Copyright, Common Sense and Nonsense

Once again I have come across a draconian and unjustified policy on photography. I hoped to visit Roche Court (near Salisbury) to view and, of course, photograph the sculpture. I might still visit but the pleasure will be very much diminished by not being able to photograph. There is a clear 'no photography' policy and this was confirmed in a slightly testy phone call to the New Art Centre this morning. The blame seemes to lie equally between site operators and the artists and to some extent with photographs being used for improper commercial purposes. The key fact though is this; to take a photograph of an object in entirely another medium is a record and a creation of a new and unique image with its own copyright. It does not in any sense infringe the copyright of the original artist and should not be construed as doing so. If I were to attempt to recreate, say, a sculpture or a painting then there would be an issue but my documentary image of a piece of art, especially when properly annotated, does not purport to be anything other than that. There is so much to photograph in the world, I should perhaps be less concerned but injustice and illogic always burn and set afire the soul. The supposed concerns of the artists are incomprehensible. They should welcome publicity but seem more concerned about the revenues from postcards and overpriced books. Photographs for private use including appropriate posting on social networks should not be prohibited. On this issue gallery owners and artists together are wrong and mean-minded.