Thomas Hawk sez, "I was disappointed after reading about the new Walt Disney Family Museum's opening this week in San Francisco's Presidio via the SF Chronicle to learn that the museum has chosen to prohibit photography. For a cultural institution this is unfortunate. With many public museums moving more recently towards more open photography policies (including the EMP in Seattle just last month) it is disappointing to see a new museum opening with a closed policy. The Walt Disney Family Museum should consider following the lead of most of the other museums in the Bay Area and open their museum up to photographers."

As Thomas notes in his post, the Disney parks have an exemplary open photography policy, too; one that works superbly for Disney, engaging its fans and customers with its products and resorts. It's a real failure of confidence in their own success to impose a policy like this in the museum.

The New Walt Disney Family Museum's No Photography Policy Sucks (Thanks, Thomas!)

  • Ian70

    I’m noticing all these arguments of “People who take photographs of art are pushy and obnoxious and too stupid to turn their flash off.” Jeez, what country do you poor bastards live in?

    Oh.. yeah, never mind.

  • bunedoggle

    Vote with your wallet. If you don’t like the museum’s policy, don’t go.

    Frequent the ones who have policies you like. That simple.

    Capitalism people.

  • thomashawk

    Jim,

    I believe that non-profit museums (like the Walt Disney Family Museum) do society a dis-service by prohibiting photography. I believe that non-profit museums and other institutions of culture ought to be as open as possible.

    There is no intellectual property liability that exists by allowing photographers to photograph inside your museum. That is a red herring. Rather, it’s a choice to limit your cultural treasures to those who have the economic means to visit your institution.

    This policy is short-sighted and contrary to a greater public good of sharing our cultural treasures as broadly as possible.

    The issue is not about you or I shooting the museum, by presenting press credentials or otherwise seeking approval. The issue is about allowing all the ability to as broadly as possible share the contents of this museum beyond it’s walls.

    Obviously museums are susceptible to negative PR campaigns associated with their photo policies. Otherwise we wouldn’t see institutions like the SF MOMA and just last month the EMP change their policies from closed to open. I’d hope that lending a voice of criticism to a closed photography policy might play some small role of influence in getting it repealed.

    Your objection to protesting “rent a cop,” as you call them, photographic prohibition is about another issue entirely. In most of those cases it is more an issue of a private citizen or company trying to prohibit something perfectly legal. I’ve found that by protesting altercations that I’ve had with security officers over exterior legal public photography, that these sites have become less prone to photographer harassment.

    I’m not at all obsessed at finding things that I “can’t” shoot. I’ve got over 30,000 images presently displayed online of many, many, things that are perfectly legal to shoot. In fact I’ve spent far more time talking about and sharing legal images than I have discussing things I can’t shoot.

    This policy of the museum is unfortunate. Their cultural treasures are no more significant than the cultural treasures at the NY MOMA, the NY Met, The de Young Museum, etc., all who allow photography.

    Should the objection be to the fact that photographers are disruptive to other patrons, a simple solution exists in offering one day a week where photographers can attend and shoot while prohibiting it other days.

    I feel it is my duty to point out backwards thinking when I see it regarding photography as is yours and the museums.

  • nanuq

    A lot of museums are doing that these days (they really want to “encourage” visitors to buy the picture postcards at the gift shop). It’s a shame that Disney is following suit.

  • Anonymous

    The Walt Disney Family Museum is not affiliated with the Walt Disney Company. It’s run by a non-profit that is mainly members of his family.

    Please make that correction.

    Thanks! :)

  • montymov

    Re:
    #10 POSTED BY JIM O’CONNELL, OCTOBER 2, 2009 8:18 AM
    “Am I the only one who feels like “Thomas Hawk” has become a person far more obsessed with finding things he can’t photograph than finding interesting subjects to shoot in a significant manner?”

    Quite possibly, yes.
    I happen to think that, in addition to his work as a photographer, he’s doing us a favor by occasionally challenging people and institutions that mindlessly seek to restrict the freedom of others. These restrictions seem to not concern you due to your specialness:

    “I’ve shot in museums that don’t allow photography. When I’ve wanted to do so, I go to the management and present my business card and if that isn’t enough, some press credentials. ‘
    “Keep in mind that I say this as a person who not only does photography as a hobby, but also as my primary source of income.”

    Wow. A real live professional photographer. Right here. Taking time to bestow wisdom upon us. And staying up past his bedtime to do so.

