Why can't I take a photograph some art galleries, but I can in others?

I have noticed that art galleries have completely different attitudes towards visitors taking photos of works of art. For example, you can't take photos in the Uffizi, Florence (although this used to be allowed) but you can in the Mus茅e d'Orsay, Paris. I am interested to know why this is, and whether people think photography should be permitted or banned in gallery spaces where there are no copyright issues.

It varies from museum to museum - best thing to do is find out the rule where you are and follow it. Mostly there is a curatorial concern that the flash can, over time, damage the works. It is also true that it is getting harder for us to be able to tell the difference between a still camera and one that has video capability, and they may have a security concern that someone is using video to case the place.

It also is a matter of consideration concerning the flash. Other people are there to consider the works in a tranquil and focused atmosphere and the eyes open up when you are appreciating a work to allow in all the light and details -- and then BOOM, your flash goes off next to them, which may disrupt their experience and also give them that annoying little temporary blindness that they have to get over. Sort of like if you were grooving on your iPod and someone walked up to you and reached over and pulled out an ear bud so they could tell you something unimportant, like, "hey, what are you listening to?"

Lucky you. Wish I could go to the Musee D'Orsay. Enjoy your travels!

Different galleries have different security protocols, and the condition of the paintings vary widely as well, thereby making them more or less effected by flash photography. Even in a gallery that allows non-flash photography, you will always get the idiots who ignore the rule. This is often why photography is banned altogether -- to protect the paintings from the idiots.

First thing is the flash from a camera (over time) can destroy artwork. Second thing could possibly be that they do not want you to sell copies of the image (even if not copyrighted) because the museum wants to make money in their gift shop.

It's not a matter of copyright issues. Flash photography hurts the paintings. Some galleries permit photography without flash, but depending on the lighting, you may not get good photographs. If you really want photos, why not buy a book in the gift shop? Show some support for the museums. They don't pay for themselves!

its not copyright infringements, but security issues. im a photographer, and im forever arguing with security guards...who seem to think they have some sort of authority over me. you want to take photos, learn to be discrete and turn the flash off.

Firstly we need to differentiate between what you call galleries and museums!
Museums:
1. Flash can cause damage to unprotected paintings. Some that are protected such as watercolours or tempera painting can still be damaged.
2. Sometimes pictures are loaned to museums and under the terms of the loan photography is not permitted.
3. Some museums have a policy of not permitting flash or video lit photography since it disturbs other observers.
4. Copyright can enter into the equation through pictures on loan and pictures owned by the museum.
Galleries:
1. Galleries exhibiting a collection of work by a living artist(s) Or an exhibition by a group of artists is subject to copyright laws.
This is why catalogues are available.
Also some of the reasons applied to museums likewise applies to galleries.
2. Private galleries as opposed to Public galleries are also covered by copyright law.
3. Copyright law in respect of art differs slightly from country to country.
Hope this has given you food for further thought!
Pesonally I feel that photography without flash should be permitted, but sadly' as others have said, there are people who will continue to use flash and therefore spoil it for everyone else. Hope I have helped.

As others have said, there are a number of reasons for restrictions, like flash photography damaging delicate works, and sales in gift shops. Although you ask about cases where there are no copyright issues, a lot of people don't realize how far back copyright goes--in the US, most works created after 1923 are under copyright. If still under copyright, the gallery or museum does not usually have the right to grant photography permission, unless it is specifically granted to them by the artist or his/her estate. Also, the museums can make money from reproductions beyond their gift shops, such as in publications. This is often a source of revenue for underfunded museums. It's why some museums allow photography using hand-held cameras, but not using tripods.

Some art galleries dont allow flash photography because it can cause damage to delicate art work. There are a lot of different rules for different places, at some museums they allow you to take pictures of art displays that are permanent to the museum as opposed to a "travelling display" the museum does not want to assume liability for copyright or damage to the art works that are only in there museum for a certain amount of time. Also, certain places allow you to use hand held cameras, just not tri-pods. Lets not forget about Gift shop sales as well!