Sign In
Welcome to the Travel Forums
Why join TravelBlog?- Membership is Free and Easy
- Your travel questions answered in minutes!
- Become part of the friendliest online travel community.
* Blogging is not required to participate in the forums
Advertisement
Forbidden photography
Advertisement
Have you ever been told that you're not allowed to take a picture of something?
B Posts: 1
When I was in Italy, I took a picture of a gypsy and threw her some money. Technically, taking her picture was fine but when I turned around after 30 seconds, she was being arrested for taking my money. XD Reply to this
B Posts: 2
I've been to 3 areas where I was too intimidated to take pictures nobody mentioned yet.
1) Red light district Amsterdam, heard about people getting their cameras broken
2) Herbertstrasse in Hamburg, very similar situation and there weren't any other people so it would have been very obvious
3) Christiania the squatters civilization in Copenhagen where smoking weed is acceptable. Once again heard people would chase you.
Did take pictures in Sistine chapel when we saw 10 other people. Generally go by the rule in churches that no flash and don't ask.
One last note my friend got a picture of me doing the Lambeau leap just before the tour guide noted we weren't supposed to do that Reply to this
1) Red light district Amsterdam, heard about people getting their cameras broken
2) Herbertstrasse in Hamburg, very similar situation and there weren't any other people so it would have been very obvious
3) Christiania the squatters civilization in Copenhagen where smoking weed is acceptable. Once again heard people would chase you.
Did take pictures in Sistine chapel when we saw 10 other people. Generally go by the rule in churches that no flash and don't ask.
One last note my friend got a picture of me doing the Lambeau leap just before the tour guide noted we weren't supposed to do that Reply to this
B Posts: 10
Although not while traveling, a very frightening experience once in my home city of Binghamton, NY. I was taking a photography class (black and white film, manual cameras only) and our assignment was night shooting. I had been taking photos for most of the night when I went to a light up walking bridge. It was around 11pm and as I was snapping photos I caught a man on a bike in one of the shots. A moment later, he approached me from behind and started asking in a very heated way, why I had taken his photo. I explained what I had been doing and he didn't seem to buy it. I suppose he might have been running small amounts of drugs and he seemed paranoid and quite agitated, so I finally just pulled the film out of my camera and handed it to him. Realizing, perhaps, that I was speaking the truth, his attitude changed and he tried to give it back to me. I told him it was no good any longer, having been exposed to light, and he seemed saddened. He then asked how much it cost and I lied and said $3, don't worry about it, I hadn't taken many pictures on it anyways. He apologized again and pulled out his wallet. In disbelief, I replied that it was really ok and got the hell out of there. Reply to this
B Posts: 69
I took a detour from my China Roadtrip when I saw a road sign to the Xichang Satellite Launch Facility. Drove through the mountains and farmlands to get there, and althought they sell tickets to enter the facility, no foreigners are allowed in. After the long drive I thought I may as well get a picture of the entrance but as I pulled out my camera, the soldiers gave me a uniform No No. Reply to this
B Posts: 19
Twice. Once when I was trying to take a picture of a government building in Saigon, and the other was in a restaurant in Las Vegas (one of the waiters told me was because it was a private property). Reply to this
B Posts: 5
I was taking photos of dolphins performing at an aquarium show in downtown Tokyo when some guy in a suit tells me to put my camera down since a famous manzai comedy duo was there filming a TV spot. I pretended not to understand Japanese and kept on taking pics, anyways, since the comedians were incredibly boring. Reply to this
B Posts: 24
I remember reading a blog on here once about a Tibetan sky burial. The man who wrote the blog added photos but this horrified so many readers that he had invaded some sacred site/service. I enjoyed reading the responses as I remember finding many of them amusing. As a photographer with an anthropological interest I would capture anything strange or unusual to my western eyes.
Maybe a good example of when taking a photo at the time is not deemed immoral but according to the standards of others it sometimes becomes one?
http://www.travelblog.org/Asia/China/blog-7890.html
Reply to this
Maybe a good example of when taking a photo at the time is not deemed immoral but according to the standards of others it sometimes becomes one?
http://www.travelblog.org/Asia/China/blog-7890.html
Reply to this
B Posts: 24
I remember reading a blog on here once about a Tibetan sky burial. The man who wrote the blog added photos but this horrified so many readers that he had invaded some sacred site/service. I enjoyed reading the responses as I remember finding many of them amusing. As a photographer with an anthropological interest I would capture anything strange or unusual to my western eyes.
