Thrown out of Ramsey House in Knoxville

[nc5p]

Yes, I got in trouble again for photography.

I am on furlough from work so we all got in the car and drove to Tennessee, to spend a week with my wife's sister. I visited two historic homes in Knoxville today. One was the Blount Mansion where I was warmly greeted and told photography is encouraged so long as no flash is used. The other was the Ramsey House. There the manager of the place told me flash was prohibited but otherwise I could take photos. Well, after paying we went into the old house. There was this old lady there giving tours. There were a bunch of kids there distracting her attention. We were in the kitchen and I had just framed a great shot with the Mamiya 645 Super and 35mm lens. It was a table lit by natural window light, covered with historic utensils and old kitchen stuff. Just as I almost shot the picture the mean old lady yelled at me to stop. That was it, I was busted. I immediately complied and left. I walked back to the visitor center and talked to the manager, a younger woman in her 40's who was quite apologetic. She said if I wanted I could come back in the afternoon, as the old lady would be gone. She has tried to tell this woman that flash was forbidden but not other photography. She won't hear of it. The old lady is a member of the historic board and she can't do anything about it. The people at the Blount Mansion also knew who she was. Evidently she is well known with the historical societies in the area.

So anyway, if anyone goes to this place go after lunch when the mean old lady isn't there.

 

[Ian Grant]

Old American ladies are well meaning but not exactly on the ball I bought a St Ansel DVD at Ge6rge eats0an House, asked if it was ok on UK DVD players, she sowed me the one World symbol on the back, not realising the arrogance of that symbol. It doesn't work on some UK/EU systems.

Moral old ladies are old, cloudy wisdom, but rarely accurate

Ian

 

[WolfTales]

Why on earth did you comply??

I woulda politely held my ground and asked the old lady to call a manager over.

 

[J Rollinger]

Photography or filming is not allowed inside the building at all! The woman who said you can shoot in there lied to you. The mean old lady was correct.

 

[MikeSeb]

Couldn't you just have pushed her down, broken her hip or something, and carried in shooting? I mean, she's old, isnt she?

 

[railwayman3]

Photography or filming is not allowed inside the building at all! The woman who said you can shoot in there lied to you. The mean old lady was correct.

In that case, they should get their facts straight and state the rules clearly, rather than antagonise visitors. And there is no excuse for rudeness, from either old or young people (perhaps even less for old people, who should know better ) A polite request not to photograph would be enough.
(I've had similar rudeness at certain UK historic houses :rolleyes.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

I understand being asked to check tripods at the door, St. Peter's Basilica does this, for good reason, but why prohibit photography? As long as you don't jump the rope and put your camera on an 18th century chest and drawers, what's the harm? I can't imagine there are any trademarks or copyrights that would be violated.

 

[Anscojohn]

Couldn't you just have pushed her down, broken her hip or something, and carried in shooting? I mean, she's old, isnt she?

******
I'm with Seb. Next time take an Argus C3 with you; makes a nasty wound!

 

[J Rollinger]

In that case, they should get their facts straight and state the rules clearly, rather than antagonise visitors. And there is no excuse for rudeness, from either old or young people (perhaps even less for old people, who should know better ) A polite request not to photograph would be enough.
(I've had similar rudeness at certain UK historic houses :rolleyes.

I agree with the woman at the visitors desk that photography should be allowed, why not? Dont they want images of the interior to be shown to encourage more guest?

 

[WolfTales]

That's like giving up without any trial or jury.

 

[railwayman3]

I agree with the woman at the visitors desk that photography should be allowed, why not? Dont they want images of the interior to be shown to encourage more guest?

The English National Trust don't allow interior photography in their historic houses...I read that it was to prevent information on valuable items and security arrangements being gathered for potential theft. Can't follow this reasoning, as anyone intent on mischief could view the properties during opening hours as often as they like.

And (be warned) they demand that you leave camera bags at the entrance, but make no proper arrangements for their safe-keeping!

 

[amuderick]

There are also all sorts of bizarre intellectual property derivatives which can exist. For example, an institution can sell exclusive reproduction rights to their art collection. I buy those rights so I am the only one allowed to photograph any artifacts in the museum. Then I photograph paintings, etc. I can sell the photographs. If the museum let any local-yokel come and take photographs, then they wouldn't have been able to collect my money...I would have shot for free.

This is how Corbis can charge $170 for printing a Van Gogh portrait at 1/4 page size in a textbook with a single printing in a single language of less than 10,000 total copies. Even though Van Gogh died in 1890 and clearly this portrait is part of the public domain....the derivative work...the photograph of the portrait is not public domain.

Is this good or bad for society? Discuss.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is how Corbis can charge $170 for printing a Van Gogh portrait at 1/4 page size in a textbook with a single printing in a single language of less than 10,000 total copies. Even though Van Gogh died in 1890 and clearly this portrait is part of the public domain....the derivative work...the photograph of the portrait is not public domain.

Bad example, he Van Gogh family owns most if not all the reproduction rights. Some of the paintings have never been published in books because the family did not think all the colors were correctly reproduced.

Steve

 

[Vonder]

There are four common reasons for prohibiting photography.

