FYI, technically, the contract is called a "license" or "profit" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(real_property)
 
Brian Logan, Esq. (Bearian)
 
> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:58:26 -0500
> From: pharosofalexandria@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia_nyc@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia NYC] Museum of Art and Design lifts photo ban
>
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> > On 24/12/2010 12:56 PM, Elias Friedman wrote:
> >> The new policy is still too restrictive for commons:
> >>
> >> "...we do insist that all images personally shot be used ONLY for personal reference. They cannot be published for commercial use."
> >
> > They can say that, but why would anyone have to listen?  On what authority
> > do they purport to restrict what you do with the photos once you take them?
> > If the objects you photograph are not themselves copyright, then the
> > copyright on the photos belongs to you.
>
> Well, there is the issue of property and contract law, and whether
> you're violating the "contract" that you got the admission and ticket
> under.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> (User:Pharos)
>
> > --
> > Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
> > zev@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
> >                                                      - Margaret Thatcher
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia_NYC mailing list
> > Wikimedia_NYC@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia_nyc
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia_NYC mailing list
> Wikimedia_NYC@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia_nyc