Ownership Mentality: Art Gallery Prohibits Sketching
from the shoot-him,-he-has-a-tripod! dept
I've always been a bit baffled by No Photography signs in museums and art galleries. Presumably they exist to make the exhibits more exclusive and attractive, but that misses the point of why people visit museums: they want to see these things in person, which is a vastly different experience from simply knowing what they look like. Nobody has ever seen a photo of a dinosaur skeleton or Michelangelo's David and thought "oh good, now I don't need to go see that for real."
The other possibility is that the museums are concerned about photographers getting in the way of other patrons, but in that case an outright ban is overkill: people tend to be pretty considerate of each other when you allow social pressure to take its course, and a few "don't block this hallway" signs in key areas would probably suffice.
Either way, at least most such places only prohibit photography. BoingBoing recently highlighted this even-more-ridiculous notice found at the Art Institute of Chicago:
In case you can't see the image, it is a sign listing several things that are "NOT permitted" inside the exhibit: "Photography, Flashes, Tripods, Video Camera, Sketching."
For starters, items two through four seem rather unnecessary in the presence of item one. Are there photographers out there who, after being told they can't take pictures, set up their tripod and start snapping their flash just for fun? Has someone attempted to evade regulations by claiming that video cameras don't count as photography? Somehow I doubt it.
Then there's the concerning presence of "sketching" on the list. Sketching in galleries is a staple among artists, especially students, and it's impossible to see why anyone would want to ban it. A sketch of a painting or sculpture — even a masterful one that becomes a piece of artwork in its own right — is never going to serve as a replacement for the original. In fact, banning sketching is just going to make the exhibit less attractive to a gallery's biggest fans: artists. What purpose could such a ban possibly serve?
That's the problem with the ownership mentality of modern copyright: few people bother to think about purpose because they are too busy thinking about control, operating from a default "cover-all-our-bases" mentality without bothering to ask why. At some point during the drafting of this sign, somebody should have stopped and said "Wait, why do we care?" — but instead they said "Have we forgotten anything? Better throw tripods on there just to be safe."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Did they say for copyright reasons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did they say for copyright reasons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did they say for copyright reasons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did they say for copyright reasons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After all, these paintings you are creating are stealing the original paintings via my misguided feelings of entitlement and ownership!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is not the sketch or photograph that is the problem it is the ass taking up space, making a mess, and the whole attitude of the class of people who do do the photographs and sketches combined with laws that require no discrimination in that you can not let the responsible element in with out letting in the irresponsible so everybody is banned.
This is a typical case of one activity being banned to prevent another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“This Way To The Egress → → →”
—P.T. Barnum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But personally I'd argue that if I saw someone sitting and sketching then it would probably improve the ambience of the place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Flash policy
However, there is a strict "No Flash" policy, as this might/will degrade some of the dyes. Flash output is brighter than sunlight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hell, they loved it to bits when photos got taken of the exhibits. They were proud of their exhibits, and wanted as many people to see them as possible. Even just being the guy who wandered round glaring at everyone, _I_ felt proud of being part of something that could be shared round the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe some modeling clay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use & derivative work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use & derivative work
As Marcus points out, this is pure ownership culture nonsense and nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use & derivative work
I wonder if this could be a class issue? Perhaps some of the sketchers they were trying to remove were perhaps less desirable than the museum would prefer to have as guests.
Then again, this is the Art Institute of Chicago! In addition to the museum they have a school, full of aspiring artists, who SHOULD be using the museum to expand their minds from the techniques of past greats. Sketching and taking notes go hand in hand in art classes. I kept my art class notebooks from college because they are full of sketches taken during lectures.
It helps drive concepts of from and motion when you sketch the piece. And most sketches are just that. They are not accurate reproductions of the original. They typically are quickly done and made to convey a specific piece of info about the artwork or a very generalized concept.
It would be very nice to see a follow-up on this article, to know why the museum has adopted this policy. My guess is a few bad apples (and bad is subjective) ruined it for the bunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use & derivative work
There's good precedent for it being transformative but I think the success of a fair use defense would rest on the nature of the specific sketch and how it was being used - though I'm not totally sure.
