Disneyland is cracking down on SLR's with long lenses

[Disneyfalcon]

Disneyland is apparently starting to enforce a rule banning cameras with a zoom lens longer than 6 inches.

Be careful if you've got a long lens attached to your SLR. You might be headed back to the car.

 

[Philo]

Any reason for this?

I have quite a hard time believing it, what would be the point in banning them?

 

[Disneyfalcon]

Any reason for this?

I have quite a hard time believing it, what would be the point in banning them?

Apparently what they are really trying to get rid of, is the paparazzi stalking celebrities inside the parks. There was some kind of ruckus when Lindsay Lohan was photographed repeatedly a couple of weeks ago.

Unfortunately, the paparazzi will still be there with whatever kind of camera they can get away with, and it's the casual photographers who enjoy photography at Disneyland who will suffer.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Now that's just ridiculous

 

[Disneyfalcon]

Agreed Epcot Explorer.

Here's a quote from Mouseplanet:

Disneyland Resort increases enforcement of "professional camera" ban
If you plan to bring your high-end camera on your next visit to the Disneyland Resort, you might want to measure your camera lenses first. Several visitors to the Resort during the week leading up to the Miley Cyrus event reported that cast members were prohibiting camera lenses longer than 6" beyond the bag check screening tents, citing a ban on "professional cameras." The scrutiny was especially high on the day of the actual event, and one MousePlanet staff member overheard a cast member explain that "there are celebrities in the parks today!" as justification for refusing to allow the visitor to enter the park with a long zoom lens.

Officially, a Disneyland Resort spokesperson says "it has always been our policy that professional lenses are not allowed inside the resort without a public relations host," but some readers and cast members allege that the crackdown is a result of paparazzi behavior during a recent visit by actress Lindsay Lohan (link). Britney Spears, Victoria Beckham and Courtney have all had encounters with professional photographers at the Resort in recent years.

In discussions on our MousePad message board, several readers pointed out that they own amateur or "pro-sumer" lenses longer than 6", and wonder why the Resort is focusing on the equipment, rather than the behavior by celebrity photographers (link). It's likely that this heightened enforcement may be relaxed now that the big event is over, but we've asked the Disneyland Resort to clarify their definition of "professional" equipment so readers know what to expect on future visits. We'll share their response in a future Update.

 

[Mr.EPCOT]

It is private property, Disney should just have whatever paparazzi thoroughly prosecuted for trespassing.

 

[nolatron]

I saw plenty of camera's last week (Tue-Thus) with some pretty large lenses on them at DL. Maybe they were just at or under 6". I remember seeing 2 or 3 guys sitting in the front car of thunder mountain taking pictures left and right during the ride with the camera. It was quite amusing sometimes.

I left my SLR at home this trip and took my smaller Canon simply for pocket carrying convience. My Tamrom 300mm lense compacts down to only like 3-4" luckily.

 

[Philo]

I think mine extends to just about 6 inches at full zoom with a filter or two attached. However, the camera clearly isn't professional so I would expect them to let it slide.

Focus on the behaviour, not the camera!

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Kind of funny that Disney, a company that makes movies and should understand cameras, doesn't realize that there are point and shoots that can get more zoom than a 300mm pro lens... yes the quality of the image wouldn't be as clear but the last time I saw the National Enquirer they weren't known for clean perfect shots.

Not to mention a big lens wasn't even necessary when the photographers were swarming the celebrities...

Disney needs to just state that no photographs taken within the park maybe sold for commercial purposes... and then when a photo taken inside Disneyland shows up in US or People magazine Disney could just sue the hell out of the photographer so that there would no longer be any reason for them to take a photo.. why would they if they couldn't sell it.

 

[fosse76]

It is private property, Disney should just have whatever paparazzi thoroughly prosecuted for trespassing.

It's a place of public accomodation, which means that while they can certainly set standards and policies to their liking, there are still laws they have to follow. If the paparazzi paid for an admission ticket and aren't doing anything illegal, Disney has no legal authority to remove them from the park. Can Disney ban cameras? Absolutely. Can they ban people...only based on the legality of the individual's behavior.

 

[Timmay]

It's a place of public accomodation, which means that while they can certainly set standards and policies to their liking, there are still laws they have to follow. If the paparazzi paid for an admission ticket and aren't doing anything illegal, Disney has no legal authority to remove them from the park. Can Disney ban cameras? Absolutely. Can they ban people...only based on the legality of the individual's behavior.

It is private property...they can refuse service to anyone they like. They are well within their right to ban any "professional photographer" seeking photos as part of their work.

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

Focus on the behaviour, not the camera!

Exactly.

Average Joe Tourist doesn't wander the parks with 4 top priced digital SLR cameras strapped around his (or her) neck.

Unless UK and US law differs that much - As Disney World is private property, Disney can prevent anyone from entering without justification

 

[unkadug]

Exactly.

Average Joe Tourist doesn't wander the parks with 4 top priced digital SLR cameras strapped around his (or her) neck.

Unless UK and US law differs that much - As Disney World is private property, Disney can prevent anyone from entering without justification

Not really. But Americans are more willing to challenge said rights in a court of law.