Photography not allowed at university ?

[tamerlin]

Apparently not, otherwise this thread would not exist.

They're trained that way, at least according to sources I can't identify in public 🙂

Of course, the basic counter-terrorism training teaches security folks to look for exactly that.

Now, in a place like DC, you have tourists wandering around snapping pictures of just about
everything, so the only one that any security folks would notice is someone who's attempting
to be unnoticed. So, they accomplish more by just acting like any other tourist.

In a mall where there aren't so many tourists, they might be asked to stop taking pictures, but
that's about it... has anyone who tried to take pictures and was asked to stop also had their ID
checked and their photo taken? Most of the ones who have were ones with obviously higher-end
cameras, because they stand out, and security folks don't know any better.

The smart terrorists will just walk in with a P&S cam, snap pictures, and politely desist when
asked. The dumb ones will try to hide their cameras from the view of the security staff.

The problem IMO isn't the terrorists or the security folks' paranoia (though that exacerbates the
problem), it's the fact that information is very poorly disseminated, security folks are not all that
well trained to identify and handle terrorists, so instead they are trained to be excessively and
in many cases pointlessly paranoid.

And THAT is what brought this depressing thread into existence.

 

[dwpayne]

This is probably in the guy's mind. Not taking photos of a place because of its right to its own image? If that were a valid rationale, you couldn't take photos of the Eiffel Tower.

Photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night (i.e. when it's lit) are subject to copyright laws and can't be published without paying a fee.

 

[matu]

Oscar, sad to hear about that absurd photographic ban. I believe that you can actually take pictures, but you can't make public use or get profit of them, because it's part of their institutional image.
The picture itself isn't a violation, making use of it..., could be.
A University may be a private institution but it doesn't lack of the public category, it's part of the city and the landscape....
Don't bother about this people, I think it's a major problem proving that you are stealing and profiting of their institutional or historic image than leting you get away with a pair of shots.
When something like this has happen to me I've been very upseted because you don't spect this, you are concentrated trying to make the picture (creating) and finally you loose the mood of the situation, messing with a photographer should be a crime.

Pablo

 

[ABarGrill]

Even our federal government gets into this act. I was once told by a ranger at Ft. McHenry in Baltimore, after he saw me using a medium format camera, that photos by professionals are not allowed to use photos taken in the Fort, itself ,without a permit. Amateurs can shoot as much as they please. Why? He explained that the Park Service did not want photos being sold without the government receiving some compensation. I was surprised!

Alan

 

[taffer]

Wow, thanks a bunch to you all for so many contributions and stories !

As Pablo and Alan (and probably some others) say, I think it's more related to the fact that they don't want their institutional image being used by somebody who can potentially make profit without their approval (compensation). Of course, not using a digital P&S these days make you a 'professional' photographer and that's probably what they're trained to spot.

Something similar happened to me when entering a small cemetery here in Barcelona, but in that case it was also clearly stated in a sign by the door. The place makes for some nice images though, with some very nice statues and headstones inside. Anyway the guard was an elder man and kindly explained me the reasons so I didn't have a problem to put the camera down.

But reading that thing about the Eiffel tower... one wonders where all this is going, maybe in a while we'll have to insert a coin so they allow us to take a picture of some interesting place ?

It's ironic, but at the same time upsetting, as like Pablo says, just may take your mood off for a while...

And just for the record, I was back there today as I had to meet a professor, and while he arrived, I spent the time... taking pictures, of course 😉

 

[Roman]

Photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night (i.e. when it's lit) are subject to copyright laws and can't be published without paying a fee.

In fact, I have heard on quite a few forums from different people that it is forbidden to take pictures using a tripod in all of Paris - you have to get a special permit for a small fee first; they want to prevent professional photographers from making money with pics of sights, and a tripod makes you a professional, apparently... (Of course, we rangefinderusers know better 😉 )
Any Parisians here who can verify that?

Roman

 

[gelmir]

I've never heard about that, but I can't firmly say it's not true. Anyway, it's unlikely someone will stop you from doing anything in Paris, french people usually don't care or perhaps are too afraid to object even if they are annoyed. What I know is that photographing trains is tolerated if you don't use a tripod and that shooting in Paris' subway is forbidden. But again, I'm not sure someone will object...