Maybe a good example of when taking a photo at the time is not deemed immoral but according to the standards of others it sometimes becomes one?
http://www.travelblog.org/Asia/China/blog-7890.html
Reply to this
Maybe a good example of when taking a photo at the time is not deemed immoral but according to the standards of others it sometimes becomes one?
http://www.travelblog.org/Asia/China/blog-7890.html
Reply to this
B Posts: 24
B Posts: 411
In response to: Msg #159406
Just read that blog you noted - oh wow! those comments spanned a five year period. What I found very interesting is that I have never seen any similar 'offended' comments made about photos of burning pyres taken on the Ganges in Varanasi.
I suppose for me the question is one of consent. And even if consent is given for the photo to be taken, I wouldn't post photos of someone else if I wouldn't want similar photos or me or my family posted by others. Ultimately it's a question of personal judgement and conscience - which is what makes it such a grey area. Reply to this
B Posts: 5
Yeah. I'd experience it when I visited a Chinese Temple in Cebu City, Philippines. The guard told us that taking pictures of the front altar is not allowed. Also,SM shopping malls here in Manila, Philippines. Reply to this
B Posts: 1
I visited Turkey in last week of August'12. Tourists are not allowed to take photographs of frescos inside Open Air Museum churches in Cappadocia. Those are hundreds of centuries old frescos and still in pretty good condition. Also inside Topkapi palace, tourists are not allowed to take photographs.
I do not apprehend why we cannot take a photograph of a fresco or an ancient clock piece when everyday thousands of people are allowed to see them up close and numerous magazines have the photographs in them, never mentioning the web! Reply to this
I do not apprehend why we cannot take a photograph of a fresco or an ancient clock piece when everyday thousands of people are allowed to see them up close and numerous magazines have the photographs in them, never mentioning the web! Reply to this
N Posts: 1
In response to: Msg #90771
The Philippines...
When I went there originally in 1988, no one paid much attention to a tourist with a camera, except the locals (who loved being photographed!). It was the same way in 1991, when I left that country...
Now...
it's not so carefree.
Places that gave me trouble while photographing this past time out in 2012...
The U.S. Embassy. Merely having my D7000 on me in front of the Embassy provoked questions, a demand from a security guard to see the photos (while backed up by a couple other guards, armed with machine guns), and an incident report...not bad, considering I was on Roxas Bl. (a public street), and not aiming my camera in any particular direction. I had been told that photographing the Embassy was illegal (a new one on me!), and that I ought to be careful while photographing in Rizal Park; in particular, the monument of Rizal. Note...more then a few native photographers have reported trouble while photographing the obelisk to Rizal at the Roxas Bl. entrance to Rizal Park.
The MRT line 3. There appears to be a ban on photography anywhere on any of the LRT or MRT lines; something that didn't exist 20+ years ago. When I aimed my camera in the Guadalupe station, the security guard told me that photography was prohibited.
Tower 1, Ayala Av., Makati...
That time, the police told me that photography was prohibited anywhere on the grounds (which house the Philippine Stock Exchange). This was one prohibition I didn't try to beat...
While those were the only times I ran into trouble with my photography, other persons have routinely written about run-ins with security in the SM malls while photographing there, as well as in Intramuros (where it is said a person must pay P2,000.00 to photograph in certain areas...even without commercial intent!).
It seems clear to me that this hobby called photography has become risky to pursue, especially in other countries...and not just in countries you don't expect to have trouble in. Running afoul of the law in any country is particularly dangerous...but to have it happen while in possession of a camera is even more so. It was once my thought your trouble could only happen in Eastern Europe, or behind the Iron Curtain, but this is hardly the case anymore. There seems to be increasing paranoia with respect to photography, and photographers in general. Reply to this
D Posts: 802
The same is happening in so called 'modern countries' too. The UK is rapidly becoming an intolerant police state, thanks in part to the highly ambiguous and controversial Terrorism Act 2000. Despite the fact that CCTV cameras constantly scan and scrutinise almost every major street and town centre in Britain, a quick search of the web reveals many stories about photographers being hassled and bothered by security guards, PCSOs and even police officers, who often go as far as quoting the fabled 'terrorism laws' to try and intimidate people.
