No Photography Allowed places growing?

[gsgary]

I'm working at the Derby Museum at the moment refurbing the art galleries working like made to get it ready for this Home | Format Festival got ticket for the opening party and also booked on a master class with Brian Griffin Brian Griffin Street Photo Lighting Master Class | Format Festival cant wait, may even meet my favourite street Photographers Bruce Gilden and Joel Meyerowicz FORMAT Patron: Joel Meyerowitz | Format Festival

No problem there with photography

 

[DerekSalem]

Care to explain that one?

The UK has dumb rules? Thought that would have been self-explanatory...

Tripods don't damage floors anymore than shoes with hard soles. That removes that reason.

If they didn't want people damaging the artifacts with the light bursts they wouldn't allow flash photography but allow it otherwise. That removes that reason.

A picture doesn't let you steal an artifact any better than a floor plan does...and floor plans are public knowledge and public accessible. That removes that reason.

That means the entire reason is revenue. On a public property that's one thing...but on property owned by the government that contains no governmental secrets (known because there *is* public access) there's no reason outside of selling their own pictures/videos of the subject.


The reason he said "It's the UK. 'nough said" is because that wouldn't be legally allowed in the United States. Aside from not allowing professional-style cameras in certain places as they're a distraction to others (some public/sporting events) they can't limit what you can photograph. As long as you have access to an area you're allowed to photograph it. It's ludicrous that the government would have control over something like that. Yes, sometimes officers or agents have a problem with it...but usually only because they don't know the law as well as they think they do.

 

[Overread]

*would just like to point out that with museums its NOT (always) the government*
Many are private property or held in trusts or other groups and as private property they are allowed to set restrictions, such as no photography. Furthermore often you agree to many of these conditions of entry when you purchase a ticket (purchasing the ticket being your acceptance of the terms of entry - including such things as photographic restrictions and also licences on those photos (most cases its only to restrict commercial use of the photos not personal use).

As for tripods, its not floor marking its taking up space and introducing a trip hazard. Further many places are not that big - dump a photographer and tripod down and you've got a complete stop of traffic.

On the flash side if they don't want things flashed a no photography ban is quite effective because many people (the majority) use point and shoots - indoors all of them will be flashing away like crazy, and the average user won't think (let alone always know) how to take shots without the flash firing.


On the government/police side it was the police; though the EU (and collapse of previous government) has slowed and started to end the ruling that they brought in to try and limit/control photography. However it seems that now many private sector guards are picking up on the "No Photography" (terrorists/stuff) and causing problems with photographers (and often calling in the police as well who then have to respond and go through the motions)

 

[reznap]

I went to the Cleveland Museum of Art a while back and had my camera with me. The security personnel were not amused. They basically wanted to make sure I didn't take photos of the paintings.. especially the more expensive ones. They also don't like seeing flashes go off. It seems a few people who are trying to turn a profit from printing posters of museum paintings (or something like that, I'm just guessing) have ruined it for the rest of us. Oh well.

As long as I'm using some common sense and being respectful, I haven't had many problems taking my camera around with me.

 

[DerekSalem]

I went to the Cleveland Museum of Art a while back and had my camera with me. The security personnel were not amused. They basically wanted to make sure I didn't take photos of the paintings.. especially the more expensive ones. They also don't like seeing flashes go off. It seems a few people who are trying to turn a profit from printing posters of museum paintings (or something like that, I'm just guessing) have ruined it for the rest of us. Oh well.

As long as I'm using some common sense and being respectful, I haven't had many problems taking my camera around with me.

I haven't tried taking it into the museum of art, but I've taken it into all the other museums in the area without problem. One of the most notable problems I've had of late is at the Wolstein center (CSU arena - my alma mater). They wouldn't let me in with the camera despite the sign saying "Photography allowed, video not allowed". He said it was "implied" that no professional cameras were allowed. I understand that they have the ability to create rules as they see fit...but I can't stand when companies do that. There should be no such thing as "implied" rules...just write it on the site.

