"Restaurants Turn Camera Shy," by Helene Stapinski in the New York Times, January 23, 2013

[JDawgBBall9]

An article in the New York Times about photographing food in restaurants. I know this has been a hot topic of debate before, especially with the hot new topic "Where Did I Dine?" that's popped up over the past few days, but it brought up a couple alternatives that I've never even thought of. What really caught my eye was in the first few paragraphs:

When it comes to people taking photographs of their meals, the chef David Bouley has seen it all. There are the foreign tourists who, despite their big cameras, tend to be very discreet. There are those who use a flash and annoy everyone around them. There are those who come equipped with gorillapods — those small, flexible tripods to use on their tables.

-----

But rather than tell people they can’t shoot their food — the food they are so proud to eat that they need to share it immediately with everyone they know — he simply takes them back into his kitchen to shoot as the plates come out.

Another place bans the diner from taking photos but provides copies of professional photos to customers at their request.

One thing the article didn't touch on was the marketing the restaurants get when the pictures of their food are uploaded to facebook or twitter or wherever. Of course a lot of the places that have restrictions on photography really don't need that extra marketing anyways.

I know Rogue 24 bans photography too but it seems a lot of people have never heard of this practice. Personally I don't need to brag to others what or where I've eaten and will obey whatever the chef's rules are.

[lperry]

It's an interesting issue. I don't understand how an entity can legally ban the photography of something that has been purchased by the diner, but at the same time, I certainly understand issues with people making a scene that annoys other diners. I've never encountered the types of scenarios mentioned in the article, but there have been times when I wish the restaurant could have kicked out patrons who felt a need to shout their conversations. A ban on flashes and the specified "photo area" above seem like good compromises.

[jayandstacey]

It's an interesting issue. I don't understand how an entity can legally ban the photography of something that has been purchased by the diner,..

Understanding your caveats - The restaurant is private property and thus the owner can have any such conditions...No soup for you! Purchasing the food only gives the diner the right to the food - not to take photos or do jumpingjacks or any other action if the owner doesn't want them. Besides (and this is only marginally relevant) - when the food is delivered, it usually still isn't paid for.

[lperry]

Understanding your caveats - The restaurant is private property and thus the owner can have any such conditions...No soup for you! Purchasing the food only gives the diner the right to the food - not to take photos or do jumpingjacks or any other action if the owner doesn't want them. Besides (and this is only marginally relevant) - when the food is delivered, it usually still isn't paid for.

OK, so if the diner has a right to the food, can he/she do whatever she wants with it? Can the diner legitimately smear the entire plate of food all over his/her table, chair, or dining companion then lick it off, just no pictures? An extreme example, maybe, but it really is a bit of a grey area. To be honest, I think the problem is more about people lacking common courtesy than anything else. And I've seen it on both sides - restaurant owners and patrons.

[jayandstacey]

OK, so if the diner has a right to the food, can he/she do whatever she wants with it? Can the diner legitimately smear the entire plate of food all over his/her table, chair, or dining companion then lick it off, just no pictures? An extreme example, maybe, but it really is a bit of a grey area. To be honest, I think the problem is more about people lacking common courtesy than anything else. And I've seen it on both sides - restaurant owners and patrons.

No, by "right" I mean right to possess. Like a car - when I buy a car and get a loan, I get the right to possess. (There's probably a legal term for that). Once I pay off the car I then outright own the car. Regardless (possess or own) I still must follow the rules of wherever I take that car - so different states have different rules for instance. If I pull my car onto someone else's property, I'm generally at the property owner's mercy as to what I can or can't do. (within some reason, for instance they can't dictate that I break a law with my car).