In either case though, this isn't actually a copyright issue. The gallery is free to prohibit whatever they want on their premises. I just think they have made a dumb choice, and that it stems from the ownership mentality that copyright encourages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair use & derivative work
I could understand if they were having complaints and problems with messes made by people doing a sketch (charcoal is fun but filthy), or if someone's just parking it and inconveniencing others, but those things could be handled differently than banning the activity completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fair use & derivative work
The thing with the law is that there are both derivative and transformative works. In a derivative work, you own a copyright on the new creative aspects of the work, but the original copyright holder also has a stake in your piece so you would have to license the subject matter from them. If a work is deemed transformative, the copyright on the subject matter no longer applies to it - it is a new piece.
A sketch is automatically derivative. Whether or not it qualifies as transformative can really only be determined in court, which is one of the many problems with copyright law.
Once again though, that is irrelevant to the question of whether the museum can ban sketching: prohibitions of that nature have nothing to do with copyright and are just about them enacting their rights on their private property. It would only become a copyright issue if, say, they attempted to sue someone for infringement over a photo they took anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fair use & derivative work
It would be interesting to study the adverse effects these copyright laws would've had back during great artistic periods like the Renaissance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair use & derivative work
I know this has been discussed at length elsewhere. I've even brought it up in the comments on Techdirt before. Browsing the National Gallery of Art or any museum that has a large Renaissance collection makes it real easy to see how copyright would have ruined Renaissance art. Every artist learned from every other artist. There are a bunch of paintings where the attribution follows the pattern: "Joe Smith, in the style of John Johnson." Many artists started as apprentices to other artists and were taught how to paint exactly like their masters. Many large paintings were actually group efforts where the attributed artist was actually just the one overseeing the project.
Imagine what would have happened to art had one artist patented chiaroscuro of foreshortening or vanishing points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd include, "Staring with an intent to remember" in there too, just to be safer.
You certainly don't want someone memorizing the statute or painting and recreating it at home.
For every artwork I'd include a 5 second timer. Anyone looking for more than 5 seconds would be arrested and charged with 1st Degree Grand Felony Piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasons why photos aren't allowed
1. They want to sell photographs (in whatever form) themselves.
2. The actual owner of the image isn't allowing photographs and the "no photo" restriction comes with the contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasons why photos aren't allowed
This is definitely part of it. Once I saw Damien Hirst's giant preserved shark at the Met, and it was the only exhibit with photography banned (they even had a security guard on hand to enforce it). I assume this was Hirst's demand, and it is insane: people want to see the shark, they don't give a shit about photos of it. We have Shark Week HD for chrissakes. If he thinks he's competing with photography, he's already lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's the flash
the best rationalization i can come up with is some fool doesn't want the fire exits gummed up with art students and their sketch pads, but it seems kinda thin to me.
this organization is making a huge mistake because seeing someone sketching a piece brings the museum experience to life, elevating it above a lifeless and sterile stroll through a gallery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's the flash
Obviously if there is real chance of damage, prohibiting flash makes perfect sense. If it's true that a flash-only prohibition never works on people, then I can even see prohibiting photography altogether on especially delicate exhibits - again, as long as there is a genuine rationale of protecting the item. I must admit I wonder how real the danger is, and how much this is like no-cellphones-in-hospitals.
the best rationalization i can come up with is some fool doesn't want the fire exits gummed up with art students and their sketch pads, but it seems kinda thin to me.
Yeah I thought about that. But as you say, it's thin: it certainly seems like a few "don't block this exit" signs would suffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's the flash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's the flash
Now there are technical solutions, glass filters all UV-C UV-B light only letting pass some UV-A which can be blocked also with the adequate coating and coating can also block infrared light, which would force photographers to use manual focus, flashes could be limited by simply increasing the distance one can get to the art in question, since the inverse square of the distance is the amount of reduction in luminous intensity that reaches the surface from the source or just limit the days it is open to the public and can be photographed so it when people start taking photographs it would be still receive the same amount of light it would if it had been illuminated 8 hours a day under normal conditions, mostly they could restrict photographs in the week and only allow them on the weekends, if the case is preservation, but that is not all, there are interests involved, like making people buy the postcards and replicas in their stores, not to mention the copyrights.
