[Kerrowdown]

but it's our right to boycott and raise awareness

Good luck with that one.

Whilst I applaud your sentiments, the number of folk who wish to take photographs and who are actually prepared to boycott and not with just rhetoric. Are usually vastly out numbered by the general public, who have no interest whatsoever in Photography.

Events and venues organisers already know this I'm afraid. As I have been told this recently on a couple of separate occasions here in the UK, luckily for me it's not so much of an issue as I usually have accreditation.

[scratchpaddy]

Well a mall is private property, so house rules. . .

Secondly, mall management has a contractual responsibility to try to protect the trade dress of their retail tenants. That means that shooting the look and feel of stores is usually not allowed. Store design is a strategic asset for many-if not most-retailers.

There is plenty of snapshot photography going on in the traffic corridors and controlling that is both harder to accomplish and of lesser priority.

I'm aware that it's their right to ban photography, since it is private property. The one time I was stopped was before I was aware of the rule. They don't post signs, after all. I was in the corridor, taking a picture of a planter and a bench when I was stopped. The guard told me pretty much the same thing you did: intellectual property and trade secrets and stuff.

It still doesn't make sense to me. Store layouts are designed to draw people in. Wouldn't pictures of that layout help them in their goal? Someone would see the picture and think, "Hey, that looks nice. I want to go shopping there!" If I were some insidious competitor who wanted to copy the layout, all I'd have to do is walk in and take a look myself. If I were lazy, I could just look up the company's website. If the company is proud of their stores (like Apple, for example) they'll have more than enough pictures on their own website for someone to get the "look and feel" of it.

[Miguel]

It still doesn't make sense to me. Store layouts are designed to draw people in. Wouldn't pictures of that layout help them in their goal?

Not really; businesses are risk averse which means they try to control as many aspects of their operations and public face as possible. Free isn't always good when compared with risk. People aren't driven to shop at a store by its layout and branding as much as the marketing that promotes the branding.

From personal experience I will say that world-class retailers will have pilot stores where they test public reaction to different layouts and traffic flows. They will have video monitoring as part of the rollout plan. A civilian taking a photograph of that site provides far more risk to the company than the "free publicity" possibility offered by a Facebook posting.

Re: competitors gaining intelligence from photographing store interiors, again it is the slippery slope of risk. Within a store, there may be only one true high-value innovation and it could be in a hard-to-notice location. But a savvy spy photographer could try to gain that intelligence. I'm sure you and others reading this could think up wonderfully creative ways to get that secret stuff shot, but from the company's perspective the risk is less when you just ban all photography.

M

[charlestm]

Well a mall is private property, so house rules. . .

M

I think we're comparing apples and oranges.

A mall may prohibit photography for copyright or marketing purposes, but this is about events like the Kentucky Derby prohibiting interchangeable lens cameras under the guise of a "security concern".

Where does this come from? Are they worried that fake lenses contain explosives?

The article posted here suggests that inspecting DSLR camera's delay the security lines. Is that all there is to this? I guess I'm missing something here, because I would think that purses would slow down the line just as easily as a camera bag. The Kentucky Derby, according to the article, permits water bottles, coolers, and lunch items, which I would think would be just as much a security concern as would be a DSLR and lens.

cm

[Miguel]

I think we're comparing apples and oranges.

Please read my prior posts; I think they are exploiting the fear about terror as a cover for banning potentially marketable shots. The same outcome drives the requirements behind a mall banning cameras: someone may be willing to pay for unauthorized images. And for the record, another poster brought up the mall context though I see the connection quite plainly.

M

[charlestm]

Personally, I think more people need to start calling or writing their local venues and asking for this rule to be removed, and let them know as well that you will not attend events there which will not allow you to take pictures. It's their right to set rules for their non-public venue but it's our right to boycott and raise awareness. I think I'm going to try calling a couple of places and see what they say.

I'm with dboeren here ... I think photographers need to make a bit of a stink about this. It wouldn't hurt to voice your dismay.

I wonder if a Press Pass gets your DSLR through security?

cm

[scratchpaddy]

I think Macario and Miguel had the best answer for you. The only thing they're securing is profits; "security" is an excuse.

Sorry for derailing the thread on that mall tangent. I thought it was related enough, as both issues are about restricting photography. The malls are just a little more honest about the fact that it has nothing to do with your safety.

[Miguel]

Though I think security is a lousy cover story, I'm not all that upset by DSLRs with larger lenses (say over 3 inches) being banned from an event.

