Kristian Knutsen writes about the difficult distinctions between bloggers and traditional press when it comes to taking photographs inside a public building. At issue are the photos taken on the opening day of the Madison Museum of Contemporary Art (MMoCa). The photos I took, blogged here, are part of the controversy. But -- as the article notes -- I asked if photography was permitted as I entered and was told yes. Now, the museum authorities are expressing concern about this photography.
Ironically, I gave them a lot of free publicity, better -- I think -- than advertisements they might shell out a lot of money for. I'm also quoted in the article saying that I think the rights of the artists need to be protected. Myself, I avoided closely picturing any artwork out of respect for the artists' rights. And I think it's important not to interfere with the aesthetic experience of museum-goers. Turning off the flash is an absolute minimum, and standing back and not intruding is a matter of basic respect for others.
As for architecture, however, I think you've got to be allowed to photograph buildings. The building authorities are now fretting about "professional photography," and saying it's different from photography "for personal use." Clearly, they haven't really grasped what photography has become in the age of Flickr. What does it mean anymore to speak of photography "for personal use"? Ordinary people upload their digital files. How repressive do public authorities really want to be about that?
April 28, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Interesting, the timing of this issue.
Yet more food for thought about the ever-evolving blogging framework.
Mmmmm....Mocha.
Who thought of that name?
MmmmMoCA should pay you a royalty for all that good publicity you gave them. Or take out a blog ad. Or use you pictures in an ad and then invite you to a soiree. And then uninvite you.
Ruth Anne: LOL!
Santiago Calatrava's museum is in Milwaukee. I wonder if you can take pictures there?
I would be curious to see the difference between taking photos in the building vs. taking pictures of the building's interior architecture, which is something I'd be more likely to do. Hmmm. Have digital camera, will travel, perhaps.
Here are my photographs inside the Milwaukee Art Museum.
Re MMoCA: I not only received permission, but I carried a full-size SLR camera conspicuously throughout the museum for over an hour, took over 200 pictures, was seen by many guards and other employees, and even had a long conversation with one of the guards, in which I talked about the fact that I was going to put the pictures on my blog.
Really, it's self-defeating for the museum to be harsh to people with digital cameras and blogs. Above all, they want people to come to the museum, and the blog is publicity aimed right at many people who might decide to travel here. Obviously, the pictures show that there is something magnificent to be seen. Do photographs of the Eiffel Tower make you feel you don't need to go see it, or do they create a desire to see it "in person"? And if you travel to visit something spectacular, you usually want to photograph it (and share your photos in your normal ways). What if you're a blogger thinking of coming in from out of town? If you knew you couldn't blog your photography, you might plan a different trip. I know that my own travel plans are tied to blogging plans.
I think the museum is going to have to settle on a policy. If the management does not want pictures of the interior or the artwork posted on the Internet then they will either have to prohibit amateur photography, or they need to lighten up. In my experience, if a museum or other site is generating revenue by selling professionally done images then they are less likely to allow amateur photography. I've been in beautiful churches all over Italy where photography is allowed as long as you don't use a flash, but don't try to take pictures in the Sistine Chapel. The churches might, at most, have some postcards for sell. The Vatican has a huge gift shop were you can get some beautiful art books and prints.
Hmmm: Can you copyright a building?
Maybe they feel that the photographs infringe on their copyrights in some way.
And, the person who granted permission didn't know exactly what was proprietary and what wasn't?
Don't know.
I do know that lots of amateur photographs being shared are putting the commercial photographers out of business. If the museum has an offical photographer, that they are paying big bucks to.....
It is a concern, I imagine.
Peace, Maxine
With all due respect, this is a better site for copyright info, a bit scattered, but a higher authority:
www.copyright.gov
(Library of Congress)
Wow, I'm learning a lot. "Ideas" "Methods" "Ways of doing things" are not protected. Art is about ideas?
QUESTION: Do IP lawyers make the most of any other branch. Now, I know why!
Ann, are you wearing all-black in that one photo? Too Goth!
I don't understand contemporary, abstract art---if that's what we're viewing. I do like Caravaggio and Masaccio. Maybe I need to go to Europe?
Compliment: I adore the flooring. That deep brown hardwood, (looks to be), and those shiny white floors (is that parquet?). Those floors must be a dream come true to walk on, with heels. I wonder if they wax 'em every night to get the shine. I swear it looked like you could see your reflection in that one shiny one. You have to get a more direct picture of the deep brown of the hardwood! Unless, it's copyrighted!
Peace, Maxine
W.----theoretically, couldn't someone, somewhere still getcha on a copyright infringement?
American Standard, or whoever...some photographer who photographs bathrooms for a living.....says you are cutting into his income....
Just thinking.
I'm glad I don't own a digital camera. My number 1 defense if anyone tries to accuse me. And, I live in LaLa land and a bunch of angry commercial photographers being put out of business....
