Intellectual and Cultural Property and Other Inhibitions

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Most experience based museums like children's and science museums have unrestricted noncommercial photography policies. Conversely, and sadly, many collections based art galleries and museums continue to maintain highly restrictive photography policies. Typically there seems to be five main arguments for these restrictive policies: 

1. Intellectual Property: Museums are obliged to respect the diversity of intellectual property rights of artists and agreements with donors and lenders. In institutions where some objects are 'legally'(?) photographable and others not, administratively, it's easier to use the most restrictive lowest common denominator blanket agreements as the basis for institutional policies. The negotiation of an alternative ‘worldview’ in a 21st C context is nonetheless a possibility. 

2. Conservation: Objects may be damaged by flash photography. Some conservators argue that if non-flash photography is permitted, light levels in the galleries may be increased to accommodate visitors' cameras, which indirectly damage works in the collection. Or perhaps it may bring pressure to bear on relaxing restrictions on using tripods etc. that in turn may put works at risk of damage. 

3. Revenue Streams: Institutions want to maintain control of sales of ‘officially sanctioned’ images of objects via catalogues and postcards. The claim here is that if people can take their own photos, they won't buy them in the gift shop. Notwithstanding this, most institutions using the “no photography” paradigm to protect revenue stream actually exploit their revenue option in a minimal way and sometimes hardly at all given the resources available to them. 

4. Aesthetics of Experience: Photography is distracting for other visitors. Looking at artwork through a lens means you are having a less rich experience. Visitors may make ‘inappropriate’ – the new illegal – gestures in photographs with museum/gallery content, thus distorting institutional values and intent. The institutions using this argument apparently wish to control the ways their collections can be – should be (?) – read and understood. 

5. Security: Photographers might take photos with intent to do harm; for example, with plans to rob the museum or stalk another visitor. 

In respect to the first and second arguments there are issues that need to be mitigated. Nonetheless, there are ways that this can be done and increasingly institutions are finding ways to do so. 

In regard to the third argument, there are good arguments to be put that discredit it and render it as an almost totally unfounded and/or misguided policy. Furthermore, some institutions deem themselves to have intellectual property and other rights – sometimes largely untested – to back up this kind of claim. At the very least an institution’s authority to invoke this kind of restriction on an audience’s ability to use museum collections needs the both questioned and tested. 

As for the fourth and fifth arguments, the kindest thing to be said about them is that they are bizarre and that they exude idleness – not to mention ungenerousness. Aside from any of this such arguments are a demonstration of a level of intellectual dysfunction and indolence. It is also possible that they are put forward to reinforce the bureaucratic imperative to ‘say no first’ because it is easier and possible with the consequential benefit of requiring less effort to enforce. 

For the most part, the 'say no' policies generally fail any reasonable and intelligently applied credibility test that might be applied to a cultural institution worthy of the name. It would be especially so for one that is proactively working towards being sustainable and engaging with its COI.