Selfies are NOT photographs

I have a hobby of looking at Churches, and was in Southwark Cathedral

As I started taking photographs, I was approached (very politely) by an elderly lady who was one of the staff stating there was a £2.50 camera permit

I consider this a reasonable way of funding the Cathedral, so apologised as I had not seen the sign and paid.
They apologised that the sign was unclear, and we parted amicably wit seasonal best wishes

A few moments later there was a heated argument with a couple who had "GoPros on sticks" and were taking selfies.

The lady had approached them and they were absolutely livid as "selfies" were photographs of themselves not the Cathedral and therefore they did not need a permit

A polite explanation that as they were taking photographs within the Cathedral , then a permit was still required

Nope - apparently not, as selfies are all about the individual the background is irrelevant and they were not going to pay.

Eventually after several minutes they stormed out using some extremely unchristian language


Now I must admit that I agree that selfies are all about the individual (in an unpleasant narcissistic way) but surely the argument they are not photographs is simply stupid!
 

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
self-gratification artists.
 
OP
U

ufkacbln

Guest
:laugh:
Surely the real issue is whether a £2.50 permit to take a photograph is pure extortion and a bit of a cheek.
As I said, I feel it is a valid method of raising funds

Now Westminster Abbey which charges £25 entry and you are not allowed to use a camera IS a ripoff
 

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
They're clearly knobbers of the highest rank.
While selfies may ostensibly be pictures of the self absorbed self-gratification artist if the context in which they are taken does not matter then why go further than your own front room to take them?
I'm sure they'll be all over twitter and facebook captioned selfie of me in *location*, so location does matter and if *location* have a fee for photography then it is due.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
:laugh:
Surely the real issue is whether a £2.50 permit to take a photograph is pure extortion and a bit of a cheek.
I don't think it's too unreasonable. IIRC, Southwark is still free to enter as a tourist, and it's not the cheapest of buildings to run. Like all cathedrals it has no guaranteed sources of income, so relies on donations.

Yes, cathedrals and abbeys can be expensive to visit - but they're all still free to enter for their original purpose...
 

stephec

Legendary Member
Location
Bolton
They're clearly knobbers of the highest rank.
While selfies may ostensibly be pictures of the self absorbed self-gratification artist if the context in which they are taken does not matter then why go further than your own front room to take them?
I'm sure they'll be all over twitter and facebook captioned selfie of me in *location*, so location does matter and if *location* have a fee for photography then it is due.
That's pretty much what I was going to say. :smile:
 

jonny jeez

Legendary Member
self-gratification artists.
That goes for the both of them...what an crap,way to raise cash for a church...charging people to record memories.

They should just charge for entrance and be done with it.

This isn't really about what constitutes a photo, it's about whether this should be charged. It shouldn't.
 

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
I don't think it's too unreasonable. IIRC, Southwark is still free to enter as a tourist, and it's not the cheapest of buildings to run. Like all cathedrals it has no guaranteed sources of income, so relies on donations.

Yes, cathedrals and abbeys can be expensive to visit - but they're all still free to enter for their original purpose...
https://www.yorkminster.org/visit-york-minster/opening-times-amp-admission.html

York Minster is only free for people with proof of residence in York. Fair enough I guess unless you are a genuine pilgrim wishing to enter one of the great houses of worship for religious purposes.

*as opposed to some atheist with a camera but a liking for the gothic like wot I am*
 

Arrowfoot

Veteran
I am ok with charging an admission fee for upkeep but charging for taking photographs is poor. These are national icons to be shared and not some commercial novelty or a zoo animal where you pay to pose with an animal and get your snapshot. We should be encouraging people to take shots and keep memories of their visit.

The trustees should be ashamed of themselves not realising the value of the things that they supposed to look after. Also indicates their inability to understand how to raise funds in a more appropriate manner.
 
OP
U

ufkacbln

Guest
I don't think it's too unreasonable. IIRC, Southwark is still free to enter as a tourist, and it's not the cheapest of buildings to run. Like all cathedrals it has no guaranteed sources of income, so relies on donations.

Yes, cathedrals and abbeys can be expensive to visit - but they're all still free to enter for their original purpose...
This I personally do not dispute, and Southwark was free, with the bonus of a baroque string section playing music

I always make a donation, and feel that a camera permit is 'safer" than nay implication that entry should be paid for.
 

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
That goes for the both of them...what an crap,way to raise cash for a church...charging people to record memories.

They should just charge for entrance and be done with it.

This isn't really about what constitutes a photo, it's about whether this should be charged. It shouldn't.
Disagree. There are plenty of more gaudy and commercialised places that ban photography completely.

I am not at all religious, but I recognise and respect that others are and to these people, churches etc are places of quiet spiritual contemplation and commune with their god & invariably by these types, donated to in the collection plate or honesty box. Why should their quiet and calm be disturbed by people like me or worse like the selfish OP gumps taking selfies and mouthing off about it if there is no quid-pro-quo and recompense. Life is expensive now and places that attract interest and can't / don't close themselves off to the wandering public have every right to impose whatever rules they wish within the confines of their building.

Edit: I think Churches are places where people should be able to come and go for free because they may well be there for their spiritual needs not simply as architecture tourists, a blanket admission fee penalises the devout and willing to donate against the rest of us in there cos its raining and cheaper than Starbucks or just after a few photos

Not sure what I pressed but the edit bit appeared as a new post.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom