Italy declares Pompeii emergency

[Jona Lendering]

Give Pompeii to the Japanese, and in five years it will look almost better than in antiquity.

That sounds like a great idea. The Vatican did just that with the Sistine Chapel - they brought in Japanese restorationists for the ceiling and it seems like they did a fantastic job.

It was a bit different. A Japanese company -Fuji if I recall correctly- paid for the restoration, and received in return the exclusive copyright on photos. From a legal point of view, this is an interesting case, because you cannot copyright an object made by someone who is dead for more than X years - in which X stands essentially for the age of Mickey Mouse, because every time Disney's copyright on Mickey begins to expire, the law is changed. (This is not a joke.)

But whatever the value of X, the Vatican's rule about copyright is a bit strange, and can only be enforced because the Vatican can, as a private institute, forbid photography.

This is, unfortunately, not an odd legal case. Many museums have now decided to forbid photography during special expositions, claiming that the Vatican has created a precedent. The difference between Cologne's Romisch-Germanisches Museum, where I was kindly asked not to make photos on the Echnation exhibition three days ago, and the Vatican, is that the Vatican can back up an illegal rule, which the RGM (state-owned, and funded by you and me), can not.

As far as I am concerned, an international protest against museums that prevent people from taking photos would be welcome. But I do not know how to stage it.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

A signed petition sent to the UN?

[Jona Lendering]

A signed petition sent to the UN?

That won't work. Too complex, and it does not hurt the museums.

A flash mob at the Babylon exposition in Berlin (in several months: London) with lots of media coverage... then you make the headlines. The British Museum might be an especially good target, because (a) the press writes English, which means everybody will be able to read it, and (b) it has a very liberal policy towards photography, even allowing flash lights. The director is obviously sympathetic to people who want to study objects at home as well.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yeah, I was quite surprised....pity my battery died just as I was getting to the best parts......

But seriously, I would support a movement to persuade more museums to allow photography. I can under stand a lot of them in parts of the world where theft and forgery is rife, but it really is unfair o the majority of people who may only get one opportunity to visit a place.....

Many guide books do not have pictures of everything you are interested in! Anyway sorry straying here....

[Eleatic Guest]

Concerning the prohibition of making photos in museums, please let me point out that it makes every sense for paintings and similar sensitive artifacts.

[Idomeneas]

Prohibition of flash makes every sense. The general prohibition imo has to do with financial reasons which makes me real angry. Last year i was in sparta at an exhibition titled Sparta and Athens. Many pieces from Olympia Athens and Sparta museums were exhibited as a whole for the first time. I thought that i would have the chance to take pictures from pieces like the Persian helmet or the Miltiades one from different angles than those we are all fed up through sites and books. Alas they told me i couldnt even without flash. It got me really frustrated. Those pieces are parts of Greek and universal offcourse heritage. By what right im not aloud to take pictures. Do i have to buy their silly post cards? Or do they hold the copyright of the exhibits?

As far as the situation in Italy i dont aprove but i can understand why this is happenning cause in Greece we have similar problems. The lack of funds, political corruption (give us Silvio you dont deserve him, the man is the king hahaha) and plain ignorance makes an explosive cocktail.
There is also another reason imo and i noticed it in countries with very rich history and plethora of archaeological sites and finds.
They have so many that not only they dont know what to do with them, but they are kinda used to it and not impressed if i may say so in the same degree with other people that dont have so many sites.
In other countries a bone artifact or a plunk of a river boat may be a reason for party, but in Greece and i presume Italy they try to construct a metro they find a graveyard, they try to dig for a parking they find ruins of a temple, they plaw the fields they find coins. In the village of my grandfather in Olympia people find stuff all the time. A guy even wore for fun a helmet he fount while driving his tracter :roll: , some kids playing hide and seek discovered the tomb of a woman with all kterismata inside (a silver mirror was one of them).
Those finds some times make it to archaeological agency, sometimes not, but most time they dont say the truth where they found them. The reason is the the precedures are so slow (remember hundreds of sites) thet the archaeological agency will commit their fields for 5, 8 even 10 years before they investigete and decide if theis is an archaeological site, thus they will have to compensate them with another piece of land, or it was a lucky find and they can continue using their land.

