# Gun jumped in thread closing? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 7, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392 "2018-02-07T21:52:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/21 "2018-02-08T00:56:27Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > That says most countries. I quoted a statement by an intellectual property law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Does that mean it’s necessarily correct? No. But Chronos is outright stating that it would be a violation of copyright, and he may be aware of laws that he has not yet cited. Or he may be wrong. We’ll see. Yes, that does say “most countries”. My other link and quote was from the US Code tho. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/22 "2018-02-08T01:17:31Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Yes, that does say “most countries”. My other link and quote was from the US Code tho. There may be exceptions to that code. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was artwork. > [@](#): > > The U.S. ‘fair use’ doctrine contained in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act is much broader, providing that a “fair dealing”, “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright”[3](emphasis added). When evaluating whether a use is fair, U.S. courts are required to consider four mandatory but non-exclusive “fair use factors”: the purpose and character of the use (including whether the use was transformative) and whether the use is of a commercial nature or for non-profit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Interestingly, it has been suggested that the purpose of the U.S. Copyright Act ‘is not to reward authors, but to achieve progress in the arts and sciences’[4] which is “furthered by the creation of transformative works”[5]. > > While a cursory glance at the U.S. and Australian provisions dealing with permitted exceptions to copyrightinfringement shows similar exceptions and considerations, the devil is truly in the details. \*\*The U.S. listed uses are not exhaustive and in practice the doctrine provides less certainty in relation to when the exception can be relied upon. What actually ‘constitutes’ a fair use of copyright works without permission is arguably a much broader definition relying on the court’s interpretation of the fair use factors. > > However, because of Section 65 of the Copyright Act, when it comes to sculptures on permanent public display, the Australian law is far more permissive. There is no argument of fairness at all – reproducing images of public sculptures is simply allowed. \*\* > **[Photographs, Public Sculptures & Copyright - Arts Law Centre of Australia](https://www.artslaw.com.au/article/without-my-permission-photographing-public-sculptures/)** > > In Australia, the Copyright Act specifically allows the taking, and use of, photos of public sculptures without the sculptor’s permission. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/23 "2018-02-08T02:17:33Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > How about the part that says “don’t make copies of works of art without the owner’s permission”? You know, the part that’s pretty much the entire thing? How about the fact that the SDMB is just fine with people linking to YouTube which has allowed far more copyright violations-and ones that are more liable to lead to actual consequences on the SDMB than a picture of a nearly 100 year old painting. Also, “the part” of what? I don’t see that anyone said the point you’re trying to rebut. And I note that you lost your own argument: [https://www.gutenberg.org/](https://www.gutenberg.org/) . By your reasoning, I just posted 50,000+ copyright violations since all the copies of those works of art are “without the owner’s permission”. C’mon Chronos. You made a bad call. Just admit it, reverse it, get kudos and let it go. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/24 "2018-02-08T03:22:18Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [And considering that the intent of **B-RAD** was both educational _and_ transformative: [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107]17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use](http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_photography.pdf)Taking a photo for the purpose of studying a work of art and then making your own art based on that can be considered “transformative”, even if the original art is used in the new piece. My cite is the life and work of Richard Prince, asshole extraordinaire. > > [Cariou v. Prince - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince) > [Richard Prince v Suicide Girls in an Instagram price war | Art and design | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/27/suicide-girls-richard-prince-copying-instagram) …it really isn’t as simple as you point out. And Prince is a case in point. Cariou vs Prince was settled, and not every work was found to be transformative. Prince is in court again over the instagram matter: > **[Copyright Case Over Richard Prince Instagram Show to Go Forward (Published 2017)](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/arts/design/richard-prince-instagram-copyright-lawsuit.html)** > > A photographer has sued Mr. Prince over the use of an Instagram photo in a gallery show. A New York federal judge has declined to dismiss the case. This is an extraordinarily complicated matter, and as a photographer that has to navigate these things in real life it really is best left to the lawyers. While I’m not confident that on this occasion what was suggested would have been a copyright violation, I’m also not confident that posting a link to wikipedia is sufficient to declare what was proposed as “fair use.” We don’t know enough about what was proposed. And even if we did, you can’t make an authoritative statement to declare that something is “definitely fair use.” I don’t think closing the thread was out of line. Even if someone was to do the research, find out this particular image was “out of copyright” or that this particular artist had stated “yes, everyone can copy and use this image as you wish” doing that research takes time: and I don’t think that we pay the moderators enough to do that. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/25 "2018-02-08T03:42:01Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’ve never heard of any art museum that does allow photos, and would be extremely surprised if the MOMA did. I’ve taken photographs in at least a couple of dozen art museums across the United States and in several foreign countries. And no, I wasn’t sneaking around breaking the rules; either there were clearly posted signs, or I asked at the front desk when I paid my admission. As noted, museums typically do bar commercial photographs; and most also bar flash photographs. In some cases specific galleries or exhibitions will also be off-limits. ---
**Author:** ![Morgyn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morgyn/32/3041_2.png) [@Morgyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgyn)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/26 "2018-02-08T03:47:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’ve never heard of any art museum that does allow photos, and would be extremely surprised if the MOMA did. But that’s not even relevant, because even if the museum did allow photos as a matter of policy, it’s still covered under copyright law. If you make a copy of a copyrighted work without permission of the owner, you are breaking the law. Now, maybe Google has taken such a photo, but if they have, then it’s because they’ve somehow gotten that permission. Some random person on a message board has not. The British Museum allows you to take photographs for personal use. You can’t sell them, and I think they ask that you not post them on public sites because someone else could sell your picture. I got some nice pictures of the Sutton Hoo relics when I was there in 2004. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/27 "2018-02-08T03:53:19Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I’ve taken photographs in at least a couple of dozen art museums across the United States and in several foreign countries. And no, I wasn’t sneaking around breaking the rules; either there were clearly posted signs, or I asked at the front desk when I paid my admission. As noted, museums typically do bar commercial photographs; and most also bar flash photographs. In some cases specific galleries or exhibitions will also be off-limits. Not too long ago, photos of any kind weren’t allowed in most art museums. It wasn’t in the MOMA and the reason it is more common to be allowed now is most likely for the reason given here: > [@](#): > > Certainly, there are practical reasons for doing so. No-photo policies can be difficult to enforce. “Guards are spending so much time focusing on someone holding a device that they might not see the person next to them touching the art,” says Alisa Martin, senior manager of brand management and visitor services at the Brooklyn Museum, an institution that has allowed photography in the majority of its galleries for roughly half a dozen years. “As the devices get smaller, it gets harder to manage. We have to ask ourselves, are we using our guards appropriately?” > **[Why Can’t We Take Pictures in Art Museums?](https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/photography-in-art-museums-2222/)** > > In an attempt to balance copyright restrictions and ever-present camera phones, some museums are loosening their ‘no photography’ policies ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/28 "2018-02-08T11:03:31Z")
This is the most absurd thread closing ever. ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/29 "2018-02-08T13:27:14Z")
[The Athenaeum](http://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/detail.php?ID=258668#) claims that the painting is protected by copyright. It may or may not be, due to changes in IP law since the 30s, but it’s safest to assume that it is not public domain. Likewise, it’s hard to say whether the photo counts as publication or display, since it’s not intended for public use. Under the scenario described, though, the photo would be passed from one person to another, so I’d fall on the side of yes, it counts as publication or display. Overall, I’d consider a mere photo, as described by **B-Rad** , to be fair use. The purpose is educational, the media is different, the nature is different, and the effect upon the market is practically nil. Of course, fair use is an affirmative defense, so perhaps the board’s admin are taking that into account. This bit from the closed thread > [@](#): > > I just know that if I stick this in front of my youngest (the painter in the family) she can render a modern interpretation for the USA–purely as a thought experiment, of course" would be infringement, and (IMO) not qualify for fair use. That would be a simple derivative work not authorized by the copyright holder, using the same medium as the original, and it would not fall under educational purposes. The fact that the photo and the modern interpretation are not for-profit and that the audience is limited makes me consider the pair of copies to be something along the lines of fan-fiction. Technically infringement, but nothing that the copyright holder would care about (and, as with literary fan-fiction, the original artist might allow or even encourage such use by new or in-training artists). ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/30 "2018-02-08T14:21:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’ve never heard of any art museum that does allow photos, and would be extremely surprised if the MOMA did. But that’s not even relevant, because even if the museum did allow photos as a matter of policy, it’s still covered under copyright law. If you make a copy of a copyrighted work without permission of the owner, you are breaking the law. Now, maybe Google has taken such a photo, but if they have, then it’s because they’ve somehow gotten that permission. Some random person on a message board has not. The Phoenix Art Museum allows some of its collection to be photographed. The pieces that are restricted have a warning sign on the information card. The Louvre allows cameras. I imagine that was not the case back in the days of strong flash photography, but these smartphone cameras pose less risk of damage to their holdings. Plus, very little of their permanent collection post dates 1800 (The Impressionists and newer are mostly across the river at Musee d’Orsay), so copyright is not an issue. I was surprised that some paintings are across from south-facing windows and are bathed in sunlight, but these were paintings and painters I’d never heard of, so no biggie. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/31 "2018-02-08T14:45:44Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > This is the most absurd thread closing ever. Nah, it’s not even the most absurd [closing due to misguided copyright concerns](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266080). Though after [discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266110&highlight=copyright), they did reopen that one. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/32 "2018-02-08T15:49:06Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’ve never heard of any art museum that does allow photos … I’m not an art buff, my visits to art museums are few and far between, but I’ve never seen one with a total ban on photography. Ban on flashes, yes. Ban on certain individual exhibits, yes. I’ve seen people photographing the Mona Lisa an d The Night Watch without getting arrested for it. Here’s the [policy in the Louvre](https://www.louvre.fr/en/how-use-louvre/visitor-regulations). The Visitor Regulations authorize photography without the use of flash in the permanent collection exhibition rooms, under certain conditions: “Artworks in the permanent collection exhibition rooms may be photographed or filmed for private use by the operator. The use of flash and other lighting equipment is prohibited. Photography and filming is strictly prohibited in the temporary exhibition rooms. Filming and photography of installations and technical equipment is also strictly prohibited.” Exceptions may be made for educational or research purposes, upon written request to the museum communication department: ---
**Author:** ![Monstera\_deliciosa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monstera_deliciosa/32/109_2.png) [@Monstera\_deliciosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monstera_deliciosa)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/33 "2018-02-08T19:35:47Z")
The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York also allows non-flash, still photography in its permanent collection. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/34 "2018-02-08T22:57:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’ve never heard of any art museum that does allow photos, and would be extremely surprised if the MOMA did. As others have noted, this sentence alone calls into question your ability to make an informed ruling on the issue. Many, many art museums allow photography. I like visiting art museums, and i like taking pictures, and i’m also careful to check the policies of art museums before i visit. After all, if they don’t allow pictures, i’m not going to burden myself by carrying my heavy DSLR camera kit with me. I took [this picture](https://photos.google.com/u/1/album/AF1QipOVnayDV1-ST48y-895WhzZGAmy64fO0wcKSlW1/photo/AF1QipMQkrrtrpF0m_cAz0guGHCNX2LA9f5gmyyWG-Bf) in the Boston Museum of Art. [This one](https://photos.google.com/u/1/album/AF1QipPRh-940qlKlOIpBXUYtKip3FmemcBqOlbVqu6j/photo/AF1QipN1n43S7Lr0pTiDu9aShgTzBMff_xaF8RCcttkU) is from the Metropolitan Museum in New York. [This](https://photos.google.com/u/1/album/AF1QipMk6_y7zg_8GJ5XZGfX-lYNo48YxS7RjnN9jcSm/photo/AF1QipM_inHIfs9oqXUw-EdgJpFL_xCcd9TPA1SGJZ3y) is from the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and [this](https://photos.google.com/u/1/album/AF1QipNuF6MAU9FlvaOIcu_kyiRl8ULushSpETsl5cdT/photo/AF1QipMgmSat5HD8RIUsgz_XxL0xpcc_91sPiJeg4-i_) is from the Museum of Contemporary Art, also in Sydney. [This](https://photos.google.com/u/1/album/AF1QipN_7c2PRUasfSEifA1l8UUMBVLXPe7m8SQorvsV/photo/AF1QipNlc1deNStqOApVLLY-A1R8mKwHVl8qAxh_Rmbv) one comes from the Getty, in Los Angeles. And [this](https://photos.google.com/u/1/album/AF1QipNsz0tvxy4ypH0qhawqWROfgReugJ5exBa9Uy3b/photo/AF1QipMbOFKWtYI4RbhzRKDQ-bRDAACfVSVAgcPnGyNg) is from MoMA in New York. As for the central topic of this thread, whether or not the painting in question is still covered by copyright is a rather complicated issue, and one that can’t be answered without some digging. Arriving at an answer would involve investigating its publication status (something that’s more complicated for individual artworks than for something like a book), as well as whether or not it was registered with the Copyright Office. There are literally thousands of works of intellectual property created between 1923 and 1963 that _ **could** _ be covered by copyright, but that are now in the public domain because their authors did not register them, or did not renew the registration. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/35 "2018-02-08T23:30:20Z")
