Comments on: Museums are not the Enemy and the Red Herring of Copyright Law to Prohibit Photography

By: bleem

bleem — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:32:00 +0000

I was just scolded for taking a photo of a wood statue at Bower’s Museum in Santa Ana, Calif. The statue was significantly beyond copyright protection period and was located in a large exhibit room with enormous windows and skylights. The only justification for the aggressive warning from the museo-cop is financial: my picture would diminish the motivation of others to attend the museum to view the work first-hand. That risk seems unrealistic to me.

By: Perian Sully

Perian Sully — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:24:00 +0000

I have a total of about .5 seconds to respond right now, but I wanted to pipe in and say “thanks” for continuing the discussion.

One interesting piece of information I received yesterday is that MoMA may have made agreements with VAGA and other artist’s rights societies to allow photography. We weren’t sure who to contact at MoMA to confirm this, so I don’t know if this is true or not. Assuming it is, I think that might make your “red herring” a little pink

Seriously, though. You may be entirely correct that SFMOMA is just starting at shadows, but no non-profit wants to be a test-case for overzealous copyright holders.

By: Patrick Dodds

Patrick Dodds — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:43:00 +0000

photodad – it depends what the rules are. The Suffragettes here in the UK broke a few in their time and your kids would benefit from learning a bit about them. Admittedly, of course, photography in museums isn’t in the same league but I think sometimes rules like these are made in an unthinking manner, made because other places do the same thing. Mostly with museums in the UK, at any rate, we the public own the things in the first place so it is hard to see how copyright applies. That said, come over to the British Museum in London – you can take as many pics as you like there.

By: photodad

photodad — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:17:00 +0000

Thomas to me the bottom line is "you can't always git what you want"

As demonstrated in these comments your preference is an annoyance to others, and others preference is an annoyance to you.

Yes there are a lot of dumb rules out there. My kids think my rules for them are dumb but that does not mean I do not have to a right to make them and insist that they abide by them.

Even if I think the museum photo rule is dumb (which I do), it does not give me the right to break them on their property. Nor is it a good example to set for my children. I choose to follow the rules if nothing else to be a good example to my kids.

By: Danno

Danno — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:26:00 +0000

I would think that in most cases the no-photo rule is a threat to museum sales. At the Boston art museum, all the permanent works are free to photograph, but special exhibitions prohibit picture taking. They have a special sales area at the exit of the these exhibits to hawk merchandise that is derived from the exhibit. So, if you want to remember your special day of rare impressionist paintings, you have to buy that $20 calendar, or that $100 poster. It has nothing to do with copyright, but everything to do with the museum making money. And this is on top of charging an extra admission fee plus museum admission.

There are some cases where copyright can be a factor. The Boston Art museum had an Ansel Adams exhibit which included rare original prints of his work. It was an amazing exhibit and I went 3 times. But I can easily see how allowing photography could negatively affect the sales of his works. Since the artwork itself is photography, it seems to undermine the worth of the art by allowing people to “copy” the images for free.

By: -gary

-gary — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:50:00 +0000

One issue that no one ever seems to consider is the owner of the artwork. A large part of some collections are on loan from individuals. If I have an original Picasso that I paid a fair chunk of change for, I might not want pictures of it showing up all over the internet in thousands of Flickr family vacation sets. It would seem to be much easier for of a no-photography museum to get collections in without having to worry about what’s going to be snapped and what’s not.

The local museum here in Phoenix has a standing photography allowed for permanent pieces, but not for loaners or temporary collections. I found it odd to visit the Ansel Adams collection that came through town and being told that I can’t photograph it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:26:00 +0000

Ah, but you’re assuming Andrew cares about anyone else’s museum experience besides his own, or that he cares that it’s the museum’s decision to permit photography or not (never mind his constant biatching about others “illegally” trying to stop him from snapping photos on the street, that rule he expects everyone else to abide by).

By: Lunettes Rouges (http://lunettesrouges.blog.lemonde.fr/)

Lunettes Rouges (http://lunettesrouges.blog.lemonde.fr/) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:08:00 +0000

Copyright law varies from country to country, and indeed there is no copyright issue in the Offizi or in the Louvre. The Louvre bans photography in the most crowded rooms, e.g. where Mona Lisa is shown, and this is for comfort reasons : hords of Japanese, American and other tourists photographing themselves endlessly next to Mona Lisa and other paintings. This was indeed very irritating for the art lover.

By: Ryan Brenizer

Ryan Brenizer — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:18:00 +0000

But the truest irony is this: Museums which decry photography for copyright issues but then run Richard Prince exhibits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html

By: Thomas Hawk

Thomas Hawk — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:08:00 +0000

if you take a picture of them and post it to a website/blog that has advertisements (such as you have done) - you are violating copyright by using a representation of their work for commercial purposes.

Charlie, this may or may not be true. The extent that this blog would fall within personal fair use vs. a business could be argued.

Irrespective though, the museum bears no liability over any infringement which I may produce. The fear of copyright liability argument is a red herring.