1 - To prevent personal injury to non-photographers who might trip over a tripod or whatnot

2 - Because flash may damage colors in certain fabrics, textiles, and other items. You CAN forget to turn it off.

3 - An artist's copyright to their own work may be infringed upon by a photographic copy

4 - To force the visitor to buy the official guidebook to the place.

You can be the judge as to what applied in this case...

 

[hoffy]

4 - To force the visitor to buy the official guidebook to the place.

Call me a cynic, but 9 times out of 10 it’s this. It’s the same kind of thing where photography is forbidden at special events.

Intellectual property and rights is a big business. Go to a big sporting event, take photos and then put them on ebay and then see what happens!

It’s the same principle. They want every opportunity to make money from the property. You taking photos and then potentially selling them doesn’t make them money.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

In many cases good photographs of a place, especially on the web, are great advertising.

 

[ann]

oh dear, i best watch my "p's and q's " since i fall into the the old lady catagory, nothing like being 71

 

[hoffy]

In many cases good photographs of a place, especially on the web, are great advertising.

Ahh, but what if the photo, regardless on how good it was, was used to portray the place in a bad light?

While you may think that, they may not. Whether its not seeing beyond the $$ signs or whether its trying to be in control of their promotion is a hard one to tell.

 

[amuderick]

@steve - how can they own the reproduction rights on something produced before 1890?

 

[Akki14]

Ahh, but what if the photo, regardless on how good it was, was used to portray the place in a bad light?

While you may think that, they may not. Whether its not seeing beyond the $$ signs or whether its trying to be in control of their promotion is a hard one to tell.

That's very true. I've emailed Kew Gardens in the past about letting me use photos I took at their gardens in a contest for B&W photography magazine and they said it was fine as long as it was portrayed in a good light and that's basically why you need approval for "commercial" photography. Though they allow photography for personal use without any problems.

Somehow I think the people who would write mean articles about Kew Gardens wouldn't bother to ask permission but, heyho...

 

[2F/2F]

Why on earth did you comply??

I woulda politely held my ground and asked the old lady to call a manager over.

Exactly.

Even if the manager made a mistake, the worst they could do is call the police, who would issue a trespassing ticket for breaking the rules, but only IF the place seriously pressed them to do so, which they would not do given the information you were supplied by the manager.

You could have had the picture if you really wanted it, in other words.

They gave you a nice offer. I'd take them up on it and go back.

 

[Shangheye]

Since the old lady behaved in a dumb manner, I would have behaved in a deaf manner

 

[hoffy]

OK, time to get the old flame suit on here, because I probably aren't going to make any friends with this comment.

The "<insert appropriate profanity here> you, I'll do what I want" attitude isn't going to help anyone. Politely arguing the point, yes. Coming back later when the manager says its OK, yes, but giving the lady the theoretic bird and doing what you want is just bad news. Someone suggested above that she was a high up part of the society that runs the place? Lets look at it this way. She argues, you do as you please, she gets angry, you still do as you please...so what happens next? She brings it up at the next society meeting and they make it a condition of entry that there is no photography on site...who wins?

 

[Paul Jenkin]

The English National Trust don't allow interior photography in their historic houses...I read that it was to prevent information on valuable items and security arrangements being gathered for potential theft. Can't follow this reasoning, as anyone intent on mischief could view the properties during opening hours as often as they like.

And (be warned) they demand that you leave camera bags at the entrance, but make no proper arrangements for their safe-keeping!

Not strictly true......

I've crossed swords with NT on this subject and I've been told repeatedly that they'd be delighted to allow me to take photos internally (without flash) BY ARRANGEMENT. This would entail me going there at a mutually convenient and low-traffic period. I'd even be allowed to use a tripod. The only proviso is that I would not be allowed to take photos to be used "commercially".

Security is an issue - many years ago I used to work for the insurance company that insured the NT's buildings, property and liabilities and it's amazing how much damage / injury can occur at places which appear to be very safe and genteel.

I have only once been asked to hand in my bag - due it being a very large backpack - and they had concerns that I might swipe a vase off its stand. When I asked if they would accept formal, written responsibility for any/all damage or loss to my camera equipment (£4,000 worth on new-for old basis) they declined. I didn't get to see the inside of the house but, what the hell, it was even nicer outside.

 

[railwayman3]

I have only once been asked to hand in my bag - due it being a very large backpack - and they had concerns that I might swipe a vase off its stand. When I asked if they would accept formal, written responsibility for any/all damage or loss to my camera equipment (£4,000 worth on new-for old basis) they declined. I didn't get to see the inside of the house but, what the hell, it was even nicer outside.

I stand corrected on the matter of taking photos at NT houses by arrangement....not what I had read, but I'm sure that you're right.

I had two very similar experiences about handing in a camera bag, and their refusal to accept any responsibility. I think that's my main winge...many museums, etc., offer proper cloakroom facilities, and most people are happy to unload a heavy bag/coats/brolly, etc., for an hour or two.
At the last NT house I visited, it was suggested that I left my valuable bag on the floor against the front door "it will be alright there".....
Not a very professional approach from an organisation that regards itself as the leading UK conservation body....(though they do seem very good at having twee shops selling overpriced goods to coach parties. ).