« The current state of copyright | Main | Ozzie: Darknets will become a necessity »
Photography in privately owned public spaces
Thomas Hawk has an opinion column about taking photos in privately owned public spaces.
Many corporations, museums, theaters, concert halls, clubs, stadiums, artists and bands are finding themselves at odds with their patrons, guests and fans. ...In the past month I personally have twice been asked not to take pictures in privately owned public spaces -- once at a Starbucks on Market Street [in SF] and once at PF Changs in Emeryville. I was equally disappointed upon recently arriving at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) to discover that I would not be allowed to use my camera inside of their galleries.
August 20, 2004 at 04:08 PM in Photography | Permalink
| Comments (1)
| 
| 
(1)
» photography site from photography site
photography site [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 15, 2005 8:52:11 AM
Comments
AS a photographer I have encountered this a couple of times. Last year at a Arlo Guthrie concert I was asked by an 'Andy Frain'-type not to take photos. I was not using a flash and had a rangefinder camera with a short 85mm lens, all manual and very quiet and unobtrusive. I ignored him and kept shooting. He did not interfere after that. There were signs in the corridiors and lobby of the venue indicating "No Flash Photography" which I respected and would not have used anyway as that IS intrusive and distracting to a performer as well as the audience. This was not really private however, as it was a city-owned venue. I don't know if they could really prohibit you from photgraphing in a truly public facility. I was hoping the guy would push the issue, but he backed down.
A private venue is another matter. Most businesses have some part of their facility that is "open to the public" but rules of behavior or limits to access can easily be imposed by a private entity in its 'public' spaces. (Think for example - Bar Bouncer!) While I and other photgraphers may find that inconvenient should we desire to photograph someones 'public' private property and they refuse, it is nevertheless the right and perhaps even the responsibility of the owner to say no in some cases. Some facilities will allow photgraphy but no use of tripods or other equipment that might pose a hazard or inconvinience to their other customers or visitors. This is their right as well as their responsibility.
In almost all cases, something that can be seen and photgraphed from a public space is fair game to the photographer. This is what keeps the tabloids and gossip magazines in business and why there are helicopters over celebrity weddings and such. When you enter someones private property that changes entirely.
It goes back to the basic principle that one has the right to set ones own rules in ones own house. If others wish to remain a welcome guest they must follow them.
Posted by: Stephen Shortridge | Oct 12, 2004 8:20:12 PM
