Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 9, 2007, 7:38 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland does not permit cameras of any kind inside. The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown not only permits cameras, but recommends bringing a flash due to reduced lighting in many parts of the museum.

the Hun

rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2007, 11:14 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

docmoon wrote:
Quote:
Photographers should respect other artists enough not to inhibit a musical performance, or for that matter, to photograph paintings, sculpture, pottery, tapestries, etc. in a manner that could be seen as an infringement on the right of the artist tocollect appropriate fees for his/her work, but also to maintain creative control of their creation.

This sounds so moral but it's a crock.After a museum buys a painting the artist has no fees to collect from that point on nor any creative control. That belongs to the museum. A museum is created for the pleasure and enlightenment of the public (the public good). A gallery, on the other hand is a business enterprise with the objective of brokering sales of art objects belonging to the artist or other private (usually) owners. The Figge doesn't have a firm grasp of these concepts. Interestingly enough there are a number of galleries in this area, some owned by the featured artist and not one of the five or six that I've personally been in have as asked me to not take pictures. I think they value potential customers more than the Figge values the public.

The idea thatthe existenceof a digital or film image lessens the value of the original El Greco or Benton is tenuous at best. I can tell pretty quickly the difference between a photograph of a painting and the painting itself and I value them differently. By the way it is perfectly legal to hire an artist and generally pay a fee to the museum and have a stroke by stroke copy made of a painting. That will be a much better copy than anything donedigitally or on film. Every time I was in the Alte Pinakothek at least a couple of copies were in progress. The person that commissioned the copy, as ownercan then display, sell or whatever as long as there is no claim that it is the original which of course would be fraud.

There is a point that we all should keep in mind, we should not disturb others in the audience with our photographic activities. The professional corollary to this is that a photographer hired to specifically document an event does not have a license to obstruct or disturb the audience.

ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2007, 6:05 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 162
Default

As an interesting aside to this discussion , while attending the PhotoExpo at the Javits Center this past November there was a big sign at the entrance to the exibit floor which said "No photographs permitted without previous permission". Practically everybody who attended this show had a camera. Although no one with a camera was refused entry I thought it funny that a show promoting photography and the taking ofphotos should have placed such a restriction on the attendees. What do these people think we are going to do with these pictures? Even if we were going to sell them and someone would actually want to buy them, how much do these venues think we would be selling them for? I don't think anybody would be willing to pay more that $1.98 for a photo of the Javits Convention Center. And besides,don't people with press passes and credentials make money off the photos they take at sports venues and gallery openings etc? I don't think the NY Post compensates Madison Square Garden every time they take a photo of some hockey player getting his face smashed against the glass.Why can't these people give us little guys a break?

Sorry if this sounds like I'm venting, but this sort of thing gets me PO'd.
BEECEE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2007, 7:07 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 394
Default

Making the gift of a work of art does not always gift your copyright. This issue first appeared in the French courts approximately one hundred years ago and established the rights of artist to their own work. That decision is reflected in our own law. Thus if a painting was gifted to a museum for the viewing public, which is the typical case, the copyright still belongs to the artist. It would make no difference if the insitution were public or private. Of course, the artist could also gift the copyright as well as the art work to a museum. In that case they would have more control. What matters is the purpose of the gift or sale?
normc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2007, 9:14 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

'Just a thought, but I feel that the use of the so called "security restrictions" excuse have given a great deal of control that in some venues becomevery subjective, open to misuse, and at times does not seem very common sense at all..

It also give the "control freaks," usually found at the entrance,a happy opportunity to exercise what appears to be sometimes slightly abusive and unnecessary control. In short, it makes their day. 'Just my two cents worth.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2007, 5:55 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

How often to the artists themselves gift museums? I don't think often. I suspect that most gifts to museums are made by individuals that have purchased the works. Private individuals (and other museums) also loan works to museums. In those cases reproductions rights are retained with the owner. I think things get very cloudy when the museum derives the majority of there operating funds from tax payers and also funds aquisition through public monies.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2007, 2:32 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

docmoon wrote:
Quote:
As an actively performing musician, I can add that the use of flash is very distracting, and even debilitating, in the sense that the pupils react
And not pleasant for others in the audience either... and unless front row center the flash is of no use (often detriment to image) anyways. Just most P&S folks have no clue on how to diable it.... or for that matter force it on when necessary (like shooting someone in front of a sunset)

I would NEVER in a concert of theater setting use a flash.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:44 PM.