic arts from fairly reputable institutions of higher learning.
And yes, you are nit-picking, which seems to me not to serve the purpose of this thread but more to divert it for whatever reason. Which is a shame, because I see this forum as a means of education - you to impart your photographic experience to us, but also for those of us who have experience in other areas to impart that to others on the forum when a photographic matter bumps up against our area of expertise.
And I do think that this area of photography, i.e. photographers' legal rights, is grossly misunderstood by many, and think as well that its helpful to educate people about what their rights are. That's all. If my expertise isn't needed, I'll humbly bow out of this conversation and let others take up the slack.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Of a private event - say, a wedding, baptism or game of cricket among friends or colleagues, yes. However, courts on both sides of the Atlantic have frequently ruled that organizers of public events on private land, say rock concerts, league sports competitions or conventions have to provide some unfiltered access to the press. That battle was mostly raging in the early to mid nineties, you won't find events that try to ban the press any more - these days they are more subtle, softly restricting the press into special photo and interview ops...
FWIW, the restriction to "cameras without interchangeable lenses" probably will not be considered as hindering the independent press, as it still grants reporters not endorsed by the PR machinery of the organizer the right to purchase a ticket and photograph with a compact.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I doubt this has to do with security and more to do with controlling the photos. This is no different than photo bans at shopping malls. It's a bit different from the "no photos" rule at many concerts today.
I wonder if Janet Napolitano was consulted. Probably not. She's useless.
I wonder if Janet Napolitano was consulted. Probably not. She's useless.
TXForester
Well-known
Bingo! Sounds like it is an excuse to control content while trying to not piss off those who get cut out. To me, it seems like it is all about $$$.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Pretty much what I'm thinking. There is a long standing prohibition against commercial use of these kinds of images taken on public property without the owner's or subject's explicit approval or release. Editorial usage is now under attack on many fronts. In the microstock world, cowards that they are, they now require advance permission or credentials from any ticketed event before even considering the images for review.
Exdsc
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight: Because it sounds patronizing and arrogant.
It's generally a safe bet that there's someone reading your posts -- my posts, anyone's posts -- who knows more than you or I. I am not trying to divert this thread: I am trying to point out that you are not the only person who knows anything about the subject, and that if you wish to portray yourself as omniscient, it's a good idea to pick your own nits before someone else picks them for you.
EDIT: I am perhaps unusually sensitive to this sort of thing because I have been (sometimes justly) accused of the same sort of thing myself, and therefore work quite hard (but not always successfully) at remembering to be ever so slightly more humble.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You have clearly paid more attention to the law on this matter than I. Could I possibly trouble you for a reference or two? I couldn't work out how to frame a Google question, but no doubt if you give me one reference I can find more.
Thanks,
R.
Pioneer
Veteran
No reason to be "paranoid" here. Obviously, based on all the very knowledgeable comments in this post this is being done only to restrict us poor amateur photographers from making money off any lucky photos we may accidentally capture with our interchangeable lens cameras.
But it is funny that every single article being written cites "heightened security concerns" resulting from the recent Boston bombings. These are the things that everyone reads. They don't read that Churchill Downs is trying to limit those few accidental photos that could make a little money for an amateur. Instead, everywhere they turn they are being told that those of us who pack around interchangeable lens cameras are "security risks."
Call me foolish but...
But it is funny that every single article being written cites "heightened security concerns" resulting from the recent Boston bombings. These are the things that everyone reads. They don't read that Churchill Downs is trying to limit those few accidental photos that could make a little money for an amateur. Instead, everywhere they turn they are being told that those of us who pack around interchangeable lens cameras are "security risks."
Call me foolish but...