Why have the rules on photography at some visitor attractions become more relaxed?

[AY1975]

Does anyone know why restrictions on photography at some indoor visitor attractions have got more relaxed in recent years? I've noticed that this seems to be the case in some castles, stately homes, art galleries (at least where the paintings are not copyright protected or deemed valuable enough to be vulnerable to theft) and places of worship.

In Westminster Abbey, for example, there used to be "no photography" signs in the pre-smartphone era, and certainly in the pre-digital camera era, but these days they don't mind you taking pictures with smartphones.

I wonder whether it's to do with changes in copyright laws, a realisation that a ban on photography using smartphones can be difficult to enforce, or the fact that people taking pictures using smartphones is less likely to disturb other visitors than the sound of old style cameras clicking? I suspect that it's a mixture of all three, or at least a mixture of the second and the third of those reasons.

Obviously photography is still banned in some places, for example where there are paintings that are copyright protected and/or deemed valuable enough to be vulnerable to theft, or in castles, stately homes and the like where at least part of the building is lived in and the owner objects to visitors taking photos. Also, I believe that if someone lives there it's often a condition of their insurance that they may not allow photography except by official photographers taking photos for guidebooks or for the attraction's website. So it's always as well to ask a member of staff before taking photos if in doubt.

 

[Gostav]

I think the more bizarre rule is that you are free to take photos, but not allowed to record videos. Such rules are enforced in some museums in London.

 

[side effect]

I remember going in the Southend Pier museum and they had a no photograph policy. I just asked for a refund and let my kids go round themselves.

 

[styles]

I assume it's resignation to the fact that when everybody has a high quality camera in their pocket, which is part and parcel of a device which people use for social media, texting, Google Maps, etc; confiscating them or requiring them to go into a faraday pouch is quite the overhead, and may even result in fewer visitors.

The Banksy exhibition in Glasgow did require phones to go into faraday pouches. That's the only place I've seen it outside of schools etc.

It's just too hard to police.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Does anyone know why restrictions on photography at some indoor visitor attractions have got more relaxed in recent years? I've noticed that this seems to be the case in some castles, stately homes, art galleries (at least where the paintings are not copyright protected or deemed valuable enough to be vulnerable to theft) and places of worship.

In Westminster Abbey, for example, there used to be "no photography" signs in the pre-smartphone era, and certainly in the pre-digital camera era, but these days they don't mind you taking pictures with smartphones.

I wonder whether it's to do with changes in copyright laws, a realisation that a ban on photography using smartphones can be difficult to enforce, or the fact that people taking pictures using smartphones is less likely to disturb other visitors than the sound of old style cameras clicking? I suspect that it's a mixture of all three, or at least a mixture of the second and the third of those reasons.

Obviously photography is still banned in some places, for example where there are paintings that are copyright protected and/or deemed valuable enough to be vulnerable to theft, or in castles, stately homes and the like where at least part of the building is lived in and the owner objects to visitors taking photos. Also, I believe that if someone lives there it's often a condition of their insurance that they may not allow photography except by official photographers taking photos for guidebooks or for the attraction's website. So it's always as well to ask a member of staff before taking photos if in doubt.

It's not that long ago that a flash was an explosion!

Even for electric flashes on 90s and nougties film cameras, they involved suddenly discharge and heat with the risk of fire.

 

[ninja-lewis]

There were various justifications for bans:
- Concerns about camera flashes damaging artefacts. Further scientific research has demonstrated this concern was misplaced.
- Safety hazards of older camera flashes as BlueLeanie mentioned. Modern smartphone flashes are just LEDs.
- Concerns about careless photographers knocking something over. Still a risk but smartphones are more flexible than traditional cameras and they take up less space.
- protecting 'sanctity' of the space. Many visitor attractions were much formal. Even religious attractions are more relaxed about it today
- disturbing other visitors. These days practically everyone has a smartphone in their pocket and even if they don't they realise everyone does so little use taking offence.
- stopping to take photos stopping visitor flow and slowing throughput. More attractions, more space and other ways of managing visitor numbers these days as well as keenness to welcome any visitors at all at smaller attractions
- forcing visitors to buy visitor guides from the shop if they want mememtos. Whereas these days everything posted to social media is free advertising for the attraction.

You still get bans on tripods, monopods, drones, large lenses, bulky bags and some places requires that backpacks be worn at the front. It was easier to have bag searches and require a camera to be left in a locker for a few visitors. Nigh on impossible to prevent people taking in mobile phones and except for a very, very exceptional attractions (e.g. Banksy as styles mentioned) visitors simply won't tolerate leaving their phone behind, even if there was enough lockers. Not least because their phone is so much more than just a camera.

 

[dangie]

This reminds me of visiting Sacré Cœur in Paris last year. Despite numerous signs saying no photography or videography, that didn’t seem to have any effect. At one point I witnessed people videoing a nun decorating an altar.

