DC Photo Rights / Discuss

Current Discussion

Threaten with possible detainment and arrest by MARC conductor for photographing train
Latest: 6 months ago
Washington Post article: "Here are 159 minor things D.C. Police can arrest you for"
Latest: 6 months ago
Photography Licenses
Latest: 6 months ago
Harassed at National Harbor
Latest: 7 months ago
DC sues to stop ACLU suit over photography
Latest: 9 months ago
Long Beach Police Department Claims Authority to Detain People for Taking Pictures “With No Apparent Aesthetic Value”
Latest: 10 months ago
No photos at Burger King?
Latest: 10 months ago
Amateur Photographer Right's Watch campaign
Latest: 10 months ago
DC Police Sued by Photog w/ACLU Repping...
Latest: 11 months ago
“Sheer Insanity” as Reporters Arrested at Taxicab Commission Hearing
Latest: 11 months ago
Article in Wash Post today
Latest: 12 months ago
WJLA-TV Reporter Hassled
Latest: 12 months ago
More...

Search this group's discussions

Change in policy at the National Archives

view profile

erin m is a group administrator erin m  Pro User  says:

Ugh.

Visitors can still bring cameras, cell phones and video cameras with them when they visit, but security guards and staff will remind visitors about the "no photography" rule. Any visitor who ignores the rule after a warning will be asked to leave the building. News media and professional photographers with permission from the Archives will still be permitted to take pictures or video.

As of next month, the archives has decided to ban the use of cameras entirely in the rotunda and other exhibit areas. The stated reasons for this are sketchy, and their rationale for excluding photographers seems designed for no other reason than to increase sales of printed material in their gift shop. Photography is a basic first ammendment expression, and the fact that it will be banned in the most hallowed of halls in this city is an outrage.

This link further explains their justification.

Though they had an open period for comments some time ago, only three were submitted. And though those were entirely against the ban, the archives chose to ignore the logical arguments presented by the letter writers.

I'm not sure if there's anything to be done at this late date, but we have to try.
Originally posted at 7:28AM, 25 January 2010 PDT (permalink)
erin m edited this topic 28 months ago.

view photostream

Mr. T in DC  Pro User  says:

That's troubling news. First of all, they should just enforce the ban on flash photography near fragile documents, and second of all, aren't the documents already behind protective glass that will filter out the offending wavelengths of light from flash or otherwise? Glad I recently went there:

Constitution in the National Archives by Mr. T in DC

Posted 28 months ago. (permalink)

view photostream

Jim Poulos  Pro User  says:

If the government does not want us to take pictures of these documents then the government should supply photographs and copies to anyone who requests it FREE OF CHARGE!
Posted 28 months ago. (permalink)

view photostream

erin m is a group administrator erin m  Pro User  says:

@jim, they do, actually:

For those visitors who wish to take home an image
of the documents, the National Archives Shop has facsimiles of various sizes and price ranges available for purchase. NARA also provides visitors with the ability to access and print digital images of the documents from the Boeing Learning Center free of charge. Finally, NARA has posted high quality images of documents on display at the NAE on its Web site www.archives.gov; visitors can download or print these images from their personal computers at no cost.

Posted 28 months ago. (permalink)

view photostream

digitalyeti  Pro User  says:

I think the reasoning is clear - to further the preservation of fragile documents and other items where the contents of flash output is incrementally damaging.

What I would like to see is a clear and relatively unencumbered avenue for those interested in no-flash photography to secure permission to engage in doing that, with further assurances that once said permission is secured that the guards in turn are aware that it is ok.

It's obvious to me at least that the need to secure permission so that NARA is assured that the photog knows what she or he is doing and will follow the no-flash policy.
Posted 28 months ago. (permalink)

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

RSS 2.0 feedSubscribe to a feed of stuff on this page...</!!> Feed – Subscribe to DC Photo Rights discussion threads