To: Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Flash Photography
From: [log in to unmask](Robert A. Baron)
Cc: [log in to unmask]
X-PipeUser: rabaron
X-PipeHub: nyc.pipeline.com
X-PipeGCOS: (Robert A. Baron)
X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0

On Aug 08, 1996 14:07:13, '"J. McCrain" <[log in to unmask]>' wrote:


>You are not alone.  We do not allow any type of photography inside our
>buildings.  This solves several problems.  The first and most obvious
>is to control commercial use of our collections.  (We DO allow
>commercial photography, but they pay a nice fee.)  Second, it allows
>us to control any copywrite protected materials.

So, if your museum contains an item, the copyright for which has already
fallen into the "public domain," how does a person manage to obtain a copy
of such an object for use in a publication while claiming such exemption
from any license fees, as the status of "public domain" would seem to
permit?

If your museum is a "public" institution, supported by taxpayers or a
museum whose objects are owned by a civic entity, under what authority do
you prohibit all photography by the public?  Are you not just custodians of
publicly owned property?  When objects are still under copyright, different
conditions apply, of course.

In the old days flash powder presented a real hazard to objects and
bystanders alike; later flash bulbs, less hazardous, still output
considerable heat, but today's low power electronic flash has little or no
effect on objects.  Except for the fact that when most people use
electronic flash to photograph two-dimensional objects they produce
unusable results, by what rationale do you prevent people from using such
artificial illumination to photograph three-dimensional objects?
--

Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont N.Y. 10538
[log in to unmask]



--

Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont N.Y. 10538
[log in to unmask]