I'm there to experience the event. I didn't spend $100 on a ticket to have my view or access blocked by someone using a tripod or monopod to support dad's 500mm samyang POS lens. Anyway, most likely the quality of shots obtained by that setup will be muy lousy anyway. If one wants to seriously photograph the event, then by all means earn a credential and get yourself in position for some great shooting.

M

[monochrome]

I think your Q is affecting your spqelling.

Either that or my keyboard keys are as small as the buttons on my Q

[monochrome]

Though I think security is a lousy cover story, I'm not all that upset by DSLRs with larger lenses (say over 3 inches) being banned from an event.

I'm there to experience the event. I didn't spend $100 on a ticket to have my view or access blocked by someone using a tripod or monopod to support dad's 500mm samyang POS lens. Anyway, most likely the quality of shots obtained by that setup will be muy lousy anyway. If one wants to seriously photograph the event, then by all means earn a credential and get yourself in position for some great shooting.

M

One of the better amateur Pro Sports shots I've ever seen was taken on 400 Color film with an F1n and a FD 70~210 from the 1st Base (Home) Loge Reserved seats in St. Louis - Lou Brock stealing second. You might think 210mm was too short for such a shot, but the "action" shown in the context of the entire infield (catcher, pitcher, SS, all other players moving to cover positions) was compelling. (The runner was located very near the right upper 1/3 intersection.)

I guess that isn't possible now.

[reeftool]

I can see no reason to ban DSLR's for security reasons other than maybe that many photographers will carry extra gear and lenses in a bag and they don't want to spend the time looking through every camera bag. For my 2 cents worth on security, right after the Boston bombings happened, the Boston PD was asking the public for pictures. We all saw the initial blurry shots of the 2 suspects from a security camera. It was the higher quality photos that came in after that made identyfing the suspects much more certain. If no cameras were allowed, those guys may not have been caught.

My gut reaction is that they have an under the table agreement with the official press and TV networks to keep high quality gear away, especially now that most DSLR's now shoot video. The sanctioning organization of most sporting events has exclusive rights to video that they license. Many sports stadiums and arenas have allowed still photography but banned video cameras. Since even cellphones can now shoot video, they are banning "good" cameras. They don't really have the means to screen older DSLR's that don't shoot video so they are banning them all.

[DeadJohn]

Mall camera policy is stupid. Corporate spies looking to photograph the competition's displays will use a small camera that security will never notice. Whoever has the largest camera is probably the least risk.

Security vendors shoulder much of the blame. More security theater = more profit.

A 40 mile bike event next weekend banned hydration packs. And family members are not allowed to wait at the finish.

[mdodrill]

I can see no reason to ban DSLR's for security reasons other than maybe that many photographers will carry extra gear and lenses in a bag and they don't want to spend the time looking through every camera bag. For my 2 cents worth on security, right after the Boston bombings happened, the Boston PD was asking the public for pictures. We all saw the initial blurry shots of the 2 suspects from a security camera. It was the higher quality photos that came in after that made identyfing the suspects much more certain. If no cameras were allowed, those guys may not have been caught.

My gut reaction is that they have an under the table agreement with the official press and TV networks to keep high quality gear away, especially now that most DSLR's now shoot video. The sanctioning organization of most sporting events has exclusive rights to video that they license. Many sports stadiums and arenas have allowed still photography but banned video cameras. Since even cellphones can now shoot video, they are banning "good" cameras. They don't really have the means to screen older DSLR's that don't shoot video so they are banning them all.

I think you hit the nail on the head there When I noticed that UofTexas banned camera's with interchangeable lens....my thought was the UTexas network was the reason

[lmd91343]

As long as you apply in advance of the event, you might be surprised how many will say yes to you.

Not in my experience.

About 20 years ago, I contacted the Hollywood Bowl about bringing my camera. It was ok. It was a Canon F1NEW AE with an f:1.2 lens.

Security confiscated it. I was beside myself. They gave me a coat check and I redeemed it after the concert.

[Kerrowdown]

I contacted the Hollywood Bowl about bringing my camera. It was ok

It can be sometimes similar even with accreditation, I have a hard copy of the permissions (letter or email) with me.

Also promoters name, mobile phone number and the same for their assistant, in case one encounters an over zealous security team member at the door. They are there to do a job and most cases do it well, misunderstandings can then usually be cleared up fairly quickly.

I'm always polite and friendly with these folk, as they will get to know you over time.