[Theodosius the Great]

I also perceive from what you said Theo, that it is becoming apparent throughout Europe that Italians are letting the country go. It is sad and I wish I could be some instrument of change. Unfortunately, who will listen?

Yes, that is sad. From time to time I read about how so many native, young, educated Italians are emigrating abroad which only aggravates the situation, IMO.

The Sistine Chapel was restored with Japanese MONEY and NOT by japanese hands or even know-how!

Apparently I misremembered, oops. In that case I commend the Italian restoration team and the Japanese financiers.

Wasn't Pompeii declared a "World Heritage Site" ? Even if it was I don't know if having that status entitles the site to certain funds.

It was indeed: World Heritage Site no. 829

World Heritage Status doesn't automatically "entitle" the site to funding, but (afaik) it carries obligations about maintenance and upkeep.

I suppose such a famous site as Pompeii could not have been refused World Heritage status, but the Italian authorities should be "encouraged" to live by the WHS ethos: "The protection, management, authenticity and integrity of properties are also important considerations."

(Interestingly, Pompeii has not yet made the WH Danger List.)

Thanks for the info, David. Yes, living by the ethos seems like the best way to go. It's just like the law - we don't need new ones, we need to enforce the ones we have.

Say, folks, it would be a good idea, perhaps, not to let the archeological situation in Pompeii develop into an Italy-bashing rant.

I didn't notice anyone heading in that direction. Of course Italy isn't the only country with problems. At least they are only guilty of neglect. Some countries are outright destructive. Last year there was an outrageous event in Spain where a little two-bit mayor of some backwater town decided to pave over newly discovered mosaics to make a parking lot. :evil: (rant over)

As far as I am concerned, an international protest against museums that prevent people from taking photos would be welcome. But I do not know how to stage it.

I agree with Gaius, there must be another method to try before resorting to mob tactics. An incremental approach might be more effective. A "movement" made up of scholars and enthusiasts could maybe try to obtain special permission to film for "educational purposes" in public museums. So, all people with history / archeology degrees would have access. Just a thought.

A Japanese company -Fuji if I recall correctly- paid for the restoration, and received in return the exclusive copyright on photos. From a legal point of view, this is an interesting case, because you cannot copyright an object made by someone who is dead for more than X years

That is strange. Well, since the Vatican made the arrangement and is, apparently, happy with it then I don't see a problem.

About photography, you make a good point : Why Vatican museum / library practices should be used as a precedent by outsiders is bemusing to me. The Vatican owns and houses its collections. By their good graces they grant public access to them with whatever restrictions they see fit to impose. So, again, why should public museums take any notice ? :?

Maybe it's just a pretext for the public museums who are really doing it for financial reasons like Yannis mentioned above.

OK, stupid question : when photography is prohibited does that generally include taking video ?

Last year I visited the Getty Villa / Museum in Malibu, California and they were quite liberal with photography. I was able to take video and pictures but without flash. By accident I took one flash photo and no one noticed :roll:

~Theo

[Timotheus]

Concerning the prohibition of making photos in museums, please let me point out that it makes every sense for paintings and similar sensitive artifacts.

Maybe for flash photography. But the sense ends there. Its truly nothing more than a money grubbing decision.

[Timotheus]

About photography, you make a good point : Why Vatican museum / library practices should be used as a precedent by outsiders is bemusing to me. The Vatican owns and houses its collections. By their good graces they grant public access to them with whatever restrictions they see fit to impose. So, again, why should public museums take any notice ? :?

Maybe it's just a pretext for the public museums who are really doing it for financial reasons like Yannis mentioned above.

OK, stupid question : when photography is prohibited does that generally include taking video ?

Last year I visited the Getty Villa / Museum in Malibu, California and they were quite liberal with photography. I was able to take video and pictures but without flash. By accident I took one flash photo and no one noticed :roll:

~Theo

By their good graces? Lets be honest here. Everything of value in the Vatican was either bought with donated money, stolen, or acquired through strength of arms in medievel and ancient times.

If anything the Vatican has the weakest case for limiting who can take pictures. By any moral sense the Vatican owns very little of what it possesses.