So a restaurant owner could have any rules like no licking, no smearing, etc. Of course, it would be impossible to cover all the "shall nots", so instead they just retain a blanket right to kick out anyone they want, for almost any reason. (some laws trump this, for instance, certain discrimination is illegal)

Back into the center of the topic, I kind of like the idea of a small (separate) staging area where photo taking is allowed. It is a way of saying "no pictures" yet accommodating those that insist on taking pictures. I also wonder how many places have that big a problem that they ended up with this solution. Is this a major issue? I don't see it much in my local Waffle House

[lperry]

No, by "right" I mean right to possess. Like a car - when I buy a car and get a loan, I get the right to possess. (There's probably a legal term for that). Once I pay off the car I then outright own the car. Regardless (possess or own) I still must follow the rules of wherever I take that car - so different states have different rules for instance. If I pull my car onto someone else's property, I'm generally at the property owner's mercy as to what I can or can't do. (within some reason, for instance they can't dictate that I break a law with my car).

Splitting hairs, yes, but I'm really curious now. You may possess the car, but you don't have the right to drive it without permission from another entity. So does the restaurateur have to give you permission to eat the food? I guess my point is that some things are expected (you purchase the food to eat it) and others may not be. I suspect that the majority of patrons feel they have the right to photograph anything they possess. Your point is that the owner of the establishment gets to draw the line, yes? But where to draw it. It's a bit of a dance, I think. How to keep things as you want your establishment to be without pissing people off so they don't come back.

[Choirgirl21]

From a dining perspective I don't see the harm in someone discretely taking a photograph with their camera or phone if they don't use a flash, tripod, etc. Rules against those specifics can ensure it's not distracting to diners at other tables. However, the article doesn't address another concern I've heard, which is that the resulting photograph may not be up to par with what the restaurant would want to show off the food, and generally we all know that those photos are going on the WWW relatively immediately.

In the end, I like to take photos of my food when I'm enjoying a meal at a restaurant I may not have the privilege to go to again, or commemorating a special occasion, and I do it discretely without the use of a flash, but I am fine with respecting a restaurant's wishes if they would prefer I don't. The menus that some restaurants send you home with (like Restaurant Eve, Minibar, etc.) are a nice alternative. I will admit, I have become very self-conscious about taking photos at all and try to do it when none of the staff is looking at me.

[JDawgBBall9]

From a dining perspective I don't see the harm in someone discretely taking a photograph with their camera or phone if they don't use a flash, tripod, etc. Rules against those specifics can ensure it's not distracting to diners at other tables. However, the article doesn't address another concern I've heard, which is that the resulting photograph may not be up to par with what the restaurant would want to show off the food, and generally we all know that those photos are going on the WWW relatively immediately.

I originally heard of this piece on the radio and this was a BIG talking point from chefs/relatives of cooks that called in

Another point was that other people in the restaurant business to take their art method.

[lperry]

In the end, I like to take photos of my food when I'm enjoying a meal at a restaurant I may not have the privilege to go to again, or commemorating a special occasion, and I do it discretely without the use of a flash, but I am fine with respecting a restaurant's wishes if they would prefer I don't.

I take a lot of photographs (no flash) of the food when I am in a foreign country so I can share with people who didn't get to go, and so I can look back and remember. Everyone has always been very gracious about it, even helping sometimes with lighting, or explaining various dishes in detail so I can understand them better. The restaurants in Beijing were fabulous about that.

Here in the States I've taken three photos at restaurants. I'm pretty sure that's a lifetime total. Two were recent, one of a menu and another of a menu and candle on the table, to share with people who gave us gift cards to dine out, and the third was last week, and of a plate of drunken noodles at Bangkok Golden. I took that one with my phone for the "where did I dine" thread.

I don't mind if others in a restaurant want to photograph their food, but I've never seen anyone be rude about it, either. I also can't imagine that any photo from a happy diner would be bad press for a restaurant, even if the photo wasn't "up to par."

[darkstar965]

I'm not an attorney but find the law fascinating (I know-another genetic defect :-)). I'd love for an attorney with relevant training to weigh in on this since I'll likely get it wrong from the legal perspective vs the personal view.

