Professional cameras not allowed

On 17/08/2012 18:37, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:07:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

(...)
Yes, but the question is about why "professional cameras" are not
allowed. The question is not about professional photographers, but
the camera. Anyone can own a "professional camera", but everyone
owning one is not a professional.

I don't know the training program that the cafe employee went through,
but I sincerely doubt if the training included the difference between
an entry level dslr and the model of camera that a professional would
use.

Do you think the G4S security guards or the soldiers guarding the
Olympics are qualified to make the distinction between a "professional
camera" and a hobbyist camera?

And yet "professional cameras" were prohibited.

He

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538956/olympic-chiefs-don-t-bring-any-detachable-lens-camera-to-wembley-update

"That's the stark message from Olympics chiefs who have today warned
spectators not to bring 'any' cameras with detachable lenses into
Wembley Stadium in case they breach rules by looking ‘professional'. "

and

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2191402/london-2012-olympic-games-organisers-refuse-to-clarify-photography-rules-in-advance


--
Illegitimi non carborundum

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Why do you feel dslrs are not allowed?

From what I understand of Alfred's OP, the the "professional Type
Camera monitor" decreed his DSLR to be a "professional type" camera,
and advised him that he was not permitted to use it.

From the OP:
"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..."."

Yes, but the question is about why "professional cameras" are not
allowed. The question is not about professional photographers, but
the camera.

nope. it's about professional photographers and the usage of the photos.

the cameras are just an easy way to make the distinction.

Anyone can own a "professional camera", but everyone
owning one is not a professional.

true. it's not a perfect method.

why don't you come up with a better way to discern between those who
shoot for their vacation scrapbook and those who are going to publish
the photos in a book or sell them in a gallery.

I don't know the training program that the cafe employee went through,
but I sincerely doubt if the training included the difference between
an entry level dslr and the model of camera that a professional would
use.

doesn't matter. it's easy to draw the line at slr and p&s. it's not
perfect but nothing is.

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

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.

Well, if a pro does a magazine shoot from a privately-owned cafe, the
owner of the cafe has every right to demand a fee.

and how do you propose he find out who is shooting for a magazine and
who is shooting for memories?

He could ask.

of course! because people never lie about their motives.

Or, because a "shoot" is generally more than just a
snap or two off the terrace, the presence of models, tripods, and any
other equipment might provide a clue.

not always.

And, generally, a magazine
photographer doing a "shoot" would clear it with the owner of the
premises and expect to pay a fee or to make some in-kind payment of
free photographs of the restaurant for publicity.

some will, but others might want to avoid the fees.

On 17/08/2012 19:28, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:16:08 +0100, Joe Kotroczo
wrote:

On 17/08/2012 15:25, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:43:30 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

(...)
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 always wonders why such rules are put into effect

Simple: they want the professionals to pay them for using "their" view.

Here in London tall skyscrapers in the City charge you for "use of
facility" and then for "image rights" each time you want to publish the
photo. Prices vary, I've seen from £250 to £1000 quoted recently.

It would be quite understandable if the owner of the Jakarta cafe had
a sign that says "Professional photographers are required to apply for
a permit and pay a fee to take photographs from our terrace".

That's not the case as explained here by Alfred. The use of
"professional cameras" is banned. Not permitted with the payment of a
fee, but banned.

A professional photographer could attempt to negotiate with the cafe
owner for an exception, but that would be a one-off situation. All we
know here is that a certain type of camera is banned. Period.

Matey, you clearly said "such rules" above. That's a generalisation.
Therefore you got a general answer. I'm not really bothered about your
cafe in Jakarta.

I forgot to mention the other general reason for wanting to ban pro
photography: privacy of high profile guests, prevention of paparazzi
type photography.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

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.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Why do you feel dslrs are not allowed?

From what I understand of Alfred's OP, the the "professional Type
Camera monitor" decreed his DSLR to be a "professional type" camera,
and advised him that he was not permitted to use it.

