# Kuwait bans DSLR's in public



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Nice...



> KUWAIT: After the ban three ministries placed on photography, most Kuwaiti youth are a bit confused about what to do with their cameras if they can't use them in public and why such laws were implemented in the first place. The Ministry of Information, Ministry of Social Affairs and Ministry of Finance recently came to the conclusion that photography should be used for journalism purposes only. This has resulted in the ban of Digital Single Lens Reflex Cameras (DSLRs) in public, on the streets and in malls


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

There go my plans and wish to visit there. Phttttt!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Let's get Iraq to invade them!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, that's just weird... wonder if we might start to see any of that restrictive nonsense being visited on the West.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Max said:


> Yeah, that's just weird... wonder if we might start to see any of that restrictive nonsense being visited on the West.


In some US cities it's not uncommon to be harassed by police or security guards for suspicious behavior envolving long lens dSLRs.


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

KC4 said:


> There go my plans and wish to visit there. Phttttt!


How long had you been Kuwaiting?


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

Macified said:


> In some US cities it's not uncommon to be harassed by police or security guards for suspicious behavior envolving long lens dSLRs.


We had a movie shooting in a park here in Oakville last winter and part of the shoot was 'blowing up' a house that they had built. I happened to be driving by on one of the nights that they were shooting and went back with my camera, a Nikon DSLR with a 70-300 mm lens.

The guy manning the entrance to the shoot was kind enough to let me take a few pics but said that "although I know it seems stupid, I'm going to have to ask you to leave at some point or put the camera away". He acknowledged that it was the size of the lens.

I happened to look into a few NHL arenas policies on what can and cannot be brought into games after I saw a casual mention of length of lenses being restricted. It turns out that there are quite a few arenas and stadiums that have a restriction on lenses that are greater than 6". Both Ralph Wilson Stadium and Soldier Field in Chicago specifically state 6" restrictions for lenses. I wonder if this is an NFL policy. HSBC Arena in Buffalo doesn't mention a specific size, just "Guests may use cameras (including digital) with long lenses provided they do not obstruct the view of other patrons."

The ACC says that lenses are restricted to 75mm which is only 3". I wonder why the ACC's policy is even more restrictive than the NFL Stadium policy. Could that be for the protection of their tenants? Trying to make it more difficult to record their performances?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I can understand that there are copy-write issues, etc. Since I went to my first concert in 1973, the use of cameras has been banned for most shows (I've been lucky with sneaking my camera in). Same with attending the Canadian Open golf tournament. However in this day and age, how many people enter a concert or sporting event or even walk down the street without a device in their possession that is capable of taking a picture?

The opening ceremonies for an event like the Super Bowl or Olympic Games wouldn't be the same without the hundreds or thousands of flashbulbs going off that the broadcast TV director uses to create the effects. 

We have the Toronto Star article this week talking about how someone has been arrested for taking pictures of young boys in change rooms at public swimming pools. However he appears to have been using a small digital camera, not a DSLR. 

With the cost of creating a photo now 'nothing' compared to buying film and paying for the development, it certainly makes it easier for anyone to be an Abraham Zapruder wannabe. 

YouTube, Facebook, etc. have certainly impacted the way our rights to privacy are being treated. It will also be interesting to see how this impacts kids having a good time today when all of their partying is being captured in digital form. How many future Presidential candidates and other celebrities will be haunted by images of their past, not in blurry grainy copies of old black and white photos, but by crisp clean digital video images. Many of them taken without their knowledge. 

This is a dilemma for the lawmakers, and for law enforcement. It's no longer a simple "black and white" issue.


----------



## PhotoJim (Sep 10, 2010)

If the ban literally is about DSLRs, that's not that bad. Film SLRs and digital P&S cameras would still be allowed. (If this is the case, it's a pretty stupid ban, but as a film shooter, that works for me.)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think you should still be against it on principle, PhotoJim. It's the thin edge of the wedge. Next up, more classes of cameras to be outlawed? In my book, it's all screwy.

Point taken, Steve Smith, about a complex world that's riddled with ethical and legal dilemmas. But the technology genie is out of the bottle, and ham-handed attempts to ban use of any of that tech are likely to create more problems than the ones it allegedly intended to address.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The thin edge of the wedge is already in place in the west, in Kuwait it just went that much deeper.

I've read many horror stories of photographers being harassed for taking pictures for no other reason other than they had "professional looking equipment" meaning a dSLR with a long-ish lens.

I've read instances of parents with dSLRs being hounded by security at their kids sporting events because some professional photographer has *"exclusivity"* in taking pictures at the event. The fear being lost sales, competition and Facebook.

I've read instances of property owners placing a world wide copyright on their building's image (even the exterior) to prevent anyone from taking photographs of the building even though it's in a public place and accessible. Claiming security in a post 9/11 world but likely fearing stock sales. lol

A priest or minister bans photography for the pros paid for by the bride and groom, but won't say a word to the plethora of guests firing off their point&shoots during the ceremony. 

Sad times...more to come.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Of course, we don't know the actual reason behind this ban - whether it's a misguided/wrongheaded attempt at control of the citizenry/reduction of "security" threat OR if it's actually rooted in one of the tenets of Islam. Read on:

ANSWERED: What is the ruling of photography in Islam?

Of course, if the latter was the case, one has to wonder why point and shoots and cell phones with cameras aren't banned too.

Either way, it's batty.

In this day and age, when photographers get hassled in public places all over by overzealous security personnel and police, it's a good idea to know your rights. Some photographers have taken to carrying the PDFs with them.

Canadian Photographer’s rights:
Ambientlight.ca - Laws

US Photographer’s rights:
Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
and…
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

UK Photographer’s rights:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

Australian Photographer’s rights:
4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Thanks for the links Paddy.

I photograph a lot of food in restaurants, restaurant interiors and exteriors. I always try to avoid getting any people in my pictures as I do upload them to a restaurant review website. When I cannot avoid getting people or other identifying objects (such as license plates), I will take the time to blur these portions before uploading. 

If any restaurant owner asks me to remove a fine photo of a piece of slop he served me, I will, immediately. It's not worth the hassle and I do not have a building release.

I was questioned once by police who saw me driving around early one morning in an empty shopping area, taking photos (from my driver's window) of restaurant fronts with a long lens. (Easier for me - no people, no cars- no license plates to edit out) He asked for ID, ran my plates and after I explained what I was doing - he seemed satisfied enough to drive away. Only afterwards I realized that it must have appeared as if I was casing the joint.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

> UPDATE: Saturday 27 November 2010
> 
> RETRACTION
> 
> On Saturday, November 20, 2010 the Kuwait Times published an article titled 'Multi ministry camera ban frustrates artists' in which incorrect information was provided. The newspaper regrets failing to verify the information. The article wrongly stated that a ban on DSLR cameras was implemented by the Ministries of Information, Social Affairs and Finance. This information is false. In a follow up investigation, it was proved that no such ban has been issued. We regret this error and deeply apologize for any inconvenience caused.


Oops.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

That one's going to end up as an enduring urban legend, I bet.  It got lots of air time - the corrections often don't.


----------