All in all this is another thing that grew out of a real concern and is now being abused by a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it's the flash
Bingo. There would be no concern if the policy was simply "don't use a flash because it damages the art". Since the stated policy appears to cover any type or direct or indirect reproduction - apart from those available for a charge in the gift shop, of course! - it becomes a concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's the flash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or it might be because people who use video cameras have an unfortunate tendency to make nuisances of themselves by not seeing anything that isn't in their view-finders potentially backing up into other patrons, exhibits etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is hypocritical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is hypocritical
Shortsighted people never worry about standing on the shoulders of giants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone ever made money off a photograph from a museum or gallery?
Maybe they are afraid that I will go home and duplicate the painting? As if! Right now my painting ability is at the 3rd grade level so it will be a long time and a lot of practice before I can do anything worth looking at. Even if I was an experienced painter, I can tell already that every artist has their own style when it comes to color selection, brush stroke, etc. So there is literally now way to copy a painting faithfully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has anyone ever made money off a photograph from a museum or gallery?
I agree, though. As a fellow painter, I know right off the bat that I can try to emulate a style or method, but I will never match or even ever know the mindwork that went into something, the motivations for choices made, if they were concious decisions or acts of impulse or merely chance marks made in a moment of distraction that happened to work out somehow.
I find it so odd for some artists to deny other artists the opportunity to try, yanno? Like they've got a lock on the process...it's how THEY learned, right? Studying and practicing on those that went before. Part of the pure joy of art training is collaboration with your classmates. At least it was for me.
/ramble ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MegaUpload
$175M US govt want to retrieve from MegaUpload (and probably much more than that) could be in
their own (XXAAs) pocket if they were providing similar service.
I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
By the way, when you leave the Warhol museum, you exit through the gift shop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not as bad as it sounds?
I may not like the idea, but if that's the reason, it seems like a reasonable approach. Allow more people to see the exhibit at the cost of limiting the amount of time artists can spend sketching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Image Licensing
http://www.artic.edu/aic/image_licensing/index.html
They are providing digital images. No word about costs, though...
This ( http://www.artic.edu/aic/image_licensing/general_info.html ) says that non-commercial photography in available light is permitted...
Their standard policy on the website seems reasonable for a museum. The sign may be referring to a modern piece of artwork still covered under copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasons for no photographs
Now, people have skewed the original meaning, and reasoning, into that of "copyright" (all the latest copyright pushes), when in reality the rule originally had nothing to do with copyright. The rule has suck, and being broadened where ever possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jumping to conclusions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jumping to conclusions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember light dims with distance, it losses half the power at each 3 foot or so(I think(cd·sr·m E−02)) and digital cameras today not only have flashes that can emit UV but use lasers, infrared and ultraviolet light as range finders, those scare curators too.
Another consideration that may fall better in here is that many galleries don't allow photography because of copyright concerns, if you take a photo you own it and that is a problem for others, copyright once more proving how useless it is.
Source:
- Assessing the harm done by flash photography by Martin H. Evans
- Wikipedia: Photo-oxidation of polymers
- Wikipedia: Lumen (unit)
- Lux
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ouch... you're wrong this time...
The fact is... there IS an ownership mentality because those are physical paintings and works of art with OWNERS. They OWN the PHYSICAL work. Accordingly, they can do what they want with it.
I agree with TechDirt about IP and how crazy it is... but physical work is a tangible, ownable good. Someone paid (probably) ALOT of work to hold that physical good and they have the right (I would even say RESPONSIBLITY) to keep that work intact.
So, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. While it would be nice to take a picture of something beautiful and inspiring... the fact is, since it's a physical object, and they DO actually OWN it... they can pretty much do what they want.
Of course, I can exercise MY right to not support the artist, the gallery or the mueseum. But I don't have the right to demand that I be able to do this or that with someone else's physical property. That's sounding too much like the entitlement that Big Media has...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ouch... you're wrong this time...
So Grog beat him to death with a mastodon femur for ripping him off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ouch... you're wrong this time...
They may be a problem with sketchers, but as a private facility they can be asked to leave. I believe this is simply a nuclear solution to a few problem sketchers. A few sketchers doing things they shouldn't have banned sketching for all, even those who would not have been a problem. Really it's too bad and in my opinion lazy of the museum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ouch... you're wrong this time...
