I'll preface my post by saying that some of the rules, prohibiting, limiting or controlling photography and certain kinds of equipment usage are justified, sensible, legal, necessary for any number of legitimate reasons and should be respected. Some of theses restrictions however, are baseless, unwarranted and defy common sense. Perhaps some of theses “permits” are simply “cash grabs” on the part of municipalities or private entities. Surely some are based on rightful grounds such as safety issues, copyright and intellectual property protections, preservation of artifacts, damage and liability indemnification, real security considerations and religious tenets and in place so that other visitors can peacefully and safely enjoy exhibits and attractions without obstruction. Sometimes the exact rules or their reasons for being are ambiguous and unnecessarily enforced by overzealous police officers, security guards or on-site volunteers.

In today's supposed tech-savvy environment with the proliferation of more cameras, smart-phone cameras digital photography in general, it is surprising how little some otherwise intelligent folks understand about photography and there is lots of mythology out there. I found out that the photography of a cretin view of a military building in my city, which is National Capitol of Canada, is prohibited because it was thought that top secret documents could be photographed from the exterior of the building- through a brick wall with no windows! A museum archivist that calls me in regularity to photograph priceless paintings, told me that there is no data to show that the cumulative effect of the level of ultraviolet radiation produced by the average speedlight cloud cause any appreciable damage or fading to paints or pigments in artworks. The restrictions on flash go back to the day of possibly exploding flash bulbs of the 1930s and 40s. Museum photographers routinely use high powered electronic to catalog there collection and produce prints and reproduction for the public consumption and publication in books and advertisements. Can the average security person differentiate an amateur from a professional strictly by the “look” of their gear? Makes little sense!


Unfortunately, some of theses rules were enacted because of the the actions of both amateur and professional photographers who somehow believe that their cameras and gear come with a license to go anywhere they wish and do anything the want and even exhibit belligerent behavior when approach by security or management officials. I have seen some of theses folks cause damage, become nuisances and getting themselves ejected. Sometimes, the authorities or decision makers in theses venues and sites, to preclude all of theses problems, just decide to paint all photographers with the same brush and ban all photography.

So... be that all as it may- I am a professional photographer, NOT a lawyer, a museum archivist, a security expert, a policeman or an activist for the interest of every photographer on Earth. I am not an investigative photojournalist in a hostile land! I am called upon to work at all kinds of public, private, government and industrial places. My strict policy is simply to secure permission, permits, clearance and whatever else is necessary to simply walk in, do the work, get my job done in a smooth, enjoyable and unencumbered fashion. I don't want to waste time and energy on any kind of argument, altercation or unexpected limitation on what I can do. I don't want to haul around heavy gear only to find out that I can not set it up. If there are reasonable restrictions, I need to know in advance and prepare accordingly. If I don't have the pass or the paperwork well in advance, I don't accept the assignment- I don't go there! If there are paid permits, the clients need to pay or reimburse me. I have been granted access to some venues on days when they are ordinarily closed to the public or at off hours so I could work without interference and not pose any safety issues or cause inconvenience to

That's my professional side! As a private citizen, tourist regular guy with a camera, I don't want to waste my rare spare time, my vacation time or money on places that restrict photography- I wanna take picture there! . I certainly do not want to inconvenience other folks who are trying to enjoy their time or clash with the security folks. So again, I inquire ahead of time and find out what, if any, restrictions are in place, what the costs of admission and permits entail and decide in advance if theses are worth the expense. Once I am there, I mind my own business, keep a low profile, abide by the rules and act nice!

Nowadays, it is unwise to assume anything or any rights, especially if you are traveling in unfamiliar places or foreign countries. Even certain municipalities, towns, and villages may have their own bylaws that can differ from other local, state, provincial and federal norms. On private property and premises, church and religious sites, indigenous lands and reservations, and on or near certain secured governmental or military properties, you must abide by all restrictions- theses are not necessarily “public” places!

Strictly on a personal and public relations note, many folks would be surprised on how much help, extension of courtesy, cooperation and welcoming attitudes they can garner by simply taking the time to ask permission and acting in a straightforward friendly and courteous manner.

No argument there. It is just annoying when rules are based on false arguments... like having cell phones on in an airplane will interfere with the plane's navigation systems. Right. The plane is approaching the airport of a large metropolitan area where there are millions of cell phones in active use, and there are cell towers beaming out cell phone signals many orders of magnitude more powerful than what a cell phone emits... but my phone will bring down the plane. Utter nonsense. I believe people would more readily comply with rules if they were based on reasonable arguments.