French chefs ban food photography

In off-putting news about ban on food photography ...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26189607

 

... has an uplifting note ...

 

But not all fine dining establishments take the same view - some have even been known to offer food photography courses.

<p>Meh, who wants photos of dead fish with the heads on anyway?</p>

<p><em>"Gilles Goujon, who runs the three-starred L'Auberge du vieux puits restaurant in Fontjoncouse in southern France, says it is poor etiquette to take photos of food, and more importantly, every time his creations appear on social networks it "takes away the surprise, and a little bit of my intellectual property"</em><br>

Sounds reasonable to me. If it is not property right infringement to spread such shots of such culinary creations on internet (which I believe it should be), at least it is, as this chef says: "poor etiquette". </p>

<p>You know, this is why I stick to fish and chips. I shan't say that all those self regarding chefs are egotistical, unpleasant people, who generally make food I wouldn't want to go near...</p>

<p>Oops, I already did.</p>

<p>Anyway, if I'm the paying customer, I'll define the etiquette.</p>

<p>""Anyway, if I'm the paying customer, I'll define the etiquette.""<br>

<br>

So be it H.P. but respecting other "paying customer(s)" hopefully you will not be allowed inside again. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"In off-putting news about ban on food photography ..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>I don't consider it off-putting at all. </p>

<p>One engages in an implied-in-fact contract when entering a restaurant - there is the expectation that food as described will be served at the stated price, and that's about it. There is no implied or stated rights granted to the patron over and above it. </p>

<p>It's the same deal if you go to a doctor's office, a movie theater, or grab a ticket from the dispensing machine to park your car in an underground lot; it does not grant you the right to take pictures or make videos at will. </p>

<p>"Anyway, if I'm the paying customer, I'll define the etiquette."</p>

<p>Best stick to chip shops, takeaways, and other joints where the food's more likely to hurt you than the other patrons.</p>

<p>I take pix in restaurants - tho' rarely of the food - but I always remember that I'm the guest and behave as such. If anyone objects to the photos I put the camera away.</p>

<p>As a kid one of my first jobs was washing dishes in a French chef's kitchen at a posh Long Island resort. Great experience. He was the epitome of the temperamental French chef - boisterous, demanding, clanging those heavy copper pots of the stainless sink backboard to wake me up when I was dozing on the job. And while he could get irate with customers, he always treated the staff well, even the dishwashers, and made dinners and treats for us after work on long nights, with the same care he'd give to paying customers.</p>

I feel people should be free to do what they want. I don't like banning a lot of things. I don't want to see that people are

banned to take pictures of the food or in the restaurant. I don't have problem with people who ocasionally take picture of

their food. I really hate to see people who take pictures of every dish they are going to eat and that does bother me but

yet I don't feel they should be banned.

<p>Sounds like a good experience, Lex. You did not, by chance, take a photo of him ?</p>

<p>When I pay for the food it is mine, not the Chef's. It is, however, his property and if he wants to ban photography that is his right. I think a Michelin three star chef who worries about this is a bit like the movie star who wants the crust trimmed only from the bottom of the bread loaf but what the heck. </p>

<p>I have only respect for a chef who wants his restaurant free of annoying snappers. If I'm paying three-star Michelin prices, I don't necessarily want people near me talking on their cell phones or using their cameras. I'm all for freedom, but freedom for everyone means a limit to some freedoms that would infringe on mine or yours. It's great not to ban things, but if we didn't ban cell phone use in movie theaters, I wouldn't be free to enjoy my movie in peace. Likewise, an expensive meal.</p>

<p>I have to give this chef kudos, but I'm not surprised this restaurant is in France. Etiquette has been dead in America for quite some time and it's because in many establishments such as restaurants and stores, owners and management are so afraid to loose a persons repeat business that people are basically allowed to do whatever they want.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with the chef. </p>

<p>I disagree with monsieur le chef...a bad sport IMO. If I paid for the food, it is then my property. If I want to bring a camera in the restaurant to take a photo of my guest at and/ or <em>the dish</em> or <em>the table setting</em>, what is the big deal....did it for years, tie on and tie off, with my usual discrete manner. It is pour moi a part of the dining experience and we may choose to share those great meal w Beaujolais moments, All the three star and plus restaurants I patronize have registered no objection if I choose to take one or two photos. What is the big deal? Who loses what? Other patrons give no sneering looks.... Often the waiter will offer to make a shot for us, particularly if it is a birthday meal. <br /> I think the referenced chef is going off the deep end and I bet others feel the same way. This is the 21st Century. So....Social media now almost demands we shoot photos of every meal we eat. Or even on <em>Yelp</em> dining rating site. Like it or not, it is the norm for the younger generation and some of the older. <br /> I don't say that is inherently desirable in all cases, but beating back the waves will not stop the tide. Only a No Cameras Allowed will do it. E.g." Sir, you must wear our provided tie and coat, and we will hold that camera for you at the front desk." And that is not about to happen. Of course, over here we have a freer idea of etiquette. Now if you were to get me started on proper attire for fine dining, we have another take entirely.....tonight we go to Paesano's and if I choose to shoot-a- da linguine w marinara, they had better not object or off my list. <br /> It is the aloha spirit of live and let live and it is casual but not cheap. Cloth napkins and little candles on the table... Of course there are limits I understand... (The top of the St Francis it is not, so I may just bring my camera and savor the experience for all time....)</p>

