Warbird Information Exchange

That was the museum I read about long ago.....thanks for mentioning the name Peter.

"Finally, VERBAL ABUSE of any kind will NOT be tolerated. If you feel it is your right to abuse the volunteers then please accept it is our right to eject you from the premises and inform the local police if necessary. We have had occurrences where rude members of the public have sworn, committed criminal damage and threatened physical harm to our members. These people will not be tolerated and they will be ejected, using reasonable force if applicable. Please accept it is also our right to eject you from the museum if you do not abide by our rules regarding photography etc. without a refund as you will have already entered with the understanding that you have accepted our conditions before you purchased a ticket. We are glad to say that 98 per cent of our visitors are courteous, understand our rules and a as consequence have an enjoyable trip to the museum."

WTH??????!!!!!!! Is this really an issue with visitors that they need to specifically post a policy about it?

Oh lordy.

_________________
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas

PIC, Ford 6600 pulling Rhino batwing up and down the runway

I can't agree with your comments about Brits, Mark. Any country that can produce Spitfires, pale ale and Kate Beckinsale is just fine in my book.

However, this Kent museum web site has "attitude problem" written all over it, and all for a display of mock-ups. With all the great places to see (real!) old planes in Britain, you'd have to pay me to visit this one.

August

Here are some pics of it taken when photography was still allowed

The ME 262 in the SA Military Museum

The FW190 at the SA Military Museum

There is a Japanese museum housing one of the only remaining Ki-84's (perhaps THE only?) that has the same policy. I drove myself nuts trying to get a photo of it for a book I was working on a few years ago. I finally gave up. (I found a few photos on the web from one guy who got lucky, but I ever could reach him and ask for permission to use them)

I have never understood the reasoning behind people who think that images taken of something nominally in their possession somehow belong to them. Everybody wants a kickback theses days. It's one of the primary reasons you see recent Hollywood movies being filmed everywhere BUT the U.S.: they don't feel like paying for all the permits that local political and business leaders demand from them. The city fathers of Paris actually tried to declare the Eiffel Tower a copyrighted work of art and forbade anyone to sell a photo of it a few years ago. It's not only a ridiculous and unenforceable idea, it is ultimately self-defeating. They are effectively turning away free promotion for their highly profitable tourist industry in an effort to...what? Monopolize postcard sales?

For example, I once attended a convention where I spotted some dolls I thought my wife would love to buy. I didn't have the money to pick one up, and the vendor lacked a website, so I thought I would grab a business card and snap a photo of one of the dolls to show my wife. The vendor got all excited and declared that her dolls were copyrighted and I couldn't take a photo. She was wrong, by the letter of the law (I am free to photograph anyone or anything in a public place, or on private property unless the property owner prohibits it...the only thing she could reasonably expect is that I ask permission before using an image of herself or her work in a commercial product), but I saw no point in arguing with her and abstained. Therefore, instead of having her work displayed in front of a potential customer, she alienated me. Not good business.

The whole point to a freedom of speech AND copyright law is to encourage the unfettered generation and flow of ideas. I guess that's too scary for some people. But consider the alternative.

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?

Just for the record... The Eiffel Tower is ok to photograph sometimes (like with NAZIs marching around it during WWII).... The problem is aparently there is a light show which is copyrighted and you are not allowed to shoot the light show.... The old rusty iron tower they were going to scrap is OK to photograph. If you want, head to PARIS in Las Vegas, their version of the ET at 1/2 scale is even nicer.......... (and in AMERICA)....

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

While not prohibited, I got a very stern warning from a security guard at the NASM in downtown D.C. a couple of years ago. After running everything through a metal detector, the guard saw my monopod and (in a bored monotone indicating he'd said it many times before) he told me "no tripods, monopods, or camera stabilization devices of any kind. If you are caught using one you will be asked to leave."

I can understand tripods being a tripping hazard in the confines of the small, dark side galleries, but I use the monopod just to get high angle shots above the various barricades and signage..although after watching the behavior of a the visitors putting their greasy paws all over the aircraft I was tempted to use it as a weapon, since "security" didn't seem interested in enforcing any kind of no-touch policy.