I fully agree that's an essential, immutable concept - and in no way am I suggesting that the have stepped beyond the bounds of their rights here.
However, I don't think they have made the right choice here. As a gallery they should be focused on increasing access and encouraging other creators to interact with their exhibits. My point is that I don't see how they or anybody else benefits from this choice - even though it is a choice that's within their rights to make. I also believe (though I admit this is speculation) that the main reason they made this choice was because of an "ownership mentality" that is fostered by copyright - the desire to reduce and control copies - but I'm not claiming this is an actual copyright or legal issue in any way.
For the sake of comparison, say there was a private collector who also banned his private guests from taking photos and sketching. That would make a great deal more sense to me - though I'd still evaluate it as a somewhat selfish attitude. But at least in that case I can see all sorts of motivations that might have played into the individual's decision. In the case of an art gallery, it makes no sense to me: they should be encouraging such copying and sharing, and increasing access, because that would benefit everyone involved.
But yes, just to reinforce: I absolutely agree that they can do what they want. I'm only criticizing their choice and their mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ouch... you're wrong this time...
You don't want people looking at it and trying to copy it? Don't stick it in the museum! Keep it on your wall at home and you won't have to worry about it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, quite the opposite. How many people visit the Louvre every year just to see the Mona Lisa up close, for example, even though everybody knows exactly what the painting looks like? A few years ago, I travelled to Gruyères, Switzerland simply to look at sculptures and artwork from my favourite artist, H.R. Giger. The driving reason for even visiting that country was because I'd already seen most of his work in books but longed to see them up close...
I can understand bans of flash photography for concern over cumulatively damaging the art. I can even understand concern over tripods due to safety. But, sketching and non-flash handheld photography? Nothing there I can think of that's not a misguided misrepresentation of copyright and ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have heard that 90% of all visitors to the Louvre go directly to the Mona Lisa, spend 90 seconds or less looking at it, then leave again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to live in a country where I have property rights, not where the "people" do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Museum Traffic Flow
It's about manners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Museum Traffic Flow
“There's a sucker born every minute.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Museum Traffic Flow
It would be about manners if they politely asked people to move when they were in the way, or put up some nice "please don't block this hallway" signs. Maybe even set up some designated sketching and photography zones.
Instead, they made it all about rules and regulations. They took manners out of the equation. Bad choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Museum Traffic Flow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Museum Traffic Flow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairly Reasonable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fairly Reasonable
Photography of loan exhibitions is not permitted. Still photography of the permanent collection, taken in existing light, is permitted on the condition that the photographs are for personal, non-commercial use.
...that part about personal/non-commercial is concerning. The museum doesn't own the copyrights, so it can't really enforce that. All it can do is let you take photos or not let you take photos - it has no say over what you do with them afterwards. They can claim to only allow personal photography, but if you just lie and say it's personal then publish it professionally later, there's nothing they can do to stop you (though they could ban you from the gallery)
This is exactly the type of problem I'm talking about: the ownership mentality that conflates copyright with physical property rights. Prohibiting photography is a yes/no choice they can make as owners of a private physical venue - "personal and non-commercial" is a requirement that can only be enforced by the copyright holder, which is not them. But thanks to the ownership mentality, they've mashed those rights together into some sort of monster right that doesn't actually exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can understand no flash photography, but the rest - especially the sketching, is outright obscene.
Well, I guess any Art Students in Chicago should find another museum to check out. I'm sure some adjacent city has one..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Circus World, Baraboo, Wisconsin
Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy signs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple explanation
I'm surprised they left off, no shoes or liquids containers larger than 100ml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think a good comparison is movie theaters and cell phones. The rules against texting and using your phone in a theater are often draconian (yay Alamo Draft House), but even though they function to prevent you from using your phone to record the soundtrack to your voicemail, or your camera phone to record the movie, the purpose of such bans is basically so you won't be distracting to other people. You can still be distratcing in other ways, and some people might be able to silently text in ways that were not distracting at all, but the cell phone ban is a an easy, bright line rule to apply. And it's go little or nothign to do with inappropriate claims of ownerhip over a movie screening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Circus Wagon Collection, Baraboo, Wisconsin
Photographing a circus wagon is hard! For one, they're huge, and then to utterly confound you and your lens, they're so beautifully and intricately carved that you want to capture the details. But what kind of shot just documents an artifact, without scene and character?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've never understood grown people and backpacks, there's places they are appropriate say hiking when you need water or other supplies or school. Not sure you need many supplies to look at paintings and sculpture,even if you are sketching a few pencils and a sketch pad are hardly worth bringing your backpack.
