Worst Museum Policy?

[jchinuk]

I found the following on the website and adverts for the "Kent Battle of Britain Museum",

 

"In keeping with common practice, on grounds of both security and copyright, we regret that no cameras, video recorders or any other types of recording equipment (including notebooks) are allowed in the Museum."

 

For a start I'd argue fairly strongly that it's not "common policy", the only other museum I can think of is the "Cars of the Stars" museum, but that issues with film and TV copyrights.

 

It's the banning of 'notebooks' that I find most amazinf, what if someone has a photographic memory, do they get a brain wipe?

 

jch

[fv1609]

It seems to vary, the last time I went to the RS Museum, I had to hand over my camera & collect it on the way out of the museum itself within Blandford Camp although there seemed to be no prohibition of taking pictures in the camp. Security was the reason given but why was it ok to photo in the camp? I suspect there is a fear that someone might publish a book or article & not pay royalties.

 

When I last visited Bovy photos were ok but not for publication.

 

At the AMS Museum no photography was allowed outside, a shame as there were ambulances on display. But I had negotiated to take a few pictures of some of the items under close supervision & that was fine. Again I was given permission to take pictures inside.

 

The policy of the National Trust had always been no photography as flash photography would damage delicate fabric etc over the years. But I was surprised that this extended to the carriage museum, I imagine this is really a publication/copyright issue. Yet I was surprised going around a NT property a few weeks ago lots of people freely taking pictures & no prohibition even for the delicate fabrics!

[woa2]

I know that the Dorset Regiment museum in Dorchester do not allow photography, and neither does the National Army museum in Chelsea. Both only have a very small sign announcing this, but very keen attendants ready to swoop on you if you didn't see the very small sign.

 

I must say that the 'No Photography' rule is one that puts me off going to a Museum, especially if I have paid to get in.

[andym]

The policy of the National Trust had always been no photography as flash photography would damage delicate fabric etc over the years. But I was surprised that this extended to the carriage museum, I imagine this is really a publication/copyright issue. Yet I was surprised going around a NT property a few weeks ago lots of people freely taking pictures & no prohibition even for the delicate fabrics!

 

That's actually a relatively recent policy, I've got loads of interior shots of properties from the days when there were no restrictions. I had a lively set of correspondence with NT HQ when they changed the rules, the reason given then was to cut down on "steal to order" burglaries.

[fv1609]

That's actually a relatively recent policy, I've got loads of interior shots of properties from the days when there were no restrictions. I had a lively set of correspondence with NT HQ when they changed the rules, the reason given then was to cut down on "steal to order" burglaries.

 

I hadn't thought of that reason, although a lot of items are shown in the guide book. I was very disappointed I couldn't photo in their large carriage collection, I only wanted shots of the "chassis" bits rather that the "cabs". But their policies do suddenly change. In their mag at the beginning of the year they suddenly declared the "don't touch policy" was to be abolished to allow visitors feel more empathy with the visits & this would include books!

 

I was at a NT property a few weeks ago & asked if I could view, not even touch, some old military regulations on display. My leaning over triggered an alarm. But I was assured there were no touchy/feely places at the property although I just wanted looky/peepy. Might just as well had a bus time table on display if you couldn't read it.

[andym]

I was at a NT property a few weeks ago & asked if I could view, not even touch, some old military regulations on display. My leaning over triggered an alarm. But I was assured there were no touchy/feely places at the property although I just wanted looky/peepy. Might just as well had a bus time table on display if you couldn't read it.

 

With the NT especially (although it also applies to other museums with voluntary helpers) you tend to be at the mercy of the individual. If you know in advance that there's something you want to look at, it's worth contacting them beforehand. I've done that at a couple of NT properties when I was researching paintings, and they were quite happy to let me come round when the house wasn't open to the public. The "behind the scenes" aspect is fascinating - I even got some free cake and a cup of tea! :-)

[mcspool]

A military museum here in the Netherlands does not allow photography, not only to prevent damage to delicate materials by flash usage, but also their surveillance camera's get damaged!

 

If you ask politely, one is allowed in outside opening hours and you can take pictures of the object of study (a Sherman tank in my case).

