Leica0Series
Well-known
I have to say this does not really bother me. Most of the Smithsonian buildings ban photography anyway and that allows you to concentrate on looking at the art, not on taking pictures of the art.
At the Louvre, by contrast, photography is permitted and so you are greeted with the sight of busloads of tourists walking around the rooms, cell phones in hand, taking pictures of EVERY SINGLE PIECE on the walls. Click click click click click. It's incredibly annoying. What the hell are they going to do with those pictures, make their own mini Louvre?
And, yes, most people have no idea how to turn off the flashes on their cameras. It's funny to see a car roll slowly by the Capitol at night, see a window roll down, and then see a little "plink" of light that's supposed to illuminate a building hundreds of feet away.
All that said, I would like to be able to take a picture of the Terra Cotta Warriors this weekend, but National Geographic says no.
At the Louvre, by contrast, photography is permitted and so you are greeted with the sight of busloads of tourists walking around the rooms, cell phones in hand, taking pictures of EVERY SINGLE PIECE on the walls. Click click click click click. It's incredibly annoying. What the hell are they going to do with those pictures, make their own mini Louvre?
And, yes, most people have no idea how to turn off the flashes on their cameras. It's funny to see a car roll slowly by the Capitol at night, see a window roll down, and then see a little "plink" of light that's supposed to illuminate a building hundreds of feet away.
All that said, I would like to be able to take a picture of the Terra Cotta Warriors this weekend, but National Geographic says no.
semordnilap
Well-known
Question, though... "banned from taking photographs or video"? Since when is it possible to use flash with video? I'm sure they won't let you in with big lights now. So it seems quite a broad brush indeed. How is a little flip going to do any damage?
Silly... It's all about enforcement, anyway. They're clearly not enforcing the flash ban well. Since they can't enforce that, it will be much easier to blanket enforce the "nothing with a lens" rule. So the only pictures in there will be from cell phones–just pretend you're texting or checking your email. Now what happens when cell phones get flashes...!!!
Silly... It's all about enforcement, anyway. They're clearly not enforcing the flash ban well. Since they can't enforce that, it will be much easier to blanket enforce the "nothing with a lens" rule. So the only pictures in there will be from cell phones–just pretend you're texting or checking your email. Now what happens when cell phones get flashes...!!!
_mark__
Well-known
I was booted out of a recent exhibition for taking photos, I asked why and the reason I was given was Artist copyright of images, so I took the photo anyway and was asked to leave!
Seems protection of commercial property also figures highly in some places. Serves me right though for being a tool!
Seems protection of commercial property also figures highly in some places. Serves me right though for being a tool!
Steve M.
Mentor
I think the problem is that many people have little digicrap P&S cameras where the flash comes on by itself in low light. They don't know how to get into the camera's menus and turn it off. Banning photography entirely is the only thing they colud do to avoid flash shots. I wouldn't think there's anything in there that you couldn't find photos of online anyway.
wgerrard
Mentor
Bill, I've had to turn over my camera bag for inspection and agree not to photograph to gain entry into a number of places. I didn't feel I was in an unfree society, or in a condition of involuntary servitude, or beholden to any kind of master.
If the items were procured using Public funds, Museums typically allow you to Photograph them. This is true in the Smithsonian. If it is a private piece, loaned to the Museum, then the requests of the owner are honored.
On the National Archives: it is a public place, the items are procured with public funds, and you can complain to your Congressman.
On the National Archives: it is a public place, the items are procured with public funds, and you can complain to your Congressman.
Paul T.
Mentor
Bill, anyone knows the Bolshevik revolution and European socialism all started off with tactics like not letting people take flash photos in an art gallery. it's a very short step from there to death panels, like they have in England.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Do museums have the right to fine people? I remember reading about people getting fined at the Grand Canyon Skywalk, but that was on an Indian reserve, which had the power to enforce fines.
wgerrard
Mentor
All those photographers who gathered at Trafalgar a couple of days ago to assert their rights would not have been allowed to use their cameras if they had turned around and walked up the steps into the National Gallery. A I recall, this decree is enforced by machete-armed Beefeaters.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Actually, the story in that case would be "National Archive making $5 million a day in fines: documents still fading due to flashes."
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Gotta go with Bill M. on this one. Giving someone a ticket might be problematic, but you could boot them out of the exhibit or the building. Seems simple enough.
hootnholla1
Newbie
I can understand why they would do this ban. I work in a camera store that also sells the little P&S cameras and I get people in all the time that think their camera is broken when all they have is the video on or their battery is dead. There is no way they would know how to turn the flash off. The only reasonable thing for them to do is either ban cameras or have a camera class outside of the building before you can enter.
bmattock
Mentor
My point was exaggerated intentionally. To reduce it to its most basic, my argument is this - no, the world does not come to an end when small liberties go by the wayside. However, the loss of a tiny liberty leads to losses of bigger liberties, which may not be so easy to shrug off with a 'meh, the world didn't explode.'
Casual indifference to intrusions on our liberties affect me in ways that perhaps others do not understand. I almost dislike that more than the actual intrusion. It often seems people don't really want to be free.
bmattock
Mentor
Police do have the power to ticket or arrest. Most government-owned installations have security people, and generally speaking they have law enforcement powers or can detain and summon law enforcement assistance as needed. My point is that rules can be enforced. If the museum lacks the will to enforce it, then it is sad that they choose instead to ban all photography, affecting those who do follow the rules as well as those who do not.
bmattock
Mentor
Then start arresting them. There will come a moment when people will get the hint.
The TSA seems to have managed to do it in airports. Enforcing rules is not that difficult. If people are that obstinately stupid, arrest them and put them in jail, as opposed to punishing the law-abiding for the acts of those who refuse to do so.
Paul T.
Mentor
Ah yes, the upholder of freedom dons his superhero suit... and then asks museum guards to hand out on-the-spot fines.
bmattock
Mentor
I'm not an anarchist. I support having laws that benefit society, reflecting the will of society. I even obey laws I disagree with, unless I'm ready to engage in civil disobedience and to be prosecuted for breaking that law or laws. I think you may be confusing freedom and anarchy.
user237428934
User deletion pending
This gives more bad reputation than banning photography completely because only few photo nerds will complain that they can't take photos anymore and post here in "photos from an exhibition".
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I recall waay back when I had to take a civics class, that the originals are not on display but--this part I'm not positive about--that there were contemporary copies on display. Only slightly younger than the original documents and, I guess, just as fragile.
How about better anti UV coatings on the display case?
Rob
user237428934
User deletion pending
Do I understand this right: if it's a public place and procured with public funds then your personal freedom to do anything you want is more important than preserving the goods that were procured with public funds?