First, the personal view.

No problem whatsoever with a chef banning photography. Were it me, I'd ban flash photography so others wouldn't be disturbed. But, an ower should have the right to create whatever environment she wants subject only to the law.

Second, the legal musing from one who is not an attorney.

I think this may be a contract issue related to the purpose for which something is sold but, again, someone with a JD will know better than I do. My thought is akin to how it works with a protected logo or brand or with a regulated product (though I'd guess the former more analagous than the latter. I can buy an Apple ipad and do whatever I wish with it but that does not give me the right to use Apple's logo on my coffee shop (as example). Maybe similar here, the chef enters into a contract once food you've ordered is delivered to your table. But that offer is made for the understood purpose of eating and may not convey the right to photograph your plate and distribute the photos in a public forum. I could imagine a valid argument being made that, depending on the quality of the photography, a fine-dining or celebrity chef could feel it could harm her business.

At the end of the day, not a big deal for me. I go to a restaurant for a great experience mostly about the food.

[Pat]

I have seen someone be rude about it and, unfortunately, it was someone at our table who was an out-of-town guest. Used flash, was loud, took quite a while, insisted on photos of every plate, and was completely oblivious to suggestions it stop. It was a very uncomfortable situation. I wouldn't doubt that people at surrounding tables were peeved. The restaurant was also quite dark, so the flash was especially obvious. I ended up apologizing to the restaurant on my Open Table "how was this restaurant" form.

[i'm quoting above because it's become difficult/impossible for me to reply below quoted text. I can only enter text in the gray quote box or above it.]

I don't mind if others in a restaurant want to photograph their food, but I've never seen anyone be rude about it, either. I also can't imagine that any photo from a happy diner would be bad press for a restaurant, even if the photo wasn't "up to par.

[jayandstacey]

I'm not an attorney but find the law fascinating (I know-another genetic defect :-)). I'd love for an attorney with relevant training to weigh in on this since I'll likely get it wrong from the legal perspective vs the personal view.

First, the personal view.

No problem whatsoever with a chef banning photography. Were it me, I'd ban flash photography so others wouldn't be disturbed. But, an ower should have the right to create whatever environment she wants subject only to the law.

Second, the legal musing from one who is not an attorney.

I think this may be a contract issue related to the purpose for which something is sold but, again, someone with a JD will know better than I do. My thought is akin to how it works with a protected logo or brand or with a regulated product (though I'd guess the former more analagous than the latter. I can buy an Apple ipad and do whatever I wish with it but that does not give me the right to use Apple's logo on my coffee shop (as example). Maybe similar here, the chef enters into a contract once food you've ordered is delivered to your table. But that offer is made for the understood purpose of eating and may not convey the right to photograph your plate and distribute the photos in a public forum. I could imagine a valid argument being made that, depending on the quality of the photography, a fine-dining or celebrity chef could feel it could harm her business.

At the end of the day, not a big deal for me. I go to a restaurant for a great experience mostly about the food.

I share the fascination and the nature of my work, and having had JDs on my staff in the past, requires I know some of this stuff. I'm not, however, a JD.

My one cents:

Such protections come in the form of patents, trademarks and copyrights. Food is subject to none of those things. An owner might make the case that the character was defamed or there was libel if a pic is published- but, really, no jury would buy that, nor should they. What (I believe) it comes down to is the action of photography on the private property - does the owner wish to not allow photography in exchange for remaining on the property?

To stretch the point by assuming there was some protection for restaurant owners: Let's say an owner pushed to not allow photography because they somehow owned the rights to the visual representation of their art - how far does that extend? If I do carry-out - am I not allowed to take the picture of my food once inside my house and eating it? It seems impossibly hard to define/enforce - especially in today's instagram world.

Interestingly, art works, such as paintings, do in fact have such protections. So for instance, just because I buy a poster of a Picasso work for $6.99 - doesn't mean I can copy that poster and print it myself for resale - someone (Picasso family?) owns that right and all the benefits (commissions) that come from that work.