[jchinuk]

Thanks for all the responses, I understand the restrictions on active bases, though the Hawkinge museum is in the middle of a rather souless housing estate! Having said that, I've taken photos (with permission) inside Luggershall, Ashchurch and the D&M school at Bovington, the only concern was that the photos did not give the positions of the buildings, a concern rather negated in recent years by Google Earth!

 

I recall the RAF Museum at Hendon had a "no flash" rule at one point, though that was apparently because flashes were triggering the fire alarm, but photography was still permitted. I'm not convinced by the 'flashes cause damage' excuse, possibly if the flashes were constantly repeated over a period and the same museums often leave stuff outside to fade anyway.

 

Some museums feel there is a "copyright" issue, but as far as I am aware that is just one interpretation of the current law, and unproven in court.

 

What seems petty and pointless is the ban on note books.

 

By the way virtually all the exhibits at Hawkinge are replicas anyway.

 

jch

Edited July 2, 2010 by jchinuk

[jchinuk]

I must say that the 'No Photography' rule is one that puts me off going to a Museum, especially if I have paid to get in.

 

I tend to agree, though I think Lincoln Cathedral (and possibly others) still offer a 'photo license' for a small consideration, which makes sense as they don't charge for admission.

 

jch

[alan turner (RIP)]

I know that the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich has a blanket no photo policy inside and out and every item is copyrighted, this costs them money to renew each year as new items arrive but the copyright overlall lasts 75 years, so they can make their money selling post cards and pamphlets about exhibits and of course charging for giving permission to use an item in a publication,TV programme or film.

[Tony B]

My new Fu... camera has , as stated in the handbook! A silent , low light setting, for discreet use in places such as musuems. :cool2:

[Denzil18]

At IWM Duxford in the 'Mess' canteen the policy seems to be that you must have a revolting pile of wilting salad with your jacket potato whether you want it or not. I insisted it was removed and the reaction I got was one of hostile indignation!

[mike65]

That's actually a relatively recent policy, I've got loads of interior shots of properties from the days when there were no restrictions. I had a lively set of correspondence with NT HQ when they changed the rules, the reason given then was to cut down on "steal to order" burglaries.

 

 

NT have changed policy again, not that long ago now. I believe this was in response to people not going due to "No Photography" rules.

 

Q. Where can I take photographs?

A. Outdoors

All visitors to National Trust properties are allowed to take photographs out of doors for their own private use. Any individuals wishing to sell or publish photographs should contact photo.library@nationaltrust.org.uk.

Indoors

Amateur photography (including filming) without flash is now permitted in historic interiors at the Property Manager’s discretion. As with outdoor photography, any photographs taken are strictly for private use, and enquiries about selling or publishing photographs should be directed to photo.library@nationaltrust.org.uk. However, visitors must be aware that at some places, there may be copyright issues, and further permissions may be required in respect of collections not owned by us. In these situations the Property Manager decision as to if photography is allowed is final.

 

 

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-global/w-contact_us/w-faqs/w-faqs-visitor.htm

 

So it seems that it is down to whim and fancy of property manager.

However even if you have a camera with "low light sneak photo settings" you proberbly need a tripod to get good quality images.

Have tried with my SLR (not very good for sneaky photos, a bit obvious) using anti shake, high ISO, sniper technique of holding breath to steady aim and they still tend to be pretty bad.

Tripods tend to be banned due to causing an obstruction.

 

I also tend to think twice about visiting somewhere if photography is not allowed. After all it is one of my hobbies. In fact it forms part of all the others, so must be top of list.

 

Try photographing the MI5 building or Houses of Parlimnt with an SLR without being approached by the Police using Anti Terror Laws. You may be on a terrorist surveilance mission. After all legitimate terrorists do not have access to Google Streetview.

 

Mike

[jchinuk]

I know that the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich has a blanket no photo policy inside and out and every item is copyrighted, this costs them money to renew each year as new items arrive but the copyright overlall lasts 75 years, so they can make their money selling post cards and pamphlets about exhibits and of course charging for giving permission to use an item in a publication,TV programme or film.

