Courtroom stories ?

[michael_kastner]

Maybe it's a dumb question, and it's a hard question to ask anyways because (a) it has nothing to do with September 11th, and (b) it has nothing to do with my future as an amateur. It has only to do with Leica and what we've been talking about lately as re myths and tradition and philosophy etc etc. And what I heard was maybe a lie or maybe just advertisement. I've looked for an answer in our forum here but I couldn't find any.

 

<p>

 

Is it true that in some places (e.g. maybe in some States) court room "pictures" do not have to be made exclusively by a sketching artist but can in fact be made by a photographer, as long as he uses a Leica M here ?

[jackflesher]

I have heard that same story too. I don't know if it's true or just

one more of those urban Leica legends. I have also heard that at the

San Francisco Balet, the only camera allowed on the set during a

performance is a Leica M without flash. However I expect that any

other camera that passed "quiet" muster would be allowed.

[albert_smith]

I remember reading this several times over the years, and after

seeing your post, I found it in writing in several of my older Leica

M books. One said that judges would only allow the Leica M to be

used in their court room, and another reference stated that the Leica

M was the benchmark, and any camera that was to be used had to be no

louder than that camera.

 

<p>

 

I think that if all of this were true at one time, it was in the days

when the traditional court room documentation was a guy sitting in

the corner with a sketch pad and chalk. These days, court rooms have

full production T.V. coverage with all that that entails, so I'm not

sure if the sound emitted by a still camera is the biggest concern.

Of course, my motor driven Nikon blasting away at 5 FPS might get a

glare from the judge.

[peterg]

The use of cameras in the courtroom, regardless of the brand, would

be at the discretion of the judge. Some allow video only due to the

desire to avoid distracting "clicks." Even then, only one camera

would be permitted and the feed would be shared among television

stations and press agencies. However, federal courts, being more

concerned about decorum, traditionally do not allow cameras at all,

which is the reason sketch artists are still used.

[Spearhead]

<i> I have also heard that at the San Francisco Balet, the only

camera allowed on the set during a performance is a Leica M without

flash. However I expect that any other camera that passed "quiet"

muster would be allowed. </i><p>

 

Who comes up with these stories? From the SF Ballet web site:

<p>

 

<i>No cameras or tape recorders are permitted in the Opera House.

Equipment must be checked in the coat-check room. </i><p>

 

Note that there are no exceptions. I'm willing to bet that the

courthouse story had as much truth in it too. I doubt any judge

would care about the brand of camera.

[andy_piper2]

There are several thousand court jurisdictions within the US counting

city, count, state, federal and appellate courts. Each jurisdiction

usually sets at least some of its own standards for pictures, TV and

news coverage in general, guided by state law and to some extent

higher courts within the state or federal systems.

 

<p>

 

The Leica was, within at least one jurisdiction in the early 80s, when

photo coverage first began to be allowed after a couple of decades of

near-universal bans - listed by name as a 'standard' for noise.

 

<p>

 

Any camera could be used so long as it was NO LOUDER than a Leica-M.

Which is the source of Leica's PR comments.

 

<p>

 

The court did NOT say 'Leica only", but since at the time the only pro

camera that qualified WAS the Leica, this, de facto, made the Leica

the exclusive choice for that jurisdiction. One reason for a 'silent'

mode being added to the Nikon F4 and Canon Elan, under development at

the time.

 

<p>

 

Note that earlier in the US (viz. the Lindbergh kidnapping trial)

cameras (usually 4x5 press) were often all over the courtroom and

courthouse - which may have been why restrictions first started to be

adopted; it was a circus that made the OJ trial look like a model of

probity.

[jose f.]

I used to spend a lot of time in the '70s in the courtroom of an Idaho

judge who was an avid Leica user, but his rule was 'no cameras' during

proceedings. Generally there are statewide guidelines with a fair

amount of latitude on the part of individual judges. But it varies

widely state to state. Generally, judges who allow cameras require the

photographer to remain in a fixed position and use something silent.

In the 70s, this pretty well limited you to something other than a 35

mm SLR, though I remember him being curious about the OM's. They

didn't pass his personal standard for silence.

[andy_piper2]

Re: performance pictures

 

<p>

 

Public performances are the intellectual property of the performers

and/or institutions that present them - which is why they ban photos

among other recording techniques. The noise, light and other

distractions that may be involved with picture taking are also

considerations, but basically the body forms, words, and music

produced belong to the performers, composers or SOMEBODY else, not to

the audience, and are not to be reproduced without the owners'

permission.

