tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post1949716496613556332..comments2024-03-23T13:09:54.464-04:00Comments on EXCESS COPYRIGHT: Life + 343 yearsHoward Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-12006598377021449012008-04-14T16:34:00.000-04:002008-04-14T16:34:00.000-04:00As a person who worked as a preparator in a museum...As a person who worked as a preparator in a museum for a few years, there are a lot of reasons why museums in particular dislike photography. First and foremost is the flash, as you've mentioned, which can produce candle levels several orders of magnitude higher than is needed to damage some paper fibres.<BR/><BR/>Also, some work is VEHEMENTLY defended under legitimate copyright. The prime example of this being Roy Lichtenstein, who's estate has been real paranoid about copyright. This is coming from a man who "copied" (see link at the end of my comment, I know he's not a plagiarist ) his works. What was even more sad was that we had a 12-foot-long tall version of the pointing finger (http://www.tfaoi.com/cm/2cm/2cm648.jpg) that we had to destroy instead of allowing one of the student helpers to take home as an awesome dorm room decoration.<BR/><BR/>The third case is that some lenders simply do not like people taking pictures of the work they own, for whatever reason. It is their right to forge terms for the art they own, and that's just the long and short of it. Some people are fools about it, and therefore we'll never be able to take pictures of their belongings.<BR/><BR/>What this sounds like though is a case of a slightly misinformed gaurd, as you've mentioned. Any chance of a follow-up to determine why photography isn't allowed on this collection?<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_LichtensteinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com