Dear Leica friends, Spring is there, in a few weeks... summer holidays and a lot of photos in all countries. But, on most interresting places we find the same notice : NO PHOTOS ! I can understand the interdiction of using flash lights or the obligation to pay taxes for many reasons if you want to take a photo, but... most of time, for private use, there are no reasons and photos are simply NOT ALLOWED. Do you have some experience, are there legal provisions in your country? What can happen if you take photos for your private use? Thanks and best regards from Belgium. Michel

-- michel vandeput (michel.vandeput@ville.namur.be), April 02, 2002

Answers

Michael,

I have recently spent a weekend in florence. There I found that mostly flash was forbidden as well as tripods, esp. in churches. Almost everywhere it was allowed to take pictures handheld w/o flash. The same situation seems to be here in Germany. Except for some places which are keen on selling their own slides a non-flashing camera w/o tripod is allowed.
Nonetheless many people were taking pictures even with flash and nobody told them to stop though the priest became somewhat irritated. If there is a 'no flash' sign I would follow it; if there is a 'no photo' sign I would ask to take pictures w/o flash, sometimes it is allowed. Nonetheless there are usually no legal consequences to expect in european contries other than being thrown out of the place (which I never saw).

The states things are a bit different: I was told multiple times to put my camera (w/o flash) away i.e. in the Guggenheim Museum even though I did not take any pictures yet. No reason was given but people were quite harsh.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), April 02, 2002.

I travel all over the globe and I have one hard and fast rule: if there's an admission fee and a "no photography" policy, I don't go in, and I make it a point to politely inform the person in charge as to my reason for boycotting. If thousands of others would do likewise, and they realize how much revenue they're missing out on, some of those policies might change. Money talks.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

I believe the main reason that museums & cultural/religious institutions often prohibit photos isn't to prevent damage to precious artworks from flash photography, etc., but to protect the sales of postcards & books, which are an important source of revenue. As Kai Blanke pointed out, the main legal consequence of violating such policies is that you'll be thrown out, just as if you did the same thing in a store or on other private property where photography was prohibited (that's pretty much true for the U.S., too).

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 02, 2002.

I travel all over the globe and I have one hard and fast rule: if there's an admission fee and a "no photography" policy, I don't go in,

If the only reason to see something is to photograph it, our bearings have been lost. There is far more to life than photography (and I say this as someone who photographs, or works on photographs, every day) and to miss it because of a rule can only result in missing life.

I can't imagine having traveled to Assisi to see St. Francis' tomb, one of the most spectacular sites I've seen in Europe, and not seeing it because of the rule prohibiting photography. It would reduce my understanding of the universe by a significant amount. And I was able to take wonderful photographs within a mile of his tomb.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), April 02, 2002.

I've been to hundreds of places where photography was prohibited for religious, cultural or security reasons and I did not hesitate for a moment to zip up my camera bag and go on inside. In fact sometimes it's kind of a relief to just enjoy someplace without an eye to making photographs. But when there is an admission charge and a gift shop full of photo postcards/books/posters/coffee mugs/keychains etc. it galls me. I suppose if it was a really famous spot I might have the same feeling, like "I came all this way I'm not going to miss it". But for some little nondescript church or museum, sorry, no sale.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

Contrary to popular belief, flash does emit UV which is the primary cause of image derogation. Common sense, and a love of art and place, should automatically tell you when & where, not to use flash. A sign should not be needed. Under no circumstances should any image be shot with flash. Instead, use a tabletop tripod to brace the camera against your chest, (or buy a postcard.) This should easily allow you to shoot at speeds three to four stops slower than you normally would. I strongly believe in doing what we can to protect our human heritage.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

An example of when I feel flash should not be used: St. Perre de Montrouge; Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Mantrotto tabletop tripod braced against my chest. But of course we're all adults here, so each of us has to decide what is important to them.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

I think you're absolutely right, Glenn. Unfortunately, the folks who know how to take a picture without flash - and I'm sure most here would agree a "better" picture without flash - are in the small minority. When you look at the typical tourist in Bermuda shorts and sporting an APS or PNS with auto-on flash, most of whom don't even know how to disable their flash, it's no wonder the NO PHOTO signs go up. Hell, even the curators aren't sure about which camera to trust or not, so the simple answer for them is NO PHOTO. It's frustrating and it's a shame.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

"When you look at the typical tourist in Bermuda shorts and sporting an APS or PNS with auto-on flash, most of whom don't even know how to disable their flash, it's no wonder the NO PHOTO signs go up."

It figures. It's a class thing. "Dumb tourists with their cheap cameras, yada, yada."

Insisting on going into all of these places to take an inconsequential snapshot is tantamount to a dog walking in and peeing on a column or a bored GI scraping "Kilroy was here" with his penknife. "Look everybody, I was actually in the Sixtine (sic) chapel."

Pull 60p out of your tight pockets and by the friggin' postcard.

-- George T. (davecasman@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.

Your dialogue about photography in Italy sparked a question that I tried to answer some time ago without success. Does anyone have any experience with Italian copyright law as pertains to photos of statues in public place

-- Karl Knize (karlknize@ameritech.net), April 02, 2002.

If all you want is a snap of the exibit then 60p and a friggin' postcard will do.

Better shots are the people studying the exibit, or the interior architecture. No postcards there.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), April 02, 2002.