Kentucky Derby Bans cameras WTF?

jsrockit said:
Well, do you guys still feel they are attacking photographers by using terrorism as an excuse?
Click to expand...

More accurate would be to say they are imposing possibly unnecessary rules using terrorism as an excuse. More than just photographers will need to modify their behavior to comply with the rules.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Interesting: thanks. I assume that "6" applies to the physical length, not the focal length, but where are they measuring from? The back of the camera, or the lens?

Why would anyone who'd read that lot bother to go? But at least they warn you in advance. What gets me are the arseholes who invent new rules when you arrive, or who have old but generally ignored rules in tiny print at the entrance when you've taken the trouble to get there.

Something I've done sometimes, especially in shops who want you to hand over your camera bag, is to say, "Yes, I'll leave my cameras with you, if you w¡ll sign a receipt accepting full responsibility for $10,000 worth of cameras." Strangely enough, no-one has ever taken me up on that...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

In my home town - which is also home to a gigantic state university - those signs are up everywhere. I just ignore them and go about my business. I have only been asked for my camera bag once. I explained that it was full of cameras and lenses and had to stay with me. The clerk readily agreed (at 55, I must not look like a shoplifting college kid).

No doubt these shops who want you to surrender your camera bag at the door will also have a "not responsible for lost, stolen or damaged personal property" policy. And we are supposed to hand over our gear under those circumstances? I think not.

If faced with a "regulations are regulations, mister - hand it over" type clerk, I would do an about face and leave, never to return other than to see the shop owner at a later date to enlighten him/her to the fact that he/she has lost my business for life, along with the business of 120+ of my photographer friends who are in my photography club.

Women carrying purses are never badgered to hand them over. Why should photographers be subjected to an arbitrary and offensive demand of that kind?
 
Al Patterson said:
More than just photographers will need to modify their behavior to comply with the rules.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I don't think its rule changes are targeting photographers specifically. I'm not saying there are not ulterior motives (or benefits) to enforcing these rules, but the fact that they aren't allowing many other items makes the original story linked seem a bit out of context IMO.
 
redisburning said:
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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
Al Patterson said:
Someone who actually gets it... May still be some hope left...
Click to expand...

Let's say you host a public event to raise funds and will be attended by all the wealthy socialites etc. Will you put up a dress code? Will you let beggars in and beg for food inside? Based on your logic, you will because of the First Ammendment etc right there. Then all the beggars will shout out that they're being discriminated and treated as terrorists or whatever their paranoia is.

Kentucky Derby ain't a public place, it's a quasi-public place. That explains it right there.
 
Pioneer said:
So I am confused. Cameras were what enabled the FBI and Boston Police to solve the Boston Marathon bombing case in record time. Now cameras are being banned for security reasons? We seem to be moving ever surely towards a police state. Soon the only cameras allowed will belong to the government. This is quickly getting very silly.
Click to expand...


There are two camps, the "Quit Your Whining" camp and the "Where are we, the USSR?" camp, and it looks like this policy was made to satisfy neither.

Their (Kentucky Derby's) banning policy is of course mentally-challenged, but they could have just said it was for licensing and privacy issues. Playing the "bad people use interchangeable cameras" card is, at best, clumsy PR
 
redisburning said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course a private entity can ban photography. That is not what is offensive about this to me. Using national security as the justification is what is offensive.

It is plausible to me that law enforcement authorities are indeed advising restricting photography on these grounds and that is what needs pushback.
 
igi said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is apparently becoming the policy of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to recommend that photography be restricted on security grounds. Maybe not yet time for self-immolation, but it is time to be concerned.

The more this happens the more people pick up on it and the more photography and photographers are viewed with suspicion.
 
kkcsm said:
It is apparently becoming the policy of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to recommend that photography be restricted on security grounds. Maybe not yet time for self-immolation, but it is time to be concerned.

The more this happens the more people pick up on it and the more photography and photographers are viewed with suspicion.
Click to expand...

I agree, but then again authorities in Boston were asking photographers for their photos or videos to aid with the investigation. They can't have it both ways. If something happens at the Derby and there is no one to photograph it,does that help the authorities? Do they even care?
 
redisburning said:
well, Id put it mostly to the resistance of Americans, especially a certain half of them, to adopt evidence based perspectives of events.

you either have people who outright deny the validity of evidence or are willing to except anything that confirms their pre-existing world view as evidence, both demonstrating the same predisposition to take a limited, narrowed view.

why else would people in this thread claim that the government is taking away their freedoms when a private company is telling them they can't bring their cameras to an event?
Click to expand...

The government in the form of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies is advising the public that cameras and photographers are a security threat.
 
Corporate America with the support of the government at all levels believes it would be much more beneficial for you to have a Mint Julep in one hand and some toasted Pecans in the other.

Photographers can not be total consumers and spending at the necessary/required rate if two hands are needed for use with their cameras.

Right now they are allowing an adjustment period by allowing cameras with fixed lenses, at least you have on hand to drink or eat with at all times.

This will be changed to NO cameras in the future so that both hands will be free and improve their revenue goals.

. . . . . holding hands with loved ones, with the exception of babies and toddlers, will be phased in as well over the next decades.

Saftey is increased if the people who attending events have something they bought in both hands. ;)
 
seakayaker1 said:
Corporate America with the support of the government at all levels believes it would be much more beneficial for you to have a Mint Julep in one hand and some toasted Pecans in the other.
Click to expand...

they follow the money.

right now, they think they can do this sort of thing without significant impact to their bottom line.

if you whine, but take no action, nothing will change. no greater proof of that exists then in Wisconsin.

if you take a stand, and say "no more money for you", things change. ask Mercedes-Benz about what it was that made them turn around their sliding quality control and willingness to put stuff on the market that didn't live up to people's expectations. they were losing the market to Audi and the Japanese so they quit ****ing around. you think if people had continued to buy the cars and complained they would have changed a damn thing?
 
Yup, everybody knows you've got a weapon hidden in that 80-200. What a pack of morons.

I'm sure this more about profit than security.
 
unless the government intend to create terrorist attack i fail to see what the security measures are for not allowing cameras into events
 
I've been tracking this thread and the one re airport security. Check that one out for comparison. If every removable lens has to be visually checked (and if you can make a pressure cooker into a bomb, surely a brass lens barrel is doable?) it would take most of forever. I expect it's not the level of risk, its the cost of mitigating it that has led to the ban. And it would also be possible to smuggle non-explosives so perhaps more than one risk being mitigated? Not every stupid act can be blamed on government. Some are due to lawyers ... ... and some people argue that Government is the creation of lawyers anyway ... ;-)
 
I've never gone to the Kentucky Derby and probably never will, but it sounds like a great place to photograph the people who DO go to that sort of thing with a small camera and a short lens. Sounds like my X100s is still welcome, and that's great. The erosion of places one can photograph without restriction based on "security concerns" is, however, troubling. Whose security are we talking about here? Why is a long lens more of a security threat than a short one? I think it has nothing to do with security at all, unless it is income security. My biggest concern is the one mentioned several times by previous posters- that these regulations frame photographers as "threats".
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, where's the reference, Sevo? Still waiting for you and Roger to set me straight on the law. I would assume Roger has spent countless hours trying to find something. Love to hear what you've found.:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom