The Great Taboo!

[Stephen Frizza]

I would like to start a list of places where photography is requested not to be done. This is often in places of certain religious significance or at special traditional events/ceremonies. I would like others to share experiences of places for cultural and customary reasons photography has been asked not to take place.

Sometimes in foreign countries we can be unaware of what is and isn't appropriate to their system of beliefs, values etc... so what photographic situations have you have encountered as a result of this?

 

[Steve Roberts]

Inside National Trust properties in the UK, ostensibly for reasons of "security" but in reality so that people who've already spent a fortune on admission will have to spend even more on a guide book/souvenir. Thus, anyone planning a robbery on NT premises should factor in the cost of a guide book as well as petrol for the getaway car.
Cynical? Me? About the National Trussed? Oops - typo!

Steve

 

[Akki14]

Dead Link Removed Fun website. I'm still kind of sad that the Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons , London, won't let people take pictures... but then again when I was going to uni I was told they used to organise trips to places like that up until some artist started using caver bits in their artwork...

Oh, for some reason I am suddenly reminded that I was kind of shocked when I went back home... normal little supermarket in Dover, NH has a sign on the front saying No photography or video on basis of security or something :rolleyes:

 

[Bob F.]

From the NT web site:

The National Trust welcomes amateur photography out-of-doors at its properties. We regret that such photography is not permitted indoors when houses are open to visitors. However, at most properties special arrangements can be made for interested amateurs to take interior photographs by appointment outside normal opening hours. Please contact individual properties for details.

When I did once ask a volunteer she said it was because the flashes going off annoyed other visitors as most houses are kept quite dark to preserve fabric colours. Frankly, I can see their point, but then, I rarely have any interest in the house contents.

Brochures do not tend to show the location and model and type of security systems fitted to windows and doors or the location of PIR sensors... Visiting is ludicrously expensive, 'tis true, 'tho one could become a member for the cost of two or three visits.

There are various locations, mostly military, legally designated as "Restricted Places". Other than that, any public place or building is legal to photograph.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[tim_walls]

I'm more surprised at where it is considered acceptable sometimes. Personally I consider it highly disrespectful people taking flash photographs in churches and cathedrals, but I couldn't explain why if asked...

 

[ricksplace]

Gun shows take a very dim view of anyone walking around with a camera.

The Polish National War Museum in Warsaw, Poland does not allow any photographs to be taken inside the building. However, I did take a number of pictures outside in the open air exhibits and nobody told me to stop.

 

[arigram]

Just avoid any place where people are likely to point guns at you, or gang up and lynch you.
Otherwise, wear a good pair of running shoes, a wig, fake eye glasses and a mustache and having trained well beforehand and having planned your escape route, be prepared to break an olympic record. Show your respect to the place and people if they require it and be as sneaky as you can.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

There shall be no flash photography while I'm tray developing sheet film. Thank you.

Murray

 

[Lee L]

Many retail stores in the US don't allow photography, as it can be used by competitors to record pricing and use that information to undercut the store's prices. My father-in-law used to always have his X-700 with macro zoom hanging around his neck, and he was asked not to take photos in stores (even though he never attempted to do so) on a number of occasions.

Lee

 

[Ole]

I'm careful around mosques, military bases, and SM clubs. All for different reasons, of course...

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I'm careful around mosques, military bases, and SM clubs. All for different reasons, of course...

A slightly disturbing glimpse into a day in the life of Ole

Murray

 

[Shmoo]

I believe the Getty Museum has some restrictions on photography. Definitely no tripods.

 

[David Brown]

Gun shows take a very dim view of anyone walking around with a camera.

Really!?!? I always thought those folks were real "freedom" minded ... :rolleyes:

 

[Maris]

I wonder how many prohibitions on photography that are asserted on cultural or religious grounds are generated out of a deep misunderstanding of how photography works.

In Australia there are many aboriginal sites that are declared sacred where one may look (sometimes under supervision) but not photograph. The ancient aboriginal gods and the aborigines themselves had no concept of photography. It simply does not come up in their theology. So how do they know that photography is a big taboo? It is as if they just made up the idea on the spot.

Maybe banning photography is tied to the idea that photography "takes". People say "I've taken a picture" but what actually happens is that they have received a picture. Photography, at its deepest physical basis, is utterly passive, utterly subservient to what the subject matter cares to deliver.

When we stand in the presence of un-photographable objects those same objects are showering us with photons. Yes, we are being peppered with millions and billions of particles; in our faces, in our hair, in our clothing. These particles penetrate us or bounce off us and they deposit energy in us in the form of heat. This remorseless rain does not stop at least while the lights are on. Absolutely nothing travels from the camera to the object. The fusillade, the assault, if it is an assault, is all in the other direction.

If the ancient aborigines (and other photo-shy theologians) knew a bit of thermodynamics they might encourage photography rather than fear it. Heat is the lowest of the low, the rock-bottom, the most degraded form of energy. Why should the sacred emanations of sacred objects be consigned as quickly as possible to the random chaos of heat? By photographing, or drawing, or remembering, by saving a little bit of order against a lot of chaos, we work against the inexorable march of enthropy that signals the ultimate heat-death of the universe.

Photography, properly understood, is a kind of worship, a celebration of the sublime, an apotheosis, a ransom against eternity, a sacrament perhaps, and not a sacrilege meriting taboo.

 

[Peter Spangenberg]

Banks along the Bund in Shanghai. The HSBC Building, a six-floor neo-classical building in the Bund area of Shanghai has amazing mosaics and interior that scream to be photographed. The guards don't take kindly to ANY photos-even cell phone cameras. I found the same thing at a couple of other classical bank buildings along the Bund. Never really figured out why.

 

[ipdegirl]

I'm an RN and have had to explain to many patients that photography and web cams are not allowed becuase of privacy issues. Then again, who really wants a picture to remember their hospital stay?

 

[keithwms]

Bathrooms and bathhouses.

Mind you, in Japan, I did have colleagues who always managed to smuggle in a camera. To blackmail me someday, no doubt.

But photography can be intrusive anywhere. I was watching a little bit on Garry Winogrand working the streets later in life, and my main observation was that people seemed to find him intrusive right out in the street. It honestly made me uneasy to watch him work and see how people reacted; it all seemed rather uncomfortable and voyeuristic, which is quite ironic when one is walking down a public thoroughfare in broad daylight. But of course Winogrand did capture some very unique moments. I suppose that he and Weegee took us quite a few places that might be considered off limits- but they did it in totally different ways.

Outside of government labs and agencies where I sometimes go for work, the most heavily photography-restricted place I've ever been has to be the Renoir collection in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. Listen, I can get photos just about anywhere, but there I could not. There was a babushka in every room.

 

[mark]

The entire Hopi reservation.

Yeah, don't get me started.

 

[DBP]

Starbucks.

 

[nc5p]

Some tribes do not allow it, but most others around here just want you to purchase a "permit" for about $10-20. They will tell you where you can photograph, usually there are places they don't want you to. Sandia is about two miles from me and requires a permit. They except one place, their buffalo pasture. They actually want people to photograph their buffalo, they're quite proud of them. The pueblo and church are always off limits, even with a permit. Acoma sells permits but does not allow tripods anywhere on the reservation. Nobody seems to know why.

Off the reservation it's probably easier to make a list where you can take photos without harassment. Police have three standard accusations against photographers:

1. You are a terrorist planning an attack. This is used around airports, train stations, bus stations, arenas, infrastructure, office buildings, etc. Busy body ladies with cell phones or security guards will phone police.

2. You are a burglar or robber planning a "hit". This excuse is used around businesses or other areas which have had theft problems. Private security or store managers call police.

3. You are a sex offender. This excuse is used at recreational facilities, amusement parks, schools, pools, beaches, parks, etc. Anywhere children or scantly dressed women are to be found your camera is not welcome.

Often they will make all three accusations, hoping to get one of them to stick.

 

[alex66]

Well Ive been told no photography in UK rail stations as I might be a terrorist, harassed by two morons from a homebase store for taking pictures in the car park, ironically I have permission to take photographs on that bit of land! Ive never had a problem in any MacDonalds, though one member of staff was interested in why I was taking a photograph of my Big Mac and fries, I explained about Tillimans "If One Thing Matters Everything Matters" and she said she would look it up. She was going to art school and made a line for me the next time I came in, thought it was very interesting, so i guess they dont think Im going to abuse their burgers. Toys are us dont allow photography but I can understand why, I got kicked out of an Ikea for taking photos thought I would be steeling their designs, funny they have a catalogue. on the whole I have found most people are very nice about me taking photos asking if I want them to move or even apologizing for getting in the way so I dont think its all doom and gloom.

