Comments on: Change to AGO Photography Policy

By: links for 2011-01-13 « Tunguska

links for 2011-01-13 « Tunguska — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:01:06 +0000

[...] Change to AGO Photography Policy | AGO Art Gallery of Ontario The revised policy enables visitors to take personal, non-commercial photos in and around the iconic architectural elements of the new AGO. (tags: ip legal art culture toronto ontario photography) [...]

By: ANI

ANI — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:46:21 +0000

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

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:26:53 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:07:23 +0000

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.

By: brent

brent — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:35:00 +0000

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.

By: Cal's Dad

Cal's Dad — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:42:47 +0000

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.

By: Alison

Alison — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 23:54:01 +0000

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.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:31:15 +0000

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.

By: Heather

Heather — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:07:21 +0000

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.

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:47:58 +0000

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