Hi Isabella,

 

With regards to “liable; seriously?” : yes, actually! You say below that you had no intention of asking the lady concerned directly, however your original posting clearly stated that “…. if you all can help ease my mind and tell me she did actually have permission to wear the dresses” , which read to me as a direct appeal to listserv members to substantiate a specific question concerning a named individual? And as you go on to say

“Basically, it would be impossible to discern the truth even if she was being truthful” so IF the individual concerned found out about this discussion and took exception to it, then it would not be a pretty picture!  

In respect of your conclusion that “people are more concerned about personal reputations than the possibility of damaged artifacts?” I would humbly suggest that both are important but I of course agree with you that no one responsible for the custody of artefacts should obscure or conceal “wrong doings” to protect their own reputation: this is basic ethics!

 

Here’s another angle : for those of you who work for museums/heritage sites large enough to have your own intranets, I am sure you have all had to sign up to protocols that expressly forbid you to discuss the actions of named individuals in this way on your internal e-mail networks: is the internet so very different?

 

Of course, I don’t endorse litigation culture any more than you do and I do believe in the freedom of speech J ! I also fully appreciate that you question arose out of genuine interest and whether intentionally or not your posting has sparked one of the most interesting debates on this listserv I have seen in recent months: and I sincerely thank you for that!

 

***

 

For those posters who have used the words “libel and slander”, these terms are often confused and here is a neat little summary of what they both mean and how they interrelate. I have included a link to the site I am quoting from, which is an American one, so presumably consistent with US law.

“LIBEL AND SLANDER occur when a person or entity communicates false information that damages the reputation of another person or entity. Slander occurs when the false and defamatory communication is spoken and heard. Libel occurs when the false and defamatory communication is written and seen. The laws governing libel and slander, which are collectively known as DEFAMATION, are identical.”

 http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander

 

Of course, these laws were framed way before the internet was even dreamed of! Now, is communication via the internet “spoken and heard” or “written and seen” or both? Does it matter as both libel and slander count as defamation? Another discussion for another day!

 

Thanks again to Isabella for initiating this fascinating discussion.

 

Jerry

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of . .
Sent: 25 February 2011 12:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] Concerning Blog Post

 



In regards to the liable; seriously?  The lady herself said she "snuck out" the dresses.  I'm only asking whether anyone can confirm or deny this.   As for asking her directly, no, I have not and with a very good reason: if this is nothing more than a creative writing exercise and those are reproductions of an 1890's dress and an early 1900's (out of wool, not cotton, by my eye but the pictures are really too blurry to tell) then she may continue her writing exercise with the answer; she may also deny it even if the original story is true.  Basically, it would be impossible to discern the truth even if she was being truthful.  

I'm actually sort of shocked that anyone would be more horrified that I "dared" to post this to a listserve for museum professionals than the idea of someone sneaking artifacts out of a museum.   I guess people are more concerned about personal reputations than the possibility of damaged artifacts?

-Isabella



Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 06:09:51 -0600
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Concerning Blog Post
To: [log in to unmask]

I agree that the dresses in question are most likely reproductions- or at worst re-furbished "vintage dresses". 

 

I also agree with the point about being careful of accusations made on the listserv.  Isabella- did you ask the blogger whether this was a true story or a creative writing exercise?  There is a link that says, "ask me anything"...

I remember an instance not too long ago where more serious accusations were made on the listserv about an unnamed museum on the east coast (which was readily identifiable with a simple Google search).

 

I think it bears reminding everyone on *any* public forum that what you post here is actually public.  Don't say (write) anything that you wouldn't want printed in the paper or on the evening news.  (I would, by the way, give the same caution to the blogger who blogs- even in a creative writing format- about engaging in illegal activities.)

Just my $0.02.

-Cass

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:15 PM, . . <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



Hello!

I'm a long time lurker to the list.  This afternoon, I was looking up information on vintage dresses and gowns when I came across this blogger's post: http://thedarlingsfables.tumblr.com/post/3489854698/a-pair-of-kindred-spirits   For those that don't like links, it says the following:

My friend Lesley and I used to work at a museum and one day after work we snuck some brilliant dresses off some mannequins and some other props and came up with these charming photos. I hope they bring you as much satisfaction and longing for summer as they do me.

The post is accompanied by an array of photos of the two ladies in what are clearly late 19th century/early 20th century gowns doing a variety of seemingly innocent activities; such as cloud watching in the grass or kneeling outside in the grass.  However, those activities are extremely damaging to antique cotton and silk gowns not to mention any insects or chemicals they may have gotten on them thanks to lawn care. 

I would love to believe that she was joking and did have permission -much in the same vain as I say when I tell people I'm going to "kidnap" my nephew- but I can't imagine a curator allowing someone to lay down outside in the grass in an antique dress that is part of the museum's collection.

So, if you all can help ease my mind and tell me she did actually have permission to wear the dresses, that would be awesome.  Does anyone even recognize the gowns?  I believe the lady lives in Canada but I'm unsure if the museum she "borrowed" these dresses from is there.   Does anyone know if she had permission or not?  Is the museum even aware of what took place?  

If she didn't have permission, how did she manage to get the artifacts out of the museum without anyone raising an eyebrow?   I really think this might be a larger discussion on museum security and procedures, particularly for trusted individuals in the museum.  

I really hope someone recognizes the gowns and can help tell me yea or nay on whether or not this lady had permission to have those gowns.

Thank you,

Isabella

 


To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1

 


To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1



To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1



To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1