How to use this Page

I am surprised that the architect would be the one worried about pictures being taken for commercial purposes. That seems like a strange reason to have that policy in place. It is a public building. If I was an architect I would want people to take pictures to show of my fabulous designs.

Newly-constructed buildings can indeed be copyrighted, but I’d bet that nearly everyone who takes a picture of the building is not intending to use it for commercial use or any other way that would infringe upon an architectural copyright. Seems like they’re using a howitzer to kill flies here.

I always wonder about these kinds of policies. It seems to me that you would want people photographing your library. Especially when so many people use Flickr, Dailybooth, or Brightkite or other websites that allow them to post pictures about where they are at that moment. I would think it was a free marketing resource for the library. I hope tons of people are taking pictures of my library with a twitter update that just says something as simple as “at the library.” What a great opportunity! Oh well… Architects…

That is a really weird and unfriendly policy.

IMO, a building paid for by tax dollars should be open season as far as photographs and copyright go. Maybe that’s just me.

I’m just glad they didn’t try to cite security concerns…

Just think of all the photos of the exterior & interior of Rem Koolhaas’s downtown Seattle Public Library – why would an architect not want that? Also the prohibition on photos that include signage for the library seems extra-strange to me. If they were smart they’d put their own set of photos up on Flickr and release them under Creative Commons for non-commercial purposes, and invite others to submit their own photos to add to the set. (I’m thinking of the Ann Arbor District Library’s site with its submit-your-photos-of-Ann-Arbor feature.) Voila, free marketing photos for the library!

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by jessamyn west, qadmon_rss and Roy Kenagy, Adam Burke. Adam Burke said: My [exp]. with the Des Moines [PL's] "no photography allowed" policy http://bit.ly/30qVpI (via @jessamyn) –> Sigh. Heavier Sigh… [...]

From what I’ve found, while copyright law does protect architectural plans, drawings, and models, it does not prohibit photographs. According to the US Code, Title 17, section 120: “(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.”

But someone please correct me if this is incorrect.

The library system that I work for also has a no-photo policy – for privacy reasons. I don’t think it’s weird at all. The couple of times I’ve stopped folks from taking pictures, they were doing it in order to harass other patrons. Not okay. Patrons should have a reasonable expectation of privacy within the library.

I am so sorry that this is the memory you will ultimately take away from your time with librarians in Iowa. I really enjoyed hearing you speak at ILA! What struck me about the ‘09 ILA conference is that librarians in Iowa do seem very polarized between openness and fear of openness; maybe this is the case with librarians everywhere, but it struck me especially at ILA this year.

I consider my public library (also in Iowa) to be very “forward thinking” (we just established our “Emerging Technologies Committee” and we’re starting to circulate eBooks via Overdrive!) but it’s seems like we’re still always running up against obstacles because we’re not sure what the law dictates or what our liabilities will be. It seems like a national crisis that extends beyond librarianship — a lot of people seem really confused about how to react to strict IP controls like the DMCA, copyright extension, etc.

As with the other commenters, I was taken aback by the architect’s concerns. Since when does the architect get to set library policy with regards to how the library markets and promotes itself?

My library also has a “no photograhy without management permission” for privacy purposes (note to self: on Monday, double check to see if it’s on our web site). There was an incident a few years ago which prompted it. If we know someone is taking pictures for a reason, we ask that they have anyone in the pictures sign release forms; if it’s for personal use, we ask that they try not to get any members of the staff or public in the shot.

[...] Original post by librarian.net [...]

I used to be that “someone at the desk” that you (rather dismissively imo) refer to. It’s quite possible of course that he/she used a rude tone of voice that caused you to make the ‘rude staff person’ judgment, and fairly so. However, the actual words you quoted that person as saying do not seem that rude to me. That staff member was just following policy, a policy that they clearly did not set but have been asked to follow, and make sure that patrons follow. Not all staff members at all libraries are allowed to contribute at all levels, many are in the position of simply doing what they are told. All staff members at my former POW were required to refer requests for information and photos to the PR director. Sad, silly, not very welcoming, but not a decision we were allowed to question. And there just isn’t a friendly, welcoming way to say “you can’t do that here”.

