Re: Another View (Was Review of AMNH Lost World Exhibit)

[Bettyc <Bettyc@flyinggoat.com>]

dunn1@IDT.NET wrote:
> As to the museum's forbidding photography because of "copyright
> concerns," why didn't someone rush over and prevent my copious
> picture taking during the "Dinosaurs Past and Present" exhibit in the
> Eighties, which may I say was a real exhibit and not a sleazy cash-in
> on a movie?  

probably because a percentage of the exhibit didn't belong to some
organizatoin that would object to photos being taken-it's all very
simple, really.  I like sleazy cash-in-exhibits as I'm terribly
interested in both the subject of the movie (dinosaurs) and in the way
the movie was made (technology, reference checking and source data, and
art skills)

> And why would photography of displays in a museum
> exhibit infringe on anyone's copyright (the perplexed attorney
> wondered)?

This ISN'T a museum exhibit.  It was the
Universal-Studios-promotional-exhibit-of-LOST-WORLD exhibit.  It just
happesns to be in a museum.
The name "Universal Studios" doesn't just refer to a sponsor but a major
contributor of the items on exhibit.  Universal paid some people ONCE to
make several items for use in the movie.  Merceded-Benz paid Universal
to use their products in the movie ONCE.  The contracts they made with
each other and the movie-makers do not allow any publishing not
specified since the possibility everybody involved would demand money if
any profit not originally covered were made and that would mean any of
the original contractors could sure for infringement or damages...MUCH
simpler to deny additonal photos (examples of how I could swipe the
companies profits: I shoot a picture of the exhibit and sell it to a
book on special effects, I sell posters of the big dinosaur taken from
photos I've shot, I recreate a prop and claim during it's sale that it's
original from photos taken at the exhibit-I've seen that one happen more
than once, especially with LucasArts props) 

The one exception would be press, and they would have to make prior
arrangements to photograph things and have to sign a model release
stating in what ways they would be allowed to use their photos.

If it were an exhibit of Princes Di's dresses and she had it as
contractual that no photographs were to be taken during the exhibit,
then you'd see exactly the same kind of signs.  This is NOT unusual in
the art world at all.  ;]

-- 
           Betty Cunningham  
the reply-to in this e-mail is a spam trap
remove the dash in flyinggoat in e-mail replies