Photography not allowed at university ?

[taffer]

This is amazing, just happened to me this afternoon and still find it's bizarre at least...

I was coming from lunch with my buddy, biology PhD student and decided to go to the faculty bar to have a coffee, went through the building to make a shortcut and while going through the PUBLIC HALL I stop to take a couple snapshots of some architecture details, stairs, etc.

After some seconds I hear a 'Eh!' (universal code for incoming problems) and then a guy kindly asks me if I didn't know that it's not allowed to take pictures there. I say ok ok, I'm sorry and I didn't know (the truth), but as this no-photo song is just starting to irritate me a bit, decide to ask why exactly it's not allowed.

Amazingly, he tells me it's due to the advertising policy of that public university, and that their 'trademark' is the only one who can 'exploit' their own image. Suposedly there's no problem in taking pictures inside professor's offices (with their agreement) but not of the architecture in the public zones 😕

That faculty received also lots of visits from Architecture students who went there as part of their drawing and sketches assignments (for another public university), I wonder if they will be banned from there from now on as well.

Irritating, confusing, amazing, and I wonder if somebody here found in a similar situation... That said, when he came I had already took 2 or 3 (probably lousy) photos 😛

 

[Oldprof]

Weird! I assume this was a university in Spain? Sounds like a rather draconian policy.

 

[pshinkaw]

Now I understand why Marxists are so inimical to the concept of Intellectual Property. Taken to this extreme, the very photons that bounce off of private property become private property.

-Paul

 

[reellis67]

I suppose that if you were on thier property, and it was not a public institution, they could say that you cannot photograph their buildings <I>from their property</I>. They have no authority to stop you if you are standing on the public sidewalk off property and shooting their buildings (with a camera of course!) or if they are a public institution. Rules of that nature regarding public institutions must be laid down by the board of directors, not some Barney Fife with a chip on his shoulder AND they must be freely available to the public upon request. Discrection is the better part of valor but just the same...

- Randy

 

[DougK]

Sounds like the guy was reasonably polite about things at least, but I just have to wonder how far these trends will go. I just can't understand how you can copyright or trademark something anyone can go see freely in public. Kinda reminds me of the ban on photographing the Lone Cypress in Monterey, CA. It may be that it's only a provision against selling the image you make of it, but I don't recall the sign reading that way when I was there. I made sure to fire off about a dozen shots of it just on principle 🙂.

 

[Penguin_101]

I would be glad to help, but I know nothing about Spain's laws. (I don't know a lot about American laws, but I have links that spell out your rights for photography)

 

[Pherdinand]

That sounds just plain stupid to me, Oscar.

 

[Kris]

Is there any written sign anywhere in the University complex saying that you cannot take photographs? If it is the policy of the uni not to allow people taking photos, then they should express it explicitly. Otherwise how would people know?! Maybe that can be your excuse. If it's the same guy again telling you off, just tell him you've got an amnesia and remember nothing about the past. 😉

 

[taffer]

That sounds just plain stupid to me, Oscar.

That exactly was our first thought as well 😀

I think indeed it has nothing to do with Spanish laws, but with what that specific faculty has been doing lately in order to get funds, as seems they were having some financial problems (which as always some people suffer more than others...). That involved as well placing a huge advertising panel with variated ads in a wall at the entrance, it was soon retired due to heavy opposition from students, as it was starting to look more as a shopping mall than a public university...

Probably they have some kind of contract with the company that takes care of their merchandising.

I've been checking their site and of course there's no reference to that, will have to inquire a bit more, but I'm glad to see the common agreement is that it's plain bizarre, I was just starting to think if I was in the wrong planet or what... 🙂

 

[Penguin_101]

That exactly was our first thought as well 😀

I think indeed it has nothing to do with Spanish laws, but with what that specific faculty has been doing lately in order to get funds, as seems they were having some financial problems (which as always some people suffer more than others...). That involved as well placing a huge advertising panel with variated ads in a wall at the entrance, it was soon retired due to heavy opposition from students, as it was starting to look more as a shopping mall than a public university...

Probably they have some kind of contract with the company that takes care of their merchandising.

I've been checking their site and of course there's no reference to that, will have to inquire a bit more, but I'm glad to see the common agreement is that it's plain bizarre, I was just starting to think if I was in the wrong planet or what... 🙂

Here in the US if it is on public land, then you can take all of the pictures you want. Even if it is a rule it would be unconstitutional. You might want to check the laws of Spain. (Link for American posters: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

 

[Skinny McGee]

Maybe they lost funding because their photography students were not allowed any film in their camera.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

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.

It sounds to me like this guy heard bells... but didn't know where they're coming from.

Now... were you at a public institution? If so, their "right to their image" would apply only if they saw you trying to sell photos taken in their facility. If these shots are for your own, non-commercial use, to heck with them.

Some people find it sexy to go about forbidding things they can't do. Like prohibiting the use of cameras in a public place, when they don't use cameras at all. It's a sad psychopathological case... 🙁 But still, I don't think this is true.

