Cameras a security threat?

[Redcrown]

I recently went to my state's high school wrestling tournament - for the first time in 7 years. This is a public school event held in a public owned facility. The security entrance was an airport level gate. Metal detectors, 3 guards, and a list of prohibited items. The prohibited items included "professional cameras."

I asked the guard what they deemed to be a professional camera. The answer was quick and specific. "Any camera with a lens longer than 3 inches or a detachable lens." In the days since, I've done a little research and discovered that such camera bans are widespread, although the descriptions vary. Very few use the "professional" term. Most just say "large" cameras with a lens longer than X inches. Checking the websites of several US public universities, I found X varying from 3 inches to 8 inches.

The wording of the restrictions is very similar, indicating they might stem from a single source. But I can't find any information on the reason for this restriction. Is it for security reasons? Or is it to prevent the public from competing with media or pro photographers who have been hired to cover the event and sell their photos? If the reason is security, has there been a reasonable history of cameras being used as weapons?

Don't confuse this restriction with "no photography" bans  at commercial events, like concerts, plays, and musicals. Those are for copyright protection. The restrictions I'm citing are all at public events in public venues.

So my curiosity is peaked. Please share your experience where you live. And if anyone knows the history or the real reason behind banning large cameras, I'd love to hear it.

[BernardLanguillier]

Is there more to it than the fear of everything?

Cheers,
Bernard

[LesPalenik]

I would suspect that the ban is for security reasons. If you remove the glass elements from a medium-sized lens, you could hide inside the lens a good dose of dynamite.
 
It doesn't appear that the Canadian schools are banning any cameras. Several years ago, I photographed a Power Hockey event (handicapped athletes on motorized wheelchairs) at Ryerson College in Toronto without any problems. Many universities and colleges were banning in the past marijuana on their campuses, but with the recent pot legalization in Canada, most of such bans were lifted.

Attached is a photo from the aforementioned Power Hockey event.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I would suspect that the ban is for security reasons. If you remove the glass elements from a medium-sized lens, you could hide inside the lens a good dose of dynamite...

Which would be extremely easy to check with a hand (eye) inspection.

Privacy? Fear of pedofiles?

In any case, such instances should be contested officially, by lodging a complaint and demanding an explanation from the school. Looks like just another case of “let’s curtail freedom, just in case.”

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

Security entrance at a high school?? And people accept this as normal?

Gee, what world we live in.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Security entrance at a high school?? ...

When I was working in Moscow in the 90’s, it was in some restaurants and popular clubs.

[Peter McLennan]

In the middle 90s I was prohibited from entering an MLB game in San Diego because I was carrying a consumer camcorder. A Hi-8 Sony, tiny. The “security” guy pointed out that the back of my ticket mentioned the prohibition of “video” cameras, so I was SOL.

Interestingly, I had zero interest in the game. My interest was a group of visiting Canadian navy sailors, with whom I was travelling and who were subjects of the documentary I was making.

My Sony RX10 would probably pass security because it has a fixed lens and, retracted, is less than 3” long.  Deployed, the lens is effectively 600mm.  Quite adequate for quality sports photogrpaphy.

These rules are transparently for content protection, not safety.

[Alan Klein]

I've pleasantly noticed that a lot more museums are allowing you to shoot, if not with flash.  That's a nice situation.  Sometimes I just want to get a cell phone picture of the art with the descriptive card adjacent to it.  That's allowed.  Regular cameras are allowed as well. 

[gchappel]

From my experience the camera limitation at high school events is becoming more and more commonplace.
A couple of reasons. 
In some areas, the main one is the school districts have signed a contract with a professional company to provide sports photography.  It is an exclusive contract.  The sad thing is the photographers only cover one or two events a season- but they have the contract.  Images available for purchase, percentage of the profit goes back to the schools. 

At least locally, in the past, there have been issues with random photographers.  Not happy shooting from the stands, they try to go court side.  Not pretty.  There have also been complaints of people shooting large cameras from the stands, interfering with the people sitting around them.

So it is just easier to say no large cameras.  No downside for them at all.

Although the event is in a publicly funded building, it is not a public facility.  It is private property- at least in Florida- and they can set any rules they want.
If you really want to shoot- go talk to one of the coaches.  Show some of your work.  Give them something back- free images for the team?  This has worked for me for years.  I should note I have been shooting our local high school football team for over 15years.  I give the team free images.  I hand out hundreds of 4x6's every year, and my images are downloadable in small sizes for free.  If they want a large print, it is not cheap.  Profits go to the booster club.  Everyone wins.
Otherwise, it is just easier for everyone to say no.
Gary

[Alan Klein]

Seems reasonable.  If I was watching a game, I wouldn't want some guy jumping up in front of me every two minutes to shoot pictures.

[Rob C]

Anything to do with schools or kids is going to be a tough nut to crack.

A quick thought to the gun madness and the possibility of long lenses shooting pix of kids for unpleasant purposes - wrestling might be a front-runner for such snaps - and it is not that difficult to understand why folks don't want to run any risks at their location.

Rob

[Redcrown]

Thanks for the replies. From this and another photo forum, I find nobody that knows the How & Why of such camera bans. Also, it seems there is about an 80/20 split in reactions. The 80% think bans are bad, while the minority think it's OK. I'm struck by those that think the size of a camera makes the user more distracting and annoying to those around him. My own experience with cell phone photographers is quite the contrary.

I've written letters to officials at two organizations that impose bans, plus one to my local chapter of the ACLU asking if they know the history and reasons. If I get any responses I'll report back.