Do some chefs believe their dishes are works of art? I suppose, and I wouldn't argue against them. But the law doesn't view a darn fine burger the way it does a darn fine painting.

Any real JD's with input?

[hm212]

I would have an issue with a restaurant calling me out for taking a picture. It is their restaurant, so their rules apply but I probably would not go back to any restaurant that would call me out for taking a photo.

[jayandstacey]

I would have an issue with a restaurant calling me out for taking a picture. It is their restaurant, so their rules apply but I probably would not go back to any restaurant that would call me out for taking a photo.

Like with so many things in life, communication is key. If a restaurant doesn't appear to have a policy and I'm discreet about taking a picture , then yeah, I'm pissed if I'm kicked out. But if a restaurant has a policy and communicates it, whatever it is, then I respect that and know the game before I go. Its the surprises that happen from a lack of communication that are the root of many problems.

[lperry]

I'm interested in the legal implications, but I'm going to guess that there are simply no laws on the books because there is no contract other than the tacit agreement of the diner to pay the price printed on the menu. The rest is simply social norm, and as the norms shift, people inevitably get upset about it.

Pat, that's really awful.

[darkstar965]

I'm interested in the legal implications, but I'm going to guess that there are simply no laws on the books because there is no contract other than the tacit agreement of the diner to pay the price printed on the menu. The rest is simply social norm, and as the norms shift, people inevitably get upset about it.

I'd imagine you're right about there not being any legal precedent but wonder if that's more because this is one of the many tech-enabled areas with which the law hasn't yet caught up. Feels like an inevitable lawsuit that will be brought by a chef somewhere. Some loud, obnoxious person with a long lens will do something especially stupid and compile all the "worst hits" for a city into a book for sale or something like that.

[DaRiv18]

Without any background in this issue, I think this issue has less to do with intellectual property laws, and more to do with contract laws. The venue gets to provide the terms of service, which the guest somehow accepts when they enter the premises. If a restaurant has a clear policy, then I imagine it will be legally enforceable. I think of other places, like movie theaters or operahouses where paying customers are kicked out for having their cell phone ringers on. Sports stadiums, where throwing a home run ball back into the field constitutes an automatic ejection. I recall one story where the stadium had rules for "excessive standing", and they kicked out a fan for standing too much during the game. These other venues have clear policies of terms of use.

[darkstar965]

Without any background in this issue, I think this issue has less to do with intellectual property laws, and more to do with contract laws. The venue gets to provide the terms of service, which the guest somehow accepts when they enter the premises. If a restaurant has a clear policy, then I imagine it will be legally enforceable. I think of other places, like movie theaters or operahouses where paying customers are kicked out for having their cell phone ringers on. Sports stadiums, where throwing a home run ball back into the field constitutes an automatic ejection. I recall one story where the stadium had rules for "excessive standing", and they kicked out a fan for standing too much during the game. These other venues have clear policies of terms of use.

The contract angle was what I thought too (upthread) though your stadium examples feel a bit different in that they're policies that don't run afoul of any law and so can be enforced by whichever proprietor. I learned in a very basic business law class many years ago that a contract has three components: offer, acceptance and consideration. What I'm guessing is that the offer can be not just the thing or service for sale but also with approved and unapproved usages. So I can accept (and pay for--the consideration) the "offer" of dinner but only for the purpose of eating. Would a judge/court interpret photography (especially if for a commercial purpose) outside the bounds of the offer as reasonably understood and thus in violation of the implied contract? Not sure.

I hope your "excessive standing" example isn't one of my teams. That's a wacky policy. Reminds me of the obstructed seats at Camden Yards; might have been better to stand there when once we had those. Maybe because we were rooting for the visiting team.

[DaRiv18]

It was the Cleveland Browns.