From the OP:
"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..."."

Yes, but the question is about why "professional cameras" are not
allowed. The question is not about professional photographers, but
the camera.

nope. it's about professional photographers and the usage of the photos.

You keep coming up with these pronouncements of what it's about
without the slightest damned idea of what it's about. You're
ascribing motivation to a person you don't know or know anything
about.

the restrictions are because of how the photos might be used. ask any
pro photographer. they deal with this all the time.

just because you've never encountered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Is Alfred a professional photographer? Was he warned off from using
his dslr because of the camera, or because of his profession?

as i said, the camera type is an easy way to make a determination
between pro and non-pro. it's not perfect but it's close enough and
it's very simple to implement.

feel free to come up with a better way. you'll make many photographers
very happy, especially the amateurs who get caught up in this because
they bought a nice camera.

but you won't.

In article 2012081708132411272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
...but to a Jakarta trained "DSLR Cop" it looks like one. ;-)

Well, there are m4/3 bodies which are very small and together with a
pancake lense would pass as compact cameras. Also Sony NEX bodies are
small and have no viewfinder. I guess these would pass undetected.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , tony cooper
says...
It could be that the man Alford says is there to turn away dslr
photographers is there because so many non-customers come up just to
photograph. Why should a business owner want that? How much did
Alford spend at the cafe the day he was turned down?

Here are some shots of this cafe I took with the smartphone:
http://www.molon.de/images/Jakarta_cafe_1.jpg
http://www.molon.de/images/Jakarta_cafe_2.jpg

The cafe had a big terrace with a view and many people were posing with
the skyline background. Lots of people were actually taking pictures,
most were using smartphones or tablets.

I bought a drink and a dessert for a total of 103000 IDR (= 9 Euro/ USD
11). I could have left after taking some photos with the smartphone,
without ordering anything but I was hungry and wanted to see the sunset
from the terrace.
The view was not so great due to the heavy haze which there is in
Jakarta right now (it's a tropical country, but it hasn't rained for two
weeks and there is a lot of pollution).

Without knowing the layout of the premises, it's possible that going
to the window for photography intrudes on the people at nearby tables.
Or, if there is a space between tables and window, that's fewer tables
generating revenue.

It was actually a large terrace, with ample space for posing or shooting
photos.

The view from this place is actually not too impressive, so I doubt
large number of professionals would come to this place to get a skyline
shot.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 17/08/2012 17:39, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:40:17 -0700, nospam
wrote:

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?

A cafe in Jakarta, Indonesia, has few problems with heavy winter coats
hanging off the back of a chair.

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.

What is this nonsense? The photos would be of the view from the cafe,
not of the cafe. The cafe owner holds no rights to the view of the
city.

No but I think you will find under most jurisdictions he does own rights
to any photograph you take whilst stood on his private premises. Such
private land image rights are usually only enforced when serious money
is at stake with commercial advertising, movies and the like.

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.

Well, if a pro does a magazine shoot from a privately-owned cafe, the
owner of the cafe has every right to demand a fee.

Or if it is done without permission obtain an injunction and have the
entire ad campaign shredded.

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.

I didn't realize you are conversant with Indonesian fee requirements
for photography. I didn't know that you are clairvoyant and know what
the motivation of the owner of a Jakarta cafe is in banning dslrs. I
merely guess that the motivation is that the practice somehow causes
him business problems, but you *know* what he's thinking.

He is entitled to determine whatever rules he likes on his private
premises down to only allowing people wearing red socks to use DSLRs if
he wants to. I find it curious that USians want all their own personal
individual rights preserved but want to trample on landowners rights.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I take it you learned this on some flight where you were engaged in
market share analysis.

On 8/17/2012 10:27 AM, 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?


I ran into that same rule at a racetrack in PA. It seems the local track
pro doesn't want competition. I thought about making a deal with the
pro, but decided the photo ops wasn't worth the effort.

--
Peter