 

[cabrosh]

The US has plenty of photography restrictions, too. The College World Series is held close to where I live, and they ban people with "professional" cameras. That apparently is a DSLR with a long lens - and the definition of long depends on the security guard. As for photographing churches and chapels, I don't see how photographing them in their off hours makes them any less sacred. In years past I took pictures at the lovely Norman chapel in the White Tower, at Yorkminster, and several other cathedrals, and no one had a problem with it. I only wish I'd taken better pictures! I will admit I rarely use a flash in a church; for some strange reason that does seem profane.

 

[Forkie]

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

Yep. Basically, bored Bobbies were over-using the terrorism act to justify harassing photographers for taking pictures of government buildings. But they got a slap on the back of the wrist and reminded that anyone who wanted to know what Big Ben or the MI5 building looked like could just pic up any postcard for less than 50p.

 

[sanderso]

...... 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.

I still don't see how light emitted from a strobe would damage the work. If the work were out in the sun all day for weeks/years....yes. But I don't see the damage from a single (very fast) strobe...even flashes from 3 deep tourists. Does the strobe light energy somehow break down the art?

 

[Sndsgood]

ive found a few places that are like that in indiana. we went out to our local conservatory and garden to take pics. there was no tripods or lighting setups allowed wich i can understand since the aisles were only a few feet wide. no one would be able to get around you. but there were signs for no portrait photography posted all over. out in the gardens a security guard actually came up to us and told us we couldn't take photos. i said no, the sign says no portrait photography we are taking landscape shots. she got mad at us and made us go to the front desk where the lady told us that she was new and didnt know the diffrence. so we went back out to take more pictures. and then as we were leaving well we stood in front of the no portraits sign and well we took a few portraits lol. if only my buddies card hadn't of went bad. and we lost those portrait pics.

 

[Forkie]

The US has plenty of photography restrictions, too. The College World Series is held close to where I live, and they ban people with "professional" cameras. That apparently is a DSLR with a long lens - and the definition of long depends on the security guard.

This is so you can't profit from selling photos of the game - photos of this nature are usually taken by "Official" photographrs or photographers with permission from the event organisers.

As for photographing churches and chapels, I don't see how photographing them in their off hours makes them any less sacred. In years past I took pictures at the lovely Norman chapel in the White Tower, at Yorkminster, and several other cathedrals, and no one had a problem with it. I only wish I'd taken better pictures! I will admit I rarely use a flash in a church; for some strange reason that does seem profane.

I'm an Atheist, so I don't see how it makes it any less sacred, either. Taking photos of the outside of churches is fine, but taking photos of the inside of a church is entirely up to the vicar/priest.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I went to a Reds game in Cincy last fall and had no problem getting in with my dslr. The rules for that stadium were no tripods/monopods, no shooting from the walkways or any shooting while standing and basically not blocking anyone's view. Anything (except video) you can fit into a bag that is a max 16" on its longest side is fair game apparently. I took a small slinger bag with a 24-70 mounted and a shiny new white 70-200 2.8. I had to show the contents of my bag but after seeing the size of the lenses the security person didn't even bat an eye.

 

[timlair]

Here in KC at the Royals game's in particular it depends on the security guard checking your bag. Some wont let you in with a 70-300. Other dont care at all. And I have yet to see a No photography sign in KC anywhere. I hope it stays that way.

 

[Overread]

Yay for U-turns!
All photographers are potential terrorists, say police news - Amateur Photographer


Ps - PCSOs are regular people who get to wear a reflective jacket and be busybodies in their free time (ie free community police if you will). They don't really have much power but are a cheap form of low level policing

 

[Village Idiot]

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

Yes. But that doesn't necessarily prevent people from abusing their power of authority.

 

[Village Idiot]

Well in good ol' 'Merica, we stand up for our rights. You Brits need to faller our xample and kick some copper ass.