Studies of art clobbered by unaffordable fees

SIR – Viscountess Bridgeman (Letters, July 25) suggests that the only way Britain’s underfunded museums can raise extra revenue is by selling images of “their” collections. She supports a ban on photography in museums.

First, these paintings belong to the public, not museums. Secondly, the evidence is that most UK museums do not raise meaningful revenue from image sales – for many it is lossmaking. Thirdly, museums would make more money if they made full use of social media to bring in more visitors, and that involves allowing photography for personal use.

Finally, museum image fees make academic publications prohibitively expensive. The fee for an image of the National Gallery’s Fighting Temeraire by Turner (out of copyright) in an educational book of just 2,500 copies is £158. That fee is payable through Lady Bridgeman’s company, Bridgeman Images. Dr Bendor Grosvenor

Edinburgh SIR – The bane of scholars trying to publish an academic work is the cost of images. Many scholarly books have never been printed due to the cost of the illustrations.

Viscountess Bridgeman is justified to say that a company should pay the owner to use an image for commercial gain, as this helps underfunded museums or private collections.

However, if an image is used for a non-commercial, academic work, there is no justification for a fee. Imposing fees on financially strapped academics and institutions means that inclusion of the images is limited.

This deprives the book or paper of some of its worth, and the museum or owner of a promotional credit. The Victoria and Albert Museum, for one, recognises this and does not charge for academic reproduction rights.

Museums educate and enlighten the public. Financial censorship of the use of images is contrary to this purpose. Felicity Marno

London SE5