Jeanette Verster Photography

Hi Jennifer,

I think your frustration and shock have more to do with the potential use of a phtoto of a landmark site than security in this new era. (Although I certainly would not discount the security aspect either.)

There are some national parks in the US where you are required to obtain a license to photograph if they’re going to be published for commercial purposes (they’re going the same route they took with movie film crews; i.e., more regulatory restrictions and large fees to fatten the coffers of the goverment). Indeed, there are some NP’s where you cannot drive your own vehicle, but must use the NPS’s busses for sightseeing!

A few years ago there was great consternation when someone in authority in Italy proposed trademarking all of Tuscany. The would have resulted in a huge windfall of fees collected from professional photographers AND tourists. I lost track of where that preposterous proposal wound up.

The fact of the matter for a photographer is that distinctive buildings and landscapes are indeed recognizable worldwide. Thus, they could be trademarked or protected from image infringement.

Personally, I think the whole concept is just once more example of ideological liberalism run astray; e.g., if public sites belong to the public, then nobody should profit from them, or they must redistribute those profits to the people (as would occur with excessive taxation for the purpose of redistribution by the government of the wealth generated by those images).

Even the simple act of posting to a blog is actually publication, but in a worldwide sense. There may be no direct compensation to you from the image, but if your blog accepts advertisements, then everything on the the entire site shares in that minor compensation; hence, profit.

Thinking a little deeper: a casino is 1) a very public place 2) could be a crowded public place at times (wouldn’t know since I don’t gamble and have no desire to go to a casino) so there’s the terrorist security angle, and 3) most important, it functions to make money for its owners. Seems like a no-brainer to me that they don’t want photos taken. The same can be said for the “protection” around the fountain: it’s called due diligence in the event of potential injury and law suit. OTOH, from a “security” aspect, I look at your top photo and what strikes me as odd for a public place is no people, especially no uniformed or “men in black” security.

BTW, you can add museums and art galleries to your list of photo no-no’s.

So the morale of this excruciatingly long comment and your post is this: carry a very small pocket camera and take all the snapshots you want as long as you’re willing to accept the risk and consequences. But that really takes the fun out of snapshots or more serious photography.

BTW, did you successfully receive the files I sent you?

Jim

Oh I love your pictures, they are absolutely beautiful!!!

thedomesticdiva.org

Hi Jen! Nice to see you over at Dolce Pics again. =) I’ve been reading a lot about the exact thing you experienced when photographing public buildings. Perhaps everyone is on high alert with all the political unrest in the world these days?? It really is a pity!