Professional cameras not allowed

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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.
     
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. tony cooper

    otter Guest

    That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?
     
    otter, Aug 17, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    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".
     
    Savageduck, Aug 17, 2012
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    ray Guest

    Panasonic G3 is not a DSLR ;)
     
    ray, Aug 17, 2012
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    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.
     
    Savageduck, Aug 17, 2012
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    Well, you couldn't get the view without them. ;-)
     
    Savageduck, Aug 17, 2012
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    their property.
     
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    I think what they want you to do when you are standing in their
    property is, leave money.
     
    Savageduck, Aug 17, 2012
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest


    ....but to a Jakarta trained "DSLR Cop" it looks like one. ;-)
     
    Savageduck, Aug 17, 2012
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    Martin Brown Guest

    One of the Ixus's that is small enough to palm is what I use.
    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
     
    Martin Brown, Aug 17, 2012
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    The owner would have trouble banning the bringing in of dslrs to the
    restaurant, but he/she can ban people from lining up at the window to
    photograph the view. There are people who would come to the place for
    the photography, but not be customers for the food or drinks.

    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?

    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.
    Why would you say that? It doesn't make sense. I don't know the
    business climate in Jakarta, but business owners don't tend to impose
    rules that hurt their business.

    All photographers seem to think that any rule that impedes them is
    wrong, but don't think that other people impose these rules because
    not having the rule causes them a problem.
     
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    Irwell Guest

    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?
     
    Irwell, Aug 17, 2012
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    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/Trave...Francisco-2007/P6050050/137157067_Acthp-L.jpg
     
    Savageduck, Aug 17, 2012
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    Guest Guest

    maybe you do. most people don't.

    anyone who shoots photos more than occasionally knows why these
    restrictions are in place.
    it definitely is the photography, and more importantly, money.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    Guest Guest

    no they wouldn't. slrs don't generally fit in a pocket, so it would be
    very easy to tell.
    but that's not what's happening. he said there's someone looking
    specifically for cameras, not people lining up at the window.
    then they would ban *all* cameras, not just slrs, unless you could show
    a receipt.
    then they would ban *all* cameras, not just slrs. they'd even ban just
    standing there and gazing at the view, as that would also intrude on
    others.
    it makes a lot of sense.

    they don't care if you take a photo for personal use but they *do* care
    if you're going to sell the photo.
    many times the rules are wrong.

    it's not unusual to hear of a security guard telling someone 'no
    photography' when he has no authority to ban it.
     
    Guest, Aug 17, 2012
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    They don't even mind folks including massive DSLR shot versions in their blogs.
    < http://writenow.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/dsc_0079.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Aug 17, 2012
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    ray Guest

    To me, it looks more like a 'super zoom' camera.
     
    ray, Aug 17, 2012
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    ....but you aren't the one making the call on cameras which might appear
    to be DSLRs, and at a glance to a "DSLR cop" the G3 appears to have a
    "prism hump" and even "super zooms" probably look like "professional"
    cameras to the restaurant "camera cop", but you might get away with an
    M9 or H4D.
     
    Savageduck, Aug 17, 2012
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    I knew you'd come in with something idiotic just to disagree. He said
    that the person was banning dslr photography. Where else, but by the
    window, would one photograph the view with a dslr? In the Men's room?
    Who said anything about selling photographs? You wouldn't be
    "twisting" things, would you? Or going off-topic?

    Why would a cafe owner care if a person sells a photograph of the city
    scene; the view from the cafe? Are only dslr images saleable?

    This is Jakarta, not the US. Any rule that doesn't violate Indonesian
    law is enforceable by a business owner.
    Is this rule "wrong"? Should the cafe owner not be able to impose a
    rule about what is done in his business?
    Sure, but the security guard has authority to tell someone no
    photography is allowed in or on the premises for which he works. It's
    *of* the premises that may not be disallowable. This security guard
    is - according to Alford - specifically employed to stop people from
    using a dslr *in* the premises.
     
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    BTW: If you check I believe you will discover that it is "Alfred" not "Alford".
     
    Savageduck, Aug 17, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.