Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
Iâve encountered plenty of prohibitions on picture-making in fifteen years as a photojournalist. But the most infuriating came recently at the home of Thomas Jefferson, of all places.
U.S. News & World Report had assigned me to photograph a touring Elderhostel group for the magazineâs annual retirement guide, and I was thrilled. This was the kind of job a photographer relishes: scenic, upbeat, and uncompetitive. My editor had cast one warning, though: a representative for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, which owns and operates Monticello, had said I could not take photos inside the home. The space was too tight, apparently, and filled with valuable antiques.
Just a smokescreen, I thought. If a dozen photographers can race in and out of the Oval Office without destroying the place, a solo act in Jeffersonâs residence could work. This was the home of the founder of democracy, after all, and the father of the free media.
I arrived at Monticelloâs Visitor Center with the Elderhostel group, and a tour guide stepped from the house and began his spiel. Halfway through came this: âThere is no photography allowed inside the house because we donât own the photo rights to all the furniture.â
Furniture has photo rights? I pretended not to hear and followed the group inside. Barely through the door, another guide came at me. âYou canât make pictures in here. Letâs talk outside.â
We stepped onto the front porch and I pleaded my case: âIâve photographed in there before.â I had, with permission, when the Sally Hemmings story broke.
âWhen?â
âWell, when it came out that Jefferson was, um … .â
She stared like a stone.
â … was molesting his slave.â I smiled, hoping sheâd recognize the awkwardness of that occasion. She didnât.
âWe donât have photo rights for some furniture.â
âHow about I have the furniture sign a release?â She didnât even acknowledge the joke. And her voice was louder, edgier now. I could see heads turning. âMaybe thereâs someone else I can speak with?â
Not a minute later there appeared another woman. I threw a Hail Mary. âIâm supposed to be photographing that Elderhostel group.â
She held out a printed e-mail. âThis says you have permission to photograph your group on the grounds only.â
âYou donât think this is a little ironic? This being the home of the man responsible for the First Amendment?â
âNo,â she said. âYour ticket is for grounds only. Youâre not allowed inside the house.â
âBut you guys gave me the ticket!â
âAnd we gave you one for grounds only.â She smiled as she shut Jeffersonâs front door in my face.
I spent the next hour sitting on a porch, engaged in an imaginary argument with the woman. Maybe we photogs are a little sensitive these days, all treading water in the deep sea with no Carpathia in sight. Yet these incidents seem to be increasingâand turning our industry into an imitation of what it once was. In the past year, Iâd encountered the police officer who told me I couldnât make pictures on a platform of the D.C. Metro; the poll worker who pushed me into a wall for photographing a line of voters; the pro-life protestor who grabbed my camera on a public street in Wichita; and the park ranger at the World War II memorial who told me I needed a permit. Unlike those objectors, the Jefferson Foundation was well within its legal rights to restrict photography. But did doing so serve its interests or the legacy of the man it works to exalt?
Eventually the seniors came out, and I tried to make up for lost time. I snapped them squinting in the sun, as if emerging from a matinee. I photographed a couple strolling a path that runs the length of effersonâs vegetable gardenâa fine enough image, but not one that said Elderhostel tour or Monticello or âBoy are we having a happy retirement.â Then I climbed an embankment overlooking the green Virginia Piedmont, put down my cameras, and prematurely called it quits.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.