"No Photography Allowed" - A History of Photo Taking Bans

We have all seen the signs. We have all heard the phrase. "No Photography or Videotaping Allowed." These signs and warnings are to be expected at theaters, private landmarks, and even art exhibits. However, a recent trip to an establishment with locations around the globe resulted in surprise and a verbal lashing from the establishment's owner. No, it was not a movie theater or an art gallery. It was a Burger King fast-food restaurant.

Photographers around the world have been faced with increased security as a result of terrorism and suspicious activity. For example, New York City established a "No Photography" rule inside subway stations after September 11, 2001. A flash in the subway tunnel would land photographers a $25 fine. In 2005, however, the photography ban was dropped after opposition from several photography organizations and free speech advocates. The summer of 2007 brought a renewed concern for photographers as New York City tossed the idea of requiring permits and insurance for many photographers who plan to use city-owned property -- including sidewalks.

The first "photograph" was taken on August 19, 1839, by Louis Daugerre. Little did he know, his groundbreaking daguerreotype paved the way for a future of capturing birthdays, births, vacations, celestial events... basically everything. Just three decades ago, photography was limited to professionals and those who could afford personal hand-held cameras and film. Then came the revolution in photography - the migration from film to digital. As prices for digital equipment continue to fall, more households are able to afford quality camera equipment to capture memories for a lifetime. With digital cameras in the hands of more people, "No Photography" signs have been popping-up in more places each year. Is it a security issue, or is it simply a matter of privacy, or is it caused by something else?

As FOX News reported earlier this July, Gary Crutchley and his two sons spent a day at a park in the United Kingdom. This innocent family outing turned into a nightmare as Mr. Crutchley began snapping photos of his sons on a slide. The slide attendant asked the father to stop, but Mr. Crutchley refused. Upon hearing his refusal, other families in line at the slide began demanding Mr. Crutchley to put away his camera. The ordeal escalated as one woman accused the man of being a pervert, taking photos of children to post on the Internet. Finally, Mr. Crutchley located two policeman to assure everyone that taking photos was allowed.

Digital photography has advanced so much during the past decade that even cell phones and binoculars have built-in cameras. Indeed, the number of "pervert" cases has increased as technology becomes smaller, more easily accessible, and more viable for such actions. So is the increase in "No Photography" notices a result of paranoia, over-protectiveness, or just erring on the side of caution?

Here, the question of free speech rises. As in the case of the father in the U.K., the public park and family-friendly nature of the outing proved to be a hassle once the camera was seen. Personally, a recent trip to a local city park with my camera drew stares from parents as I snapped photos of the historic carousel. The key to dealing with situations like this? Simple. Smile at the parents, carry conversation with them, and point your camera away from their kids! Do not make yourself look like a creeper or a pervert. If a parent questions your actions, just show them the photos you took and assure them of your photography ethics. Unfortunately, not everybody is friendly and understanding.

In June, a Washington, D.C., television crew investigated several claims by photographers about security at Union Station preventing people from taking pictures, even though there were no "No Photography" notices anywhere. In fact, as the television crew interviewed an Amtrak spokesman about how photography is allowed, a security guard confronts the cameraman and tells him to stop filming. Here, the security guard is asked why and responds by stating there is a policy on photography, yet refuses to state the policy. This incident raises more questions about "No Photography" policies -- how can the policies be successfully enforced, and in cases like the Union Station incident, how can photographers challenge the policies without causing a commotion?

As technology continues to evolve and digital photography leaps into the next generation, more and more "No Photography" signs are sure to be posted. But the line between freedom of speech and indecency continues to become hazier each day, to the dismay of photographers. As a result, the photography revolution of the past two centuries is now becoming less of an art-form or expression of personality, but more of a cause for concern and paranoia. So whenever you hit the road with your camera in hand, just remember the common rule: if it's public property, photography is allowed... or is it?

RESOURCES:

Report: Father Labeled a 'Pervert' for Taking Pictures of Own Children in Park. FOX News.

Union Station Photo Flap. My FOX Washington, D.C.