Professional cameras not allowed

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.

On 2012-08-17 08:39:03 -0700, Savageduck said:

On 2012-08-17 08:13:45 -0700, Martin Brown
said:

On 17/08/2012 15:27, otter wrote:
On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.

One of the Ixus's that is small enough to palm is what I use.

That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

If you are stood on their private land to see it - they do!

I fail to see why you think it would be otherwise.

ISTR Monterey Golf club are particularly belligerent and vindictive
about image rights to their tree.

Pebble Beach Company on 17 Mile drive, have the "Lone Cypress" as a
registered trade mark and is part of their logo. They hold commercial
rights to the image. However, they do not stop tourist photographers
from shooting the tree, but they have sued and won when others have
used the image, or even a similar image implying that it was the "Lone
Cypress". The latest case I recall, was a San Jose real estate agency
which used a silhouette of a cypress turned to the left, in a mirror
image of the typical shot. Needless to say, Pebble Beach won that case.

The Pebble Beach Company, seems to promote tourist photography of the
"Lone Cypress";
"Visit The Lone Cypress, one of America's most recognized landmarks and
the most photographed tree in the World. Set on a rocky promontory,
this classic California landmark, estimated to be somewhere between 200
and 300 years old, has become the trademark of Pebble Beach Company."

There are bus loads of tourists there daily, all clamoring to shoot
with whatever camera they have handy, and not a "DSLR cop" in sight.

...but just let them try to incorporate that image in a logo.

http://proimaging.smugmug.com/Travel...67_Acthp-L.jpg

Hell!

They don't even mind folks including massive DSLR shot versions in their blogs.
http://writenow.files.wordpress.com/...9/dsc_0079.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:13:24 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-08-17 07:46:25 -0700, ray said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:43:30 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

Le Snip


By the way, in this cafe there was one guy who was standing on the
terrace and was constantly checking the situation, to make sure that
nobody would use a DLSR. Basically this cafe was paying one person
just to enforce the no-DSLR rule.

Panasonic G3 is not a DSLR


...but to a Jakarta trained "DSLR Cop" it looks like one. ;-)

To me, it looks more like a 'super zoom' camera.

On 2012-08-17 09:00:15 -0700, ray said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:13:24 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-08-17 07:46:25 -0700, ray said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:43:30 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

Le Snip


By the way, in this cafe there was one guy who was standing on the
terrace and was constantly checking the situation, to make sure that
nobody would use a DLSR. Basically this cafe was paying one person
just to enforce the no-DSLR rule.

Panasonic G3 is not a DSLR


...but to a Jakarta trained "DSLR Cop" it looks like one. ;-)

To me, it looks more like a 'super zoom' camera.

....but you aren't the one making the call on cameras which might appear
to be DSLRs, and at a glance to a "DSLR cop" the G3 appears to have a
"prism hump" and even "super zooms" probably look like "professional"
cameras to the restaurant "camera cop", but you might get away with an
M9 or H4D.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-17 08:20:01 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:50:31 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-08-17 07:25:26 -0700, tony cooper said:
Le Snip

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?

BTW: If you check I believe you will discover that it is "Alfred" not "Alford".


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

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.

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..."."


Sorry about "Alford", Alfred.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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

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.