Grand National Ladies' Day: 'Unflattering shots' banned

[John Seaman]

<p>You couldn't make it up - photographers who take "unflattering shots" are to be banned from Aintree Racecourse Lady Day (where the Grand National is run):</p>

<p>"Aintree racecourse boss John Baker told the <a href="http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/aintree-bosses-vow-tough-kick-8920859">Liverpool Echo</a> the venue wanted to protect women at the world's biggest steeplechase from "unfair" coverage. He said any photographers taking shots which enforce negative stereotypes could have their accreditation revoked."</p>

<p>Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-32075437</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"You couldn't make it up"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would it be bizarre for a venue to not provide special access to photographers who present its events in an unfavorable light?</p>

[andylynn]

How are the photographers supposed to know what the management considers "unflattering"? Is the shot at the end of

the woman who has a bottle and is excited unflattering? What about the previous shot of seven women? One or two of

them might be unflattered by it, looks like there could have been some wide angle distortion introduced. Is the woman in

the second photo being unflattered by the somewhat harsh lighting?

[AJHingel]

<p>Why don't they introduce a 25 feet buffer zone for photographers? If it is good for Texas policy to prevent unflattering photographs being shot, it is good for "Grand National Ladies" also, I'm sure. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>How are the photographers supposed to know what the management considers "unflattering"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Asking the management?</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Hmm. Well, if people act in an "unflattering" manner, I'm not sure how they can complain if someone takes their picture. Of course it's not the subject of the pictures, it's the management of the event which wants to paint a picture that doesn't represent what actually goes on. I guess they have that right if it's on private property. They can let in (and keep out) whoever they want. If they want to portray it as an elegant event, where nobody ever gets drunk and everyone acts with perfect decorum, they they can try, even if it's a bunch of rowdy people getting drunk and littering.</p>

<p>I doubt asking the management would get a very definitive answer. Though they can't define "unflattering", I'm sure they know it when they see it.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>This is the sort of thing photojournalists should boycott. Might as well just restrict photography to approved public relations photographers to ensure they get whatever the hell it is they mean by flattering photos. Presumably it means duckface selfies taken from the slight-above-shoulder height, or similarly demure and flattering photos <a href="http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1813016.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Ladies-Day-at-the-2013-John-Smiths-Grand-National-Meeting-at-Aintree.jpg"><strong>like this</strong></a> or <a href="https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ad131530458aintree-uk-lad.jpg"><strong>this</strong></a>. The event organizers should also be prepared to restrict participation to only those <a href="http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article787159.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/2004%20Ladies%20Day%20-%20Aintree%20Grand%20National%20Meeting%20-%20Liverpool">attendees who meet with their approval</a>.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"I doubt asking the management would get a very definitive answer."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />True, but it should yield SOME guidance. After all, they are the ones that "know it".</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"This is the sort of thing photojournalists should boycott. Might as well just restrict photography to approved public relations photographers to ensure they get whatever the hell it is they mean by flattering photos."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I imagine that is what might happen as a result of any boycott. It might happen anyway. Although, I am skeptical that a boycott would be adhered to broadly enough to be effective. <br /><br />What does the place mean by accredited? Like credentials which may be from media organizations which may provide access to venues or is it like someone approved for in house shooting on behalf of the business?</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Many private events require photographers who want to shoot there to apply for press credentials in advance of the event. Only those who are approved and granted accreditation for the event will be invited. I suppose they could attend if invited as regular guests, but I'm betting not many fall into that category for this particular event - and they'd never get a second invitation if they published "unflattering" pictures.</p>

<p>The alternative would be to deny future access to those guests featured in the "unflattering" images. Possibly only those native to the UK will understand the implication of pointing out guests included "Wayne Rooney's wife Colleen Rooney and Steven Gerrard's wife Alex Curran"</p>

<p>I presume what the organizers want are images of a refined and dignified event. A skilled photographer could probably obtain images giving that impression if they tried hard enough...</p>

<p>Where are the Paparazzi with their drones, helicopters and 1200mm lenses when we need them?</p>

<p>I'm guessing it's images such as (NSFW warning on some)<br /> http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1813016.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Ladies-Day-at-the-2013-John-Smiths-Grand-National-Meeting-at-Aintree.jpg<br /> http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ay_107299812.jpg<br /> http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01704/Aintree1_08_1704911a.jpg <br /> http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/AFP_Getty-510244617.jpg<br /> http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ad131530458aintree-uk-lad.jpg</p>

<p>that might be upsetting the organizers of this refined and dignified event?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p><a href="http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww150/nikonguy_album/Deliverance-2-1.png">Aintry</a>? Y'all don't be littering in <a href="https://themoviegourmet.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/teeth-deliverance1.jpg">Aintry</a>. We got ways of dealing with recalcitrant photographers and litterbugs in <a href="http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_article_image/g3tyiilchqgeedfnflfx.jpg">Aintry</a>.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Image control at events is probably going to become standard. In the music world, there are lots of restrictive agreements now. <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/65074627/FooFigthers-PhotoWaiver">Here is one</a> that has become typical for a lot of performers. I expect this will eventually translate into similar agreements for other types of events. I won't sign these agreements, nor will any of the publications I work for, at least so far, and that often restricts the size of events I can cover.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>If the photographs I've seen from this event are much to go by, they may as well ban photography altogether. Though how they plan to stop people doing what they want with cellphones and those pictures finding their way anonymously into the media is difficult to contemplate. Fair to say also that Aintree is no Royal Ascot, and I suspect any attempt to move meaningfully in that direction might fail. Related to that one wonders how much of this photography is exploitative of drunken exhibitionism, and how much is the performers recording their own/friends achievements with some degree of (perhaps temporary) pride. </p>

<p>If the organisers want to create an impression of an upmarket event, then I'd suggest that controlling behaviour when there and ejecting/banning those who create a bad impression might be more effective than banning photographers. Banning photographers so that customers can behave badly only in front of a live audience of many thousands seems to be missing the point if the object is in fact to preserve customers' dignity.</p>

<p> </p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Lady's Day? Those featured in the pictures beg a great deal of the term 'ladies', if I may say so. :)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>They look like ladies to me. Very exuberant ladies. They're just not behaving like it's still Victorian England.</p>

<p>And considering the event appears to have a history of such photographic exuberance dating back several years, it's difficult to understand what exactly the event organizers mean by "unflattering" photos. Perhaps they mean "Photographs that fail to show the ladies behaving exuberantly and flaunting their curves". </p>