Thanks so far for the helpful comments.  I do agree that we need to modify our photography policy, especially in light of another new (and expected to be popular) exhibition we'll be putting in early next year.  While because of the content, we likely would have done that anyway, this is a whole new side to examen. 

To clarify/respond to a couple of points:

Viral marketing and the value of participating in such things was brought up.  One good example of this is the Brooklyn Museum, who even integrates their Flickr feed into their own website.  If you look at the Brooklyn Museum photos (or the examples Barbara Hess and Linda Norris directed us to), however, they're just little tastes of the museum - it doesn't appear as though anyone went through a gallery and systematically took high-quality, legible photos of every single thing in the gallery (and then published them online, in order). To me, the problem here is really the quality, the comprehensive nature of the photos, and the apparent intent.  The photos here are not just photos of a visit, but rather a close copy of each individual exhibition element. 

I don't think there's any financial damage, in this case, as the "photos" in question have only been viewed a few times (at least by Flickr's count).  Even if they had been viewed many times, it would be rather impossible to track any specific damages related to diminished admission income. 

There are some other good reproductions of photos from our museum on Flickr, but they don't trigger the same negative reaction in me - probably because it's just a few of them, and not an entire exhibition.  We do provide digital images to museum patrons periodically, and our Collections Committee is currently revising our policies related to this practice.  Would posting images on Flickr (or wherever, online) count as a personal use, even though they're "published" and available to the general public, or should this type of use really qualify under our (higher priced) permissions for publishing images (with rates for non-profit/educational vs. commercial)?  Does anyone have a policy that specifically addresses this?   Does anyone have a policy allowing photography, but restricting the use/copyright of those photos (something like: "Photography for your personal use is allowed, but publication of photographs in any form is strictly prohibited without the Museum's permission" but in legalese)?

FYI, I don't think this person was trying to "steal" the exhibition, or do anything malicious, but it does seem like she was trying to reproduce the exhibition. 

Thanks to all who've chimed in, and please continue. 

Kaia


========================================================= Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).