It is quite evident that many tourist attractions such as museums, aquariums, and historic sites display signs prohibiting visitors from taking photos or shooting videos with flash lighting, and sometimes even regular photography is banned. The usual justification given is that strong flash lighting can damage artworks in galleries and museums. Additionally, it can affect the animals in aquariums. If this is the case, why is photography sometimes prohibited? What are the underlying reasons?
The ban on photography is not limited to a few countries but is actually present in most countries around the world. You cannot take photos in places like the Sistine Chapel in Rome, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, or Buckingham Palace. While some major art museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston have changed their policies to allow visitors to photograph certain artworks in their permanent collections, these institutions still post high-resolution images of the same artworks on their websites that visitors are prohibited from photographing.
The Flash Issue
Does Flash Really Harm Artworks?
High-intensity flash lighting is believed to potentially harm the structure of artworks, causing chemical reactions with the materials used. Due to concerns about the intensity of light as well as the ultraviolet energy emitted by flash lighting, museum and gallery managers have reached a consensus that visitors should not use flash when photographing in these spaces.
Photography restrictions in museums.
This proposal originated from a study by the British Museum in London in 1995. The study showed that the repeated flashing of a camera can alter the colors of the tested samples. This result led museums and galleries to ban flash photography in order to mitigate the risk of damage to artworks and save on costly restoration efforts.
However, another study by Martin Evans at the University of Cambridge posited that using flash photography does not significantly harm most artworks in museums. In this experiment, he used two high-powered flash units, one without a UV filter to capture the highest energy level, and one with the filter intact. The flashes were aimed at a dyed fabric measuring 1 meter. Simultaneously, a similar dyed fabric was placed under standard gallery lighting for comparison. Over the following months, the flashes were triggered every 7 seconds.
After more than 1 million flashes, the results indicated that the UV-filtered flash caused only slight fading of the dye, which was barely perceptible to the naked eye. Meanwhile, the flash without a UV filter showed no noticeable fading compared to the standard gallery lighting. However, the significant point here is that the changes in color of the UV-filtered fabric were similar to that of the fabric exposed to standard museum lighting. Evans noted that in reality, the flash from a visitor’s smartphone is just a small intensity light, and even at a few meters away from the artwork, it would require billions of flashes to cause any damage.
In reality, the flash from a visitor’s smartphone is just a low-intensity light.
While flash may not be the actual issue, museum managers and directors have convinced themselves of this belief for so long that it has become a concept they dare not challenge.
Evans’s study also pointed out a rather contradictory case where museums prohibited photographs of Pharaoh artifacts due to fears that flash would destroy them, even though these artifacts had already endured harsh UV light and desert sun for over 3000 years.
Flash and Its Impact on Aquarium Animals
Many people, including ourselves, enjoy capturing moments of aquatic creatures swimming about or their adorable behaviors. Smartphones are excellent tools for doing so. However, unlike artworks, living creatures are more affected by this type of lighting.
Flash can disorient animals.
Several studies have shown that flash from cameras or smartphones cannot cause permanent damage to the eyes of animals or humans, even at close range. However, these sudden and erratic changes in lighting can cause significant stress to fish species, especially those accustomed to low-light conditions. Flash can disorient the animals and lead to unwanted incidents. In more severe cases, flash may cause the animals to feel threatened and jump out of their tanks or crash into glass in panic.
A clip showing flash causing tuna to panic and crash into aquarium glass.
Fish, like mammals and humans, also experience various stress responses. The increase in adrenaline in the bloodstream occurs within seconds, and after a few minutes, cortisol is released. Both of these hormones initially help the body adapt to stress in several ways: increasing heart rate and enhancing blood flow to muscles and essential organs in preparation for upcoming challenges. However, if the stressor continues to be present, the organism remains in a state of alertness, negatively impacting their reproduction and overall well-being.
However, not all fish species are affected by flash lighting, as different species require different lighting conditions in their habitats. Thus, the safest and simplest option for aquariums is to prohibit flash photography.
Visitor Experience
Prohibiting the use of cameras also helps to enhance the visitor experience. It is difficult to appreciate a painting when people are constantly crowding in front to take pictures. In the long run, this can lead to congestion, where tourists wanting to view the exhibition feel impacted and uncomfortable visiting. Consequently, profits may also decline.
It is difficult to appreciate a painting when people are constantly taking photos in front of it.
Moreover, allowing photography can lead to additional issues. For instance, for a stunning photo, many individuals will attempt to climb out onto balconies to capture the right angle or get too close to the artwork. If this occurs in large museums, the scene can become chaotic and uncontrollable.
Ensuring Revenue
Besides ticket sales, a significant revenue source for museums comes from souvenir sales.
The primary reason for this ban is financial concerns. It is easy to understand why museums must find ways to keep visitors’ interest in returning to secure funding for their collections. If photos and videos flood the internet, fewer people will want to visit. Besides ticket sales, a significant portion of museum revenue comes from souvenir sales. By prohibiting photography, museums create more opportunities to sell exclusive merchandise featuring these images. Since photography is not allowed in museums or historical sites, books, posters, and postcards from the gift shop become the only legal sources of high-quality images of the paintings, sculptures, or locations.
Security
Banning photography is also seen as a way to enhance security by preventing thieves or terrorists from using photos to identify weaknesses in alarm systems and surveillance cameras. Although there are relatively few high-profile art thefts, each incident tends to make headlines and is a shock to the community. No manager wants their shortcomings to be highlighted in this manner.
Copyright Protection
Photography is prohibited to ensure that authors receive a fee whenever someone wants to create replicas of their works.
Copyright exists to protect authors, artists, and creators, ensuring they receive compensation whenever someone wishes to reproduce their works. Copyright typically lasts for the lifetime of the artist plus an additional 70 years. This means that most collections in museums from the Renaissance period or ancient Greece have long since lost their copyright. However, this poses a significant issue for modern artworks, especially when these pieces are loaned out. Museums do not hold the copyright for paintings or sculptures on loan, as these belong to the original owner or artist.
Regarding Museums Posting Images of Works Online
It is believed that posting digital images online enhances museum security rather than harming it. The higher the recognition of a painting or object, the harder it becomes for thieves to sell them after theft. This also creates a sense of hesitation among potential buyers of stolen goods.
Innovation in Museums
Charging for photography in museums is also a good solution.
The ban on photography is becoming increasingly ineffective as high-quality cameras are becoming smaller and more portable. Visitors wishing to secretly take photos are not an impossibility. Therefore, instead of opposing and engaging in a battle with those who take photos without permission, some museums have adopted more innovative ideas. For example, some places prohibit photography with tripods to prevent guests from bumping into the tripod and knocking over artworks. The Natural History Museum in Rwanda charges a fee for visitors to take photos, allowing them to take as many as they like as long as they pay upfront for the privilege. This also helps the museum control the number of guests taking photos and potentially generate additional revenue.
