See last updates for SF MoMA response and others' reactions.
See very last updates for:

More proof that this is not a fluke, not a "Hawk" or "Blint" issue, but a disturbing national trend that should transcend partisan politics in my opinion.

Mr. Hawk recounted the events of Friday, August 8, 2008 on his blog.

Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA's decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.
...
After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint...

FriendFeed had three very impassioned conversations:

1. Thomas Hawk's FriendFeed discussion

2. Jeremiah Owyang's FriendFeed discussion

Thomas Hawk's skewering of Simon Blint: Thomas is a community leader (and photo site CEO) he needs to wield his power with responsibility. Tagging Simon Blint and "*sshole" has damaged his online reputation for years on end, and will likely impact job screenings.

3. Cyndy's FriendFeed discussion

When FriendFeed Creates a Mob

SFist covered the incident (thanks, Brock!)

...Hawk talked to Blint who (allegedly) told him "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs." Hawk goes on to say, "I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash."

Was Blint, in fact, being an *sshole? Was Hawk putting up a pissy fight, which led to his ejection? We don't know yet. But we think banning of any type of photography is inane, especially if you work in the arts.

But what say you? Should photographers be subject to this kind of harassment? Or does Blint deserve a serious tongue lashing?

BoingBoing didn't miss the story.

Robbo sez, "Thomas Hawk was forcibly removed from the San Francisco MOMA by two security guards at the direction of the over-zealous Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations. How ironic is that? Why? Taking photos in the atrium. SF MOMA policy on this? Their own web site specifically allows photography in the atrium. Hawk had also previously confirmed this personally with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum...

Consumerist covered it as well.

Despite What Their Website Says, Taking Pictures In San Francisco's Museum Of Modern Art Is Cause For Ejection

The Guardian covered it. Oh dear, it crossed the pond. Unexpected, to say the least.

The power of the Hawk is a problem for SF-MoMA
Throwing the esteemed Thomas Hawk out on his ear is not the way to win friends and influence people 

It was the top story on Digg.com on Saturday.

Takeaways (not done yet, in progress, subject to change)

• SF MoMA is apparently clarifying its policies, not re-banning photography (add links)
• Mistakes were made: Hawk & Blint (links)
• Blog & "web2.0" commentators are opinionated (links)
• Blog commentators are lazy (links)
• You can't win: online activism is ineffectual, or a mob (links)
• Character assassins often don't disclose personal motivations (profit motives)
• Allegations of pseudonyms being a cowardly shield, easily falsifiable here (links)
• Allegations of perversity, child abuse and privacy violations still pervade
• Even the least noisy conversations have a very wide difference of opinon (friendfeed links)
• Pervasive tendency is subjectivity, not objectivity; big picture reduced to a thousand tiny icons
• Definitions of public v. private space, rights and violations, still an issue
• If Photography is a privacy violation, why is there wide acceptance of surveillance cameras?

Some of my comments are gathered here:

Disclaimer:
I've concluded that I was confused as to whether "galleries" includes the permanent collection, or refers to the "special exhibits." My initial impression was that the change in policy would allow for photography of the stuff that's owned outright by the SF MoMA. Apologies for any confusion, and perhaps this would be a point of clarification, i.e. if photography of any "exhibited" piece is disallowed, say so. Perhaps discuss stairs, hallways, elevated walkways, etc., as these are not "galleries," may not be part of the "atrium" and yet provide unique vantage points from which to take photos (of the architecture.)

FYI, even though I understand it's not a Thomas v. Simon issue: an anonymous commenter claims to have worked with Simon before: "I worked with this douche at ZEUM one block down from SF MoMA. I can attest to his short temper and general lack of people skills. He found no trouble in bullying the teens who worked there."

"Director of visitor relations" is a poor match for his behavior. He should apologize, resign, or try to otherwise repair the situation. Since it's a PR-related job, he seems uniquely unfit and uneducated about the causes and effects of negative PR. He'll probably have a "rich learning experience" though.

dianachen and ScribeGuy, I'm glad you signed up to SFist just to comment about the incident. It's too bad Blint or other SF MoMA person hasn't spoken up. So, thanks for giving your opinions. Someone else who has worked with Blint did not have kind things to say. I find the less agreeable sites engage in character assassination on both sides. Perhaps you aren't finding the best conversations.

RobinSF, you are a piece of work. Photography w/o flash is allowed in the permanent collection, atrium is OK always, if you use a flash in the atrium it must be a hand held point-and-shoot. While the policy is imprecise and ambiguous, you manage to completely miss the intent. Can YOU read? Do YOU know flash photography can damage the pieces? Do you seriously think they are mandating the use of a flash in the atrium? Does the point-and-shoot restriction refer to the Atrium, or the use of flash? Go ahead, rant some more, it's entertaining.

Hartwell No Expert

Civil war has been declared and is being waged on YouTube and in the blogocube

UPDATE (Dec. 2008): I found a copy of the video at the center of this controversy. Judge for yourself! (Original music video using a Billy Joel song and various internet images)

• Video (2:45): Here Comes Another Bubble - The Richter Scales  (via "antifreeze")

I'll cut to the chase: Music Piracy leads to Homelessness or forced participation in Corporate Awareness Campaigns.

This has a sort of retro-scare chic, but it's no "Duck and Cover."

Is this the first Astroturf campaign to use Comics to push messages to youngsters? Hardly. But if this is the best they can do, someone deserves to get fired, in my opinion.

I suggest they spend their filthy lucre on a PR campaign that tries to make them seem less like a Mafia Conspiracy.

UPDATE: Lessig was apparently successful in this suit. 

And another big win today for the Stanford CIS project

...a New York Supreme Court (that's the lower court in NY; the highest Court is the Court of Appeals) has denied Yoko Ono an injunction to stop the distribution of a film that uses a clip of Lennon's Imagine. Wonderfully, the Court explicitly refuses to follow the 6th Circuit's "no de minimus" rule sound recordings, and holds that there is fair use under New York's common law copyright regime...

I respect and admire both the individuals named here; I'm not a lawyer or biologist.
I did however leave a comment disagreeing with PZ on Lessig's defense of the Fair Use (of Lennon's "Imagine") claim made by the makers of "Expelled."

PZ's post "Yoko Loses:"

I had mixed feelings about Yoko Ono's lawsuit against Expelled — fair use is a desirable goal, but I don't think Premise Media was exercising fair use, since their movie wasn't about Lennon's music or ideas — so I can't say that I'm at all surprised or upset that the lawsuit is likely to go down in flames. I'm also not appreciative of the fact that Lessig thinks this is a "great success"; it is at best a mixed result, because while it may support Lessig's principled defense of fair use, it is also a case where he's supporting people who are promoting lies and ignorance.

It really doesn't matter much now, though. The propaganda movie is a dead issue, a complete flop, and it is not going to come back from the dead after a court decision that had no effect on its declining popularity is reversed.

My comment:

Thank you #1 and #5, I agree, and mildly disagree with PZ.

Questions asking "is this a Fair Use" are complicated enough WITHOUT attempting to make a value judgment on the work in question.

I too would like to see Fair Use expanded, but my reason for that position is that Copyright law has in my opinion been completely corrupted and made into a vehicle for monopolies, corporations and excessive profiteering.

Were the copyright term restored to the original 15 years then we would have a lot more time to argue whether this or that is really "Fair Use." But of course, you would rarely have a survivor inheriting "rights of authorship" and attempting to "protect" something they did not create (Yoko)

Another example is the owners of the rights to "Gone With the Wind" attempting to suppress publication of "The Wind Done Gone" a re-telling of the story from the slaves' perspective. (They failed to suppress, thankfully)

So, broadly, Intellectual Property Law is so completely broken, you almost have to become a lawyer to completely grok how perverted it really is in relation to its intent.

The Mouse is In Control. Disney is Dead. Hannah Montana is Fake.

This comment is (c) copyrighted (tm) trademarked and (r) registered.

Lessig Response:

nicely put. thanks.

You're welcome

The "This Week in Law" Program is one of the TWiT family of shows.

In Episode 14 "Blogger and Podcaster Liability" Denise and her panel of guests talk about law, risk, insurance, defamation, anonymity, "broadcasts", corporate blogging, forums, blogging policy, and more.

This episode is chock-full of information of interest to "anyone who has hosted an online conversation." That's my term for blogger, podcaster, lifestreamer, moderator, online community manager, etc.  Many legal issues remain unresolved, and will find resolution every time a landmark case gets decided. 

Blogging isn't going away, so it's important to familiarize oneself with the legal issues.  This program does not overuse "legalese," but will help you learn terms of art such as "expectation of privacy." 

One interesting issue discussed is the emergence of blogging lawyers, one in particular who was "recruited away" and caused his old law firm to embrace blogging in the interests of remaining competitive.