Besides anything else the question was primarily if anyone knew of high resolution photos available online, for free or for pay. The mention of someone in NY who would go snap one was only peripheral to that. So the overall post wasn’t talking about copyright violation even if that one part of the post was objectionable. It would have been better to add a mod note reminding people about copyright and to keep the answers limited to legal, available, online sources of that image (of which there are many including directly from the MOMA.) It is probably a copyrighted work and not yet in the public domain but as with most other cases taking a photo for non-commercial use would almost certainly not be held in violation if it ever went to court. For non-commercial use of almost anything the courts tend to favor the public’s interests over those of the copyright holder. Museums have traditionally prohibited flash photography because it is believed to cause paintings to fade but many or even most these days, in this age of a tiny camera in every hand, allow or just don’t try to prevent non-commercial use photos. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/36 "2018-02-08T23:38:59Z")
[YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2yXO-ZUGE0) has videos from inside MOMA. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/37 "2018-02-09T01:19:05Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > Though after [discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266110&highlight=copyright), they did reopen that one. Wow! That’s a really entertaining read, with lots of drama – thread closed, links deleted, lots of discussion including a professional magician with a stake in the action opining to the admins both in the thread and behind the scenes – and eventually a reversal and re-opening of the thread. What all that impresses me with is how hard the mods and admins worked to do the right thing. That was some 14 years ago and I can only hope the same spirit and ethics prevail today. My take-away from all of this is: don’t blame the mods. Read, for example, just the registration agreement here, let alone the other rules. Most sites have registration agreements that say, basically, “Hey, let’s try to be civil here”. This one reads like it was written by a team of extremely risk-averse lawyers – a team especially averse to stuff they’ve heard about the Perils of the Internets and taking no chances. It’s led to the kind of legalistic paranoia where you’d almost think that one might get in trouble for describing how to use a Xerox machine, for where there is a photocopier, after all, can copyright infringement be far behind? This seems to be something that originates from far up the management food chain. It wouldn’t be my preferred model, but it is what it is. It’s easy to bash the mods in the front line, but it doesn’t seem fair to blame them. They’re exercising the level of caution that management has deemed to be appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/38 "2018-02-09T02:59:33Z")
Why not a simple statement in thses cases such as **"Caution!! Be careful of violating US Copyright law! The SDMB does not condone violating Copyright law!"** ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/39 "2018-02-09T03:49:18Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > How about the part that says “don’t make copies of works of art without the owner’s permission”? You know, the part that’s pretty much the entire thing? Are you **seriously** telling me, a lawyer, that the Copyright Act of the United States (to say nothing of copyright acts of other countries) can be accurately distilled down to that summary??? Your assertion is silly, to the point of absurdity. Ignoring for a moment your ignorance of museum policies (I’ve taken pictures in at least four art museums in the United States alone, including the Art Institute in Chicago), there are NUMEROUS exceptions to this general rule that exist in copyright law. Indeed, that’s not even an accurate summary of the basic principle (though it might serve as a good guide for, say, a Third Grade classroom). Again, I strongly suggest that you let up on the jackbooting on this issue. If you are truly uncertain as to what aspects of copyright law need to be rigorously monitored here, I’m certain that the Administrators can provide the Moderators with a relevant memorandum that is a bit more nuanced than, “don’t talk about making copies of things.” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392/40 "2018-02-09T05:25:50Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’ve never heard of any art museum that does allow photos, and would be extremely surprised if the MOMA did. But that’s not even relevant, because even if the museum did allow photos as a matter of policy, it’s still covered under copyright law. If you make a copy of a copyrighted work without permission of the owner, you are breaking the law. Now, maybe Google has taken such a photo, but if they have, then it’s because they’ve somehow gotten that permission. Some random person on a message board has not. Let’s just take everything you’ve just said as true. Broadstreet Review, a popular and legitimate website, does indeed have an image of this posted on their site, as proven by the first post in this thread. You have said this is only possible if they have permission. If they have permission, then it is not a copyright violation. And, thus, posting a link to the site in question is not a copyright violation. Hence, by your own logic, your moderating decision was erroneous. There was a valid answer that did not involve a copyright violation, making the question legitimate. It should not have been closed, and should now be reopened. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-jumped-in-thread-closing/808392.md?page=3)