NO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED... do you obey?

Telling me I cant take photos somewhere is just begging me to do it... even if usually I wouldn't bother :D

The attached image is rubbish but I just had to do it because the sign said not to...
 
Last edited:
I comply if I'm aware of the policy. If I've already taken a couple of shots, I just apologize and put the camera away. I do like taking pictures of "no photography" signs, though.
 
I try to work out what I can get away with, but it's always more than I think.
I also make a distinction between a corporate decision and a personal request.
 
If it's a request based on copyright or otherwise related to preserving the value of intellectual property, I am all for it and will gladly not photograph. I have strong opinions concerning respect for intellectual property. I have no respect for, and will go out of my way to do battle with, other attempts to stop photograph in public places or private property where the public is invited. That's with the proviso that I would be as wimpy and scared sh**less as the next guy if I were outside the comfort and safety of a nice western-style democracy.
 
My local museum says no flash and you sign a waver to not sell... Not that I understand why when I walk in with a fixed lens 3.3mp dinosaur that was never good to start with.

Unless you violate a law the worst is they ask you to leave.
 
4859329290_9f9754f84b_b.jpg


my answer
 
It depends on my mood at the time...
The last time I was asked not to photograph something it was these two High-Rise buildings in Los Angeles...I asked if they had that "Policy" in writing...The security guy said that they did have it in writing and that he could get me a copy of it...I asked if he would...as he went to go get it I shot the buildings...
Funny thing about all this is that he explained that where I was sitting I wasn't allowed to photograph the buildings but could photograph the garden area BUT if I walked about 30 feet to my left I was no longer on Private Property and could shoot all I wanted...
Now had I been using my worthless phone camera he would have walked right by...
If I could only get my Mamiya 645 to look like a phone...
 
David Murphy said:
One reason museums are banning photography is because they want to sell coffee table photo books of the items in their expositions in their book stores.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's because there are some really annoying people who can't for the life of them turn the flash off.

At the Orsay Museum in Paris, they banned all photography (it's been a few years now). When I asked a security guy why (last time I was there I could take photos at will --anybody could, as long as your flash was off), he whispered to me the culprits.
 

(presque, un) Hommage à Doisneau by Gabriel M.A., on Flickr
Leica M8 + 50mm f/1.4 Summilux "pre-asph" E46


Photography was not allowed at Robert Doisneau's Paris Expo back in 2007. I saw this and I thought it was just too precious not to take a shot (the blur was a combination of haste and people shoving and me trying to steady my shot --it was very full in there). I recall a guard having seen me, but she said nothing.
 
Our children are thanking us and teaching our grandchildren all of those life lessons about making independent logical and ethical decisions with legality being merely a factor to consider.

No photography, no trespassing and religious law are some of those classic themes requiring personal decision not strict adherence to rule.

It is a reward to see those who follow you demonstrate the ability to think, ask why, and act accordingly
 
I visited the King Tut Family Dynasty exhibit at the De Young Museum in San Francisco a while back. They did not allow photography in the exhibit and had many big guards in plain clothing stationed in every room, and I was told this was due to lack of such permission from the Egyptian Government (or something like that), and didn't want photo equipment disturbing the enjoyment of the other guests.

They were also selling a huge $100+ book on the exhibit so that may have been a slight motivation in the no photography ruling.

I'm wondering how this can be enforced now days with almost everyone having a cell phone camera. Some of these phone cameras are very good in image quality and can be stealthily used in the hands of a competent photographer.
 
I have friends who work at the local museums, and it is hard for them to judge intent.

I think a long time ago someone shot some photos at the Natural History Museum here and tried to sell them, so they went to a no tripod rule, unless you asked and explained what you intended, for example I needed some for a class I teach and they were fine.
If I needed a really good shot without the glass in the way, the photographer for the museum gave me some slides. Tripods can also be a safety issue.

I think it is obvious when someone is trying to copy artwork, and when someone is trying to make an interesting photo, some others do not and people love to bitch about someone else breaking a rule, so it is simpler just to ban it all.

At the Musee d'Orsay, it is so well lit I cannot think of many places you would want to use a flash. It is such an interesting building it would be a shame to not be able to shoot there, I have free admission there so I like to go back and see if there is some angle, or view which is more interesting than the last visit.

Good views of the Seine from the decks as well.

When I was in Journalism, the issues were entirely different, better to blend in.

Regards, John
 
JohnTF said:
I have friends who work at the local museums, and it is hard for them to judge intent.
Clip

Sometimes I ask permission. If I have a small, Obviously Film Type camera - there is no problem. The digital cameras and easily web published imagery seems to be a major issue. Try taking a small quality film, point + shoot camera with you.

I've been told that guards have asked DSLR users to NOT take photos, while telling a museum visitor, with a plastic film camera - you're okay.

The use of Flash is a NO-NO. If your point and shoot doesn't have a flash or there is tape over the flash tube, it's a plus where there are security people around.
Click to expand...
 
JohnTF said:
I have friends who work at the local museums, and it is hard for them to judge intent.

I think a long time ago someone shot some photos at the Natural History Museum here and tried to sell them, so they went to a no tripod rule, unless you asked and explained what you intended, for example I needed some for a class I teach and they were fine.
If I needed a really good shot without the glass in the way, the photographer for the museum gave me some slides. Tripods can also be a safety issue.

I think it is obvious when someone is trying to copy artwork, and when someone is trying to make an interesting photo, some others do not and people love to bitch about someone else breaking a rule, so it is simpler just to ban it all.

At the Musee d'Orsay, it is so well lit I cannot think of many places you would want to use a flash. It is such an interesting building it would be a shame to not be able to shoot there, I have free admission there so I like to go back and see if there is some angle, or view which is more interesting than the last visit.

Good views of the Seine from the decks as well.

When I was in Journalism, the issues were entirely different, better to blend in.

Regards, John
Click to expand...

I was there in Oct 2010, and they had "No Photography" signs all over the place. Just when I thought "what would they do if I took a photo"? A man raised his slr and started shooting. Monsieur, monsieur, was heard as a female attendant chased and scolded him.

Non flash photography was OK a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
JohnTF said:
At the Musee d'Orsay, it is so well lit I cannot think of many places you would want to use a flash.
Click to expand...

What I was told (by a security guard and someone who used to work there) is that, due to issues with visitors who came from a certain country, whose tourism has shot up significantly in the past five years, could not be arsed to have their flashes be turned off. They feigned ignorance of the language (and the big signs with the camera with flash with the big crossing bar on it) so many times and would carry on. So they just banned it altogether. Nuance is hard to translate (or is easy to pretend to not understand).

Also, I did see that the new side halls are less "well-lit". It was pretty open and lit about 5-7 years ago. They've done some remodeling on the first floor, (not on the main nave/court, which is exactly the same).

Again, it's always the "who cares!"-ists who screw it up for the rest.
 
Tuna said:
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.


Tuna
Click to expand...

The trick with The David is to wait for a tourist to shoot it with their flash (which won't have the power to be of any use to them anyway). Then the guards will swarm and scold that poor fool, and you can sneak in a quick flash-free shot yourself. Italian museums are rabidly "no photo, no video" while I found British museum staff were baffled when I asked if it was OK to photograph, as it appears to be permitted unless clearly specified otherwise.

I went to the Venice Biennale art show a couple years ago, where each country had their own policy for their own pavilion. Only the French and Americans were anti-photo. The French exhibit seemed to be specifically designed to elicit anti-French sentiments, it was so obnoxious and hideous.

Drew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom