Professional cameras not allowed

On 2012-08-17 11:43:30 -0700, Alfred Molon said:

I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

This is a bit funny because nowadays you can get from a compact camera
images which are more than good enough for most professional uses.

And in low light you can use a small mirrorless camera (for instance of
the newer m4/3 models or a Sony NEX) with a pancake lens which looks
like a compact fun camera, but which in reality is capable of high ISO
and has IS. But hey, DSLRs are not allowed...

By the way, in this cafe there was one guy who was standing on the
terrace and was constantly checking the situation, to make sure that
nobody would use a DLSR. Basically this cafe was paying one person just
to enforce the no-DSLR rule.

I wouldn't be surprised that if you showed up with an M9 or a Hassy
H4D, you might just slide by the "DSLR cop".


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:43:30 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

This is a bit funny because nowadays you can get from a compact camera
images which are more than good enough for most professional uses.

And in low light you can use a small mirrorless camera (for instance of
the newer m4/3 models or a Sony NEX) with a pancake lens which looks
like a compact fun camera, but which in reality is capable of high ISO
and has IS. But hey, DSLRs are not allowed...

By the way, in this cafe there was one guy who was standing on the
terrace and was constantly checking the situation, to make sure that
nobody would use a DLSR. Basically this cafe was paying one person just
to enforce the no-DSLR rule.

Panasonic G3 is not a DSLR

On 2012-08-17 07:25:26 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:43:30 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

This is a bit funny because nowadays you can get from a compact camera
images which are more than good enough for most professional uses.

One always wonders why such rules are put into effect. I would
imagine that it is not the photography aspect that inspired the rule,
but the comfort and safety to the patrons of the cafe. A dslr
swinging from a shoulder strap can cause some damage. A dslr hanging
from back of a chair, or in a camera bag on the floor, can cause bumps
and trips for other patrons.

This is not the kind of ban that bothers me. The owner of the cafe
has a right to set out any rule that he/she feels is to the benefit or
safety of his customers. It's like banning bare feet, dogs, or
unattended children. Owner's place, owner's rules.

I have a feeling that the rule has nothing to do with safety or concern
for the comfort of the other patrons. If this were so why permit the
DSLR into the restaurant in the first place. They would be turning away
tourists all day, and due to the site in that building, there would be
a fair amount of tourist traffic with a fairly high percentage of them
carrying DSLRs. Many of them would be dragged there by tour operators
as a feature of their trip to Jakarta, just promoting the view.

I suspect the restaurant operators believe they have the rights to
their particular view, and that it is more likely to be "stolen" from
them by those sneaky predators using "professional type" DSLRs.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-17 07:27:48 -0700, otter said:

On Aug 17, 1:43*pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

Well, you couldn't get the view without them. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-17 07:55:12 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
wrote:

On Aug 17, 1:43*pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
their property.

I think what they want you to do when you are standing in their
property is, leave money.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-17 07:46:25 -0700, ray said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:43:30 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

Le Snip


By the way, in this cafe there was one guy who was standing on the
terrace and was constantly checking the situation, to make sure that
nobody would use a DLSR. Basically this cafe was paying one person just
to enforce the no-DSLR rule.

Panasonic G3 is not a DSLR


....but to a Jakarta trained "DSLR Cop" it looks like one. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 17/08/2012 15:27, otter wrote:
On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

One of the Ixus's that is small enough to palm is what I use.

That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

If you are stood on their private land to see it - they do!

I fail to see why you think it would be otherwise.

ISTR Monterey Golf club are particularly belligerent and vindictive
about image rights to their tree.

In the UK you have to watch out for brass studs in the sidewalk (UK
pavement) which delineate the separation between private land which at
the moment happens to be a part of the public footpath and the true
public footpath. The sort to put these studs in are litigious. It is the
sort of thing that only matters if there is commercial usage.

Refuge Assurance famously got it wrong in the 1970's and had to scrap an
entire national advertising campaign after losing spectacularly all the
way up to the high court. There was in this instance no doubt that the
photographer stood on private land marked "private members only" to take
the photograph they had used. Private landowners do have rights.

Most will usually consent to using their premises as a platform for
architectural photography if you ask but the odd one will not.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:11:24 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-08-17 07:55:12 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
wrote:

On Aug 17, 1:43*pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
their property.

I think what they want you to do when you are standing in their
property is, leave money.

