Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 19:14:02 +0100, "MC" wrote:
>
>> You can "snap away" until said patrons complain to the proprietor who may
>> tell the photographer to stop. It is also possible the proprietor could
>> even offer the complainer the option to leave the premises if they do not
>> like the chance of ending up in a photo. Best thing is to approach the
>> proprietor and ask permission. They may give permission with strings (i.e.
>> no people photos) of they may just let you get on with whatever you want.
>> Best to ask all the same.
>
> I disagree. If something is not expressly forbidden, then IMO it is
> *never* a good idea to ask for permission. Asking for permission does
> 3 things.
> 1) It informs the person you are asking that you believe they
> have the power to prohibit the activity and will not complain if they
> do so and
> 2) it forces them to make an immediate go/no-go decision and
> 3) it removes the possibility of the person "turning a blind
> eye" in the event that there is a prohibition policy in place.
>
> When faced with making a decision, most people will make a decision
> that they believe is least likely to result in negative consequences
> for themselves. Prohibiting an activity is usually less likely to
> rebound than saying "yes".
>
> My suggestion therefore is that you carry out any activity that you
> have no reason to believe is either prohibited or is likely to cause
> significant annoyance to other people. If an official tells you to
> stop, then stop.
>
It may be best to add a "Certain Countries only" caveat to this advice. ;)
Many countries do work on a "forbidden unless expressly authorised" for
an amazing range of activities.
--
Sue
|