Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I have seen several posts but not all.
Photos could be restricted due to the possibility of people not wanting to be photographed there for ANY reason. The "Pro" looking camera screams to many some social media post that could be unflattering.
So though I do not like it, I can sympathize.
I wonder if the historic Biltmore in the valley has the same policy?

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

In the OP, he stated, "On the second to last day I was stopped by hotel security and told I was not allowed to have “professional cameras” on property."

That is quite explicit wording.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

You left out: "I sad a Sony a9 with a 200-600 mm lens. The property is beautiful with lots of wildlife to shoot. I’ve stayed there 4 or 5 times in the past with no problems. Security told me only cell phones were allowed."

Because.....he wanted to take in all the wildlife they have on the resort. He was walking around with the intent to take pictures. They didn't stop and conduct a bag search for contraband photography equipment.



As a side note: I often wonder who those people are that blissfully drive slow in the passing lane, or drive 5-10MPH under the speed limit on a busy two lane road. I'm starting to get an idea reading this topic.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I learned a long time ago, not to play a doctor, tax account, or lawyer- there are professionals who should be consulted on serious matters. As civilians, laymen, or ordinary folks (photographers included) we shod be apprised of the laws and the rights we have as citizens. As a professional photographer, I try to have a working knowledge of commercial law, copyright law, and privacy as well as private property issues, but I won't second-guess my lawyer. I do a good volume of location work so I will consult with my lawyer from time to time to make certain that I have the right protective and indemnification measures in my contacts when I am operating on private property. I would rate pay a nominal consultation fee that has to pay a whopping legal fee to defend or launch a lawsuit.

Other than that, one simply needs to apply common sense. Weh you analyze their "no camera" policies, in certain cases, they do make sense. At concerts, entertainment venues, professional sporting events, live theatrical performances, there are many legalities as to the exclusivity of the performers' or athletes' images, profiting from a copyrighted or proprietary material, etc., and of course, preventing interference with the enjoyment other audience members. Many venues will require accredited press credentials.

As for hotels- Really?! is there an expectation of privacy in a public area, lobby, hallway, or dining facility? All this nonsense about folks cheating on their partners or otherwise misbehaving- well. If they carry on in public places they take their chances. So. here's where the common sense ends and the silliness prevails. Enter, Joe Photographer with his long white interchangeable lens. He's in town, staying at a posh hotel, to shoot some landscapes, wildlife, a sports event, or do some street photography maybe just wants some nice vacation shots of his wife in the lobby. Is he there to do surveillance photography of folks doing naughty things- part of a blackmail scheme?- is he a private detective? REALLY? What he gonna do- shoot pictures through keyholes- there aren't any keyholes anymore- most hotels don't even have keys- they have fobs!

Back to our cheating spouses and other outlaws, doing their dirty deeds in the halls of the hotel- Nowadays, their worries are not a guy with a fancy camera. There are closed-circuit and security cameras everywhere. There are millions of folks with cellphones that videograph everything from cute selfies to murders in progress. There are now cellphones that are capable of high-resolution images with zoom lenses and you work surprisingly well in low light- and they fit in a shirt pocket! When rioters, insurrectionists, and other bad guys do their things, they take selfies and candid shots of the "event". All the criminal evidence against them was produced by the perpetrators!

When major hotels are hosting VIP guests and high-profile events, there are security arrangements in place, and celebrities, politicians, and business moguls are used to the media and photographers and know how to use them to the advantage or avoid them if they so desire.

Any professional photographer worth his or her salt is not gonna set up a big shoot on private property without securing permission and paying whatever fees are required. Those kids of session are no goon be don at high traffic areas and are oftentimes carried out in the middle of the night in a cordoned-off area. Anyone who becomes a nuisance on private property deserves to be chased off. An innocent paying guest in a hotel, who is carrying an advanced camera shod not be accosted by security personally, especially if he or she is not disturbing anyone, causing a disturbance, or blocking or interfering with traffic. It's discourteous and disrespectful! Even if the "offending" photographer is a professional, but is not using the venue to do professional work and is simply on vacation or just shoot for his own personal purposes- who's business is it what a person's profession is? What is even more ill-informed and downright stupid- how can anyone determine one's professionalism or lack thereof by the length or color of the equipment or whether or not the lens comes off the biody.

