Strictly No Photography!

Does anybody know what the story is with banning photography from historical objects and museums?

Until recently I’d always just accepted it without thinking about it. Then it started to bother me. There were quite a few places I’d like to have written about and shown on this blog, but photography was banned, and word-only articles just aren't the same. Unless you're Paul Theroux or Simon Winchester. And I'm not.

I wonder if it could be for security reasons? Thieves could use photos of interiors to work out how to break in for example. Or perhaps the administrators have the idea that if everyone sees photos of what they’re displaying, nobody will ever come and see the original?

Neither of those reasons really stack up to inspection though, do they? International art thieves are likely to have the cash to shell out for miniature hidden cameras and if nobody goes to places they’ve seen in photos, who are all those people at the Eiffel tower and the Sydney Opera House?

On the other hand, I completely understand the banning of flash photography around light-sensitive frescoes and canvasses, such as in the Sistine chapel. And in places where the only option is a guided tour, fifteen people scratching around with cameras and all wanting to take the same photo from the best angle would take forever (some of those tours drag on a bit as it is). I have no beef with stashing my camera in either of those situations.

But what’s the deal with places like the castle at Kuněticka Hora? It’s 50Kč to get in, you walk through at your own pace, there’s nothing valuable enough for art-thieves to bother about, (and it’s a castle so should be fairly secure). But photography is banned. Well, not actually banned. They charge you 100Kč to take photos and 200Kč to use a video camera. So in this case I guess it’s a clear example of market economics at work. If you have something people want and they’re willing to pay you for it, why not put a price on it?

What about the places that don’t offer that paid option though? Like the museum of wooden nativity scenes at Třebechovice pod Orebem. The security, and 'people won’t come if they see photos' reasons don’t make sense, so the only explanation I can come up with is that they simply don’t want to. The same way some restaurants don’t want to serve hamburgers and some accommodation providers choose not to rent rooms by the hour. If that's truly the case, then fair enough, but I don't believe it is.

Advertising is not cheap these days (if it has ever been) and in the age of digital photography, camera phones and websites like facebook, flickr and igougo, you’d think any tourist attraction would want as many people as possible getting the word out about them by talking, writing and sharing pictures. Wouldn’t you?

If I could have taken photos everywhere I wanted, I’d be writing right now about the beautiful interiors of the Nové Město nad Metuji chateau and why you should go and see them if you’re in the area. I can’t do them justice just with words. Maybe the words 'Dušan Jurkovič'. But then if you’ve not seen pictures of Mr Jurkovič's work, his name is not likely to get you too excited, is it? See my point?

Word of mouth is inexpensive and highly effective advertising and I just don’t understand why anyone would cut it off at its source.

So why do tourist attractions ban photography of their greatest assets? Is it like this right across the world or is it at its worst within the sphere of influence of Czech bureaucracy?

Any theories?