No Pix! Does it bother you?

Mar 2nd, 2005, 10:37 AM
  #21  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 797
smueller, while I appreciate that you are unobtrusive and careful with the flash, you still are infringing on the copyright of the owner. Like downloading music illegally, it is stealing.
ssachida is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 10:46 AM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,182
I don't think the debate is whether or not pictures are a "bad" thing - I seriously doubt anyone here hates photographs. Of course taking photos is fun, and it is wonderful to be able to re-live your trip with your scrapbook, or digital pics., etc. I certainly don't begrudge anyone a photo, but MUST you pose for a full five minutes when others are trying to view what you are compelled to stand in front of?

And in an effort to remain polite, I will refrain from asking smueller why they believe the rules do not apply to them and why they can not be respectful to the place where they are visiting to abide by the museums, cathedrals, etc wishes. Please do not be a rude visitor. My husband took some great photos with his digital all over Paris, but if the place we were visiting said "no photography" he simply put the camera away. Seems logical and not too difficult.
Margie is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 10:47 AM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,763
smueller,

Are you saying that as long as you do it quick and don't get caught..that it is alright to take photos even where they are ot allowed?
Dick is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 10:54 AM
  #24  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,134
I have take pictures in museums but I used 400 or 1000 film and didn't need a flash.

Once at the Hermitage I was going to take a photo and the very stern guard approached me to stop me. So I asked permission to take a photo of him, well, that changed his whole demeanor, he straightened his jacket, smoothed his hair and posed. It is one of my favorite photos. I have done that since then with guards with interesting faces.

One time in the old days when I was bad, I had my boyfriend cough whenever I snapped a picture in a museum in Venice. The guard caught onto us and gave BF a cough-candy, then laughed, luckily, I thought I was going to be fined.
SeaUrchin is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 11:08 AM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,938
Ssachida, I understand your point. Perhaps it would help if the museums would post descriptive information about large pictures on a standup sign at the correct viewing distance rather than on the wall right next to the picture.
JulieVikmanis is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 11:20 AM
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
I don't think it's immoral to photograph works of art, no matter what the signs tell me not to do. It may be malum in prohibitum, but it's not malum in se. I think the reason for the prohibition is because the light can damage works of art and annoys others. So I never take my flash with me when I'm museuming, and do only available-light photography.

Maybe it would make more sense if the signs read Flash Cameras Prohibited.

U.S. law expressly excludes reproduction of copyrighted materials for educational or archival purposes. The idea is that if the reproduction deprives the copyrightholder of sales, it's illegal. That would apply to downloading a song from a pirate site, but not making a digital copy of my own CD. Or my own copy of David with Mme Robespierre admiring his...physique.
Robespierre is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 11:25 AM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
exempts, not excludes
Robespierre is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:04 PM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,986
Why would US copyright law have any meaning at all when determining whether or not it is OK to photograph David in Europe?

That said, I do believe that if a sign says "no photographs" it doesn't just mean "no flash photographs" or it would, indeed, say that. You can choose to disregard the posted rules, but that doesn't make the rules any less real.

And whether or not it's immoral isn't really the question.
jlm_mi is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:09 PM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 12,848
I was personally disturbed by people taking photos of the Sistine ceiling ignoring the guards' repeated instructions in many languages not to do so. The guards disturbed the sanctity of the chapel, the flashes (often 10 at a time) made the details of the ceiling difficult to see, and gave a most unsuitable feel to what should have been a holy place of inspired, sacred art.

Patrick, the solution to your problem is to avoid restaurants that cater to tourists. We lived in Palm Harbor for years, and stuck to a few favorite places that didn't advertise during the high season. In fact, I didn't do much except play tennis at a private club during the tourist season to keep away from them. But you've gotta love 'em, they add millions to the tax base, have no children who require schools and are law-abiding citizens so no extra police are needed. And--best of all, they eventually go back home!
kswl is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:12 PM
  #30  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 507
There is something so liberating about traveling without a camera and just a bit of money in your pocket for postcards & chocolate.
janeg is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:48 PM
  #31  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,020
I often become totally immersed in my surroundings too Patrick, but I also try to be aware of those around me, so I don't crash into someone, step on toes, or walk in front of them while they are either viewing something or taking a picture of it. Just common courtesy in my view.