 

[Ediswan]

This reminds me of visiting Sacré Cœur in Paris last year. Despite numerous signs saying no photography or videography, that didn’t seem to have any effect. At one point I witnessed people videoing a nun decorating an altar.

In the 1970s, our Scout group had a boat tour of Portsmouth Naval Dockyard. Lots of warships. 'No Photgraphy' announced. In practice, many low-end cameras used. They may, of course, have intervened against an SLR with a long lens.

 

[dangie]

This reminds me of visiting Sacré Cœur in Paris last year. Despite numerous signs saying no photography or videography, that didn’t seem to have any effect. At one point I witnessed people videoing a nun decorating an altar.

Going on from this I feel it’s very disrespectful to photograph in places of religion or worship, especially if it is asked not to do so. A good example is school church concerts at Christmas, Easter or Harvest Festival etc.

 

[Western 52]

I've been to a number of concerts in the last few years where they've allowed video using mobile phones. Photography of any kind would have been banned some years ago.

 

[bleeder4]

I would assume it's because everyone has a camera in their pocket these days, but surely the best people to answer this question would be the staff at the venue in question? If you're in an art gallery and wondering why they suddenly allow cameras, asking someone who works there whilst you're still on-site will elicit a more informed answer than asking random people on an Internet forum.

 

[PMH]

In the social media era it's a big marketing disadvantage to not allow photos.

 

[westv]

I've been to a number of concerts in the last few years where they've allowed video using mobile phones. Photography of any kind would have been banned some years ago.

I think using mobiles at concerts has been a thing for over a decade now (I remember Prince banning their use when he played at the O2 in 2007).
It does surprise me that some people pay to go to see a live performance but spend most of the time looking at it through their phone!

 

[Western 52]

I think using mobiles at concerts has been a thing for over a decade now (I remember Prince banning their use when he played at the O2 in 2007).
It does surprise me that some people pay to go to see a live performance but spend most of the time looking at it through their phone!

Seeing other people's bright mobile screens does distract from the performance for those behind them too. In cinemas there's often an announcement saying any form of filming is not allowed and that they employ detection technology!

 

[jon0844]

Seeing other people's bright mobile screens does distract from the performance for those behind them too. In cinemas there's often an announcement saying any form of filming is not allowed and that they employ detection technology!

Yes, they have Infrared cameras so they can see what's going on and detect Infrared light from things like autofocus. If they suspect you're recording an entire movie to put on a torrent site (God knows why anyone would want to watch this in an age of 4K HDR Dolby Atmos) then expect to be ejected very quickly.

Of course it does require someone to be watching the cameras and at some cinemas it looks like they've managed to get a multiplex cinema down to about 2 members of staff - so perhaps you'd be fine!

 

[Howardh]

I think using mobiles at concerts has been a thing for over a decade now (I remember Prince banning their use when he played at the O2 in 2007).
It does surprise me that some people pay to go to see a live performance but spend most of the time looking at it through their phone!

Agree, but then again some venues are so huge it's the only way to watch! I went to a football match and somehow misplaced my glasses, so I had to watch the second half through my phone. Fans around must have assumed I was simply videoing the game, and not the real reason!

When I got back to my car I could use my spare glasses - and the originals never turned up. Think they might be in the back of someone's hoody!

Anyhow, if you have 10,000 at a gig, and they all have to have their phones removed, where would you put them, how would you get them back, and how long would it take - and having all the phones in one place, even if switched off, is a fire risk?? So in reality "banning" phones isn't gonna happen.

 

[jon81uk]

Anyhow, if you have 10,000 at a gig, and they all have to have their phones removed, where would you put them, how would you get them back, and how long would it take - and having all the phones in one place, even if switched off, is a fire risk?? So in reality "banning" phones isn't gonna happen.

Places that do have no phones/filming rules such as the premier of a TV show where they don't want people to film or photograph and leak it before it airs generally use Yondr pouches (https://www.overyondr.com/phone-locking-pouch). This means someone keeps hold of their own devices, but it is locked away and cannot be used. The lock on the pouch is the same as clothing secuirity tags.

 

[westv]

Getting back to my mention of Prince banning filming when he played at the O2 in 2007, I don't remember phones being collected before entry but I didn't take my phone with me so I might be wrong.
I do know that when he had his "after parties" in Indigo2 (a lot smaller) there were venue people watching out for phone use from an upper balcony.

 

[jon81uk]

Getting back to my mention of Prince banning filming when he played at the O2 in 2007, I don't remember phones being collected before entry but I didn't take my phone with me so I might be wrong.
I do know that when he had his "after parties" in Indigo2 (a lot smaller) there were venue people watching out for phone use from an upper balcony.

The iPhone was only released late 2007, so there wouldn't have been much filming with phones back then, you'd have needed a camera.

 

[lookapigeon]

Going on from this I feel it’s very disrespectful to photograph in places of religion or worship, especially if it is asked not to do so. A good example is school church concerts at Christmas, Easter or Harvest Festival etc.