 

As I suggested above, I wonder if this has ever been tested in court, after all, when I buy a car or picture I don't "own" the copyrights?

 

jch

[jchinuk]

At IWM Duxford in the 'Mess' canteen the policy seems to be that you must have a revolting pile of wilting salad with your jacket potato whether you want it or not. I insisted it was removed and the reaction I got was one of hostile indignation!

 

Ah, that's Jamie 'Mockney' Oliver's food police, a different branch of jobsworths!

 

jch

[Marmite!!]

As I suggested above, I wonder if this has ever been tested in court, after all, when I buy a car or picture I don't "own" the copyrights?

 

jch

 

http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/

 

Following a 1999 court decision in the USA challenging the existence of copyright in a photograph of a work of art (The Bridgeman Art Library -v- Corel Corporation 97 Civ.6232 (LAK) New York Southern District Court), the Museums Copyright Group set out to clarify the position for UK museums. The question is of considerable importance to museums. Revenue raised from reproduction fees and licensing is vital to museums to support their primary educational and curatorial objectives. Museums also rely on copyright in photographs of works of art to protect their collections from inaccurate reproduction and captioning. The decision appeared to threaten this position, prompting concern that museum photographs of out-of-copyright works of art would be vulnerable to piracy.

The Museums Copyright Group commissioned an in-depth report on the effect of Bridgeman -v- Corel on the museum sector. This concluded that:

 

• Bridgeman -v- Corel is not binding in the UK and is of doubtful authority even in the USA. It has not influenced the way museums negotiate or license rights and there have been no serious attempts by commercial users to undermine the position of museums.

• Museums must continue to lobby to ensure that their interests are sufficiently acknowledged in the copyright sphere. They must liaise with similar organisations in Europe and the UK. Currently the interests of museums are not sufficiently well reflected in copyright law.

• Museums must brief themselves in other relevant areas of intellectual property law such as database law and trade mark protection.

• Museums must manage their licensing activities through effective contracts. They should be particularly careful about protecting digital images. Three members of the Museums Copyright Group (with support from the Museums & Galleries Commission) have written the Guide to Copyright for Museums and Galleries, which includes pro forma contracts for museums. Routledge published the book in May 2000.

Following the report the Museums Copyright Group has obtained an opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC, a leading copyright specialist, who has no doubt that UK copyright law protects photographs of works of art:

 

"... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether ... the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting ..."

 

[steveo578]

safariswing

Following the report the Museums Copyright Group has obtained an opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC, a leading copyright specialist, who has no doubt that UK copyright law protects photographs of works of art:

Good synopsis Lee, however until such a matter is put before a Judge/Commisioner of suitable rank and learnedness Jonathan Rayner James QC opinion is just that -nothing more or less and dare I say it, not of much more utility than the opinion of the man on the Clapham omibus (slight misquote of Lord Denning late Master of the Rolls).

 

Unfortunately in the UK and EU jurisdiction copyright law is currently bollocks, enforcement of copyright with regard to art works/photogrpahy is difficult even if said art work is registered and unfortunately there are many registration organisations-business (with snappy names) who are quite willing to "fleece" the hapless interlectual property owner -but are very unlikely to attempt to enforce interlectual property rights. You might as well try to nail custard to a wall.

 

As to technical and security matters again most is rubbish, most modern security cameras and fire system are unlikely to be disturbed by flash photography unless it is of the level only seen when Paris Hilton turns up at an event. For an anti crime point of view, theft to order is done by very skilled fellons, banning granny cams will not stop it.

 

On the other hand fabrics, paintings (particularly the modern stuff) and manuscripts may be harmed by bright light,however it is debatable whether the >100ths of a second exposure of a flash could effectively damage it- it is continuious lighting that does for it-even subdued lighting. The most damaging consquences for fabrics etc is exposure to moisture - the breath of the visitors and staff. Again most of these rules are scams to get the hapless visitor or student to shell out for an often poorly produced facsimile often at inflated prices.