 

[RML]

Photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night (i.e. when it's lit) are subject to copyright laws and can't be published without paying a fee.

Really?
How would the city of Paris enforce that? There's no sign saying such, and I doubt very many people know this gem of information.

 

[Penguin_101]

Photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night (i.e. when it's lit) are subject to copyright laws and can't be published without paying a fee.

I forgot when they built it, but I could see that.

 

[dwpayne]

Really?
How would the city of Paris enforce that? There's no sign saying such, and I doubt very many people know this gem of information.

The keyword is "publish". I don't know French law, but in other venues it'd be enforced as a copyright infringement. The world is becoming an increasingly silly place. Or perhaps just greedy?

http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/index.html
http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2005/02/02/eiffel_tower_repossessed.html

P.S. I've worked at a Canadian university for more years than I care to admit, and I've never heard of anyone ever restricting the taking of photographs on campuses here. Of course, the architecture usually leaves something to be desired, so maybe nobody really cares 🙂

 

[gelmir]

There is a recent similar story about a sculpture in Chicago : here.
I wish a lot people would gather at the same time to photograph it just to show how stupid this is 😀

 

[dmr]

There is a recent similar story about a sculpture in Chicago : here.
I wish a lot people would gather at the same time to photograph it just to show how stupid this is 😀

Holy {whatever}!

That's Cloud Gate and I've been fascinated with it.

It's sometimes called "The Bean" or "The Bubble Thing".

I took several photos of it last fall and there were all kinds of people doing it too!

I'll try attaching one here.

If you look carefully, you can see the photographer. 🙂 🙂

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Annie, are you in the Windy City? I'm near it, and I've taken photos of the "Bean" and the security fellows around didn't move a finger.

Of course, that was back when it was uncovered the first time, last summer.

Regarding photos of Paris, I read once about the laws called "Droit de l'image" that purportedly protect innocent citizens from having their images commercially exploited by sinister photographers. In fact, it was said that French people no longer allow idle photographers to snap away, and that they'll walk up to you and tell you NOT to photograph them.

But then, that's reportedly occurring in the Tuileries, Boul Mich and Notre Dame, all of them highly sought-after, touristy kinda spots.

Mmmm... can you photograph the outdoor tables at La Coupole?

Probably not. They must be copyrighted as well...

But then, as dwpayne said, the key word is "to publish" (i.e., to profit) from the image.

I guess you'll be a rich man, Oscar, after selling all those campus photos in the snapshot black market! 🙂

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Whose image did I steal here then?

 

[gelmir]

I hope she's not reading the forum right now or else she could sue you 😀

 

[dmr]

Annie, are you in the Windy City?

No, but I usually end up there a few times each year, both on business and on pleasure (or sometimes both same trip). 🙂

I'm near it, and I've taken photos of the "Bean" and the security fellows around didn't move a finger.

Oh, there is NO WAY they could possibly enforce any kind of photo ban! I'm now trying to think back of when I took that. It was Saturday early afternoon, unseasonably warm in late October, and I don't remember any security types around. There were people everywhere and cameras everywhere. In particular I remember a few video cameras and one tourist family posing by it while dad snapped away.

There were certainly no "No Photographs" or circle-slash-camera icon signs around.

I'm starting to wonder if that article linked above was misinterpreting some kind of a ban on publishing or commercial use of photos.

Anyway, they tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that the sculptor is planning to fill in and polish the seams within the next year or so, leaving the thing totally smooth, and I was (and still am) planning to follow up and do some of the same shots over when it is finished, or even in progress if the timing is right. 🙂

 

[SolaresLarrave]

IIRC, the "Bean" will be unveiled in soon... I believe it's in May.

Gentlemen, get your cameras ready!

 

[dmr]

IIRC, the "Bean" will be unveiled in soon... I believe it's in May.

I've been out of the loop on that thing for a while, haven't seen it since last fall. Are you saying that they are currently filling in the seams and will unveil it totally smooth in May?