    Oh, by the way, have you seen this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/03/BU2H19DPFN.DTL
    Turns out anyone can take a photo these days and sell it. The title “professional photographer” doesn’t carry the same weight it used to.
    Perhaps this is what has got you so crabby.

  • Brainspore

    By pure chance I scored tickets to the gala opening, where millionaires and billionaires appeared to outnumber everybody else by a sizable margin. I tipped the valet two dollars for parking our bird-poop-covered Kia Rio.

    The museum itself was pretty classy, shame about the photos policy. But I would note that many institutions that have historic documents (and I DO consider early sketches for “Snow White” to be historic documents) forbid all photography on the grounds that people don’t know how to turn off their damn camera flashes.

  • cinemajay

    EMP has an open photo policy now? Shucks. I was there in May and a security guard was ready to pound me into sea salt over a photo I snapped of one of their exhibits.

  • Matthew Walton

    Other than rampant commercialism, the usual reason to ban photography in museums is because light is not good for many kinds of old object (my sister, who works in conservation, would prefer to keep all exhibitions in dark rooms full of inert gases, but admits that might make it difficult to get people to pay for admission) and if you say ‘no flash photography’ a lot of people don’t turn their flashes off – or don’t know how to. I’ve also seen this at concerts and theatres where photography is permitted but flashes are discouraged for their distracting value. People just get so in to using automatic mode, they don’t even think about it, and then… flash.

    But that is manageable nonetheless, and there’s no real conservation reason to prohibit non-flash photography.

  • celeb8

    sucky

  • winkybb

    @#12 Bunedoggle.

    Simplistic response. Stuff makes it into museums because it is significant, interesting and/or rare. Just going to ones that have photography policies I like would severely limit what I could view. I was just having a general bitch. Was it worth going to the Louvre? – well yes. Would it have perhpas been more enjoyable without the snapping hordes? – yes again. That’s all I was saying.

    Thomas’ suggestion that museums allocate periods where photography is allowed has some merit. I could avoid those periods and still see what I wanted to. As the majority of patrons seem only interested in seeing the works on the LCD screen of their cameraphone rather than actually viewing the works, the no-photo periods would presumably be uncrowded as well.

  • Zan

    I want to point out a couple of things:
    First, Disney parks have been cracking down on photography in their parks, first by banning tripods and later by banning any zoom lenses longer than 6″ (thereby banning most pro zoom lenses).

    Second, as far as I know, the Walt Disney Family Museum is owned by the Walt Disney Family Foundation, and has no connection to The Walt Disney Company or any Disney theme parks.

  • yer_maw

    are you kidding?

    I was at the museau d’or and the were walking round snapping every picture WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT IT.

    These people are effing idiots, getting in the way, flash, flash snap. And to get what? a crappy anglesd picture, crappy colour and flash effects?

    BAN THEM ALL

    If you want the picture GET A PRINT, or GOOGLE IT stop annoying everyone and wasting everyones time with photos you will never look at cos they look crap.

  • econobiker

    “#6 posted by Zan, October 2, 2009 7:50 AM
    I want to point out a couple of things:
    First, Disney parks have been cracking down on photography in their parks, first by banning tripods and later by banning any zoom lenses longer than 6″ (thereby banning most pro zoom lenses).”

    The ban on tripods is probably for ~safety~ issues (use of the tripod as a weapon or people tripping over them) and the ban on zoom lenses is probably due to creeps photographing people & children without them knowing anonymously and posting the pictures on-line. Or maybe to keep pro-photographers from generating content on Disney’s properties without compensating the corporation. I mean if Disney can be considered its own legal government and town why not limit uses.

  • Jim O’Connell

    Montymov:
    The point I was making is that he (and others on these types of crusades) may be actually making it more difficult for everyone.

    “Am I the only one who feels like “Thomas Hawk” has become a person far more obsessed with finding things he can’t photograph than finding interesting subjects to shoot in a significant manner?”

    “Quite possibly, yes.”

    If I’m the only one who feels that way, well, then so be it. I find these crusades annoying and counterproductive.

    Thomas, have you raised your concerns directly with the museum’s management? Have you asked them for some of their reasons for banning photography? If not, that might have been the professional thing to do before very publicly announcing that their policy “sucks.” What you’ve done was publicly confrontational and may make them feel backed into a corner, forced to list every possible justification for exerting their rights on their private property.
    A nicely-worded letter might have had better effect, though perhaps less traffic for your website.