Consult their PR office, Oscar. They should know better! 🙂

 

[dmr]

Here in the US if it is on public land, then you can take all of the pictures you want. Even if it is a rule it would be unconstitutional. You might want to check the laws of Spain. (Link for American posters: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

That's an interesing flyer. Thanks for the link.

It seems that more and more, here in the States anyway, there's a movement to limit amateur photography in public places. The strangest one that ever happened to me was a few years ago in a Victorias Secret store in the Desert Passage Mall in Las Vegas. A friend of mine was getting a demo of a new hand lotion that they were featuring and I thought the interaction of the hands would make an interesting shot so I pulled the Olympus point-and-shoot out of my purse and started to aim and I was very quickly (in a nice manner but very firmly) told by a sales associate that no photographs were allowed in the store. I asked why and I was told "for proprietary reasons" or something like that.

The thing is, you seldom know for sure until somebody confronts you. 🙁 You rarely see things like a "No Photography" sign or a circle-camera-slash icon.

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

The last (and final) time I was in a Wal-Mart store was last October in Brownwood, Texas. A couple of my buddies and I were stocking up for a weekend of , well, boozing and we had just gotten in the store, where our first stop was the vegetable aisle (it was on the way to the beer). I thought a shot of the multi-colored produce, with my friend mulling over his choices would be a nice shot, but no.... one shot, and one alone brought the Wal-Mart Gestapo flying out of the back rooms, I saw them coming and I knew immediately what was up. Person identified himself as a store manager, and coldly and politely told me that photography in the store was prohibited. His reason? "Store policy". Wouldn't go beyond that. So on the way out, I asked another person, she was sort of managing the checkers, and she was just as adamant but a little more forthcoming. She told me the "proprietary reasons" story, that they were afraid their competitors might copy their displays. I told her that was a load of crap, since you can see their displays on their TV ads. And what's to stop competitors from coming in the store to LOOK at and REMEMBER what the displays look like? And biggest shock of all, their displays ALREADY look like EVERYONE ELSE'S anyway!
Needless to say, I've not set foot in a Wal-Mart since.
They prohibit photography simply because they want to. It's the 9/11 mindset that has taken over the US, everything has to be on virtual lockdown in order "to protect our freedoms."
Right after we left the Wal-mart, we went to a mom-and-pop grocery store almost next door. I asked them if they minded if I took some photos in their store, and the manager there said "No problem, but why would you want to?" When I told her what happened at the W-M, she just said, "I'm not surprised."

 

[tedwhite]

I went into the "local" shopping mall in a town 25 miles away and started snapping away with my Yashica GSN. The long corridor's roof consists of curved skylights and makes a pleasant sight. I was immediately accosted by two uniformed security types. "No photos allowed," they said, adding, "It's for security reasons." When I asked what they meant by that, they informed me that "homeland security"had told them that Al Queda terrorists would like photos of the mall to better enable plans to blow the place up.

The town has a large military base, (Fort Huachuca, the Army's world-wide communications center). Perhaps some paranoia has oozed out the Main Gate?

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

Right, I have heard that Al Qaida's standard-issue camera is the Yashica.... 😉
Really, if terrorists were casing locations and wanted photos, wouldn't they be a little more discreet? If I were doing something like that, I would use a cellphone with a camera, where I could email the photos instantly. I sure wouldn't pop out my Agfa folder!
"Paranoia strikes deep,
Into your life it will creep,
It starts when you're always afraid,
Step outta line, the man comes to take you away"

 

[dmr]

I was immediately accosted by two uniformed security types. "No photos allowed," they said, adding, "It's for security reasons."

Prior to 9/11 there was a discussion "on another network" about somebody getting hassled for photographing the OUTSIDE of a mall from the parking lot. I did a quick Google search and here's the thread if anybody wants to read it. This was over a year before 9/11.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...14d298b44ac29?q=meadows+mall#cbb14d298b44ac29

A follow-up thread on this same topic, last year, after 9/11, which includes a dead link to the original thread appears here.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...32d2f1cb64918?q=meadows+mall#04f32d2f1cb64918

Oh, in case anybody really cares, I'm known as "Annie" (my long-time nickname) in that forum.

I've also made it a point to ask at the various Las Vegas casinos as to what their photo policies are, which vary quite a bit and are seldom posted. I have a small list and I'll post that if anybody wants it.

 

[dreilly]

Wall-Mart has much more to hide than display designs!

doug

 

[tamerlin]

Right, I have heard that Al Qaida's standard-issue camera is the Yashica.... 😉
Really, if terrorists were casing locations and wanted photos, wouldn't they be a little more discreet?

No, they probably wouldn't; it actually attracts less attention to simply act like a tourist.

The thing is that I'm not convinced that they'd care about attacking some random mall just
anywhere in the US; if they want maximum impact, they'd want a tourist center.

Then again, a random mall somewhere would be an easier target from a security point of view,
were it not right next to a military base.

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

No, they probably wouldn't; it actually attracts less attention to simply act like a tourist.

Apparently not, otherwise this thread would not exist.