Museums - A loss in direction

I would be interested to learn whether other group subscribers have experienced the same lack of assistance from museums particularly in the North-east. Having requested the use of material I have been informed by curators that certain controlling councils have an embargo on supplying copies of photographs etc., as they themselves intend publishing them, usually by direct labour, the authors frequently being the curators themselves. I had thought that publicly donated material was given to the museum for the good of the public, not as private resources for people in a privileged position. Granted museums are required to attain financial viability, but not by applying this form of jaundiced censorship. Comments please.

Names? Organisations?

Admittedly I may be splitting hairs here but '..for the good of the public..' may not - in the minds of some jobsworths - be the same thing as 'for use by the public'.

What kind of use, exactly?

Nor just for any one member of the public to benefit from privately.

The original poster has the sound of a disgruntled individual who was hoping to publish publicly-owned material for personal benefit, but without a bit more information it's impossible to make any kind of meaningful comment. What did he want the photographs for? What specifically was he told? Why exactly was permission refused? And what do you mean by 'use'?

No further replies are necessary. P.M. Gray's incorrect assumptions, his closing of ranks and defensive comments are typical of that received from some other authorities and have adequately summed up their total loss in direction of purpose. I did not name specific museums or authorities as the attitude appears to be general, as confirmed by Gray's attitude, (excepting a few that have been most helpful,) having occurred on several occasions and regarding different types of information both material and literary. As for financial gain, I have been retired for several years and have no need for the mercenary attitude suggested by Gray, a suggestion I find defamatory. Obviously he lacks the diplomatic experience of the majority of his colleagues. I had believed that Museums were repositories for items of artistic, scientific, historic and educational interest, and that trustees were agents with whom such items were entrusted for the benefit of the public, not simply to be retained by them for purely financial gain by a privileged few. Obviously Gray's myopic and incorrect view regarding financial benefit overlooks the fact that had this been the motive for acquiring the material, the guardians of the originals would have received financial return from the copies, possible royalties, and income from sales from the supposed publication.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

<snip whining>

So you got a result there then, Peter

I suppose you could see it that way, but he did have a genuine