My final thought on all of this, since there's so much focus on protecting the chef's brand, or the diner's experience, or both. If you're really going to take this on as a restauranteur, might as well look to protect the tipped employees too. If you're going to ban cameras in your restaurant, then you might as well automatically add a gratuity to the check, either as a separate line item or built into the cost of the plate. Look out for everyone involved in the restaurant, not just the chef and diner.

[Eric Ziebold]

I personally don't own a camera, and only on rare occasions take photos of anything, food or otherwise.

Did have an inspiring dish the other day that caused me to want to take a photo:

Had this at a Jolie Feuille gallery viewing just the other day. Absolutely delicious.

Only problem is that the 'restaurant' only has seating for 4 ppl. (6 if they're very friendly)

They're only open sometimes on Sundays and Mondays

They don't take reservations.

And they don't accept cash. (payment is only accepted in the form of a shared bottle of wine)

Besides the great dish, it's nice that if you're willing to jump through all of the reservation/payment hoops they're very accomodating when it comes to taking photos. (granted there was only 1 other person in the "dining room", but she didn't seem to mind.)

[ad.mich]

Reading these posts reminded me of an attempt at a romantic meal at Rasika that was overshadowed by the girl at the table next to us. She had a monster camera and tripod set up to take flash photos of every dish that came to their table (her setup was so bulky that there was barely any room for the plates and drinks). This went on the entire course of the meal.

Should I have said something? Probably. Are similar photos of every dish she was so insistent to photograph (despite Rasika's very not-photo-friendly lighting) likely already available online? Absolutely.

I'm not a big photo person in any facet of my life so the thrill of it (as opposed to, you know, enjoying the moment) is mostly lost on me. My only point is that this kind of extremely rude photography really happens.

[darkstar965]

Reading these posts reminded me of an attempt at a romantic meal at Rasika that was overshadowed by the girl at the table next to us. She had a monster camera and tripod set up to take flash photos of every dish that came to their table (her setup was so bulky that there was barely any room for the plates and drinks). This went on the entire course of the meal.

Should I have said something? Probably. Are similar photos of every dish she was so insistent to photograph (despite Rasika's very not-photo-friendly lighting) likely already available online? Absolutely.

I'm not a big photo person in any facet of my life so the thrill of it (as opposed to, you know, enjoying the moment) is mostly lost on me. My only point is that this kind of extremely rude photography really happens.

Absolutely agree that the person you describe was demonstrating some serious rudeness. I am a bit of a photography hobbyist--have shot with 35mm cameras for many years preceding digital and then with digital 35mm Less so with smart phones so far. But was lost on me as well when I first realized friends were using smart phones (and sometimes more serious setups like the one you describe) to photograph meals out. Then that there were websites (with startups behind them) designed specifically for people to share photos of their restaurant meals. All seemed--and still seems--kind of bizarre to me in a facebookish-who-the-heck-cares-what-you-had-for-dinner kind of way. That said though, this site has made me rethink the value and art of digital food photography though. Love the photos that fishinnards posts with his Thai cooking. Those really enhance the story he's telling the learning I think many of us derive from what he does. Then, of course, the new "where did I dine" game is a lot of fun and wouldn't be viable without photos. But, again, totally with you that someone doing what you describe at a restaurant would be given the boot if it was my restaurant.

[jayandstacey]

In my ceaseless quest to understand society's psychology, I offer two guesses as to what might be driving this compulsive behavior:

1. A quest for fame: Photo montages that span very long periods of time, say a pic of someone's face every day for 20 years...are popular on youtube and around the internet.

2. To satisfy the collecting bug: Many people like to collect things, some are hoarders, some are neat - but many collect something. Collecting photos of meals can be compulsive and is easy/cheap. When that bug strikes, it is particularly strong when going out to eat, as that is (presumably) more of a "special" meal, thus more worthy of documentation. No, an existing picture of the dish from the internet won't do - it must of the actual plate they ate from.