Well the museum of modern art in new york for one. Sort of a holy site for art and they allow it…. Mass MOCA sometimes allows it, I’ve photographed at MOCA in LA also…

what an incredibly silly comment.

“doesn’t want to share” ? do you have any idea how many people mr. irsay has shared the scroll with worldwide ? that was the purpose of the purchase and the painstaking (and costly) restoration in the first place.

your whining is unbecoming. name me a major art museum, or gallery for that matter, that allows photography.

good grief.

go buy the paperback and plop it on your kitchen table and go to town with your new camera.

i’m pretty sure that if you own the paperback, you can take as many pics of it as you want. if you want, you can have a party, even invite some friends over and share it with them.

You can own a copyright of the text, that is fine. But photographs of the text can not be prevented. There are plenty of photos of the text going around anyway, e.g., by the Associated Press, and the AP didn’t pay anyone anything.

My guess is that this is copyright-fear gone crazy, and that lawyers for the Kerouac estate scared them stiff.

As for the people arguing that this is a “rights of the artist” thing, I’ve news: Jack is dead. His work, just as the Jazz music he listened to and that inspired the Beats, deserves to go back to the people.

Whether or not it’s legal to prevent a photograph because of copyright, I think it’s clear that copyright laws at this point are insane, unjust and implemented solely to benefit large and political powerful entertainment companies — not the artists.

Thomas, you’re in a bind. The Colts owner can put any conditions he wants on the work’s display, including “no photos”. However, there may be some leeway because it’s displayed in a public place. (For example, I “own” my own likeness, but if I go for a walk, someone can snap a picture of me and print it in a newspaper. Things very instantly get fuzzy after that, though — IANAL, just an occasional photographer, but see below for people WAL.)

My guess, if you want to be an instant star, is to photograph the work without a flash as much as you like, get arrested or thrown out, and sue. You may want to contact a group like the EFF (Electronic Freedom Foundation) before doing so.

(The EFF is great; I contacted them once a few years ago, and they responded within a day. It’s worth your while to bring their attention to this abuse.)

Best of luck to you,

Simon

Well, i’m not a lawyer. I welcome this discussion because it presents some interesting questions and rights that, as a photographer, i am just starting to understand. I can see how you feel that the copyright issue is a red herring. Perhaps. But I’m sure it could be argued that someone might be able to reproduce portions of the manuscript that don’t fall within the scope of research and study; review and criticism; news reportage and the giving of professional advice (ie legal advice).

I know you are well-intentioned and see yourself as providing photos of the scroll to those who can’t be there. But I see the request for no photographs to be part of a moral debate about the rights of artists. Too many people don’t see the rights of the artist when they feel they are being prohibited from having access to the sharing of creative works. Many argue that copyright does more to restrict freedom of ideas and information than protect it and that copyright is not a benefit to society since it only enriches a few.

But I feel that it has to be upheld in situations that pose a threat. Is this one? Maybe not. I’d like to hear more from Ms Boshoff on that point. I believe that you are well-intentioned in wanting to take photographs of the manuscript. But without protection many valuable books and pieces of art would not be created. As for Kerouac’s heirs…extension of copyright terms beyond an artist’s lifespan can contribute to the incentive to create. Apparently, copyright can extend 50 to 70 years beyond the death of the artist.

As for Kerouac, I remember I was sad to discover, after reading the book, that he was not the same counter-culture hero at the end of his life that he seemed to be in “On the Road”. For most of his life he lived with his mother and his ideas about women and marriage were pretty neanderthal.
Kerouac spent most of the last years of his life distancing himself from the radical hippies of the 60s and waving the flag. He thought the political anger of those in Haight Ashbury to be destructive.

The copyright argument is a red herring with respect to the “On the Road” exhibit. As you can atest from seeing the display it would be difficult to photograph much of the text (the paper and scroll by the way cannot be copyrighted). At best I was able to get some macro shots that were not even complete sentences that would definitely fall within the scope of fair use.

To quote or photograph the scroll does not violate copyright law in any way shape or form.

The bigger issue here is not whether or not you or I get to experience the scroll (we are fortunate enough to live in a major metropolitan area where it is on display) but what about the people who will never get to see it?

If you can take photos of the scroll and not violate copyright (and it would be very difficult to violate copyright given how it is displayed) then why not share it with them.

To further examine the copyright issue, lets look at who owns it. So Jack dies and his third wife Stella inheirts the scroll and copyright, ok fair enough. Now Stella dies and her brother John gets the copyright and scroll. Okay, still, I guess, then Bob dies and his son Tony then gets the scroll and I assume the copyright. And of course Tony locks the scroll up where it can’t be seen until Irsay buys it from him at auction for $2.2 million (it’s nice to know that everybody has their price).

Now I’m not sure if Tony Sampas still owns the rights to “On The Road” or not, but if you are asking me do I want to honor someone’s attmept to prevent me from fair use photographing a copyrighted document when he made over $2.2 million from selling an important historical scroll that nobody ever got to see when he was the third person to inheirt it and it’s current owner says it belongs to the people, well I’ll choose with my right to fair use photograph the document.

Note that I did not break copyright law by shooting the scroll. I broke the library’s rule and I broke the tour coordinator’s rule, but I broke no laws. It is our duty to challenge rules while staying within the law (which I did) when they are based on unethical precepts.

The scroll deserves to be seen by those outside of San Francisco and I’m happy that I took photos of it to share.

By the way in terms of my photos, they are all creative commons licensed and can be used for anyone who wants for any reason as long as they don’t profit from them. I wish the same could be said for an important work of art handed down through three different inheiritances. Personally I believe that copyright laws need to be changed in this country to allow important works like this to return to the public domain much earlier once the spouse and children or immediate beneficiary are dead.