For the no photograhy at the school concerts it's a safeguarding/child protection thing.

However, in religious places it's probably to do with the space being sacred and respecting the sanctity as a visitor, and also some people will be in reflection/prayer and do not want a camera shoved in their face, regardless of whether it is a phone or actual camera.

All such notices should be observed, the best view is through the eyes and ears only.

 

[jon0844]

The iPhone was only released late 2007, so there wouldn't have been much filing with phones back then, you'd have needed a camera.

Erm, cameraphones had been on the market for at least five years prior to the iPhone. The first iPhone camera was pretty damn awful and pretty much useless. The first phones being late 2001/early 2002 starting at VGA resolution (0.3MP) and then going up gradually.

 

[D365]

I find that art museums, which traditionally have strictly enforced no-camera policies, are these days typically quite relaxed about non-flash photography. As others have pointed out, enforcing a camera ban is not really workable in this age, especially for those city centre museums that are ”free of charge” and consequentially bustling with tourists.

 

[Jimini]

Erm, cameraphones had been on the market for at least five years prior to the iPhone. The first iPhone camera was pretty damn awful and pretty much useless. The first phones being late 2001/early 2002 starting at VGA resolution (0.3MP) and then going up gradually.

Yarp, I remember my (very) old Nokia phone having a camera on it back in 2003. Also had a FM radio built in!

 

[TheSmiths82]

I remember years ago I got an annoyed as the music festival I was going to (not your typical festival) had a no SLR rule. I had just got one of those new fangled mirrorless cameras and I thought I would try my luck with attached my 250mm lens to it (500mm on a 35mm eqv). The bouncer didn't let me in saying it was a professional camera, I tried to argue the toss as the rules say no SLRs and mine wasn't. I then went back to the hotel, attached my kit lens to it and no questions were asked about my camera
I did complain about the wording when I got back , and they have since changed to "no professional cameras, professional cameras are any camera that you can change the lens on).

I was in a cathedral the other day, I have a newer Micro Four Thirds camera now so I mostly used my prime lens and switched the shutter to electronic mode so it was silent. Nobody said anything.

I think all my phones from circa 2005 onwards had cameras but they were useless in low light so I bought a cheapish point and shoot to take on nights out.

 

[Harpo]

Most theatres are still strictly ‘no photography’ although many allow it for pop/rock concerts when huge numbers spend the night staring at a small screen recording a low quality ‘video’.

 

[jon81uk]

Erm, cameraphones had been on the market for at least five years prior to the iPhone. The first iPhone camera was pretty damn awful and pretty much useless. The first phones being late 2001/early 2002 starting at VGA resolution (0.3MP) and then going up gradually.

But still those older camera phones were only good for still photos, video on a phone wasn't really possible in any useful quality. Was just using the iPhone as an example of when things slowly began to improve to a point where people would use phones for video.

 

[jmh59]

Yes, they have Infrared cameras so they can see what's going on and detect Infrared light from things like autofocus. If they suspect you're recording an entire movie to put on a torrent site (God knows why anyone would want to watch this in an age of 4K HDR Dolby Atmos) then expect to be ejected very quickly.

Of course it does require someone to be watching the cameras and at some cinemas it looks like they've managed to get a multiplex cinema down to about 2 members of staff - so perhaps you'd be fine!

Oh now I can imagine automated system which stops the film and displays 'the person in seat 3C is videoing the film. It will not restart until they cease'... lol

 

[AY1975]

Going on from this I feel it’s very disrespectful to photograph in places of religion or worship, especially if it is asked not to do so. A good example is school church concerts at Christmas, Easter or Harvest Festival etc.

During services, yes, but at other times if there are no signs saying no photography I don't have a problem with people taking photos as long as they respect the privacy of other visitors.

I would guess that Roman Catholics especially tend to regard taking photos in a church as violating the sanctity of the space, though. For example there are "no photography" signs in the York Oratory, the main city centre Catholic church in York, opposite the Minster.

I also seem to recall that you used to have to buy a photography permit at some places of worship and other visitor attractions, for example IIRC at York Minster and Canterbury Cathedral. I suppose that was another way of making money out of visitors who wanted a memento of their visit, and it also meant that there wouldn't be so many people taking photos and potentially causing problems, for example by disturbing and getting in the way of other visitors as mentioned in #6 above. Not sure if photography permits are still a thing anywhere these days, though.

 

[eoff]

I was at a museum in Tokyo last year where you were not supposed to take photos of some items. It could be one item in a case and at first I didn't notice the little sign next to an item in a case and took a photo of the whole case and got told off.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I was at a museum in Tokyo last year where you were not supposed to take photos of some items. It could be one item in a case and at first I didn't notice the little sign next to an item in a case and took a photo of the whole case and got told off.

The irony of any form of photo ban in Japan...

( Think of the old joke: "Someone robbed a bus full of Japanese tourists; police have 8,967,234 photographs of the suspect!" )