 

In my none legal opinion, if a museum refuses to allow photography or worse does not allow you to make notes do not support them (walk away) and make sure you inform your friends and colleagues in forums such as this of the matter of fact- I cannot be more emphatic -they nearly all receive monies you have paid in taxes in so called educational grants and reduced L/A property taxes, although all will make out that they receive no Local Authority, Government or EU support. In the words of that great human rights guru -Aurthur Dent -"lets see who rusts first".:-D

 

Steve

[Bob Grundy]

So we are in a Museum and we take a photograph say of a aeroplane or tank.

However photography is not permitted and an attendant or official of the Museum turns up.

What is he (or she) to do ? Confiscate your camera ? How; rip it out of your hand ? Ask for your name and address ? Call the Police ? Make you leave; how?

They have no powers whatsoever.

Being a bolshy sort of chap I would relish this confrontation.

[earlymb]

So we are in a Museum and we take a photograph say of a aeroplane or tank.

However photography is not permitted and an attendant or official of the Museum turns up.

What is he (or she) to do ? Confiscate your camera ? How; rip it out of your hand ? Ask for your name and address ? Call the Police ? Make you leave; how?

They have no powers whatsoever.

Being a bolshy sort of chap I would relish this confrontation.

 

Actually, they can ask you to leave and call the police is that is refused. In cases like these I just try to be inconspicuous with my small camera, never had trouble.

 

Greetz

 

David

[andym]

"... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether ... the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting ..."

 

 

I think we're slightly at cross purposes here. Bridgeman v Corel is about the copyright of a photograph of a piece of art, not the copyright of the original art itself. It's about the Bridgeman Art Library's ability to charge for the use of its photographs, which is the business they're in. That's not the same as saying that a car or tank is "copyright" so you can't take a photo of it, which is the line some museums seem to be taking.

[Bob Grundy]

Actually, they can ask you to leave and call the police is that is refused. In cases like these I just try to be inconspicuous with my small camera, never had trouble.

 

Greetz

 

David

 

Let them.......

When police arrive, go quietly.

[steveo578]

Bob Grundy

Let them......

When police arrive, go quietly.

 

If you're asked to leave and refuse and the police get involved they can

a). Issue a fixed penalty for disorder, £60 to £100 depending on which force area.

b). Summons you to appear at a magistrates court where even if no finding is made (the most likely result) you could still be "bound over".

 

so it's best to leave, however you would certainly be entitled to demand (not ask) for a ticket refund, if done in a loud voice they will be glad to get rid of you:-).

 

Steve

[steveo578]

andym

.....That's not the same as saying that a car or tank is "copyright" so you can't take a photo of it, which is the line some museums seem to be taking.

The property (car/tank) is not copyright. If on what is effect private property (ie property not owned by you) you may not photogrph if it is expressly forbidden and even if it is permited the owner of property has a right to ask not to publish photos, however the only right to enforce this is through the court, dare you take the risk, on the other hand does the property owner risk a similar financial cost for an unsuccessful prosecution but you can be up against a private individual who is rich and no doubt has legal insurance for just such a situation -that probably doesn't apply to museum and other corporate organisations as the legal insurance is rather prohibitive for organisations.

 

Unless the owner of the property commisions you to take photographs and you recind, waive or sign over your interlectual rights the owner does not have any copyright over the photos.

 

I know of a number of people in the historic vehicle game both private and involved with museums who believe their "rights protection" on their property extends to when it is on the public highway or on private land where the land owner has no policy, it doesn't.

 

Steve

[alan turner (RIP)]

Stevo says no tank/vehicle is copyrighted but again with the NMM Nelsons uniform is copyrighted as an article, so any item can come under that heading if properly applied for.

[steveo578]

alan turner

......Stevo says no tank/vehicle is copyrighted but again with the NMM Nelsons uniform is copyrighted as an article, so any item can come under that heading if properly applied for

 

Allan

 

Please advise what type of uniform you refer to -is this unifrom one that has recently been designed for use by NMM Nelson or is it like that worn by Chelsea Pensioners and other Crown/military uniforms covered by a Letter of Patent -ie a form of Crown Copyright- rights reserved in perpetuity (prior the 1988), in other words a design protected by Act of Parliament -after all prior to Sir Robert Peels reforms impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner was a capital offence. :-D

 

Steve