 

[Uncle Goose]

In Belgium the red light districts are a No-photograph zone. While you can legally shoot there it's not advised as the women behind the windows will alert the pimps and then they will come ask questions. A few years back I and a few others had to do a shoot there for the city of Antwerp, we sticked together because we knew that there were going to be trouble (although it was officially for the city). On one occasion we had to call the police for assistance because one pimp kept posing problematic, even when we politely explained we were doing an official city shoot.

 

[Andy K]

Well Ive been told no photography in UK rail stations as I might be a terrorist, ...

Not necessarily true. I had the same problem when I wanted to photograph my local station as part of a 'then and now' project I was doing for my personal enjoyment.
I walked into the station and told the ticket clerk, 'I'm just going on the platform to get a couple of photographs for this project...' and explained it to her. She said, 'You can't do that.' When asked why not? She simply said 'Security.' When pressed all she did was repeat, 'You cannot photograph on the platform because its a security risk.'

So I came home and wrote an email to her company's head office which said:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am making a then and now photographic project of my hometown, using 100 year old photographs and taking them again from the same spot in the present day. I have attached a couple of examples.
On requesting to take a couple of photographs of the platform at Shoeburyness station I was refused on the grounds of 'security'. I realise that in this post 9/11 world we all have to be careful, and that Shoeburyness station is probably high on Osama bin Laden's list of priorities, but is your company seriously saying there is a ban on photography on it's property?
If this is so, are you stopping all trainspotters, tourists, amateur photographers etc. from using cameras on your property?

Yours etc.

Two days later I received a reply basically saying,

'There is no ban on photography on our stations or trains, we only ask that tripods are not used on platforms and that the progress of passengers is not impeded.'

I believe that basic rule goes for the majority of Britain's rail network.

 

[tim_walls]

Not necessarily true. I had the same problem when I wanted to photograph my local station as part of a 'then and now' project I was doing for my personal enjoyment.
I walked into the station and told the ticket clerk, 'I'm just going on the platform to get a couple of photographs for this project...' and explained it to her. She said, 'You can't do that.' When asked why not? She simply said 'Security.' When pressed all she did was repeat, 'You cannot photograph on the platform because its a security risk.'

So I came home and wrote an email to her company's head office which said:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am making a then and now photographic project of my hometown, using 100 year old photographs and taking them again from the same spot in the present day. I have attached a couple of examples.
On requesting to take a couple of photographs of the platform at Shoeburyness station I was refused on the grounds of 'security'. I realise that in this post 9/11 world we all have to be careful, and that Shoeburyness station is probably high on Osama bin Laden's list of priorities, but is your company seriously saying there is a ban on photography on it's property?
If this is so, are you stopping all trainspotters, tourists, amateur photographers etc. from using cameras on your property?

Yours etc.

Two days later I received a reply basically saying,

'There is no ban on photography on our stations or trains, we only ask that tripods are not used on platforms and that the progress of passengers is not impeded.'

I believe that basic rule goes for the majority of Britain's rail network.

Indeed it does. If doing so again, it may be useful to take Network Rail's Guidelines for Rail Enthusiasts along with you.

London Underground is somewhat more strict, although I have to say personally I think with good reason (firstly, platforms etc. are much narrower so obstruction is a real problem, secondly muppets with flashguns can temporarily blind drivers, particularly in the tube where the drivers eyes are dark-adjusted.) The LU film office issue permits though, and are usually happy to waive the fee for 'amateurs' from all the reports I've heard.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the USA almost ever situation brings discomfort in shooting for various reasons.

Security is the most often cited - the need of the present administration to create a national paranoia in order to justify many policies.

Many will say photography isn't allowed for no reason other than perhaps the fear of being seen somewhere. Oklahoma is a heavily-Baptist/religious locale and it's not like I'm setting up a camera near the back door of a liquor store.

As far as working is concerned, when doing a wedding I make it a point to ask the officiant exactly what they will tolerate and not.