«

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.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:50:31 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>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.
>
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.

>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.

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 - Orlando, Florida

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.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >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.
> >
> The owner would have trouble banning the bringing in of dslrs to the
> restaurant,

no they wouldn't. slrs don't generally fit in a pocket, so it would be
very easy to tell.

> 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.

but that's not what's happening. he said there's someone looking
specifically for cameras, not people lining up at the window.

> 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?

then they would ban *all* cameras, not just slrs, unless you could show
a receipt.

> 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.

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.

> >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.
>
> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:40:22 -0700, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >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.
>> >
>> The owner would have trouble banning the bringing in of dslrs to the
>> restaurant,
>
>no they wouldn't. slrs don't generally fit in a pocket, so it would be
>very easy to tell.
>
>> 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.
>
>but that's not what's happening. he said there's someone looking
>specifically for cameras, not people lining up at the window.

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?

>they don't care if you take a photo for personal use but they *do* care
>if you're going to sell the photo.

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.

>> 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.
>
>many times the rules are wrong.

Is this rule "wrong"? Should the cafe owner not be able to impose a
rule about what is done in his business?

>
>it's not unusual to hear of a security guard telling someone 'no
>photography' when he has no authority to ban it.

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 - Orlando, Florida

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.

>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.

>> 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.

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


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:16:12 +0200, Alfred Molon
<> wrote:

>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.

You've added things, not in your first post, that kinda change the
situation. That the layout is an outside terrace, and not at the
window, changes the situation.

You got a bargain. I don't think you could buy a drink and a dessert
anywhere in the US with a city view for $11 unless the city was Enid,
Oklahoma or similar. Of course, in the US, the amount would include a
tip.

Why do you feel dslrs are not allowed?

Sorry about "Alford", Alfred.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> >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.
> >> >
> >> The owner would have trouble banning the bringing in of dslrs to the
> >> restaurant,
> >
> >no they wouldn't. slrs don't generally fit in a pocket, so it would be
> >very easy to tell.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >but that's not what's happening. he said there's someone looking
> >specifically for cameras, not people lining up at the window.
>
> 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?

dslrs in the mens room? is that how you get your thrills?

and you think what *i'm* saying is idiotic???

you're the one who brought up people lining up at the window to
photograph the view. if lining up was an issue, they'd ban all cameras.

since they ban certain types of cameras, it's specific use of the
photos that's at issue.

> >they don't care if you take a photo for personal use but they *do* care
> >if you're going to sell the photo.
>
> Who said anything about selling photographs? You wouldn't be
> "twisting" things, would you? Or going off-topic?

selling the photos and/or commercial use is the reason for the ban on
pro cameras.

> 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?

they could be working for the city.

it's only an assumption the person is employed by the cafe.

> This is Jakarta, not the US. Any rule that doesn't violate Indonesian
> law is enforceable by a business owner.

that part is true.

> >> 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.
> >
> >many times the rules are wrong.
>
> Is this rule "wrong"? Should the cafe owner not be able to impose a
> rule about what is done in his business?

to a point.

make a rule that no blacks will be served and see how well that works
out.

> >it's not unusual to hear of a security guard telling someone 'no
> >photography' when he has no authority to ban it.
>
> Sure, but the security guard has authority to tell someone no
> photography is allowed in or on the premises for which he works.

sometimes.

new york transit likes to tell people they can't take photos when they
can.

amtrak security has even harassed people taking photos of amtrak trains
*for a contest* amtrak was giving!

> It's
> *of* the premises that may not be disallowable.

if it's in public view, they *can't* prohibit it.

if you are on their property, they can ask you to leave, but you can
still photograph it from somewhere else.

> This security guard
> is - according to Alford - specifically employed to stop people from
> using a dslr *in* the premises.

yes he is.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> 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.

you said a camera hanging from a chair would be an obstacle. coats
hanging from chairs is common, although not necessarily in all places.

> >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.

others might.

> >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?

an easy, but imperfect way, is to ban fancy cameras. the easy way to do
that is slr/p&s.

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

i take it you have nothing substantive to add, so you're resorting to
insults, like you normally do.

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.


--
Illegitimi non carborundum