At the end of the day, there is very little anyone can do to counteract nonsensical policies, after all, there are actual laws that are unfair, outmoded, ill-conceived and archaic- and they are still on the books! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure- especially if there is no cure! If you are planning a stay at a hotel and want to avoid any aggravation, find out the policies in advance and make your arrangement accordingly.

I rest my case- it's heavy, it's full of cameras and long lenses!

tauruscousins

First time hearing of this. It really does not make sense since Mobile phones are capable of producing high quality pro photos

repleo Loc: Boston

If I was some sort of celebrity staying at a fancy hotel, I wouldn't want want someone with an A9 and a 600mm lens wandering around the grounds. In fact, I don't think I would be comfortable about it even though I am not a celebrity.

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

They dont want to be sued. Too many guys are showing up to spend the night with somebodys wife.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

The answer? Keep cameras in bags until off property.

nikon123 Loc: Toronto, Canada

The owner of the property makes the rules and we as guests must follow them. The problem for photographers is two fold. First, many owners of 'private property' have not considered the issue in all its ramifications and if there are rules, they are not posted so that they are evident.
Cell phones should be treated in the same fashion as cameras. Cell phone images can be used for professional assignments. I have had many experiences with taking photographs on private property from being advisd not to use them commercially to a demand that I erase them fom my camera. In all cases, I comply.

tschuler

Then how come hotels always refer to their customers as guests? In ads, websites, mailings, etc. I never have seen the word customer used. It is always 'guest'.

On the topic, I have over 1500 nights at Marriott properties and over 500 nights at IHG properties and several stays at other hotels. I almost always have my camera (Current one is Nikon Ds4). I have never been stopped from taking pictures on or in hotel properties. (Knock on wood.)

I always try to get photos without people in them unless I am purposely taking pictures of people I know. Why would you want pictures of people unknown to you if they are 'vacation like' photos? Therefore, hotels which would have 'no camera' rules would be off my list.

DonVA Loc: British Columbia and New Mexico

I expect they are protecting the privacy of their guests from celebrity hunters and paparazzi. Since these are hard to identify they make a blanket policy. They don't seem to realize that paparazzi also have phones.
Nothing to get bent out of shape over though. Their place, their rules. Makes sense to me.

JBRIII

In most S. American countries told never to aim camera towards police or military, even from bus or car.

nikon123 Loc: Toronto, Canada

JBRIII
I have a wonderful photo of military police taken in Santiago Chile, with their permission. They then asked if I would like to be in a photo with them. They had shields, headgear and guns/rifles. Boy, did I ever look like a tourist!

Hip Coyote

It’s their property. A few years ago I was fortunate enough to work in the Bradbury Building in Los Angeles...one of the most beautiful and iconic buildings in LA. The building owner had the same policy....and would allow photography only on the first of 5 floors. Their rationale was that people could use the photos for commercial purposes and they wanted a cut or they had to control access. Many movies were filmed there, most notably Blade Runner. I kinda see both sides of the argument in that before the restriction, we had to walk around the many ad hoc wedding photo shoots to get to our offices. Or stand by while access was limited to our offices. If movies were being filmed, we had prior notice and designated ways to get to our offices. (Kinda interesting, if there was going to be gun play in the movie shoot, they would go from office to office to let us know...given we were all police and armed with real guns! ). Seeing movies made is like seeing grass grow...not very exciting.

On the first floor, there were hordes of tourists, often on guided walking (and Segway) tours, looking at the building. I think the owners tried to be reasonable but the crowds got to be too much for security and they simply stopped most unpaid activities. Who knows what craziness the hotel had to deal with to get to the point of their prohibition.

larbear360

I've worked in event management at resort hotels my entire life. The only reason I can see them banning cameras is to discourage non-guests from coming onto the property for wedding, engagement, portraits, etc. We had crashers every weekend displacing our brides from using the areas especially designed and landscaped for photography. And not all of them were non-guests. These people often were staying at the resort but holding their $50,000 wedding reception elsewhere. Since we couldn't kick them out for trespassing, the camera policy would shut it down.