As the law stands, photographers have a right to take pictures of any public place or person in public service as long as they are not causing an obstruction or are preventing a public official from exercising their duties, unless it falls foul of Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, which refers to eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
Using either the Official Secrets Act 1911 or Section 43/44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to intimidate photographers is unlawful. As a law abiding photographer, the police, PCSOs or security guards have no right to force you to show them pictures you have taken, force you to delete them or indeed, seize equipment.
Section 43 says:
3.4.1. REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION
Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend on
the circumstances in each case. There must be
an objective basis for the suspicion (that the
person is a terrorist or that the vehicle is being
used for the purposes of terrorism) based on
relevant facts, information, and/or intelligence.
Reasonable suspicion must rely on intelligence or
information about, or behaviour by, the person
or vehicle concerned. Unless the police have
a description of a suspect, a person’s physical
appearance (including any of the ‘protected
characteristics’ set out in the Equality Act
2010), cannot be used alone or in combination
with each other or with any other factor, as the
reason for searching that person. Reasonable
suspicion cannot be based on generalisations
or stereotypical images of certain groups
or categories of people as more likely to be
involved in terrorist activity.
3.4.2. then goes on to say:
Reasonable suspicion may exist without
specific information or intelligence but on
the basis of the behaviour of a person. For
example, reasonable suspicion that a person
is a terrorist may arise from the person’s
behaviour at or near a location which has been
identified as a potential target for terrorism.
Again, rather vague and wide open to abuse.
Government officials and command officers responded to these rather aggressive act against photographers by assuring them that their right to take pictures is enshrouded in law, however, this only happened after falling foul of the EHRC who ruled in 2010 that stops and searches carried out by British police without suspicion are illegal. Reply to this
As the law stands, photographers have a right to take pictures of any public place or person in public service as long as they are not causing an obstruction or are preventing a public official from exercising their duties, unless it falls foul of Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, which refers to eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
Using either the Official Secrets Act 1911 or Section 43/44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to intimidate photographers is unlawful. As a law abiding photographer, the police, PCSOs or security guards have no right to force you to show them pictures you have taken, force you to delete them or indeed, seize equipment.
Section 43 says:
3.4.1. REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR SUSPICION
Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend on
the circumstances in each case. There must be
an objective basis for the suspicion (that the
person is a terrorist or that the vehicle is being
used for the purposes of terrorism) based on
relevant facts, information, and/or intelligence.
Reasonable suspicion must rely on intelligence or
information about, or behaviour by, the person
or vehicle concerned. Unless the police have
a description of a suspect, a person’s physical
appearance (including any of the ‘protected
characteristics’ set out in the Equality Act
2010), cannot be used alone or in combination
with each other or with any other factor, as the
reason for searching that person. Reasonable
suspicion cannot be based on generalisations
or stereotypical images of certain groups
or categories of people as more likely to be
involved in terrorist activity.
3.4.2. then goes on to say:
Reasonable suspicion may exist without
specific information or intelligence but on
the basis of the behaviour of a person. For
example, reasonable suspicion that a person
is a terrorist may arise from the person’s
behaviour at or near a location which has been
identified as a potential target for terrorism.
Again, rather vague and wide open to abuse.
Government officials and command officers responded to these rather aggressive act against photographers by assuring them that their right to take pictures is enshrouded in law, however, this only happened after falling foul of the EHRC who ruled in 2010 that stops and searches carried out by British police without suspicion are illegal. Reply to this
B Posts: 371
Many Native American Reservations prohibit cameras during ceremonies. I knew going in that I couldn't photograph when I attended a Navajo powwow. I wrote the blog entry without photos instead: Old Traditions in a Modern World
I've also been told I can't shoot pictures of American Civil War artifacts in various museums. For some reason, most of the artifacts in question belonged to the Confederate side. Reply to this
I've also been told I can't shoot pictures of American Civil War artifacts in various museums. For some reason, most of the artifacts in question belonged to the Confederate side. Reply to this
