Forbidden to take shots!

[luis.miro]

<p>An old question... that changes daily<br />Some weeks ago at an abbey in London center (that could have happened in Madrid, Paris, Rome, San Francisco,...), we have paid 30 pounds (45$) for one hour visit and we were not allowed to take shots even without flash (not expressed in the ticket).<br />I understand the copyright (of course) if I visit an art gallery or some show in a theatre or not to use the flash because can damage the works or it is disgusting for people.<br />In Spain even it's forbidden to take shots with tripod in some outdoor areas like natural parks or ruins...<br />What do you think about it? How is in your country? Which is the solution?<br>

Thanks!</p>

[mjferron]

<p>I've had an instance to two where folks got a littly pissy about my camera aimed at personal property by overall I've faced few restrictions. If I take a tour and it's stated that no photography is allowed then I respect those wishes. Overall the situations you describe above will probably get worse with time. I've heard here in the USA a few National Parks want you to purchase a permit for professional photography.</p>

[Brad_]

The venue/owner has the right to set any restrictions. Seems reasonable to me. I've seen that at many places.

 

Some museums are loosening restrictions. The solution is to abide by others' rules.

[jpo3136b]

<p>When people bring up anti-tripod legislation, I distract them with important issues like gay marriage and flag burning.</p>

[bmm]

<p>You may find the views in the following recent thread to be related : <a href="http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00UO9p">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00UO9p</a></p>

 

[ilkka]

<p>Venue owner or organiser can set up any rules they like, but they should make it clear what the rules are before a customer buys a ticket, or offer a full refund.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

Since I became 'serious' about photography I now seem to avoid places where no photography is permitted. Yes, it can be quite frustrating at times. Recently, a friend of mine gave a scheduled musical performance within the National Gallery. Nope, NO photographs allowed even for a memento!

[tonmestrom]

<p>it´s quite normal Luis and as such is hardly ever printed on the tickets. Frankly I would be surprised if it had been possible without a special permit (and these are very hard to come by).</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I live in NYC where there plenty of museums, churches, theaters, and tourist attractions. Most, except theaters, do allow photography w/o flash or tripods. They don't allow flash because over a period of time the number of flashes adds up and can fade some artwork. Tripods are not allowed because these places are very crowded and tripods will get in the way. If you don't agree, argue with them, not me.</p>

<p>Go to their websites and print out their policy on photography. If that doesn't work, ask to speak to a supervisor.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>If policy disallows it and you really want to take pictures, one solution is to write in advance on letterhead, preferably engraved so deep that it draws blood, and declare in official and constipated language that you wannit, wannit, wannit . . . ;-) Surprisingly often this tactic impresses those functionaries whose whole objective in life is to make policy all over other people. Sometimes I bring a covering letter from the Effing Tourist Association, and make a point of looking apoplectic when that title draws a supposedly-discreet smile. Get 'em on the defensive and they cave in.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Their house, their rules. Ask first. Beyond the obstruction problem with tripods, some places apparently have had to deal with damaged flooring from the tripods with spiked feet, etc. Other places, flash may not necessarily be damaging but is often very disturbing to other patrons who have also paid to view/enjoy the materials. If the "site" has a primary purpose other than tourism, say an active church, court or legislative hall, government office, etc., then the secondary interests of tourism and photographer may be placed after to the primary purpose in setting rules, etc.</p>

<p>Likewise, if a "commercial" activity moves in with a crew, sets up and obstructs others' uses, then it's reasonable that there are permit processes to control the public's multiple interests in using the place.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>I asked permission to photograph the interior of a large church. I was aked if I would make a 'contribution'. The cost of maintaining the church is £2 per minute (yes, that's right) so I made a donation. Admittedly it only paid the churches costs for 10 minutes but that's better than nothing. If we want those buildings to continue to exists then we have to be prepared to stump up, otherwise there'll be nothing to photograph. There's a bigger issue here - many tourist attractions here in Britain, such as the Cumbrian Fells, are suffering from the number of feet pounding away at them. It's ironic but we're destroying the very thing we want to see.</p>

[rickbarbosa]

<p>I notice it mostly at bigger events and venues, like music festivals, and sporting events. When you consider the fact that there are thousands of other people walking around with point and shoot cameras, cell phones, and that is okay- And there are a pile of professional photographers herded along the sidelines, or onstage, and that's okay too, but YOU, a mere enthusiast, decide to bring out your (D)SLR, with an extra lens, ("is that a Zoom lens?") well, all of a sudden there's a problem. <br>

The problem isn't that you might be a terrorist, or a nuisance, although those are handy excuses. The "problem" is that you're caught between these two very distinct worlds. The point and shoot crowd is assumed to be mindless consumers with no business sense or creative skill to do much with the photos other than post them on the social networking site of their choice, or get lost among their files. The Pros in the sideline usually have some sort of legal and/or financial arrangement worked out with the venue, or event worked out beforehand, so that, at least, work$ in their favor. YOU, on the other hand, having decided to stray from the automatic crowd, exercise some form of control over what you can capture, with no badge, or label identifying you as someone who understands and abide$ by such an arrangement, well, you've got to put it away, or leave. <br>

I know I'm simplifying it a bit here, and I could go for hours on the subject, but that really is at the heart of it, is it not? If you sat down with a sketch pad and pencil, no one cares, but a "professional looking" camera somehow implies that you either have money, or are capable of making money, so who better a target for the misinformed minions to identify and harass. </p>

 

[starvy]