Dawn,

The way I understand it, if the photo is for personal or editorial purposes, you’re okay. But you couldn’t take a photo of a copyrighted piece of architecture to sell it commercially or use it in advertising.

(But I am not a lawyer!)

I enjoyed your presentation on “Tiny Tech” at the ILA conference and found this post via Twitter.

Just wanted to share my own story about photography at the library.

I volunteered for about 6 months with the Children’s Department at the Central LIbrary in Des Moines, and everyone I met was extremely friendly and helpful. One day, I was assigned to photograph different parts of the library (the stairs, the computer stations, the self checks, etc.) for a children’s activity. I had been taking pictures for about half an hour without any problems, when an employee came up to me and told me I was violating the photography policy.

I hate to use the word “rude”, but that was about the only word to describe her behavior. It wasn’t just what she said, but her body language and attitude that immediately made me feel uncomfortable. Even after explaining I was taking the pictures FOR a library program, she still made me feel like a student in detention by calling the librarian who asked me to take the pictures to check to make sure I was telling the truth. It was bizarre, and I remember walking back to the children’s department with an uneasy feeling, like I’d done something terribly wrong. The librarians laughed at me and kind of shrugged it off as just another policy. It was funny to me at the time, but after reading your post, it reminded me of my own experience, which I just wrote off as someone having a bad day and taking it out on me.

The building is so unique and beautiful, and it’s sad that policy can get in the way of people sharing with others.

Thanks for coming to Iowa, and I’m sorry your trip to the Central Library wasn’t the greatest, because it truly is a great library.

As an architect myself, I have to say that architect David Chipperfield’s request is completely ridiculous. His commission was no doubt paid by the taxpayers and public of Des Moines, and it is precisely this public that should have to right to photograph the building. Libraries by mission are dedicated to the public dissemination of knowledge – if an architect finds that inconvenient, they should probably be looking for another project.

I’m an architect as well, and I’ve worked on projects where something like this happens. Usually it’s a building that is designed by a marquee architect like Mr. Chipperfield. Goes like this:

1. Somewhere in the contract is a clause that limits commercial photography. Many architecture magazines will not publish a building that has had any prior coverage (including ads) so it’s basically for that purpose.

2. Maybe the PR department is very diligent, or maybe this gets mentioned in an architect-client communication. In any case the idea that photography is bad is reinforced.

3. This idea gets handed down the the staff in a simple declaration that no photography is allowed. Period. In addition, perhaps some staffers see this as a way to further their control over patrons, or maybe they’re just very literal minded.

In fact, the original document limits that control to commercial photography, which should be easy to spot as distinct from a patron snapping pictures. My guess is that the architect will be as surprised (if not necessarily disappointed) that this happened as you were.

This is a public space we’re talking about, paid for with tax revenues to be used by the public.

I could see restricting photography to protect patron privacy, but not the building. If this was indeed started back when the building was new, it needs to be revisited and revised.

As a director, my question would be, why is my staff responsible for policing photographers on the architect’s behalf? Esp. years later?

I’m sure DSM staff would appreciate having some sort of printed policy they could point to to explain the restrictions. Expecting staff to come to their own conclusions about a verbal-only policy is the best way to create confusion and bad feelings.

The only reason I said “someone at the desk” is because I have no idea if I was talking to a librarian, a circulation clerk or a volunteer and I didn’t want to make assumptions.

I think there are actually a lot of decent ways to tell people they can’t do something in pleasant and (if needed) apologetic tones. I hadn’t seen a sign and I walked into the library and immediately felt like I’d done something wrong. I’m a rule follower generally so this made me feel bad. I was pleased with the follow-up from the library but to my mind if you have a policy that is that important, it’s a good idea to have signage right up front to match it.

It’s not fair for front desk staff to be the people that have to tell everyone in the new architectural model library to put their cameras away. It’s awkard for them and awkward for me.

(I am not a lawyer) But a quick skim on the web as well as what I recall from my Professional Practice class and the AIA contract documents and Code of Ethics both lead me to believe that while the building itself may be copywright-able, that does not prevent individuals from taking photographs of it if done so in or from a public place. Given that this is a public library, it seems like the desire to limit photography is futile and doesn’t hold water.