Which is what they do at the Tour Montparnasse in Paris,
the restaurant/coffee bar is on a level with the Eiffel tower
about 2/3 miles away. To go to the observation deck a person
has to take the elevator and pay a hefty fee, but they can go to
the restaurant for free, but are obliged to buy an expensive meal
or an equally expensive cup of coffee. Taking a photgraph is free?

On 2012-08-17 08:13:45 -0700, Martin Brown
said:

On 17/08/2012 15:27, otter wrote:
On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

One of the Ixus's that is small enough to palm is what I use.

That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

If you are stood on their private land to see it - they do!

I fail to see why you think it would be otherwise.

ISTR Monterey Golf club are particularly belligerent and vindictive
about image rights to their tree.

Pebble Beach Company on 17 Mile drive, have the "Lone Cypress" as a
registered trade mark and is part of their logo. They hold commercial
rights to the image. However, they do not stop tourist photographers
from shooting the tree, but they have sued and won when others have
used the image, or even a similar image implying that it was the "Lone
Cypress". The latest case I recall, was a San Jose real estate agency
which used a silhouette of a cypress turned to the left, in a mirror
image of the typical shot. Needless to say, Pebble Beach won that case.

The Pebble Beach Company, seems to promote tourist photography of the
"Lone Cypress";
"Visit The Lone Cypress, one of America's most recognized landmarks and
the most photographed tree in the World. Set on a rocky promontory,
this classic California landmark, estimated to be somewhere between 200
and 300 years old, has become the trademark of Pebble Beach Company."

There are bus loads of tourists there daily, all clamoring to shoot
with whatever camera they have handy, and not a "DSLR cop" in sight.

....but just let them try to incorporate that image in a logo.

http://proimaging.smugmug.com/Travel...67_Acthp-L.jpg



--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

This is a bit funny because nowadays you can get from a compact camera
images which are more than good enough for most professional uses.

One always wonders why such rules are put into effect.

maybe you do. most people don't.

anyone who shoots photos more than occasionally knows why these
restrictions are in place.

I would
imagine that it is not the photography aspect that inspired the rule,

it definitely is the photography, and more importantly, money.

but the comfort and safety to the patrons of the cafe.

nope.

A dslr swinging from a shoulder strap can cause some damage.

so can a lot of things. if that was the real reason, they would need to
ban the cameras from being brought in, not just using them. they don't
do that.

they'd also need to ban knapsacks, briefcases, laptops, large purses,
etc. and even have a metal detector at the door to detect guns, knives
and other weapons, all for the comfort and safety of the patrons. they
don't do that either.

so that's definitely not the reason.

A dslr hanging
from back of a chair, or in a camera bag on the floor, can cause bumps
and trips for other patrons.

don't be ridiculous. are you that much of a klutz that you can't avoid
a camera hanging from someone's chair or step over a bag? what if they
have a heavy winter coat on the back of their chair?

like i said above, laptop bags and plenty of other things people bring
in can be a much bigger issue than a camera.

the reason is very simple. they don't care about people taking photos
for their own personal use to show their friends and family, but they
*do* care about photos that will be sold or be used commercially in
magazines, billboards, books, etc. without the proper authorization and
property releases. often, there is a fee that must be paid, which is
the real motivator.

how do they know what you'll ultimately do with the photo? they don't,
so the way they draw the line is by the type of camera the photographer
has.

pros doing a magazine shoot are not going to be using a compact point &
shoot. they're going to have an slr, so slrs are banned.

that doesn't mean all slr users are pros, but it's an easy way to
differentiate the pros from the snapshooters. it will affect some
casual users who have slrs but nothing is perfect.

many cities ban the use of tripods for the same reason. they want the
money. casual users don't use tripods for vacation snapshots. they
probably don't even own a tripod. pros frequently use tripods for their
shoots. the cities try to claim it's to avoid interfering with
pedestrian traffic, but even if you do it in the middle of the night
when nobody is around or in an out of the way location where there is
no traffic, they'll still cite you. new york city is well known for
this.

This is not the kind of ban that bothers me. The owner of the cafe
has a right to set out any rule that he/she feels is to the benefit or
safety of his customers. It's like banning bare feet, dogs, or
unattended children. Owner's place, owner's rules.

yes, they can make the rules (up to a point), but it is not for the
benefit or safety of the customers. it's for the benefit of the owner
and local government, namely, use fees.