Peace, Maxine
This kind of issue is just sooo complicated anymore. Almost all museums have rules against photography of any kind in the gallery rooms, but some allow photography of the larger halls. Even most public buildings such as shopping malls etc have rules against "professional photography". Basically, if you look like a tourist you can snap pictures. But if you somehow look like a pro (carrying a big camera bag, setting up a tripod, etc) then a security guard will be all over you quickly. I'm a professional photographer, but I also blog photos that are mostly taken with a tiny little pocket camera... but sometimes I sell the photos taken with the little camera. The disticton between pro and amateur is getting more difficult to discern.
I often shoot pictures in stores and other indoor spaces for the blog. I'm conscious that these stores have rules against this but I flout them and I'm good at not getting caught. I really don't care about their rules.
Here's an interesting case that is tangentially related. I was invited by a local magazine publisher to take photos on the set of filming of a Warner Bros. movie on the campus of Marshall University. We got permission from the unit publicist and I shot for a couple of hours before he politely asked us to leave. It was fun and I got a lot of great stuff. Althouse linked to the post. I sent a few emails out to movie sites which also linked... and then it spread virally to lots of other movie sites. Even though extremely similar images are up on the local newspaper site and the university web site, I was asked by the WB publicist to remove my photos from the blog. Why? Apparently, the only difference was success. My photos were getting out into the wide world. When I was seen as just some flunky local guy, it was ok for me to snap away, but when the stuff got out worldwide, then suddenly it became a problem.
As Ann's case so brilliantly illustrates, the old distinctions between pro and amateur are blurring out of existence.
Mary, I'm very conscious of invasion of privacy. I would never post a picture that hurt anyone, but when a store makes a rule about photography in their space, it's not about privacy, it's just about control. They want control over the images in their store. They have the right to demand that control, but I just don't care if they succeed at it or not. If I want to take a photo of a display of glassware at Target I'll just do it and not get caught. They want control but I don't really care if they can't completely have it. I'm not hurting anything and I'm getting some really cool images.
Thanks, Rick. I hope you didn't take the pictures down!
Now that I think about it, I was asked by a couple people if I was a professional photographer. I don't think they were connected with the museum though. Anyway, I said no.
I really think people haven't adjusted to what digital photography has become in the last year or so, with so much archived on line, with creative commons licensing, etc. I've had my photos used in other people's cards and brochures, for example.
"Now, the museum authorities are expressing concern about this photography."
I agree that "professionals" indirectly making money off their "art" should be treated differently than the little guy whose posted photos are not uploaded much. "Success" and money-making means responsibility.
Some day, Rick Lee will get "caught" in a Target store, violating their rules. Then, store authorities will be expressing concern about this photography, like the museum officials above.
You go in their place, you should play by their rules. You disrespect the rules, you blow it for all the rest of us. Non-professionals and little guys.
Rick said: "I'm a professional photographer, but I also blog photos that are mostly taken with a tiny little pocket camera... but sometimes I sell the photos taken with the little camera. The disticton between pro and amateur is getting more difficult to discern. I often shoot pictures in stores and other indoor spaces for the blog. I'm conscious that these stores have rules against this but I flout them and I'm good at not getting caught. I really don't care about their rules."
Ann... actually I did take the photos down, because my contact at the magazine (who got me access to the film set) still needed the good favor of the studio. I wasn't going to make a federal case out of it and hurt my friend.
Someday I'll get caught by Target?? I've been asked to stop taking pictures before... I just say "Oh, I'm sorry" and go on my way. It's not like they are going to wrestle me to the ground and seize my camera. It's just not that big a deal.
"I'll just do it and not get caught."
"I've been asked to stop taking pictures before... "
Wait, I thought you were bragging here on how good you were about flouting the silly rules? Now you say you have been asked to stop, yet continue. And you're a professional who sells these images? Hmm...
"The distiction between pro and amateur is getting more difficult to discern." lol and good luck! (It's a bit like getting in the habit of rolling stops, or running yellow lights -- that habit of flouting rules -- or slightly crossing the center line on tight corners when no other vehicles are around. Think about it a little; you'll get what I'm saying.)
"Think about it a little; you'll get what I'm saying." I think we'd better drop this. I just thought about saying something that's not nice and Ann has a rule about that. That's one rule I do choose to follow. :-)
Oh well, at Target, you can't take notes. I read, a couple of years ago, that a reporter was walking around writing little notes in a notebook, and one of the managers came and told him note-taking was not allowed.
I guess they think of manual note-taking along the lines of tape recording. Well, it is a form of recording.
What if you are just writing a shopping list?
Well, I guess their in-store video cameras would catch whatever was being jotted down.
Maybe Wal-Mart is more lenient?
Peace, Maxine
Maxine: I think they are afraid of lawsuits, competitors, and bad publicity. They invite people on the premises to shop, and these rules are about detecting people who have some other purpose. They are afraid such folks will do them harm. But their being repressive makes shoppers feel bad.
Post a Comment