You are annoyed by a traveler with a camera trying to take a picture of something you wish to view. Likewise, I try to be patient while waiting for a traveler without a camera to get out of the way so I can take my picture.

All I'm trying to say is it works both ways. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all get along?" I sometimes feel like telling pushy people, "Gee, if I'd known you wanted to stand here where I am, I would have stayed at home."

Frankly I don't know what the big hoohah is all about. I take pictures and treasure them; you don't and seem to feel those of that do usurp your space and infringe on your rights somehow. Sorry, I just don't get it.

Giovanna is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:58 PM
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
"Patrick, the solution to your problem is to avoid restaurants that cater to tourists."

Obviously you've never been to Naples. There are NO restaurants that don't cater to tourists.
Patrick is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:05 PM
  #33  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Giovanna, I think you are over reacting to what I've said. I do not object to people taking pictures. And for the record I do it a lot myself. I only object to people making such a big deal out of it, that everybody else must stand and wait for a LONG time for them to do their thing. I am not upset when I'm looking at something and someone passes in front of me. Why am I more important than they are? Yet, many photographers DO feel that way. No one has the "right" to walk in front of them while they are taking a picture. Again, I'm not talking about someone taking a quick picture here, or someone deliberately walking in front of them, but I fail to see why a person with a camera has the right to stop everyone else from entering a space for ten minutes. Can you imagine me standing in a room saying, "I want everyone else to remain to the side for ten minutes while I experience this scene by myself?" Ridiculous. Yet SOME photographers do expect just that.
I really suspect I'm not talking about you at all. But if you do require people to rearrange their visit to suit a time consuming photo shoot, then yes, I am speaking to you.
Patrick is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:07 PM
  #34  
Boxerlover
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
throwing in my two cents: i'm with Giovanno.

I take pictures for my own pleasure and to relive those memories when I want to. I remember my trips pretty well, and take plenty of notes, but it's a picture once in a while that brings me to a special moment that I might have forgotten.

As for people being discourteous, they either are or they aren't - whether they're holding a camera or not is irrelevent.
 
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:12 PM
  #35  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Since I'm not versed in the Napoleonic Code, I offered an analogous provision in US law. That's all. I wasn't suggesting it applied anywhere else, because that would be just ridiculous.

I think the signs say "No cameras" or "No photography" to discourage stupid people with stupid cameras from setting off stupid flashes.

Since everything we are discussing is the subject of images all over the internet (I have a 4-CD set of works of art that just about covers everything), I think the argument that allowing photography would erode postcard sales is just plain dumb.
Robespierre is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:13 PM
  #36  
Boxerlover
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
sorry. typo. GiovannA
 
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:29 PM
  #37  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 300
at windsor castle i couldnt take photos of a very opulent banquet room (not the one destroyed in the fire) which left me very impressed
but when looking for postcards of the room in the souvenvir shop i could only find a few aerial views and pics of the queen and soldiers.
to get my photo i would have to shell out ££ for a book!
well i guess the royals do need support right now, with all the wedding expenses and everything.
ChevyChasen is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:59 PM
  #38  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,571
Giovanna,

You have a point about the "memory thing." We don't take photos when we travel, and the day many not be that far off when we won't be able to recall the trip. I think of that, and I trust: At that point, we'll simply admire each other!
Dave_in_Paris is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 03:11 PM
  #39  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 363
This is a big issue in China. Several years ago in Beijing, on four different occasions I was told not to take pictures and not one was inside a building, but rather in the street or a square.

In one or two of the cases it was a person in plain clothes and on one occasion it came with a rather sharp jab to the ribs.

I guess that I looked like a spy.

All in a days fun.
tatersalad is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 03:18 PM
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 311
I was surprised with how many places prohibited photography in England, but it was a security thing (like a thief getting to know the interior of Windsor Castle). I was annoyed that I couldn't take pictures in the Teddy Bear Museum in Stratford though!
carolv is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:55 PM.