I'm not sure I get the no sketching thing, all I can think of is that galleries that have limited seating areas were getting complaints that people didn't have a place to sit, like the elderly or the disabled. But that's it..and that doesn't seem very likely most people would move for someone that needed the seat more right?..RIGHT?!
I don't think its about copyrights at all since most pictures in a gallery are easily found on the internet already. Most galleries rules are for the protection of the art, and for the safety of the viewers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was one of the huge disappointments of my son's life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not as simple as you might think
I also think the comments about tripods, flash photography, etc. being a nuisance are probably accurate. For example, someone using a tripod to take pictures would be extremely annoying, especially considering how crowded some parts of the museum were.
They have posted their full policies at http://www.artic.edu/aic/visitor_info/geninfo.html.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further Ownership Mentality?
I checked the hobbitontours.com website, but could find no info about such a policy. I have sent them a query through their site form, to see what they’ll tell me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Further Ownership Mentality?
So, is this sort of thing reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Further Ownership Mentality?
No.
Absolutely not. The whole world cannot keep a secret. A public secret is no secret at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Further Ownership Mentality?
Expecially since any photo's taken are actually the copyright of the photographer (unless you're a monkey *grin*) and that non-commercial usage is actually a misnomer since in a legal sense commercial usage of photo's, films, et.al means that those mediums are to be used for the commercial ADVERTISING of products and or services ONLY and that therefore all other actions INCLUDING SELLING are classified as non-commercial usages.
Specifying photos can only be used for private AND personal purposes is bordering on undue influence and is a voidable clause of so called "confidentiality form" since there is no consideration (quid pro quo).
Also clause (c) is so unenforceable its not funny. Its a psychological intimidation statement. Also clause (a) is also wrong since again there is no consideration as part of contract.
A company can either refuse the taking of film/video/audio on their property or not. They can NOT stipulate how those images/vision can be used under copyright, which they do not own. Even under trademark they would have to prove dilution and/or passing off which brings us back again to what is defined as non-commercial usage... basically EVERYTHING that does not involve advertising/promotion.
The ONLY way this contract might hold up is if there is an existing employment/agency relationship with the owners and visitors for the purpose of the visitation. Though NOT in a private/personal visitation outside of that relationship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Further Ownership Mentality?
Contracts are superior to copyright.
Put aside that clause to do with the assignment of copyright, and think about the general idea of the contract: they control a location, and they will grant access to it if you agree to certain conditions. There's nothing wrong with that, and in fact it's MUCH better than having the conditions of use dictated by an ersatz legal framework with unclear rights for all involved like copyright.
So while there are some problems in that contract, I'm all for the idea of having both parties sign an agreement about rights and usage - as opposed to having automatic restrictions on rights and usage appear thanks to copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Further Ownership Mentality?
Still think this sort of thing is reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Further Ownership Mentality?
But do do this the contract has to spell out exactly what can and cannot occur and not be as ambiguous and misleading as this is. Also where it states in clause (a) that "a condition of your access you are bound by a legal obligation of confidentiality" is based on the misleading information above it, therefore voidable.
If as Lawrence states below that this is not shown on any information until you actually turn up then not only is that unreasonable it could be construed as a form of duress that you have traveled at your own expense to visit but have been misled by false and misleading advertising that there is a NDA to be signed before actually entering the place.
Also remember that this is in New Zealand where NZ law and their Trade laws can and will come into play. If the same thing was tried here in Australia the contract would be worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'bout time
Like my daddy always said: "Look, but don't sketch".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another 'No Photography' case
Warhol is turning in his grave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess I won't go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No sketching
I wonder if they read any of this, and wonder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]