I'm assuming the photography restrictions are to make it impossible to get "professional grade" photos without the museum's permission (and compensation) similar to the U-505 policy.

Strangely, not only was there no similar restriction at Udvar-Hazy, a security guard there actually encouraged me to use the monopod to get better shots (although they may have a tripod ban..I didn't ask.)

SN

As far as I know NASM (downtown and Udvar-Hazy) have strict no TRIPOD rules.... Monopods are OK, and I'd assume other stabilazation devices (Kenyon Gyro for example (BTW, works well)) are OK to use...

August.... Any country that made TRIUMPH SPITFIRES and other little worthless cars with electrics that dont work in the rain have some problems..... You going to to Genesseo this year?

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

Strange and self-defeating indeed...

That Ki84 Hayate is indeed the only survivor; its postwar survival history is a remarkable one. At one point it was at risk of becoming a victim of the infamous NAM (NASM) downsizing in the Fifties; it was rescued by Ed Maloney, The Air Museum then restoring it to fly with its original Homare engine. It has been in the museum in Japan for many years now; pity it cannot be photographed (though sooner or later someone's smartphone will capture it while no one is looking!). Still mystifies me that PoF let the Hayate get away...

S.

When it went to Japan wasn't it flown by a flying club or something like that for awhile?

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis
Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?

I went to several museums in Europe in the 80s and ran across the “no photography” policy almost everywhere I went. But in most cases they had really good guide books with photos. Copyright law is probably the most misunderstood of all law. A friend of mine is a copyright attorney and has educated me over the years on what is and isn’t legal. Many times I have had situations like described above. I even had the owner of a airplane on static display at an airshow yell at me for taking photos. I looked him dead in the eye and said, “If you think you can take my camera from me, then go for it. Otherwise, go choke yourself.” You should have seen the look in his eye. I found out much later he did go complain to some people from the show and was apparently asked what his problem was and that if he didn’t want photos taken of his plane, he should have not showed up at a public event with it.
I have a WW2 Jeep I take to various shows, and God alone knows how many people have taken photos of it over the years. The only times I’ve had issues with people are when they sit in it (after moving my do not touch signs and all the stuff I put on the seats to deter this) or put their kid behind the wheel without asking. Otherwise, I shouldn’t bring it to public events if I don’t want people taking photos, pure and simple.

_________________
Life member, 91st BG Memorial Association
Owner, 1944 Willys MB #366014
Former REMF (US Army, O3)

Were those aviation/military/technology museums? It is not a policy that I have encountered in museums in the UK, France, Italy or Holland, and the number of galleries out there on the web would seem to indicate that photography is permitted in most of the aviation collections I can think of that are worth visiting at all.

Art museums are another matter. Art, at least if it is younger than a century or so, can raise legitimate copyright concerns.

Even without asserting copyright, it is legitimate for a museum to try to have exclusive control over images of its exhibits by restricting people's ability to take pictures through contract, as a condition of entry. Legitimate, but neither easy nor visitor-friendly. This is really what the Kent museum is trying to do. With aircraft, there are better ways go to about it. A museum has the ability to create better quality shots of its aircraft than visitors can take because it can haul the planes out on the grass/tarmac and get really nice pics. Most people who really want pictures will buy those in the gift shop rather than, or in addition to, taking the crummy, dark, exhibit-obstructed museum shots we are all used to. It's amazing, though, how many museums fail to do this, and just sell the same junky shots that any visitor could take. For example, I'd pay for clean daylit shots of the many ex-Champlin planes that Seattle's MOF could have easily photographed outside on the ramp before they were wheeled into the dark closet where they are now displayed -- but was this done? Not if their web site is any indication. (Props here to some other museums though, like NMUSAF, which has taken almost every plane in its collection outside for a nice formal portrait.)

August

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~msc/hayate.html

http://the-things-with-wings.blogspot.com/

I've been to the Kent BoB Museum. I really enjoyed it and didn't have any problems.
They asked us not to take pictures when buying tickets, but were very friendly and answered all of my questions concerning the collection.

At the time I was under the impression the museum/collection was privately owned and they were worried about theft with pictures being taken of the security system, camera locations, etc..

Regards,
Mike

_________________
45-47=-2