Wikipedia's archaeology editor slams Israel Museum for prohibiting photographyI understand that the Israel Museum has to follow its own regulations, but I hope some kind of accommodation can be made here. I can see why they not would want a professional photographer to come in, photograph all the artifacts in the museum, and then make a mint selling them in a coffee table book that competes with the museum's own publications. But electronic photography and the internet have massively lowered the commercial value of photographs (ask any professional photographer about this—it's a real problem). In this case Wikipedia would be providing a valuable, free service that would, as the article observes, only increase attendance at the museum. It would probably also help sell the museum's own publications. Maybe both the Israel Museum and Wikipedia should reexamine their policies and formulate something that works better in the conditions of 2012.
The Israel Museum objects to giving Wikipedia unfettered access to the ivories, even though by law the artifacts actually belong to the Israel Antiquities Authority.
By Nir Hasson (Haaretz)
Go to the Hebrew-language Wikipedia page on the Megiddo ivories and you'll see a single image of one of hundreds of 12th-century ivory carvings excavated from Tel Megiddo. Below it, a caption reads: "Megiddo ivory, exhibited in the Israel Museum, which won't grant permission to photograph the archaeology wing."
That caption is indicative of the struggle that Hana Yariv, the archaeology editor for the Israeli version of Wikipedia, has been waging against the Israel Museum, in an effort to secure permission to photograph the ivories and post the pictures on the free encyclopedia website.
"These pictures are in the interest of all of us," said Yariv. "Don't they realize they're living in the past?"
The Israel Museum objects to giving Yariv unfettered access to the ivories, even though by law the artifacts actually belong to the Israel Antiquities Authority rather than the museum.
Uzi Dahari, deputy director of the authority, says his institution does not oppose the photography, as long as it doesn't damage the objects - and is not used for commercial purposes.
But that's precisely what the Israel Museum, which the antiquities authority says does have the right to limit access, fears will happen.
[...]
UPDATE: I have inserted the missing "not" into the second sentence of my comments and it should now make sense in context. Sorry about that.