Why are cameras restricted in Galleries & displays?

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

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

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message .uk...
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?

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 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

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.

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

There are several reason why a gallery or museum may prohibit cameras.

1. Light can cause damage. At the DeYoung Museum in San Francisco you can
take pictures, but you can't use flash. The light from the flash can cause
damage to the exhibits. This is also why some of the exhibit rooms are kept
quite dark. If you have a fast lens and high ISO you can still take
pictures.

2. Some artists and some galleries and museums don't want cause damage to
the value of their work. It is one thing to have people see it in the
gallery or museum, it is another to have a near perfect 10 or 12MP digital
file floating around on the internet of it. Most artists are trying to sell
their work, having it floating around free reduces the value. Most museums
offer copies or prints of the works for sale in their gift shop this is
partly how they make money. Having copies floating around free reduces their
revenue stream.

3. Then you have the annoyance to the other guests. This can has some effect
on the use of flash, tripods, monopods, etc. People don't want you shooting
your camera off in their face. Galleries and Museums have to worry about
turning off customers that don't like such things.

It is important to note that many museums and some galleries have certain
days during the year when they are open to photography. In general the
DeYoung Museum in San Francisco doesn't allow photography, but they do
during their Bouquets to Art fundraiser days. Even during that there was one
exhibit where you couldn't take pictures. So there are lots of reasons. Most
of them have to do with the loss of potential revenue for the artist or
facility.

Robert

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?

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

"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