[Theodosius the Great]

Let's be accurate here.

By their good graces?

Yes, they're not obliged to allow ANYONE onto their sovereign soil.

By any moral sense the Vatican owns very little of what it possesses.

I can't argue with someone who doesn't believe in private property rights.

Everything of value in the Vatican was either bought with donated money

As opposed to taxpayer money which the government extorts from you and me ?

, stolen

Examples, proof??

or acquired through strength of arms in medievel and ancient times.

Medieval ? Ancient ? The Vatican Museum(s) is only 502 years old. They celebrated their 500th anniversary in 2006.

"Strength of arms" ? What, the mighty Swiss Guard ?

The Popes have been among the greatest patrons of Art for over 600 years. The Church has been the victim of thievery at the hands of secular powers - not viceversa. Read your history, pal.

Hey, Mods, wake up will you ? Was the Vatican excluded from the ban on "bashing Italy" ?

~Theo

[caiusbeerquitius]

Mod waking up.

1. Folks, stop bashing the Vatican. If you have to, please provide proof for what you are saying. The Vatican as such is as well a political entity as it is a religion-related one. Please refrain from taking this discussion to that end. The Vatican Museum, however, is just owned by the Vatican - it is a museum, and most probably may be critizised in a civil way.
2. Theodosius the Great, please modify your signature (i.e. remove religion-related links in your signature) according to the new forum rules.

[Doc]

I would like to add to Theodosius' comments and say that many of the Vatican treasures were donated by royal families and governments of other countries.

Before anyone makes any comments about how and when the Vatican obatined its treasures make sure you take the tour or at least read the small captions next to the object that is being viewed.

I find it that if you read the text next to the object that you may find something out like, it provenance.

However, comments of the previous nature are usually made by people who A) never left their country and only read skewed stories printed in newspapers or B) are in one form or another against the church.

Don't get me wrong I am not all that religious its just a point I am making since I have run into these comments before.

Sorry, but I had to put in my two cents.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The thing is, who can honestly say they own the rights to a cultural heritage, even if they have been patrons to the arts etc.
There should be a right to photgraph artifacts, as these things actually belong to us all, in a sense, as a part of our heritage.

Flash photography is obviouly something tha twill damage delicates, such as paint on staues and fabrics etc.

But considering the Vatican in actually a trasure house of architectural elements which originally belonged to the Ancient imperial city of Rome,
it is a museum in itself, which everyoneshould have permision to record for their own records.

Otherwise, it just seems Very elitist, and unsharing and caring......
seems not a good message to promote.....but thats just me.....
hope thats not stepping out of bounds here?

[Doc]

Byron,

I see your point. However, the Vatican is not the only musesum at least to my knowledge that does not allow photography. There are museums in New York that depending on the exhibit, do not allow it photography. These museums also have things "that belong to all of us"

Furthermore, not eveyone knows how to use a camera. Some people buy those disposable cameras where you cannot control the flash thinking that flashes do not casue problems. Since you cannot control every single person and what they do, you make a general statement "NO PHOTOS".

I like to take pictures of all beautiful things that I see. When I went to Rome I took hundreds of photos. It would bother me as well that I could not take pictures of certain things that "belong to all of us." But there we are; we cannot have eveything. Sometimes its good just to keep the sweet memory in your mind. :wink:

However, I do not think, Byron, that you can say "it just seems elitist......"

Not being allowed to take photos so that the museum can profit from you buying their books or just because they want to protect their treasures is something that every museum takes into consideration. It takes money to maintain all the exhibits and the exhibits will only be there and be any good if they are protected :wink:

I went to Savanah Gerogia last year. It was a wonderful city with many Victorain style houses; you would not believe the things they had in there.
I was told I could not photograph or video the interior of the houses and that if I wanted any photos, I needed to buy a book. So, profit or protection? Who knows. Just enjoy

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I always buy the books regardless, but photos of my own speak volumns to me ....
And yes the disposable ones are a problem....but it would make more sense just to ban them.....and prohibit flash photography.
The Acroplis museum does just that, and the artifacts there are even more delicate I would imagine, being older.

And I am not just refering to the Vatican, but any museum thet prohibits photography. It is just a convienient example....