photos not allowed

Dear Leica friends,

Spring is there, in a few weeks... summer holidays and a lot of photos in all countries.

But, on most interresting places we find the same notice : NO PHOTOS !

I can understand the interdiction of using flash lights or the obligation to pay taxes for many reasons if you want to take a photo, but... most of time, for private use, there are no reasons and photos are simply NOT ALLOWED.

Do you have some experience, are there legal provisions in your country?

What can happen if you take photos for your private use?

Thanks and best regards from Belgium.

Michel

Michael,

<p>

I have recently spent a weekend in florence. There I found that

mostly flash was forbidden as well as tripods, esp. in churches.

Almost everywhere it was allowed to take pictures handheld w/o flash.

The same situation seems to be here in Germany. Except for some

places which are keen on selling their own slides a non-flashing

camera w/o tripod is allowed.

<br>

Nonetheless many people were taking pictures even with flash and

nobody told them to stop though the priest became somewhat irritated.

If there is a 'no flash' sign I would follow it; if there is a 'no

photo' sign I would ask to take pictures w/o flash, sometimes it is

allowed. Nonetheless there are usually no legal consequences to

expect in european contries other than being thrown out of the place

(which I never saw).

<p>

The states things are a bit different: I was told multiple times to

put my camera (w/o flash) away i.e. in the Guggenheim Museum even

though I did not take any pictures yet. No reason was given but

people were quite harsh.

I travel all over the globe and I have one hard and fast rule: if

there's an admission fee and a "no photography" policy, I don't go

in, and I make it a point to politely inform the person in charge as

to my reason for boycotting. If thousands of others would do

likewise, and they realize how much revenue they're missing out on,

some of those policies might change. Money talks.

I believe the main reason that museums & cultural/religious

institutions often prohibit photos isn't to prevent damage to precious

artworks from flash photography, etc., but to protect the sales of

postcards & books, which are an important source of revenue. As Kai

Blanke pointed out, the main legal consequence of violating such

policies is that you'll be thrown out, just as if you did the same

thing in a store or on other private property where photography was

prohibited (that's pretty much true for the U.S., too).

<i>I travel all over the globe and I have one hard and fast rule: if

there's an admission fee and a "no photography" policy, I don't go

in,</i><p>

If the only reason to see something is to photograph it, our

bearings have been lost. There is far more to life than photography

(and I say this as someone who photographs, or works on photographs,

every day) and to miss it because of a rule can only result in

missing life.<p>

I can't imagine having traveled to Assisi to see St. Francis' tomb,

one of the most spectacular sites I've seen in Europe, and not

seeing it because of the rule prohibiting photography. It would

reduce my understanding of the universe by a significant amount.

And I was able to take wonderful photographs within a mile of his

tomb.

I've been to hundreds of places where photography was prohibited for

religious, cultural or security reasons and I did not hesitate for a

moment to zip up my camera bag and go on inside. In fact sometimes

it's kind of a relief to just enjoy someplace without an eye to

making photographs. But when there is an admission charge and a gift

shop full of photo postcards/books/posters/coffee mugs/keychains etc.

it galls me. I suppose if it was a really famous spot I might have

the same feeling, like "I came all this way I'm not going to miss

it". But for some little nondescript church or museum, sorry, no

sale.

Contrary to popular belief, flash does emit UV which is the primary

cause of image derogation. Common sense, and a love of art and place,

should automatically tell you when & where, not to use flash. A sign

should not be needed. Under no circumstances should any image be shot

with flash. Instead, use a tabletop tripod to brace the camera

against your chest, (or buy a postcard.) This should easily allow you

to shoot at speeds three to four stops slower than you normally

would. I strongly believe in doing what we can to protect our human

heritage.

An example of when I feel flash should not be used: St. Perre de

Montrouge; Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia

II 200, Mantrotto tabletop tripod braced against my chest. But of

course we're all adults here, so each of us has to decide what is

important to them.

<p>

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=673840&size=lg" WIDTH="750" HEIGHT="518">

I think you're absolutely right, Glenn. Unfortunately, the folks who

know how to take a picture without flash - and I'm sure most here

would agree a "better" picture without flash - are in the small

minority. When you look at the typical tourist in Bermuda shorts and

sporting an APS or PNS with auto-on flash, most of whom don't even

know how to disable their flash, it's no wonder the NO PHOTO signs go

up. Hell, even the curators aren't sure about which camera to trust or

not, so the simple answer for them is NO PHOTO. It's frustrating and

it's a shame.

"When you look at the typical tourist in Bermuda shorts and

sporting an APS or PNS with auto-on flash, most of whom don't

even know how to disable their flash, it's no wonder the NO

PHOTO signs go up."

<p>

It figures. It's a class thing. "Dumb tourists with their cheap

cameras, yada, yada."

<p>

Insisting on going into all of these places to take an

inconsequential snapshot is tantamount to a dog walking in and

peeing on a column or a bored GI scraping "Kilroy was here"

with his penknife. "Look everybody, I was actually in the Sixtine

(sic) chapel."

<p>

Pull 60p out of your tight pockets and by the friggin' postcard.

Your dialogue about photography in Italy sparked a question that I

tried to answer some time ago without success. Does anyone have any

experience with Italian copyright law as pertains to photos of statues

in public place

If all you want is a snap of the exibit then 60p and a friggin'

postcard will do.

<p>

Better shots are the people studying the exibit, or the interior

architecture. No postcards there.