I'm trying to understand why having a DSLR would single him out as a target, or even if the museum manager knows the difference. Seems like an odd thing to pick out as the cause of the issue...?

Two sides to every story.

If I was the curator of a museum with protected works I too might be suspicious of a guy sporting a 'professional' looking camera setup more than a crappy P&S.

Using a DSLR with a 'fast' lens would allow a person to take photos without a flash (unobtrusively) and possibly document security measures and equipment in anticipation of a crime - AFAIK that is one of the main reasons to disallow photography in certain galleries and museums. People with P&S cameras simply don't know how to take those types of photos or have the equipment to take them very well.

Just because the curator couldn't identify that a 14mm UWA was not a 'zoom' or 'telephoto' does not affect how he should handle the situation , police officers does not need to identify the brand of tires on a car to know if it's speeding or not, they will address the behavior regardless of the equipment.

Police Officers DO not...

stupid no editing comments.

Me thinks sketchy has been watching the Ocean's series of movies a little too much.

I think Thomas should get the $20 cost of admission as part of an apology. Granted he had the family membership, but let's pretend he didn't.

Who would want to spy on the MOMA staff anyways?

Point and shoot cameras can shoot without a flash. I doubt anyone planning a crime would bring a full body SLR when they can just blend in with the crowd with a high res point and shoot.

But to follow your logic, Sketchy, he was the only one picked out of a group of people all taking pictures and reprimanded for takign pictures.

Lens size means jack, unless it's why he was singled out.

He could read the Constitution, then the relevant caselaw, and then write a report and apology to the OP detailing their findings of the fact that photography is protected in public spaces (which is anywhere open to the public).

They should be forced to hang his photo in the atrium as an apology :-)

sketchy,

"AFAIK that is one of the main reasons to disallow photography in certain galleries and museums"

They disallow FLASH photography in many museums, because the flash of the cameras have a tendency to "break up" the chemicals in the paintings, the Louvre was able to install special isolating frames on some paintings that are safe to use a camera flash.

If you are the curator of an art museum, you should be able to appreciate/respect other people's art, he failed miserably whether or not Mr. Hawk was "in the right".

Resigning.

one day, everyone will have continuous video all the time, you'll never know...I wonder what all these places will do then? Also, people are f*cking morons. Hopefully that security guard manages to accidentally die before he has children...

Seriously. Simon ether did not know, or cared not of, the new policy allowing non-flash photography. He should resign in disgrace.

Reminds me of the time I was in Spain in a cathedral. Nowhere did I find anything that said I couldn't use a flash. And it being an ancient cathedral and very dark on the inside, the best way to take pictures was with my flash. The only rule I was able to find on cameras was no tripods. The *whole* time I was inside this building there were flashes left and right of me...and yet, people come up to *me* and get angry with *me* because I'm using a flash. I believe I was also targeted for having a digital SLR :\

DSLR=target because the aforementioned MORONS seem to think better camera = professional. I bet you are not allowed to take commercial phtography anywhere in the building (which is reasonable). But the underpaid security staff doesn't want to spend time actually vetting anyone so they guess at who might be violating policy. I've personally taken almost that same picture in the SF MOMA (althought with a P&S, not my DSLR).

@sketchy: I don't get it you both brought up a valid point, and contradicted it in the same statement. If the police don't care what kind of tires you use, than the security shouldn't care what kind of camera you use (and FWIW you can et P&S camera's with f/2.8 lenses these days so your argument is moot there too).

I agree that it was because he was using a DSLR.

I had the exact same thing happen to me at Canterbury Downs (horse racetrack in Minnesota). We called the day before AND the day of to verify that we could bring a camera for personal use. We said that it was a DSLR, and described the camera in case they didn't know what one was. They assured us that as long as we weren't SELLING the photos, then it was fine.

A very long story short we were accosted by security, who told us that only people who use cameras like that sell the photos. Even though we got the Information Desk woman to ADMIT that she said we could use the camera, we had to leave. 1.5 hour drive home.

@sketchy: If the curator couldn't identify a zoom/telephoto, he shouldn't have had the audacity to accuse the OP of using one. And your speeding analogy is faulty, at best. A better one would be that he was targeted for driving a Lamborghini on a road filled with Fords; he was ejected for choice of instrument, rather than doing anything wrong with it.

I often have similar experiences - being asked to stop taking photos in museums with my Nikon digital SLR, while all around me there are tourists snapping away with compact cameras, using the flash (which I NEVER do, under any circumstance). It just happened again two days ago... Same goes for video - I have a Panasonic DVX100 and I was using it to film the Louvre's Pyramid one afternoon. Guards approached me and asked me to stop, while there were tourists with small videocameras happily filming away...

@tedyc03:
Places that are open to the public are not always "public" places in the sense that the owners cannot restrict activities that the government cannot. Shopping malls, for example, can generally restrict the kind of speech that occurs within their bounds without running afoul of the first amendment. Certain states have laws that say otherwise, but generally the museum can set whatever policies it wants regarding photography, and the fact it is "open to the public" has no effect on that.

Well, this is San Francisco after all. He had the gall to bring his "family" out in public and it probably offended the sensibilities of the museum-going set. A mom, a dad, some kids...YUCKY! How dare they force their beliefs on the people in the museum by showing their faces in there. The nerve!

San Francisco is Bizarro-Land. Down is up, left is right, and a bum shitting in your doorway is more valued than a tax-paying family supporting a public facility in a way their entitled to do so.

How strange that a visitor who wishes to use a DSLR to get higher quality image in an art gallery can't do so. How ironic.

"bum shitting in your doorway is more valued than a tax-paying family supporting a public facility in a way their entitled to do so."

Wrong, in SF a bum shitting on your doorway is considered just as human as the tax-paying family.

I failed to see your point given that you just offended the millions of people who live in SF. You're saying that this could not have happened anywhere BUT in SF?

Well, I immediately dislike people who say "my art" as many times as this guy did. I've taken pictures int hat same spot with a DSLR and with a long lens on it (150mm) without issue and I even confirmed with a nearby guard before I did that it was ok (this would not be the first time where someone simply assumed that "big camera" means "professional photographer trying to make sellable photos in our privately owned space" so if I'm in doubt how someone will think about it I just ask).

Also, the few times I've strayed into places where I shouldn't be taken pictures I've just been told to stop. So I tend to think that maybe Thomas wasn't quite so nice and polite as maybe indicated. But taking him at his word, then MOMA should make sure everybody on staff is aware of photography policies and their apology to Thomas Hawk should consist of "We're sorry and you can have your family membership fee refunded if you wish."

DSLR puts you in a bad spot. That's all I use, and I always get hassled. I've been shooting in enclosed public spaces before where photography is permitted and been told I needed a press pass to shoot with a pro camera. I always point out that my GF's PnS takes higher res photos and just walk away, snapping as I go...

Also, go to Flickr and search "sfmoma lobby" and you'll find dozens of photos of that same room taken with a DSLR.

Blint may wind up regretting this. Google his name now; this incident, and his general if not nearly universal skewering for handling it as he did, is what you get.

This has happened to me twice before here in St. Louis. Now the camera I have is the first Sony camera that burned to a mini-cd that I got back in 2001 (yeah I know it's a relic.) It is very large (larger than probably the OP's camera) and will do both pics and 15 sec video clips.

At a Jessica Simpson concert (back when she was still married to Nick Lachey) I was not allowed to have a camera as supposedly there was no cameras allowed, even though there was no sign or notice about that. I went back and put my camera up in my car and went to my seat, where I saw a bunch of people with point and shoots, disposables, and cell phone cameras and I complained all the way up to the on-site supervisor of the arena crew who couldn't give me a straight answer and still wouldn't allow me to have a camera, so I tore my ticket up in their face and left the concert before it started.

The second time was last year at the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view in St. Louis but I was allowed in by the supervisor there (different venue) as I explained how old my camera was and why it was so big (not mentioning the small video capability as there was a sign for no camcorders so the video wouldn't be put on the net.)

@juggler314: Wow. Death. You didn't even go "stand with his junk in front of a microwave"

Read all the comments on his blog. Another side is starting to emerge. It wasn't taking the picture at the top of this post that got him ejected.

Apparently he was actually ejected for allegedly taking photographs of a female museum staffer directly below his point of view from a balcony (as in, straight down) who did not care to be the object of his photographic attention. There were witnesses in the museum who are starting to post to his blog.

Time for an update, Carey?

Shut down the museum, fire all of its employees, and give the money saved to the bankrupt state.

[www.facebook.com] here's the loser

I like SF MOMA, but this is disgusting.

The only answer is to create a temporary art exhibit in the Atrium with works of art which feature SF MOMA itself. Naturally, Hawk's work would be part of this exhibit. There is no other acceptable solution.

