[Leica] No photography in Museum

[leica at rcmckee.com (R. Clayton McKee)]

Quoth the Ric Carter :

> that still does not explain the attitude of the traveling
> exhibits--if someone sees a photo of a Monet, they won't bother to
> pay to see the show?

Best SWAG is that it's got to do with security and liability.  When 
they let people start snapshooting, they open themselves to arguments 
about tripods, flashes, etc., and they have to add much more security 
to avoid problems.  Plus people with cameras can create distractions 
in which other people can cause problems (spray paint problems, razor 
problems, hammer problems, like that...).  

The reality is that no curator or museum director will EVER be fired 
for being overprotective of the irreplaceable artworks, or for 
minimizing the museum's potential lawsuit exposure.  Inconsistencies 
lead to annoyed guests and lawsuits. If the policy is "no cameras in 
the travelling exhibits, no flash or tripods anywhere, no 
exceptions," and it's enforced consistently,  there's a very limited 
legal challenge window.

And there are issues with commercial uses of the photos ...  when I 
shoot exhibits at the museums for the newspaper, I'm usually required 
to sign a very specific usage agreement beforehand... and I don't get 
to wander the galleries; I'm escorted straight in and straight back 
out by at least one museum person, for security and everyone's 
protection.  (I don't really ever want to be alone in a gallery with 
a Monet or a Van Gogh; it's just not worth the risk if something 
disastrous happened.)

C'mon. How much money do you think the gift shops make selling 
individual prints or slides of the artwork?   How often do you see 
people walking out of an art museum gift show with 8x10 glossies of 
the paintings? I'd guess that stopping photographers from shooting 
pix has a negligible effect on the museum's financials, if only 
because the majority of people who visit the gift shop are looking 
for books, videos, maybe posters, not copies of the art.  There just 
wouldn't be any financial reason to block shooting; the money's 
insignificant there.

> i've been stopped for taking pictures of my kid's junior high field
> trip group

Well, they can't very well stop the junior high schoolers (who are 
notorious about climbing over ropes or on exhibits) running amok with 
cells and P&S toys and then let you shoot, can they?  That's just 
BEGGING some parent to file a major discrimination suit because you 
got to take pictures while little Johnnie, the Rebel without a Clue, 
couldn't shoot a picture of himself grabbing the boobs of the bronze 
in the main gallery...  

Whether they'd win or not, they'd have to spend a fair bit of time 
and money defending the issue in whatever legal venue, and dealing 
with the publicity.  It's just easier to avoid the entire issue with 
a blanket policy.


--
R. Clayton McKee                            http://www.rcmckee.com
Photojournalist                                 rcmckee at rcmckee.com
P O Box 571900                               voice/fax   713/783-3502
Houston, TX 77257-1900                    cell number on request
The only guidebooks worth reading begin with the phrase
    "When you get to the end of the paved road, continue..."