3 ms·

Do you also feel this way about photos?

• logfromblammo 11y ago
  Which do you mean? Photos of a museum piece or photos as the exhibited work? For the latter, if the photos were taken on film, reproduction prints could be made in the same fashion as the exhibited print, and any scanning should take place using the negatives. On-plate photography is more appropriately digitized using a scanning machine, rather than with a handheld photographic camera. As for taking pictures of a museum piece, as long as you are no more disruptive than someone using their eyeballs, I have no problem with taking photographs, even if the displayed work is still under copyright. A blanket ban on photography puts an unfair burden on the photographer to prove fair use a priori. If there is a problem with copyright, the work in question can always be blurred or blacked out with digital editing, leaving the remainder of the photo intact. But I don't believe any public museum can ethically prevent visitors from using recording devices of any kind unless they provide libre digital copies of the protected work that are objectively better than anything that could be produced by an amateur in situ. So by all means, charge 8000 euro for a volume-printed reproduction of the bust. But if you want to prevent people from "scanning" the original, you had best make the high-resolution scan the museum already possesses available for download first.