@tedyc03:
I agree with Pylon. This museum is not what the case law would classically call a "public place". That classification is reserved for places such as sidewalks. The museum certainly has the right to restrict photography under the constitution.

@sketchy: So his choice of camera means it's okay to treat him as though he's guilty, even after he offered to provide mounds of evidence that he wasn't?

Um, innocent until proven guilty? Your analogy about police officers not having to verify the type of tire on a car that's speeding doesn't match up. The police officer would have to have PROOF that the car was speeding before he enforced the law and gave the ticket. The jerk at the museum had no proof whatever that Thomas Hawk was doing anything that was in violation of the museum's policies about photography. In fact, he rejected any proof that was offered to him and decided to act like a Neanderthal instead.

There are indeed two sides to every story, but in this case, one side of it is solidly in the wrong, steeped in the kind of fear and ignorance that are eroding the quality of public life in America.

Next time you go to the museum have a print out of the photo policy. If there is a problem show them the print out and if they still balk demand a refund. If they don't give a refund take them to small claims court. It may cost more than the refund, but there are some things which should be done on principle. You pay for something, you follow the rules, the other party breaks the rules it sounds like a breach of contract.

Maybe the issue is he was taking pictures of the atrium, not from the atrium. He was either on the stairs, or the balcony that overlooks the atrium. Also, an SLR camera would certainly appear to be a telephoto lens to an untrained eye.

@lingum:

Seriously?

Not just "blame the OP" but "blame the city the OP was in"?

Seriously?

(and as a life long SF resident - if the following comment gets me booted off consumerist then so be it)

Go cash your welfare check, buy a couple 40's and go back to the trailer and bang your "common law" wife/cousin/sister.

Not so nice to be overgeneralized about is it?

@lingum: Not sure where you are from, but if I had to choose between living in San Franciso where different live styles are accepted, or where you are where only people who conform to your life style is allowed to live, I'll choose San Francisco.

@scoosdad:
No offence but that sounds like bs he made up to cover his rear.

@rinse: I would choose somewhere where a studio apartment doesn't cost $1500/month, but you can still live a good life, like Portland.

Frisco is the best place in the world if you have bags of money, though...

@varro:
"Good Life" is a relative term. Some people like the fast pace and cultural diversity of cities like San Francisco. Just because you're a crumudgen and like the slow boring pace of places like Portland doesn't mean those who live in places like San Fran are fools throwing their money away.

@lingum: As someone who lives in the Bay Area who himself considers SF to be fucked-up, even I have to say to you, bugger off. God forbid we don't force YOUR beliefs on everyone. This story has nothing to do with SF and everything to do with ignorant assholes, who inhabit every major city, town, village, and trailer park in every state and every nation, regardless of prevailing political climate.

Two things. One; great picture! Two; places like MOMA are graveyards for art. They are there for rich people to fool themselves that they are making the world a better place.

Thus Blint knows that his job has nothing to do with art but everything to do with keeping the rich people's money flowing in. He probably thought he smelled trouble and real artists do tend to stir up trouble with their art in exposing uncomfortable truths. Hawk's mistake was thinking that Blint would side with the art. Wrong. But Hawk being a true artist has now stirred up trouble with his art that has exposed a truth that Blint didn't want exposed.

So if you want to get Blint make sure that somehow this drags in some of the larger donors and Blint will throw himself in front of Hawk begging for his future.
Hawk please post pictures of this begging. Your ultra wide will exaggerate the pleading look on Blint's cold sweaty face.

@Pylon83: Wouldn't it be easier to have a life full of diversity and experiences if you had *money* to do things instead of shoveling money to a landlord because real estate is overpriced?

@varro:
I suppose living in a big city is simply a lifestyle choice that some people will never understand.

I suppose Mr. Blint could agree to be waterboarded.

"I'm sorry, but I have a bad case of DSLR envy. The only thing to do is for you to give it here. Come on now, give it to me. Give it to me big boy"

glad I have a point and shoot.

@B: The camera is also called the body, which is a separate entity from the lens. So no, someone with a pretty remedial knowledge of photography would understand that dslr does not automatically mean National Geographic photographer hiding in a bush taking shots of a lioness feeding her cubs. You could never mistake a 14mm wide angle lens for a 200mm telephoto.

Check the evidence!

14mm lens: [www.dpreview.com]

200mm telephoto: [www.photokina-show.com]

One is little and stubby and the other is long and serious-looking. I have a hard time accepting that a museum director doesn't know these things, much less his own institution's policy on photography.