Dale,

Yes, you could come in the museum and photograph.
Restrictions:  No flash, No tripod.
                No loans, No temporary exhibits.
                No, if restricted by the donor or the artist's
                                family/foundation.
                No, for works NOT in the public domain.

This only applies to the DMA.  Other museums have stricter policies.

But, I don't understand your "better than nothing" comment.
Anything is better than nothing?
There's already too much sloppy work out there.  I just have a 14.4, who
needs sloppy art work that takes 2 minutes to view?  I'd rather look at a
book.

Joanne Ikemoto-Olson
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Collections Information Center      | email: [log in to unmask]
Dallas Museum of Art                | http://www.unt.edu/dfw/dma/www/dma.htm
1717 North Harwood                  | voice: 214-922-1314
Dallas, TX 75201                    | fax: 214-954-0174
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Dale Kutzera wrote:

> One thing puzzles me about the whole digital publishing/images on WEB
> debate: Aren't most images in museums--particularly works of art--in the
> public domain? Museums may hold the copyright to slides and
> transparencies of works, but is there anything preventing someone from
> photographing works of art (as many museums allow) and posting them
> on the internet? True, these images would not have the quality of
> professional photographs shot by the Museums themselves, but many
> may consider them better than nothing.
>