<p>if it is a place of worship in england and wales, you can visit the place free of charge while performing an act of worship. of course, you were part of a guided tour. i would be interested to know which abbey this was. as for pictures, the abbey would be owned by the church of england. there are no restrictions on photographing church of england properties. next time, stand your ground.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>"there are no restrictions...." Sure there are. Westminister Abbey has very defined rules on photography.</p>

<p>http://www.westminster-abbey.org/visit-us/access-and-facilities</p>

<p>What are the chances there are others.... Of course, there are Roman Catholic monasteries and abbeys as well. Maybe it was one of "theirs."</p>

[rossb]

<p>I visit Catholic churches, Monasteries, Missions in California and I have never had a problem with photography. I went to a Monastery near Big Sur Calif last year and they did not mind my taking pictures. However I was not allowed to speak as talking is not allowed except in the gift shop. However if there was a rule about photography then I will just do what they wish. I might not return again if I think the rule is unfair. I would like to visit an Abbey sometime but If I cannot take a few pictures then I would probably would not buy a ticket.</p>

[albertdarmali]

<p>Why can't we take pictures at the supermarket? Sure it's not because of terrorism risk right?</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Supermarkets and similar stores are sensitive to price competition and potential negative use of images, etc. Whether we think it's realistic or not, it's their property to control. Maybe they don't want photographers interfering with paying customers, etc. They are in the business of selling things, not being someone's "set" or photo op. I'm sure if you call and request to make arrangements with some reasonable requests and interests, many would be happy to assist.</p>

<p>It's not uncommon for some photographers to smugly suggest, "It's better (or easier) to ask forgiveness than permission." The next guys (and maybe quite a few next guys) get stuck with all of the negative feelings and responses.</p>

[luis.miro]

<p>Thanks my friends for your very interesting comments and points of view.<br>

<br />In order to clarify, it was at Westminster Abbey and we were not part of a guided tour, simply we were walking near the abbey and we went in, it was an unplanned visit.<br>

<br />Beyond the tripods and flashes, it’s obvious they can make damages in some artworks or floors or they can be disgusting for people, the conclusions could be:</p>

<ul>

<li>Except some states like NYC, California,... in the other countries there are restrictions to take shots</li>

<li>The owner or managers determine the rules, even if it’s a public place (with access not registered)</li>

<li>The photography is always considered a business, then you have to pay</li>

<li>Plan your visits, read its web pages and, if you have time, try to have a permit, or use the letter of the “Effing Tourist Association” or similar ;)</li>

<li>The guardians can use a lot of excuses (terrorism, nuisance, etc) but the reason is the money</li>

</ul>

<p>And the future... the future could be worse... we can change the adage “time is money” by “image is money”. In Spain we have the “digital tax” that increases specially the price of the CDs, DVDs, CDs-DVDs recorders, Hard Disks, MP3, MP4, etc... perhaps in the future we’ll have to pay the “image tax” when we buy a camera, a flash or a memory card... and we can not take shots outdoors again.... the future is in the studio!</p>

[jtk]

<p>These places aren't there for photographers. If you prioritize photos over appreciating certain places, that says something more about you than about the situation.</p>

[jtk]

<p>These places aren't there for photographers. If you prioritize photos over appreciating certain places, that says something more about you than about the situation.</p>

[fld]

<p>Just an addendum re tripods. I learned from a newspaper photographer in Rockford, IL that a tabletop tripod which you rest on your chest is not a tripod, it's a "light-stretcher." So shoot as you wish, just skip the flash in "sensitive" locales.</p>

[luis.miro]

<p >Thanks John, I absolutely agree with you!</p>

<p >These places are not for photographers... the goal of a photographer is not to take a shot of Newton’s Monument, of course! (I took once to provoke, you can see my folder ) then... Why to avoid to take shots? </p>

<p >Photography is creativity and the creativity is inconsistent with the rules, restrictions and regulations… we only need some basic ethical principles.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks Lawrence for the idea… a “tabletop tripod”… we’ll see if it’s allowed with…</p>

[mauroni]

<p>

 

<p>"Unfortunate those People that need rules" I do not remember which famous person of tha past pronounced this sentence, but it's clear that we should not need, in such cases like taking pictures rules that go over the natural ones, where the natural ones are those dictated by the common sense (that probably is not so common as his name let think) and are based on this two principles:<br>

1) the respect that anyone of us must carry to others shouldn't be less than that we would like others carry to us;<br>

2) my freedom stops where yours starts (and viceversa, of course)<br>

3) any action that doesn't offend, damage, spoil, deprivate, steal (in fact any action based on principle one) in a system which respects the principle two, should be permitted. If not it means that the first two principles are not respected and this authorizes one to break the prohibition and to act according to this principle three.<br>

Bye and UP WITH PHOTOGRAPHIC FREEDOM<br>

Mauro</p>

 

</p>

[ymmij]

<blockquote>

<p>Luis: And the future... the future could be worse... we can change the adage “time is money” by “image is money”. In Spain we have the “digital tax” that increases specially the price of the CDs, DVDs, CDs-DVDs recorders, Hard Disks, MP3, MP4, etc... perhaps in the future we’ll have to pay the “image tax” when we buy a camera, a flash or a memory card... and we can not take shots outdoors again.... the future is in the studio!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not need to tell you, it is all about money.<br>

In a world with all these copyright "protections" (that are obviously not working), it does not surprise me. However, such policies are more difficult to enforce now that people can take good quality photos with a cell phone.</p>