    Montymov:
    Yes, I am a real, live professional photographer. I make my living taking pictures. You can see some of my work on my blog.
    http://mmdc.net/blog/

    I’m sure there are real doctors, lawyers and even a few rocket scientists here on boingboing, too.

  • slavid

    When a musuem owns a piece of art, they then own the rights to reproduce that image. A museum with a strong permanent collection may allow its guests to snap pictures. Most of the time with no flash (this is another story all together). When it comes to works of art on loan during a special exhibition, there are very very specific contracts from lenders that usually state that pieces of art are not to be photographed. In the case of the Disney Museum, either much of their pieced on display are not owned by the museum or they just don’t want the place to fill up with tourists pressed elbow to elbow snapping pictures. The possibility also exists that they do own everything they display and they are just money grubbing jerks who want you to buy a postcard from the shop. I assure you this is not the case at many major museums as non-flash photography is allowed.

  • Brainspore

    Zan is correct, this museum is unaffiliated with the Walt Disney Company or their theme parks (though I believe they borrowed some of the same talent to build it). But easy to get confused when everything has “Disney” in the name.

    The more I think about it the sillier it seems to compare what’s allowed in a theme park to what’s allowed in a museum anyway. I doubt the Smithsonian encourages patrons to walk around munching kettle corn and swigging cola.

  • Jim O’Connell

    Am I the only one who feels like “Thomas Hawk” has become a person far more obsessed with finding things he can’t photograph than finding interesting subjects to shoot in a significant manner?

    He used to be an interesting photographer, but has gotten sidetracked and perhaps too antagonistic. I get the sense that if he swaggered up to anything I had jurisdiction over with his big DSLR, I’d probably do my best to have him tossed out on his ass.

    He seems to seek out places and people who will try to knock the chip off his shoulder and in that, the value of his crusades diminish exponentially in significance with each step.

    Thomas, if you read this, please go take a look at the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Sans Frontières and other groups who work to protect the free flow of vital information in the world, not bully private property owners into allowing every weekend warrior with a shiny new Nikon to shoot whatever they like.

    These kinds of misguided campaigns do a disservice to everyone who takes pictures, both as a hobby and professionally.

    I’ve shot in museums that don’t allow photography. When I’ve wanted to do so, I go to the management and present my business card and if that isn’t enough, some press credentials. When I’ve done that, I’ve never had a problem with security, I’ve been able to step over the velvet rope inside displays and had glass cases opened for me. Usually, say nine times out of ten, a business card, some courtesy and professional comportment will usually be rewarded with whatever access I desire. (Keep in mind that I’m after good photos, not the advancement of civil liberties for the weekend warrior.)

    I don’t tell private institutions that their policies “suck” or challenge rent-a-cops on their knowledge of legal statutes.

    What Disney (or whoever owns this very private property) has done is perfectly legal. Yes, it’s unfortunate, but when you have as many lawyers as they must, hovering over every potential misuse of intellectual property as they must, perhaps an outright ban on photography on their premises makes sense. Buy the postcard.

    I do get the sense that if this was a place that I wanted to photograph, I’d have had little trouble walking in and getting whatever photos I wanted to take. Well, perhaps before this article.

    I’m guessing it will be harder now. Thanks.

  • thomashawk

    Zan, I don’t think all tripods are banned at Disney Resorts. Per their website FAQ: “Folding tripod stands that can fit inside a standard backpack are permitted.” This covers many perfectly appropriate tripods for shooting Disneyland.

    When I shot Disneyland a few years back I found them extremely accommodating. When I was taking long exposure shots of the Rocketship ride with my camera and tripod a few employees even came up to me to check out what I was up to and learn more about my photography. I found the staff there extremely accommodating and welcoming to photographers and plan on shooting the resort more (and bringing my family to visit more) in the future.

    I hadn’t heard of a ban on lenses over 6″, but all of my lenses are under six inches in length. With a Canon 135 f/2 telephoto I can pretty much get anything I need to shoot at the park.

  • Marshall

    #8

    When a museum owns a piece of art, they then own the rights to reproduce that image.

    Actually, that’s not always the case. Many museums, and most large ones, own artworks who’s copyrights are still controlled, at least jointly, by the artist, original owner of the piece or the artist’s estate. In some cases donated or gifted works may have all kinds of stipulations placed upon their future display and the museum’s rights to use images of the piece for any number of purposes. It’s not uncommon for museums to have to ask for permission to use images of works in their collection on their own websites or in catalogs, and to compensate the relevant parties for doing so.

    One of the reasons many museums have general bans on photography is that their collections actually contain a legalistic soup of copyrights, and it would be both difficult to clearly inform the viewer about what they can and cannot photograph (or what can be in the background of a photograph) and to have docents and/or security enforce those rules effectively.

  • Jim O’Connell

    Thomas – it’s very late here, so I’ll only address a couple of points.

    Imagine that you’re a collector, collecting, say, Disney figurines or animation cells and drawings. (I have no idea what they might have on display at this particular museum, but have worked in conservation.) You’ve worked hard to build up your collection, including the restoration, archival storage, creating an environment that won’t degrade the collection, buying special lighting that will show the collection without fading the unknown dyes and paints that color it. In a fit of philanthropy, you decide to open your collection to the public.

    Your primary responsibility is to the integrity of the collection and in a sense, its value over time.

    Your secondary responsibility is again philanthropic—to create an atmosphere where the public can enjoy and learn from the collection, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the first responsibility.

    Amateur photographers do little towards either aim. They often use flash when told that flash is prohibited. They muscle through a crowd as though their camera was a license to be rude. They can make the experience much less-pleasant for other patrons, as I’m sure you have experienced.

    Too many flashes, over time, will fade paints and dyes. (Perhaps not this museum’s particular worry, but take a place like the Louvre or a museum dealing with fragile textiles and those cumulative flashes would have a tangible effect in as little as lifetime or two.
    (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1783/why-isnt-flash-photography-permitted-in-museums)

    If you’ve ever been to a place where photography is permitted, but flash is not, you’ll see that at least a full third of photographers either don’t know how to turn off their flash or simply don’t care. In that case, like the curators of this museum, I’d err on the side of caution and ban all photography. After all, exceptions to a policy can be made for people who demonstrate competence, but you can’t reverse degradation to the collection.

    Another factor must be economic—as you said, “contrary to a greater public good of sharing our cultural treasures as broadly as possible.”

    In a private commercial venture, it simply doesn’t make sense to let people pay their twenty dollars or whatever, one time and document the whole collection on their blog and potentially reduce the future number of paying customers.
    Very capitalistic, but still true. Where is their incentive for doing otherwise? Collections must be purchased, facilities and staff must be paid for, conservators’ time must be remunerated and yes, postcards and books must be sold.

    Keep in mind that I say this as a person who not only does photography as a hobby, but also as my primary source of income.

    The other thing is that I got a bit personal about you. I was remarking on the fact that whenever I see your name come up, it’s on a topic like this. It’s overshadowing your photographic work. When it comes up over non-issues like this, it trivializes anything else you do.

    It’s after 3:30 AM here, so I’m going to go to sleep now.

  • montymov

    Re:
    #26 POSTED BY JIM O’CONNELL, OCTOBER 2, 2009 8:51 PM:

    Having reached the corner, you should put down your paintbrush.
    “A nicely-worded letter might have had better effect”
    Right.
    Nothing sways the representatives of a large institution like one person privately asking for a change, in a letter.
    Looking back on history, it’s obvious that this has been the most effective method of creating change and addressing unfair rules.
    Who, after all, can forget Rosa Parks’ and Dr. King’s eloquently worded letters regarding segregation, or the letters from students protesting the Viet Nam War that finally turned the leaders of this country around?
    Yes, there is nothing more persuasive than a politely worded letter from one person.
    After all, some sort of public outcry: “may make them feel backed into a corner, forced to list every possible justification for exerting their rights on their private property.”
    And what choice will they have upon finding that making excuses does no good? They will be forced to change their institutional policy to fit in with the expectations of the society they serve and are a part of.
    Lastly, I apologize, but I don’t have time to look at your photos.
    Maybe later. I’m sure they are very professional.

  • B33K33P3R

    “EMP has an open photo policy now? Shucks. I was there in May and a security guard was ready to pound me into sea salt over a photo I snapped of one of their exhibits. ”

    When my husband and I went to the EMP/SFM last month we were asked to delete the pictures we took of the Wonderful World of Jim Henson “artifacts”. Which is odd, since some of them were on loan from the Smithsonian and UMD which both have open photo policies.

  • Zadaz

    Visit someplace interesting without a camera. Just try it once.

    Experience it as it is, right then when and where you are, don’t try to bottle it for later. Memories get sweeter with age, photos not so much.

    I say this as an avid (and former professional) photographer. The best vacation I ever had was the one I didn’t bring a camera. After I got over the “OMG I wish I could photograph this!” I lived in the moment, it was very revealing how I would go somewhere just to photograph it, put my mark on it, as it were. I didn’t go there to be there I went there to have been there. And that’s pretty weak tea.

    Go to a museum and leave your camera behind.

    Unless you’re a professional photographer, then earn the ‘professional’ title and call the museum and make an appointment. You don’t want to have to shoot around my fat head anyway.

  • winkybb

    I wish more/all museums and galleries would restrict photography. I was at the Louvre and Musee d’Orsay in Paris earlier this year and a large percentage of patrons seemed interested only in taking photographs of the works. The veiwing experince for me consisted of constantly being shoved around by scurrying “photographers” who could not really be bothered to view or contemplate the works, but seemd to simply be racking up a “score” of how many famous works they could snap with their camera phones. Why they want to do this, I have no clue.

    Don’t forget folks; if you didn’t get a photo, it didn’t really happen; and if you aren’t in the photo foreground, well, you weren’t really there.

  • Anonymous

    This is Disney, the same family/corporation that managed to get legislation passed to protect its assets. Everything in that museum (and I do mean everything) is covered under copyright thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. No exceptions.

    Yes the photos are annoying and somewhat destructive (although UV protective glass will help keep fugitive dyes from fading) but I would bet copyright is behind it all.

  • thomashawk

    Jim,

    The flash argument again is a red herring. The article that you site is by a curator at a museum that allows photography. Surely the treasures in the de Young are just as valuable as the ones in the Disney collection, perhaps moreso.

    Prolonged concentrated flash exposure might be one thing. An occasional flash here and there from an accidental photographer who is reprimanded by staff over the policy has no impact. If it did, then the de Young itself would ban photography instead of simply stating in their policy that flash is not allowed.

    If this were the primary concern they could even take it one step further requiring patrons obtain a photography permit to take photos and making sure that a photographer knew how to turn his flash off during this process. For what it’s worth, my Canon 5D M2 doesn’t even have a flash and I couldn’t use one with it as it is even if I wanted to.

    But surely you can see that musuems like the Met in NYC, the de Young, and the SF and NY MOMAs receive far, far, more visitors per year than this Disney museum and there collections are likely to be far, far, more exposed to accidental flash than this much smaller museum with far few visitors.

    If a visiting collection wants to prohibit photography it can be done in the same way that it is done at other museums. At the SF MOMA for example, the permanent collection is available for photography. Some temporary exhibits are available, some not. The Richard Avedon exhibit recently, for instance, allowed photographer, while the Frida Khalo exhibit a few months back did not.

    This enables photographers to shoot the permanent collection and also the architecture of the building itself. Something that they cannot due at present.

    I refuse to buy the argument that economic necessity dictates that this be done. As it stands now this museum will not get any money from me. Hopefully my blog post will also discourage lots of other photographers from spending money there. Everytime the museum comes up in conversation I will be pointing out this unfriendly policy.

    By contrast, I currently own a family membership with the de Young, the Academy of Science, and the Oakland Museum of California. All institutions where I and other photographers are welcomed. What’s more, I go out of my way to promote these museums.

    They will lose far more patrons from hostile policies like this than they will people who view the images themselves online and decide that this is good enough and will skip the visit. Photography only serves to promote their museum. People are rarely satisfied simply looking at someone else’s photo. They want to go experience it for themselves.

    Of course some people, poor people who live in India for example, will never in their lifetime have an opportunity to go to this museum. And it’s unfortunate that they cannot view collections of images of it online from photographers like me and many others.

    In terms of what I blog about I’d encourage you to check out my blog where you’ll find a wide variety of topics, most of which don’t have anything to do with photography prohibition. Still, when I see a prohibition policy that I feel it unreasonable I will always take a second to blog about it.

  • Baldhead

    The majority of the time a “no photograph” policy has more to do with the flash than anything else.

    The number of people I encounter who don’t know how to do anything with their digital camera aside from turn it on and take photos is astounding. None of them are hard to use but so very many people use “I’m not tech savvy” as a blanket excuse for not even trying to figure it out. They can’t even delete a photo, let alone switch off the flash.