| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2004 12:09:27 AM · #26 |
dump the ban:
 |
|
|
|
12/23/2004 02:36:24 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
In these situations, you do have an option that you should explore. If you enter a place of business or private property with the intent of making photos, go to the nearest person you see who works there and ask to see a manager. Tell the manager what you would like to do and generally, they will give you permission to do so. It puts them at ease and lets them know that you are not doing something for the purpose of hurting them in any way. Have any of you tried this? I have and I have not been turned down yet. |
I can see that working, but I'd be careful who you asked.
Security guards here are not exactly the fastest ISO available when it comes to thought processes (oh, I like that, I might patent it ;). I can see one of them being asked and getting a blankey "no" as it is a safer answer than them allowing you if they are unsure what to do.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 06:03:47 AM · #28 |
There is a camera ban in the oslo subway too...
Although it depends on how you take the pictures. I was taking pictures of a group of three old ladys on the other side of the tracks.. and the security guards came and told me that i was not allowed to take pictures of the subway area in general as it was a bomb shelter, and perhaps for other security reasons... they said however i COULD take pictures of people close up...
so i could take pictures of of my friend standing there, but not of the subway just in general. makes sense, although would seem hard to police...
btw... cell phones work in the subway here. |
|
|
|
12/23/2004 07:49:04 AM · #29 |
| Well regarding leaf's info about Oslo, I don't know if its sad or refreshing to know that NYC is not the only place giving in to the terrorist cult masquarading as a religion. |
|
|
|
01/08/2005 01:47:10 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by photodude:
At some point we have to ask ourselves if we want to continue to allow our freedoms to be systematically reduced or are we willing to do what is necessary which is to quarantine citizens of nations that harbor, sponsor and support terrorists. Citizens of these nations should not be able to travel to free nations. |
In a thread regarding banning photography on the subway, your reference to "free nations" is either satirical genius, or hilariously inappropriate.
Message edited by author 2005-01-08 13:51:03. |
|
|
|
01/08/2005 04:18:18 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by vince31874:
Advertising concerns or copyright issues maybe... thats all I can think about.
|
That wouldn't have much to do with copyright, that would fall under either trademark or patent laws. |
|
|
|
01/08/2005 04:28:43 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by strags:
Originally posted by photodude:
At some point we have to ask ourselves if we want to continue to allow our freedoms to be systematically reduced or are we willing to do what is necessary which is to quarantine citizens of nations that harbor, sponsor and support terrorists. Citizens of these nations should not be able to travel to free nations. |
In a thread regarding banning photography on the subway, your reference to "free nations" is either satirical genius, or hilariously inappropriate. |
For Your Protection
There seem to be no qualms about "the government" taking your picture whenever/wherever they want ... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 05:16:31 PM EDT.
