I haven't seen the Sheryl Crow music video and I don't know where it was
shot, but I do know of a couple of museums that were contacted about using
their facilities for the filming of the video (the only reason I know this is
because I wrote my graduate thesis on the subject of filmmaking in museums so
sometimes people call me to talk about their film projects). I know that at
least two museums turned the video down.

Since replacing dioramas is difficult and expensive, under NO circumstances
should a museum permit filmmakers to get inside a diorama. This will almost
certainly result in serious damage to it. There are several alternatives if a
filmmaker wants to use a diorama. One alternative is to allow the filmmakers
to construct a temporary, artificial "diorama" in the exhibit hall that they
can set dress, but remove when filming is finished. Or, if an existing
diorama is aging and needs to be replaced anyway, the museum might negotiate
to have the production company pay for a new one- the museum can remove their
old diorama, let the production company set dress the vacant space and shoot
their scene, then the museum can construct a new diorama, paid for by the
production comapny. If space exists, another option is to permit the
production company to construct a permanent diorama structure that they can
set dress for filming, but that will remain in place for the museum's use
when filming is completed. This is a good way to get a diorama structure
without having to pay for it. The catch to all this is that the museum has to
negotiate carefully and know exactly what it wants. I know of museums that
have negotiated for expensive structural improvements (such as a new roof,
restoration of a historic house's kitchen, etc.) as well as for smaller
furnishings (new exhibit cases, new carpet), all paid for by film production
companies.

In response to your question about copyrights, all the museums I interviewed
(over forty) work out copyright agreements with production companies in their
preliminary negotiations. There is a difference between the copyright issues
for a documentary and those for a commercial film. Most museums exhibiting
copyrighted art or artifacts deinstall galleries used for filming when
working with commerical filmmakers, letting the production company set dress
the gallery with their own "art". The production company pays the costs of
removing and reinstalling the museum's art and artifacts. In addition, the
museum receives a daily rental fee (usually from $1,500-7,500 per day,
depending on the museum's visibility and the local location fees) and waives
other copyrights, royalties, etc. from the film.

Documentary filmmakers often want specific artifacts or works of art to be
filmed. Depending on who owns the copyright, the museum can negotiate with
the filmmaker to determine whether the artifact can appear on film. In most
cases, the concern with filming particular artifacts is not copyright, but
whether the object can tolerate the stresses of being filmed (heat and uv
from lighting in particular). I am not aware of any cases where the museum
received royalties from a documentary, though some museums charge a fee for
filming in the same manner they charge commercial filmmakers (though usually
at a much reduced rate).

The other issue that arises when filmmakers use a museum as a location is the
copyright of the museum's structure, which becomes an issue when the building
itself has been copyrighted. Usually copyrighted buildings are those that are
highly recognizable.

If you have any more questions concerning film production in museums and
historic sites, please feel free to contact me off-list at [log in to unmask]