<p>The restaurants I've been in were all located on, or in, private property. That fact, to me, gives the owner(s) the right to allow, or, disallow photography in their establishment.<br>

Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>This is a New York Times article a year ago on the same subject matter occurring in NYC:<br>

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/dining/restaurants-turn-camera-shy.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/dining/restaurants-turn-camera-shy.html?_r=0</a></p>

Good move, I totally agree with it.

<p>Michael, this NYC and Maxim Cordon Blue 'hauteur' is a good reason to come visit Hawaii. Kick back, enjoy your meal in comfort and don't be slammed in public by the chef of maitre de'. If you just love the ice sculpture on the buffet, photograph away. With the creator if possible in the photo and post on Angie's List with favorable review. Same for the rack of lamb with truffles....<br /> Caveat: <em>No dogs seated with your party,sorry,</em> and absolutely <em>no standing on tables</em>, Dept of Health regs and bad form to boot..and hazard to health and safety.<br /> Compliment the chef/ leave a generous tip to the wait staff. You will hence be welcome and well regarded. No tripods in the aisles of course.. Enjoy your stuffed shrimp and creme brulee. bon appetit.. gs</p>

<p>Like in most decent Chinese restaurants in Beijing, there are rules announcing "no spitting on the floor", you have in New York restaurants signs on "no smoking". In most good restaurants and surely in all Michelin star restaurants you cannot annoy other guests with loud speech or other bad behavior or you will be told to quite down or leave the place. All just reasonable rules of good manners and respect for the place and the chef which are strictly unconcerned about the fact, that you intend to pay for your meal. Restrictions on photographing the dishes, other guests or telephoning on your mobile are parts of the same good rules - apart from the question of copyrights of the chef on his dishes and culinary creations, which was the question put by parv.<br>

<br /> If you cannot get over your heart to behave well in restaurants according to local customs and rules I would suggest that you find another food outlet, which attracts you, but don't bring your dog.</p>

<p>Maybe all this is more about the facade of dining in public, much like attending an operatic performance where implied but unspoken rules are strictly observed, and as Anders suggested, varies by local customs. </p>

<p>Cameras are not as frowned upon in Japan, but do make sure you slurp your noodles. </p>

<p>""in Japan, but do make sure you slurp your noodles.""<br>

and that you have left your shoes outside. In India, according to good Hindu rules do make sure that you only eat with your right hand, leaving the left under the table.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I feel people should be free to do what they want. I don't like banning a lot of things. I don't want to see that people are banned to take pictures of the food or in the restaurant. I don't have problem with people who ocasionally take picture of their food. I really hate to see people who take pictures of every dish they are going to eat and that does bother me but yet I don't feel they should be banned.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the way of it. Just don't annoy the other customers and remember that you <em>are</em> one of the customers. Now what's that stupid old saying about the customer always being right?</p>

<p>It seems to me, if one customer is photographing and another customer is annoyed by that, then there is no "the" customer to be right, but rather there are two customers' competing interests and desires. That's the problem here. A few people who occasionally take pictures of their food can add up to a lot of annoyance in a single restaurant. No one person might be annoying, but the steady stream of pic takers could indeed be. I doubt if Gerry, for example, would make an annoyance of himself, but 100 Gerrys in a couple of days not being individually annoying might collectively be extremely annoying! That's why it makes sense for management to step in. Not all bans are bad. There has to be a degree of discrimination when judging what's being banned and where and when. The best solution I've heard so far is requesting permission to take pics of the food back in the kitchen. Requesting permission to take a picture in someone else's somewhat reserved establishment seems like a reasonable idea to me.</p>

<p>You know there is a kind of funny or perhaps ironic side to this discussion. In most postings OP's bristle about too many increased restrictions in our photography. But we respect private property and accept limits and respect privacy as a natural right. Or insist that there is an etiquette about where to employ our camera in high price haute cuisine places. (Disney World is private property as well you know so it gets more complicated than that. I know, lousy analogy, sorry)<br /> Crazy idea now follows. Used to have -and some countries still do- sections reserved for smokers and pipers. How about a corner or room set aside for food photographers. Flash optional. Not your local IHOP, you know, just the places where most of us can't afford even the appetizer:-). Submit your photos for approval by the chef?<br>

But when in Rome...what do they do in Rome anyway?<br /> Dining etiquette point. I hasten to add that I can't admire eaters at good upscale steak houses who come in with back lid caps and grungy dungarees. I find that becoming more common here. Aloha, gs</p>