Re: Professional cameras not allowed

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

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

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

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Aug 17, 2012
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Aug 17, 2012
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

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

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Aug 17, 2012
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Aug 17, 2012
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    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
    Joe Kotroczo, Aug 17, 2012
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:01:34 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >> 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.


    And you know this how?

    >> 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.


    Weasel.

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


    Double weasel. Alfred said: "Basically this cafe was paying one
    person just to enforce the no-DSLR rule."

    >> 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.


    In Jakarta? I have no idea what the Indonesian laws are. It may be
    not-illegal there. I'm not even sure how Indonesians feel about who
    is "black" and who is not or even if they make that designation.

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

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


    It depends on where you are when you photograph it.

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


    So, there's a "may", there. Just like I said. Why are you arguing?

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

    >
    >yes he is.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> 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.

    >
    > And you know this how?


    it's common knowledge as to why the restrictions are in place.

    some places even tell you where to go to get the necessary permits.
    nospam, Aug 17, 2012
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:07:15 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-17 09:56:45 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    >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. 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.

    I also doubt if the person who decided what the sign says makes that
    distinction. It is most probable that both the person who decided the
    wording of the sign, and the employee who guards against the use of
    particular cameras, mentally separates point and shoots from dslrs,
    and includes dslr-look-alike cameras with non-interchangeable lenses
    as "professional cameras". The distinction is probably "big cameras,
    no" and "little cameras, yes".

    I ask Alfred, again, why he thinks the rule is in effect.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:01:40 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >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.


    Sheep and fire trucks are a common sight, but one doesn't expect them
    to be mentioned in a thread about a rooftop cafe in Jakarta.

    >> >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.


    Who are the "others" and how are they involved in this? Who, in any
    city, owns the 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.

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


    He could ask. 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. 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.

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


    I know, I know. Anytime your comments are subjected to any type of
    reasonable or logical analysis, you perceive it as an insult because
    it makes you look bad.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 17/08/2012 18:37, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:07:15 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> 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.

    Here:

    <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
    Joe Kotroczo, Aug 17, 2012
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Aug 17, 2012
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Aug 17, 2012
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:31:58 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> 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.

    >>
    >> And you know this how?

    >
    >it's common knowledge as to why the restrictions are in place.


    The motivation for a cafe owner in Jakarta, Indonesia to ban
    "professional cameras" in his place of business is "common knowledge"?

    Too bad Alfred didn't know that before he tried to use his dslr there.
    I guess he's not tapped into the "common knowledge" channel that you
    are.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    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.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    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
    Joe Kotroczo, Aug 17, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. otter

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    otter, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    144
    Views:
    2,165
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Sep 22, 2012
  2. ray

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    ray, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    275
  3. Rob

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Rob, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    272
    PeterN
    Aug 18, 2012
  4. sms88

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    sms88, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    346
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 23, 2012
  5. Laszlo Lebrun

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Laszlo Lebrun, Aug 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    288
    Laszlo Lebrun
    Aug 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page