[Leica] No photography in Museum

[ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter)]

this argument would seem to apply to the state history and natural sciences 
museums as much as to the state art museum.

their rules are nearly as paranoid

maybe the art museum just has lawyers who are bigger prigs

ric

On Jan 5, 2010, at 9:50 PM, R. Clayton McKee wrote:

> Quoth the Ric Carter :
> 
>> that still does not explain the attitude of the traveling
>> exhibits--if someone sees a photo of a Monet, they won't bother to
>> pay to see the show?
> 
> Best SWAG is that it's got to do with security and liability.  When 
> they let people start snapshooting, they open themselves to arguments 
> about tripods, flashes, etc., and they have to add much more security 
> to avoid problems.  Plus people with cameras can create distractions 
> in which other people can cause problems (spray paint problems, razor 
> problems, hammer problems, like that...).  
> 
> The reality is that no curator or museum director will EVER be fired 
> for being overprotective of the irreplaceable artworks, or for 
> minimizing the museum's potential lawsuit exposure.  Inconsistencies 
> lead to annoyed guests and lawsuits. If the policy is "no cameras in 
> the travelling exhibits, no flash or tripods anywhere, no 
> exceptions," and it's enforced consistently,  there's a very limited 
> legal challenge window.
> 
> And there are issues with commercial uses of the photos ...  when I 
> shoot exhibits at the museums for the newspaper, I'm usually required 
> to sign a very specific usage agreement beforehand... and I don't get 
> to wander the galleries; I'm escorted straight in and straight back 
> out by at least one museum person, for security and everyone's 
> protection.  (I don't really ever want to be alone in a gallery with 
> a Monet or a Van Gogh; it's just not worth the risk if something 
> disastrous happened.)
> 
> C'mon. How much money do you think the gift shops make selling 
> individual prints or slides of the artwork?   How often do you see 
> people walking out of an art museum gift show with 8x10 glossies of 
> the paintings? I'd guess that stopping photographers from shooting 
> pix has a negligible effect on the museum's financials, if only 
> because the majority of people who visit the gift shop are looking 
> for books, videos, maybe posters, not copies of the art.  There just 
> wouldn't be any financial reason to block shooting; the money's 
> insignificant there.
> 
>> i've been stopped for taking pictures of my kid's junior high field
>> trip group
> 
> Well, they can't very well stop the junior high schoolers (who are 
> notorious about climbing over ropes or on exhibits) running amok with 
> cells and P&S toys and then let you shoot, can they?  That's just 
> BEGGING some parent to file a major discrimination suit because you 
> got to take pictures while little Johnnie, the Rebel without a Clue, 
> couldn't shoot a picture of himself grabbing the boobs of the bronze 
> in the main gallery...  
> 
> Whether they'd win or not, they'd have to spend a fair bit of time 
> and money defending the issue in whatever legal venue, and dealing 
> with the publicity.  It's just easier to avoid the entire issue with 
> a blanket policy.
> 
> 
> --
> R. Clayton McKee                            http://www.rcmckee.com
> Photojournalist                                 rcmckee at rcmckee.com
> P O Box 571900                               voice/fax   713/783-3502
> Houston, TX 77257-1900                    cell number on request
> The only guidebooks worth reading begin with the phrase
>    "When you get to the end of the paved road, continue..."
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information