Interesting list. Who would think twice about exhibiting photos they took at the San Diego Zoo, or that happened to have a Porsche or a Barbie doll in them, or a chance shot of Apolo Anton Ohno? I remember photographing the Lone Cypress in Pebble Beach, CA, and immediately after taking a couple shots, looking to my right and down and seeing a "photo spot" marker on the ground, indicating the exact place to stand to take the iconic photo. (My foot was a couple inches to the left of it.)
How many of you would even think twice about exhibiting or even (Horrors!) selling images that might have some of these locations in them?
Urgh - I've 'violated' some of these and now I have the urge to complete the list. What do we expect in a world where we've even allowed part of our DNA to be copyrighted?
Note that there's nothing preventing you taking a photo of any of these objects (provided you do so from a public location or private location that doesn't prohibit photography). You're just not allowed to use the images commercially.
My Hollywood Sign shot was my bestseller via Getty Images for the two months until it was taken down by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. You'd think Getty would know about these issues, but apparently not (or more likely, my photo slipped through the cracks).
Uluru is a well known big red rock in the middle of Australia and because of cultural sensitivities there are some sections of the rock in which you cannot take photographs. When I visited last year, I respected the indigenous people of this country and I did not take any photos where there were signage telling me I couldn't. Felt a bit disgusted when a bunch of tourists pulled up in a bus and they all jumped out to get a few shots, including taking photos of the sign that says "no photography"...
last year, I visited Musee d'Orsay in Paris, and the baggage clerk asked if I had a camera in my backpack (Big Lowepro Slingpack camera case) to which I said, sure do, and the baggage clerk said he would not take my case for storage and I had to carry all my camera equipment inside (despite the signs saying no photography inside the museum). Apparently they won't take your expensive camera gear into the storage room for fear of damaging your gear, but one can walk around an art gallery like a turtle, knocking things over and stuff. Anywho, while walking around not taking photos of the art works, there were a whole bunch of phone cameras going off and some guy with a nikon trying to make it look like he was shooting from the hip but not really taking photographs of the expensive art works. Wanker, buy a book.
I'm with @mastermek - all cameras should be forbidden...
uh oh @cromwell and @michaelelliott LOL as for the Newport mansions... been there done that... They make it clear you cannot take any photos INSIDE the mansions but they will tell you you can take all you want OUTSIDE the mansions. (although I didn't go to the one with the animal shaped hedges, so I'm not sure about exterior shots of that place). Well, its been awhile since I've been there, so maybe they changed that rule too... I don't know... I was still in film only when I was there
I have photographed 18 of the places/things on that list so now I'm with Anita @anron and I have an urge to complete the list soooooo I think my mission might just be to complete the list as part of my bucket list :)
my personal opinion on this is that, if the "forbidding" is being done for cultural/respect reasons, then I will absolutely respect the "no photography" rule - - but there are many other cases where I do not feel compelled to respect someone's legal/capitalistic reasons for the rule. I guess it's a case-by-case and person-by-person choice. About a year ago I was asked (along with some other photographers) to go and shoot a blessing ceremony for a new canoe....for a Chinook tribe here in Washington state. We were given very clear and explicit instructions, as to what is "ok" and what is "not ok" to photograph. There was a photographer there from the Associated Press. He actually stopped the flow of traffic during the ceremony to get one of those pics that we were told NOT to get.....and that is the one he used in the article. The interesting part of all of this is that....the Chinooks are trying to get Federal recognition.....and this photo and the accompanying article got them good press....and may help them gain that recognition - - but STILL is not something I personally would have done.
@cromwell oh I just thought it was funny since you take a lot of photos there. I think its stupid if they don't want people posting the pictures they take in public forums etc, since those very photos have the ability to give others an incentive to make it a destination. They should be ENCOURAGING people to photograph these things.
This sort of BS makes my blood boil. I was once kicked out of a shopping center for taking photos. Don't these morons understand that when people distribute photos it is publicity? I was once on a camera club field trip where a security guard tried to stop me from taking photos at a rodeo. He said a pro had purchased the right to be the only photographer at the event. After a really irate argument he backed down and I got some shots, but never returned to the event. Irritating customers (photographers) is bad for business. Sacred events or art objects that can be damaged by flash photography are a different story. If there is a sane reason to restrict photography, I try to play by the rules.
On the other hand, when I visited Auschwitz a few years ago, and in spite of many signs prohibiting photographs of the most sensitive parts of the site, we were surrounded by school kids taking photos and videos, and generally behaving with a lack of respect to the history of the place. When I pointed out to one teacher that their behaviour was not only contravening the house rules but was very insensitive, the teacher replied that she thought it was OK as the kids would never get to visit again, then promptly took out her own camera and started taking photos!!!
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
My Hollywood Sign shot was my bestseller via Getty Images for the two months until it was taken down by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. You'd think Getty would know about these issues, but apparently not (or more likely, my photo slipped through the cracks).
last year, I visited Musee d'Orsay in Paris, and the baggage clerk asked if I had a camera in my backpack (Big Lowepro Slingpack camera case) to which I said, sure do, and the baggage clerk said he would not take my case for storage and I had to carry all my camera equipment inside (despite the signs saying no photography inside the museum). Apparently they won't take your expensive camera gear into the storage room for fear of damaging your gear, but one can walk around an art gallery like a turtle, knocking things over and stuff. Anywho, while walking around not taking photos of the art works, there were a whole bunch of phone cameras going off and some guy with a nikon trying to make it look like he was shooting from the hip but not really taking photographs of the expensive art works. Wanker, buy a book.
I'm with @mastermek - all cameras should be forbidden...
But Your Honor, I was taking a picture of the pavement and this car just drove into the frame as I was taking the shot....