Winter Gardens, Photos Can you take them?

I was in the Sheffield Winter Gardens today and i had a camera with me, so i thought i would take some shots. The first ones i took were of a sculpture made entirely of spoons and a lady who worked in the nearby shop was smiling as i took some photos.

I then noticed a side room called Metalwork, it had a good historical display of knives, silverware and other work from local tradesmen past and present.

So i went in and started taking photos, after a couple of shots i noticed a young lady nearby seemed to be paying interest? i took some more shots about ten in all and she then approached me and asked me to stop taking photos!!!

She obviously worked there and she explained the reason was to do with copyright laws,

i said i was 'sorry' and i understood and i asked of any notices explaining this? The lady spoke about a couple on display?

As i left the Metalwork room i looked on its door and saw no obvious 'Don't use camera' displays,

i left the room frightened to take any more shots in the building.

On leaving the building i had a look on and around the external doors for notices relevant to the matter and saw nothing obvious to me.

Am i on my own or have other people had similar experiences when taking photos?

It's common in most museums, I'm afraid.

i suppose it was because you were taking photos of the sculpures, though thay do allow photos in winter gardens, my mate had wedding pics took there, though dont know if they had to have permision.

JoeP, i am aware about museums and also other establishments that don't allow photos to be taken, but du to my ignorance i did not class the room in the Winter Garden as a museum..

That makes me right Do Do dont it.

To an extent it's expected to be understood in museums and galleries that created work is the copyright of the creator. But people are so used to seeing photos of works of whatever sort here there and everywhere that it's often forgotten that artists are trying to earn a living, and legally own the right of how their work is reproduced.

There's a difference between taking a photo of the exhibition room in general, or general shots where the paintings etc are incidental, and photos taken of specific works. I've worked at exhibitions for several years. Some people walk round an exhibition taking full size photos of every painting, and can't understand why it's seen as wrong. But if they take that photo and print it big and frame it, it's akin to walking out of Waterstones without paying for a book.

It might seem mean, but every time a living artist's work is shown in public media, it is credited to them, used by permission. If postcards, prints or posters of it are sold, they will get a royalty of some sort. That is how artists earn a living (usually a very meagre one), but people sometimes don't realise that. I agree that there should be signs explaining why photography is disapproved of, but as an artist I feel a bit disheartened that anyone needs it explaining.

Snooz, someone has told me the same. It appears that i was taking pictures in the wrong areas, so im now mr.....

Hey, me-and-pippo, you weren't in the Winter Garden though, the cutlery dinosaur is in the Millenium Galleries, which is a different building although linked

Thanks purdyamos, it is the first time i have taken any photos in a public building like this,

ninety nine percent of the pictures i take are out in the open countryside.

And i was taking photos of relics from the past cutlery industry not of any of the great painters,

what i can't understand is why the lady who was obviously part of the security allowed me to take

numerous photos before asking me to stop?

Who said dinosaur, if i had known that i would have taken a pici for definite.

the "other room" was the millennium galleries, not the winter garden, as has been said.

Part of the reason for not permitting photos of exhibits within the gallery is that some of the exhibits are made from fragile materials or paint pigments that are not light-fast (which is why you see dim levels of lighting in some galleries) and the flash from your photography can damage the materials.

Even if you are not photographing something delicate, directly, the light can "seep" and cause damage to items in adjacent cabinets, which can prevent future generations from enjoying the items on display.

You may have noticed that there were "blackouts" on the doors of the other rooms that you were wandering round, again, it's preventing light levels from getting too high inside the exhibitions.

Thanks purdyamos, it is the first time i have taken any photos in a public building like this,

ninety nine percent of the pictures i take are out in the open countryside.

And i was taking photos of relics from the past cutlery industry not of any of the great painters,

what i can't understand is why the lady who was obviously part of the security allowed me to take

numerous photos before asking me to stop?

I'd imagine part of the issue is how difficult it is to stop people from taking photos. Museums and galleries don't want you to photograph some exhibits for the reasons above (copyright and the damage flashguns can cause). However, there's no way you're going to explain to people what can and can't be photographed as you're bound to get some people trying to photograph one thing because they can see someone else allowed to photograph something else. It is far more practical to just have a blanket ban, especially in cases where some exhibits can be damaged by flash. I think the person working in the museum was probably being quite lenient and allowing you to take photos if you're not influencing others, but there's only so long people can turn a blind eye.

Weston Park Museum seems to have a fairly flexible attitude towards photography. Anything delicate or copyright seems to be grouped together in one gallery, so with the exception of that gallery I think you're allowed to photograph anything. This should make managing the museum easier and should make it easier to teach kids a bit of museum etiquette. Limiting the 'no photos' area to a gallery of a certain nature should help demonstrate why you can't take photos in most galleries. I don't think kids would learn anything from a blanket photo ban over the whole museum.

I think quite a few museums and galleries probably have certain non-gallery spaces which you're allowed to photograph. Am I right in thinking the cutlery dragon in the Millenium Galleries is in the corridor? That's still technically part of the museum, just not in the exhibition rooms so I guess you're allowed to take photos.

I never understand why museums, galleries, stately homes etc. don't wise up to people wanting to take photos and make it clear in guide books etc. what postcards are available of what you're looking at. Extortionately priced places like Chatsworth and Blenheim ought to offer a few postcards for free as part of the entry price. It'd save museum staff a lot of hassle, would give people a better experience visiting somewhere as they'd be able to enjoy just being there rather than feeling they have to surreptitiously take photos (or be jostled out of the way by someone else trying to do the same) and the photos would be heaps better than any that people can manage on their own camera.

Why would they want you taking photos when they can sell you glossy brochures and prints at inflated prices?