 

<p>

 

I've photographed one non-rehearsal performance in my life - I got to

sit IN an orchestra during a performance and photograph the musicians

at work. I dressed in the same tuxedo as the performers and carried

one Nikon F body with a 105 and 28. I took a lot of the shots with the

prism off and the camera in my lap, and waited for the louder parts of

the music to shoot. But generally the noise of the camera was less

important than just being inconspicuous and fitting in. Permission

came from the conductor and the auditorum management - carefully

negotiated as part of a larger documentary on the orchestra.

[john_locher1]

I've shot in courtrooms before with Nikon F4s and with D1s. It is

complety up to the judge if he will allow cameras in the courtroom now,

but I've never heard of them requiring Leicas. I've been in courtrooms

with many other photographers and tv media, so i don't think a leica

would make much of a difference there.

One the other hand, I do know that when they were deciding if they were

going to allow cameras in the courtroom (in the '80's as was stated

earlier) judges had photographers come in so they could hear how loud

the cameras were. In those cases the photographers made sure to only

bring leicas!

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

doing a documentary work on the production of a movie film here in

Mexico, I was ask not to shoot during filming because of sound being

recorded; I told the director my camera was pretty quiet, I fired it

and he agree, just ask me to go talk to the soung enginer guy, to see

if it was a problem, he also agree it was quiet, and he told me about

some sound dimmer (a bag) to make noisy cameras quiet, my M3 didn´t

need a thing, well some lub at the end.

[marke_gilbert]

I seem to remember a Leica ad campaign during the early 80's that

cited the U.S. Supreme Court as one venue that waould only allow M

use. I will try to find one of the ads.

[albert_smith]

Marke is correct here... I have the add from the May 1981 issue

of "Popular Photography" magazine, entitled: "The Leica M4P has

earned its day in court." Listing a very specific regulation from

the Florida Supreme Court, section 2, Item B of the "Sound and Light

Criteria"... "Specifically such still camera equipment shall produce

no greater sound than that made with a 35mm Leica "M" series

rangefinder camera."

 

<p>

 

Of course that was 20 years ago, but apparently, Leica was mentioned

in one jurisdiction anyway.

[badris]

When I was interning as a photojournalist in Central Virginia, the

courthouse rules in town specified that only one press photog

was allowed in, and if several newspapers needed access to

the photos, a photog would be selected from a pool. Anyhow, a

photog buddy of mine at the paper shot a court proceeding with a

Nikon F100. From the rules of courthouse photography we

received from the NPPA, there was no specific mention of

'camera noise no louder than a Leica-M'. Having said that

though, I'm sure everyone in the courtroom would have

appreciated a quieter camera. If I ever get called to shoot a court

proceeding, I'm sure you folks will guess correctly what camera

I'll be taking in ;-)

[kyle_cassidy]

i'm suprised that nobody has brought up the blimp -- which is an

inflatable bag that goes around an SLR to make it quiet. that's what

they use in courtrooms and in things like congressional hearings,

keep your eyes peeled while you're watching C-SPAN, you'll see them.

i've also heard the "only leica's in my courtroom" story, but i

suspect it's an urban legend, it's probably more likely "blimps on

all cameras in my courtroom". they're about $85 from b&h.

 

<p>

 

kc

[noah]

I'm a photojournalist in New Jersey, and I can confirm that this is

not an urban myth. The official rules for photographing in a state

or local courtroom in NJ clearly state that any camera used must

be comprable in noise output to a Leica. Louder cameras must

be used with a blimp.

 

<p>

 

BTW, a blimp is little more than a leather bag with some holes in

it. Even inside of a blimp, most film SLR's, and certainly the D1's

I shoot with now, are much louder than my M6's. And it makes

even more noise when you fiddle with the blimp's zipper and

velcro to change film (or CF cards).

 

<p>

 

But alas, even when I was still shooting film for the paper, I

rarely used my trusty M's in court. My longest lens, a 75 'lux, is too

short for most courtrooms in NJ.

 

<p>

 

I once heard a story, which may be a myth, that one of the older

guys at our paper took a label maker and stuck the word "leica"

on the prism of his Nikon F3, and shot away with a motor with no

complaints from the judge.