NO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED... do you obey?

robklurfield

robklurfield

eclipse
Local time
3:57 AM
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
7,849
Location
New Jersey, USA
View My Gallery
Do you make images where you're not supposed to be snapping? If so, post 'em here. Tell your story or not. words, no words, your choice.

5720860416_92dec19ab0_z.jpg


Today, I didn't obey. While visiting a museum, I couldn't help myself. Now, respecting art and artists, I would never make a shot to steal someone's artistic creation. However, museums and galleries do provide interesting space and geometry, not mention the things you can catch fellow humans doing within them. At DIA Beacon today, I did feel that the docents were particularly on the lookout for misbehavior and, not wanting to disappoint, I complied by misbehaving. I have no idea if they saw me or not, but wife did provide soon well-time coughs to cover the sound of my shutter. I also made sure to scuff my rubber-souled shoes across the concrete floors just behind one of the docents repeatedly as it seemed to make him snap to attention.
 
It is not always simple, at one time, museums thought all flash would damage the work, at the Cleveland Museum of Art, some exhibits are Ok to shoot and others not, it is not very clear, and the people working there do not seem to be consistent on the rules.

At the Natural History Museum in Paris, they would not allow photos of the dinosaurs, but they offered me a post card, -- of a placoderm which was a replica of the original, in Cleveland--

Sometimes they want a fee, and a friend was judged a professional - requiring a license fee, because he leaned against a pillar at Notre Dame to shoot the stained glass.


Regards, John
 
NO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED... do you obey?
Click to expand...

Yes. There must be a reason if there is a sign that says it is not allowed. If people ask me not to take pictures of them I respect that, other wise it would be rude.
 
People asking not to be photographed: I comply (it really happens very seldom)
from places where I know that I don't really "break the essence of the rule", for example museums that are protecting reproduction rights of a piece, and I'm shooting from far away in BW, I do it.
Usually I just play dumb (I'm good at that) until a guard asks me to stop, and I comply.
Malls, subway, etc, I just shoot. If someone is not happy, I apologize, ask for an explanation and stop, until I am far away and can play dumb in another area (I'm good at that too).
 
its really annoying when you go to a museum and you see tourists going from artwork to artwork taking photos of the piece and barely even looking at the work i just don't get it. I have been in situations when i'm taking like 10 minutes to absorb a painting and some guy started give a bit of an cough behind me as i was apparently blocking his shot of some amazing piece of work he wasn't actually interested in looking at in the flesh.
But the answer the original question yes i do take photos when i'm not supposed to mainly in places like train stations where there are stupid anti terrorism laws and stuff like that but not in museums unless there was maybe so particularly amazing architecture.

These are shot in parliament and melbourne central stations in melbourne using a 50d and Tripod i'm really surprised i didn't get asked to stop it was probably too early in the morning for the train cops.
5285170105_ce2545b1a3_z.jpg


5285763384_1122afee58_z.jpg


5285163569_63a223ecd7_z.jpg
 
I do what I can get away with. I'm tired of lawyers in corporations, state offices and Washington, D.C., deciding how I should live my life.
 
I obey. I have no problem with restricting photography as long as there is signage. For instance hospitals prohibit photography because of healthcare privacy laws.

If I didn't mind being thrown out on the street with the possibility of being charged with trespassing if I ever returned, I would take the photo if I it was important to me.
 
^^ Will nice, I like the melbourne central one.
I do it too, but I haven't kept anything interesting to show for it. I do it because the majority of anti-photography rules are so blatantly silly and pointless that even the people who are supposed to enforce them generally dont even bother. It's just photos, nobody really gives a sh!t.
 
Like so many aspects of the law, most of the "no-photo" rules predate the ubiquity of the cell phone camera. How could anyone possibly enforce a law uniformly when virtually everyone who visits a museum/train depot/kid filled/etc. place is toting a camera phone (and these days a pretty good one). Consider concerts, which used to be typically "no protography allowed" affairs--it is impossible to police them when everyone is bringing a camera, and using it, and instantly transmitting the images.
 
Thambar agreed, anti-photography laws have painted themselves in a corner and have proven themselves unenforceable and hypocritical. What about CCTVs that record footage of everything that moves, public places or not? oh yeah I forgot, thats for our safety... the safety of their property more like it 🙄
 
These situations are what from-the-hip shooting and pretending to fiddle with your camera were made for 🙂

As for the artwork thing-- I wonder how the artists would feel if, say, you take a picture of their painting or sculpture or whatever it is they have on display in a museum's "no pictures" area and posted that picture online. I mean, I can't personally see having a problem with that as I'd just be happy that more people would have a chance to, at least, get a glimpse of what I'd worked so hard on. Generally a picture of a piece of art is not at all a substitute for the real thing and would only be likely to generate more interest for the piece.
 
My job involves taking photos where you're not allowed to. I have two clients in the harbour, the harbour is a port of entry and thus is highly restricted. They need pics and I need money so I just shoot quickly and discreetly.
 
Guggenheim allows it on 1st floor only:

IMG_1896.jpg


irony at the Kodak museum:

L1002412.jpg


The general rule of thumb is if the piece is part of the permanent collection and the artist is deceased, you can photograph it. I got lectured by a guard for taking the photo below in a museum that has the living artist policy above. Didn't have the heart to break the news to him. Easier to nod and walk away.

L1004141.jpg
 
When visiting Florence and viewing Michelangelo's David, photography was strictly forbidden. Cellphones (see: "cameras") were everywhere and the guards were doing their best to stop picture-taking. That was a few years ago and with the current proliferation of smartphones, I suspect it has become a losing battle.

As for my personal behaviour - I weigh the penalty (severe scolding v. jail/torture) and reserve taking a shot for those moments that really are too good to pass up, feigning ignorance if caught.

Tuna
 
Depends. If it is somewhere plastered with security cameras, hell yeah I will shoot too.
I have been recently wanting to shoot photos of police officers constantly bothering homeless people in the area. These people have nowhere to go and yet the cops constantly give them tickets they cant afford to pay. To me, It's a total waste of taxpayers money. The same amount the cops are paid to give them tickets could be given to shelters and services to house and help these people. 99 percent of them didn't choose to be on the street, but have been victims of sexual abuse or abandonment. It really irks me to see it happen.
It is hard though because those cops will not be happy. Even though they have cameras mounted in their cruiser and can film us all day. As taxpayers we pay for their jobs and we should be able to keep watch on what they do.
Has anyone had trouble taking photos of police officers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom