Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays?

In article ,
Mac Lynch wrote:

> I am rather puzzled as to why cameras are restricted in these places.
> I always ask before producing my camera & often given ready permission.
> Others refuse. Artists pay big money to publicise their works and surely
> would welcome this extension to their display.
> I understand that fear of copying may be involved,but
> pictorial catalogues surely provide the same opportunity. Tripods would
> be a nuisance in some of these situations, but they could be controlled.
> Mac

Because a good digital camera in the hands of a good photographer can be
used to reproduce a stunningly accurate reproduction of a work of art.
Its about copyright issues. Some places don't care, like at the Museum
of Modern Art in New York City where photography was welcome when I was
there, and other museums are leery of it. Also, some museums and
galleries don't like flash photography because the light bursts can
damage antiques, but they are okay with available light photography.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

There are a number of reasons.

Copyright issues is certainly one along with the sales of materials in
the gift shop.

Then there is the damage to the art from the flash, 99% based on invalid
rational. Don't try to argue away this one. It is at least partly valid
and the one you are arguing with did not make the rule.

And the very real problem of reduced enjoyment by others. Flash and
photographers getting in the way of others and distracting others is a very
very real fact of life.

"Mac Lynch" wrote in message

> I am rather puzzled as to why cameras are restricted in these places.
> I always ask before producing my camera & often given ready permission.
> Others refuse. Artists pay big money to publicise their works and surely
> would welcome this extension to their display.
> I understand that fear of copying may be involved,but
> pictorial catalogues surely provide the same opportunity. Tripods would
> be a nuisance in some of these situations, but they could be controlled.
> Mac
>

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

Mac Lynch wrote:
>I am rather puzzled as to why cameras are restricted in these places.
>I always ask before producing my camera & often given ready permission.
>Others refuse. Artists pay big money to publicise their works and surely
>would welcome this extension to their display.
>I understand that fear of copying may be involved,but
>pictorial catalogues surely provide the same opportunity. Tripods would
>be a nuisance in some of these situations, but they could be controlled.

But you couldn't controll all those flashes from nitwits who are even trying
to illuminate Mt. Rainier from 10 miles away with the builtin flash of a
sub-compact camera.

The other reason of course is copyright. Those institutions would rather
sell their own catalogs and documentations and make some money this way.

jue
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message
> Mac Lynch wrote:
>> I am rather puzzled as to why cameras are restricted in these places.
>> I always ask before producing my camera & often given ready
>> permission. Others refuse. Artists pay big money to publicise their
>> works and surely would welcome this extension to their display.
>> I understand that fear of copying may be involved,but
>> pictorial catalogues surely provide the same opportunity. Tripods
>> would be a nuisance in some of these situations, but they could be
>> controlled. Mac
>
> Do I really want someone flashing in my eyes while I contempate a great
> work of art?
>
> David
>

Could you rephrase that?
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

David J Taylor wrote:
> Mac Lynch wrote:
>> I am rather puzzled as to why cameras are restricted in these places.
>> I always ask before producing my camera & often given ready
>> permission. Others refuse. Artists pay big money to publicise their
>> works and surely would welcome this extension to their display.
>> I understand that fear of copying may be involved,but
>> pictorial catalogues surely provide the same opportunity. Tripods
>> would be a nuisance in some of these situations, but they could be
>> controlled. Mac

> Do I really want someone flashing in my eyes while I contempate a great
> work of art?

From the nuisance point of view forbidding flashes and noisy shutters
would make sense. Which they do in some churches. Where publicly
displayed of expensive art are concerned however that's not what they
usually do. What they most usually want to restrict in those places is
professional photography by means of a distinction security guards are
able to make.

The reason usually is that they're making money from a photography
contract with some organisation whose lawyers have insisted on
photography rights, but they can't ban all photography because they
also get some public funding. The funder insists that their funding
depends on free public access to the works of art, which includes the
public taking snaps. So they have to find a way of permitting snaps
while forbidding professional photography in a way which satisfies
lawyers and managers and which security guards can police. If they
can't do that they stand to lose a lot of money one way or another.

So they often end up banning some combination of tripod, big camera,
and black camera. It doesn't have to be logical. If they can't reach a
decision because there's a photographer on the committee then they
throw him out. Lawyers and money trump logic.

--
Chris Malcolm cam RemoveThis @infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message

> There are a number of reasons.
>
> Copyright issues is certainly one along with the sales of materials in
> the gift shop.
>
> Then there is the damage to the art from the flash, 99% based on
> invalid rational. Don't try to argue away this one. It is at least
> partly valid and the one you are arguing with did not make the rule.
>
> And the very real problem of reduced enjoyment by others. Flash and
> photographers getting in the way of others and distracting others is a
> very very real fact of life.
>
> "Mac Lynch" wrote in message
>
>> I am rather puzzled as to why cameras are restricted in these places.
>> I always ask before producing my camera & often given ready permission.
>> Others refuse. Artists pay big money to publicise their works and surely
>> would welcome this extension to their display.
>> I understand that fear of copying may be involved,but
>> pictorial catalogues surely provide the same opportunity. Tripods would
>> be a nuisance in some of these situations, but they could be controlled.
>> Mac
>>
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan

Joseph,
Copyright issues? Leonardo da Vinci or other great painters dead a long time
ago?
No spam is right to address something that hadn't been so far: damage to
paint through flash... although, last September I was in Le Louvre and was
astounded to see people taking flash pictures of La Joconde...
As well, tripods are a nuisance and danger to crowds.
I found that in museums where recent pintings were exhibited, no photos were
allowed, this obviously for copyright issues.
Marcel
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

LOL! Depends on gender I guess.


"N" wrote in message


>> Do I really want someone flashing in my eyes while I contempate a great
>> work of art?


> Could you rephrase that?
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

Chris Malcolm wrote:

> So they often end up banning some combination of tripod, big camera,
> and black camera. It doesn't have to be logical.

And is trumped by any DSLR and a panorama program.

Doug McDonald
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

I cold be wrong, but I do believe that the owners of a painting may well
have reproduction rights.

"news.motzarella" wrote in message

>
...
>
> Joseph,
> Copyright issues? Leonardo da Vinci or other great painters dead a long
> time ago?
> No spam is right to address something that hadn't been so far: damage to
> paint through flash... although, last September I was in Le Louvre and was
> astounded to see people taking flash pictures of La Joconde...
> As well, tripods are a nuisance and danger to crowds.
> I found that in museums where recent pintings were exhibited, no photos
> were allowed, this obviously for copyright issues.
> Marcel
>

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

David J Taylor wrote:
> Mac Lynch wrote:
>> I am rather puzzled as to why cameras are restricted in these places.
>> I always ask before producing my camera & often given ready
>> permission. Others refuse. Artists pay big money to publicise their
>> works and surely would welcome this extension to their display.
>> I understand that fear of copying may be involved,but
>> pictorial catalogues surely provide the same opportunity. Tripods
>> would be a nuisance in some of these situations, but they could be
>> controlled. Mac
>
> Do I really want someone flashing in my eyes while I contempate a great
> work of art?
>
> David
>
>
When taking pictures of ANY art, I avoid use of flash. Not only is it
rudely distracting to others, but can degrade the pigments on a painting.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Mac Lynch wrote:
>>> I am rather puzzled as to why cameras are restricted in these places.
>>> I always ask before producing my camera & often given ready
>>> permission. Others refuse. Artists pay big money to publicise their
>>> works and surely would welcome this extension to their display.
>>> I understand that fear of copying may be involved,but
>>> pictorial catalogues surely provide the same opportunity. Tripods
>>> would be a nuisance in some of these situations, but they could be
>>> controlled. Mac
>
>> Do I really want someone flashing in my eyes while I contempate a great
>> work of art?
>
> From the nuisance point of view forbidding flashes and noisy shutters
> would make sense. Which they do in some churches. Where publicly
> displayed of expensive art are concerned however that's not what they
> usually do. What they most usually want to restrict in those places is
> professional photography by means of a distinction security guards are
> able to make.
>
> The reason usually is that they're making money from a photography
> contract with some organisation whose lawyers have insisted on
> photography rights, but they can't ban all photography because they
> also get some public funding. The funder insists that their funding
> depends on free public access to the works of art, which includes the
> public taking snaps. So they have to find a way of permitting snaps
> while forbidding professional photography in a way which satisfies
> lawyers and managers and which security guards can police. If they
> can't do that they stand to lose a lot of money one way or another.
>
> So they often end up banning some combination of tripod, big camera,
> and black camera. It doesn't have to be logical. If they can't reach a
> decision because there's a photographer on the committee then they
> throw him out. Lawyers and money trump logic.
>

I was somewhat disappointed that I wasn't able to take pictures when I
toured the Biltmore Home. There are several reasons for this
prohibition. First, they make money by selling professionally taken
photographs of the various rooms. Second, flash pictures are said to
degrade the colors in the art, furniture, and fabrics. Third, the
constant flashing is a distraction, and nuisance, to others on the tour,
and delays the tour progress while people jockey for position to take
the perfect photo.

Fortunately, they can't prohibit people who have a 'photographic' memory
from going home with a great collection.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

On Jan 29, 3:45 am, Mac Lynch wrote:
> I am rather puzzled as to why cameras are restricted in these places.
> I always ask before producing my camera & often given ready permission.
> Others refuse. Artists pay big money to publicise their works and surely
> would welcome this extension to their display.
> I understand that fear of copying may be involved,but
> pictorial catalogues surely provide the same opportunity. Tripods would
> be a nuisance in some of these situations, but they could be controlled.
> Mac

There are also museums that let you photograph, but specify the photos
may be used ONLY for personal use, and not resold.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays? 

no_spam_from_scumbags.DeleteThis@die_scumbags.com wrote:
> Reproduction rights or something like it. I don't know how that would
> work when clearly a 200 year old painting is long out of copyright.
> It is also interesting to note that you can not take photos of the
> Eiffel Tower when it is lit at night. I am not sure if this is a
> copyright issue or some other form of lawful protection, but I
> thought it was interesting. I think it has to do with the creative
> design of the lighting used, the lighting is a creative expression of
> the artist that did it and therefore copyrighted? I don't know, but I
> know you can't take photos of it at night. During the day no trouble.
> How this is enforced I have no idea either. I am guessing if your a
> tourist and you take a photo from a mile away and just have it for
> your own personal use no problem. If you go to sell it, then you
> would run in to the copyright issue for the lighting.
> Robert

So does Paris have groups of camera police who only come out at night?
Form a ring round the tower at a suitable distance? How well is this
enforced?

David
 >> Stay informed about: Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays?