Skip to Content

Art Gallery of Ontario

Keyword Site Search

Art Matters Blog

Change to AGO Photography Policy

December 24th, 2008

Our visitors have spoken (loudly) and the AGO has listened and changed its policy on public photography in the building. The revised policy enables visitors to take personal, non-commercial photos in and around the iconic architectural elements of the new AGO. Based on visitor comments since opening, the most popular architectural elements include the sculptural staircase in and up from Walker Court, the entrance ramp in the main lobby, the barnacle staircase off the back of the building in the contemporary art centre and the ever popular Galleria Italia along the front of the AGO. However, we are not restricting photos to these spaces only – if visitors have a hankering to photograph friends or family elsewhere in the AGO, such as hallways or, say, in the coat check area, fine by us.

The relaxed policy on photographs cannot, however, extend to gallery spaces where artworks are installed, primarily due to copyright restrictions. While our visitors often point out that some other major art museums in the world allow photography of artwork, many of those collections are no longer subject to copyright restrictions, or are under different copyright rules than those in Canada. We didn’t set the copyright rules but we are required to respect them. However, since Walker Court and Galleria Italia are such popular photo sites and yet both have artworks in them, we have secured clearance from both artists represented in these areas for personal, non-commercial photos. So shoot away, while respecting other visitors in the process.

Walker Court & Baroque Stair
Photo: AGO Photographer Sean Weaver © 2008 Art Gallery of Ontario.

You might also like:

  • http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark

    Well, this is nonsense, of course. AGO either doesn

  • Art Lover

    The line by AGO is, of course, totally bogus but characteristic of Toronto institutions and government agencies falling back on fictitious “facts” to justify their own misguided decisions. As long as photos are for personal use there are no reasons of copyright for prohibiting their taking. Most museums in the world handle this by allowing the taking of photographs not intended for commercial use with hand held cameras, i.e. no tripods and no video.

    Trust me, the hand held point and shoot photos that 99.9 percent of visitors want to take would be thrown away by any commercial agency. But, TOT – this is Toronto.

  • ArtLover2

    The proliferation of photography in museums and galleries is a nuisance to people who are present for the express purpose of enjoying the collection in person. Why not just be present in the moment, and pick up a postcard on your way out?

    I’ve had experiences at galleries in European cities and even the ROM diminished by flashes going off in my face, or cameras shoved between me and the work in question. Stop, and pause, and enjoy the experience – not every moment in life must be recorded.

  • Prof. D.W. Dunham

    I agree with the gist of previous comments, if not with their bellicose tone. As one who formerly enjoyed photographing AGO displays for my personal pleasure, I would welcome a return to the previous policy – allowing photography anywhere, without the use of a tripod. There is no valid legal or moral argument to be lost by doing so, and a great deal of good will to be gained!

  • Clara Parsons

    I have photographed in museums all over the world, except Canada. In my travel shows I always show the museums. It makes a wonderful learning opportunity for everyone involved. Is that not one of the roles of a museum? Taking photographs of children beside a sculpture makes it a memory and a learning experience for the child. I watched a security guard at the Museum in Ottawa object to a parent taking a photograph of a child, in the atrium, beside a sculpture.
    The ban on photographs in any museum is outdated and using copyright as an excuse is nonsence. No flash is a reasonable request.
    Thank you.

  • Alfred Ng

    Well, why there were no 24 hour armed security outside the AGO where the Henry Moore sculpture is to protects his copyright? Should the AGO build a big box over it?

    How it was OK for the TV and Newspaper photographers taking photos and video with the art work and had it published? There were far more people seen it on TV and newspapers and magazines all over the world!

  • judith

    In spite of the new photography rules and throngs of guards wall to wall throughout the gallery, cameras were out and in use all over the AGO last weekend, with nary a reprimand to be heard. Perhaps this rule is based more on etiquette than law, or perhaps the rule is simply unenforceable..

  • http://www.susandaly.com Susan

    I’d love to pick up postcards of the artworks that I see at AGO, but they seemed to be thin on the ground, though I could buy cards of artworks from other museums.

  • Bob Borov

    What a shame AGO has such a misguided sense to lie to us perpetrating this myth of draconian Canadian copyright laws! Canadian law has plenty of exceptions specifically for personal use cases, as well as research and education, which by the way is the sole reason vast majority of people do go to galleries and museums. Shame!

  • Heather

    Relax, forget about snapping photos of every little thing, and just enjoy the beautiful gallery!

    The AGO as an institution is not alone in its policies, and if you can’t respect them then you have every option not to visit in the first place. Don’t “test” security guards, I’m sure they are tired of repeating rules and arguing about things like photography.

    The AGO has plenty of postcards and images of their works – Susan, perhaps you didn’t see the downstairs level of the gift shop (where all the books, postcards, and other cards can be found).

    Why does it have to be such a battle? Just enjoy the art and respect the policies put in place by the AGO. Nobody likes cameras snapping in their faces while they’re trying to enjoy the gallery.

  • Eloise

    Postcards are on the lower level of the gift show, next to the Cafeteria. There really should be a larger sign indicating how to get to the lower level.

  • Eloise

    Now that everyone owns a digital camera or cell phone cam, it seems people just can’t help pulling out their cameras constantly. I almost miss the days of film. A couple of photos is great, but try to relax and enjoy the art instead.

  • http://Policyrephotography John Ashbourne

    I would first like to dissociate my comments from the tone of some previous contributions – the AGO like any similar institution is entitled to establish any policy line it chooses subject only to the Law and any restrictions of its artists/their estates or of financing sources at the sole discretion of its own governance structure.

    However I do believe that the issue of copyright is being applied here with insufficient finesse.
    To disallow responsible photography but permit sketching of exhibits seems specious and unrealistic in 2009 and contrary to the aim of facilitating art education – and indeed with the ubiquity of small cameras/camera phones it places an unfair burden on custodial staff which is likely to erode the excellent relationship that is the norm between them and the visiting public.

    Particularly I would like clarification of your policy with regard to the collection of Moore sculture – previously the booklet that was placed in that area which provided background about that collection (which seems to have been lost in the remodelling) specifically allowed still photography of the items (though not Video photography for some reason).
    Indeed I was under the impression that this was the wish of Henry Moore himself.

    Is sculpture to be subject to the same blanket ban
    as paintings – even flash would not harm that.

    So PLEASE may we have a further relaxation in this
    policy to, at least, allow photography of sculpture – and ideally of most things subject to an absolute ban on flash and any copyright/condition/donators’ caveat/etc. issues specific to that piece of art.? Such exceptions could be readily indicated by a large brightly coloured dot,or something similar, next to the item.

  • http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark

    Heather, we don

  • Heather

    Of course you don’t *have* to.

    However, if you can’t enjoy and experience an art gallery without taking photos, then you’re not doing it right. If instead of enjoying the amazing collection that the AGO has to offer you get overly upset about its photography policies, you need to rethink why you’re coming to an art gallery in the first place.

  • Michael Rai-Lewis

    On a recent trip to Paris, both the Louvre and the Musee D’Orsay permitted photography – but no flash. Useless, as most idiots with cheap digital cameras or cell-phone cameras either cannot disengage the flash or just don’t know how. Consequently, the constant annoyance of flashes going off all the time and no action by security staff! Same annoyance as you get at sports events or concerts with someone 80 feet from the action firing off a flash that will carry, at best, 15 feet. I’ve been at outdoor events in brilliant sunshine and seen camera flashes going off. What we have is too many foolish people with too many silly cameras.

  • http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ Joe Clark

    Um, no, Heather, we will use our freedom of choice to determine how to

  • Heather

    Thanks Joe, you did a fine job of putting hyperbolic words in my mouth.

    The law (copyright and otherwise) and the rules of a building or institution (a gallery, an airport, a mall, your mom’s home) are two very different things. Think that over. A library doesn’t need a legal basis to ask you not to talk loudly on your cellular phone while inside, but if you do not respect that particular rule then you will be asked to leave. The AGO has every right to have its own institutional rules and if you choose not to accept that then perhaps the gallery is not the place for you.

  • Frank

    Heather,

    You are no better than the AGO trying to dictate how we enjoy the gallery. When did you become the supreme master and dictator of enjoyment? If we find enjoyment in taking pictures then we are going to do it even if you think you are the Goddess of Art and you alone have the sole knowledge of how it is to be enjoyed. Taking a picture doesn’t suggest in any way that we are not enjoying the gallery spaces or the art within, regardless of your opinion.

    If you disapprove of people’s actions around you in a public space then I suggest you stay home because I, like Joe Clark, will not bend to authority especially when it steps on my rights as a citizen.

  • Alison

    There are many reasons why a personal photograph can be more useful or interesting than a commercial reproduction (even if one is available). I often wish to photograph a particular detail, or from a particular angle. E.g., I like to focus on (pun intended) details of Renaissance jewellery in paintings, or dogs, or plants. Also, I often find that the postcards available are of poor quality, or are very expensive, especially if one wishes more than a few photographs.

    I have visited hundreds of art galleries and museums, in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy the U.S. and the U.K. Photography done for personal use, with no flash or tripod, is permitted with very few exceptions.

    Granted, the AGO can dictate this policy, but why does it? It’s unfriendly, out of line with most other institutions, and has nothing to do with copyright. Any works that they own, they can permit visitors to photograph. Special exhibitions, which contain works belonging to other people or institutions, are always off limits to photographs, and that is fine.

  • Cal’s Dad

    1) I agree the AGO has every right to have whatever policies it deems to create the experience it believes is appropriate to its purpose….that said, shame on them for lying about copyright as their justification.

    2) As a serious amateur photographer, when I pull out my camera in a public space whether it be a gallery, street or cafe I am creating even more art….how ironic that a bastion of alleged culture is so opposed to our own creation of art….

    just my thoughts.

  • brent

    I like to take a few quick photos (without flash) when I visit museums of stuff I really like. I can’t return very often and like to remember the art that moved me. Last month I was at the De Young museum in San Fran and no one stopped me from taking photos. Yesterday at the AGO I was repeatedly interrupted by security for taking a few very quick and nondisruptive photos….another reason not to become a member of this institution. It is a great gallery, and I do love the renovation though.

  • http://www.grumpyjohns.com John

    Can we please NOT use the Copyright Act as justification for a decision here. Part 3, Section 29 clearly explains valid exceptions for fair use of the material. These are exceptions that your policy distinctly prevents. Secondly, a huge portion, if not most of it, of your material are images now in the public domain, the copyright having long since expired.

    The AGO can set any policy it wants, but please do not try to mislead us that the policy is because of some mysteriously draconian Canadian copyright laws that do not exist. The law is easily viewed online, it takes very little effort to determine your assertion is incorrect and so the policy of the AGO can only be viewed as insulting.

    Finally, photography is also an art. You allow people to sketch (though how a pen is a problem is a mystery to the world), but you do not allow photography. This is inconsistent. Either the works may be copied or they may not. Your policy is embarassing to all of us that live in Ontario.

  • Jennifer

    Without addressing the issue of copyright as I have no knowledge of what the law is, I find that I have less enjoyment overall of some activities when I have my camera with me. I end up being more concerned about getting the right photo than of enjoying the event. Just my 2 cents.

  • ANI

    I find this policy very insulting and out of place, more over very offensive towards an artlover when they are told that they are able to take pictures of stairwells and coatcheck rooms, as if that is the reason for me coming to this insititution.

    Horrific, AGO clearly makes no sense.

    M.Q

  • Pingback: links for 2011-01-13 « Tunguska