No Photography Allowed places growing?

[cabrosh]

We lived near London about 30 years ago, and might have the chance to go back for a week. I was looking forward to re-taking some old Pentax Spotmatic shots, and started planning, just in case. Some of the places (Sir John Soames museum, the White Tower) no longer allow photography. Are photographers becoming that big a problem? I could understand no flash photography and no tripods/monopods. Many tiny local museums have the same No Photos rule. You'd think they'd be happy to have pictures of their museum on-line for the free advertising. I'm not talking about great paintings, rather the kind of place that displays old cars, paperweights, interesting odds and ends. Just throwing it out for discussion.

 

[sanderso]

I haven't experienced any "no photography" signs....but, IMO it sounds like the government wants to force folks/tourists to buy from the local trade. This generates tax revenue they wouldn't get if you shot your own.

 

[owlxxx]

Its much deeper than just tax revenue...

 

[kacielynch]

I haven't seen any "no photography" signs.... but I see more an more parks trying to enforce session fees to use their parks. Which I think is ridiculous. Public parks are just that, public!

 

[JeffieLove]

Its much deeper than just tax revenue...

then why don't you expand on that so that the rest of us can understand?

 

[skieur]

Its much deeper than just tax revenue...

then why don't you expand on that so that the rest of us can understand?

The intention of the parks was to control large scale photographic productions which used trucks, generators, and staffs which can take over a park.

Ignorant, arrogant, parks people started power-tripping, pushing any photographer to get a permit, whether they needed it or not.

skieur

 

[Forkie]

We lived near London about 30 years ago, and might have the chance to go back for a week. I was looking forward to re-taking some old Pentax Spotmatic shots, and started planning, just in case. Some of the places (Sir John Soames museum, the White Tower) no longer allow photography. Are photographers becoming that big a problem? I could understand no flash photography and no tripods/monopods. Many tiny local museums have the same No Photos rule. You'd think they'd be happy to have pictures of their museum on-line for the free advertising. I'm not talking about great paintings, rather the kind of place that displays old cars, paperweights, interesting odds and ends. Just throwing it out for discussion.

I live in London and don't see many "No Photography" signs. The places I tend to see them is in museums, and animal houses such as the London Aquarium - and even these only say no flash, not no photos.

I haven't experienced any "no photography" signs....but, IMO it sounds like the government wants to force folks/tourists to buy from the local trade. This generates tax revenue they wouldn't get if you shot your own.

This is fairly far-fetched if you ask me. The government cannot control whether or not people can take photos within private properties such as museums.

Just read this is on the Tower of London website: "You are welcome to take photographs or to video within most of the Tower but we regret that photography and filming are not permitted inside the Jewel House, the White Tower or in the Chapel Royal of St Peter ad Vincula." I suspect that this is to prevent damage to the floors with tripods and protecting delicate items from the flash.No photos in the Jewel House is fairly obvious if you ask me. Would you really expect to be able to take photos of the Royal Crown Jewels in their safe house? And you can't take photos in most chapels and churches anyway as they are sacred ground.

As for the parks, it is perfectly fine to take photos within the parks provided they are not for commercial use. Which is fairly common on any piece of land. Technically, if you want to take photos in a National Park for commercial sale, you need permission.

The only places you can take photos without needing any kind of permission (in the UK, anyway) is on Common Land, which has limited or no restrictions on its use by the public.

 

[sanderso]

This is fairly far-fetched if you ask me. The government cannot control whether or not people can take photos within private properties such as museums.

Just read this is on the Tower of London website: "You are welcome to take photographs or to video within most of the Tower but we regret that photography and filming are not permitted inside the Jewel House, the White Tower or in the Chapel Royal of St Peter ad Vincula." I suspect that this is to prevent damage to the floors with tripods and protecting delicate items from the flash.No photos in the Jewel House is fairly obvious if you ask me. Would you really expect to be able to take photos of the Royal Crown Jewels in their safe house? And you can't take photos in most chapels and churches anyway as they are sacred ground.

I get the limits at churches and I sort of get the limits at the Royal CJ. It's the limited flash that I don't get. I have been in museums (Paris) which allow photography but prevent flash. I also get their desire (sort of) to limit potential floor damage from tripods. I just don't get the flash limitation. Maybe it's an issue of not disturbing the viewing experience of other patrons....or an issue of protecting the works from high light energy. I can appreciate the first, but not the second.

It still means that the average tourist must stop by the ever invasive gift shop to buy a postcard of their favorite display for the scrapbook.

 

[Village Idiot]

It's the UK. 'nough said.

 

[Forkie]

Maybe it's an issue of not disturbing the viewing experience of other patrons....

You might be right about that, actually.

It still means that the average tourist must stop by the ever invasive gift shop to buy a postcard of their favorite display for the scrapbook.

That's true, but that's more to do with maximising income for the private owner than anything to do with the government.

It's the UK. 'nough said.

Care to explain that one?

 

[KmH]

...... It's the limited flash that I don't get. I have been in museums (Paris) which allow photography but prevent flash......

Repeated strobed light damages the paintings.

 

[Village Idiot]

It's the UK. 'nough said.

Care to explain that one?

Read the news in the past year? It seems like it's becoming illegal to have a camera out in public in the UK.

 

[gsgary]

Total rubbish ^

 

[Overread]

Read the news in the past year? It seems like it's becoming illegal to have a camera out in public in the UK.

Naw only in the middle of London mostly ;P

 

[KmH]

Didn't all the UK cops get read the riot act about harassing photographers a couple of months ago?