In message #21, Isara wrote:
The problem with copyright is that if a copyright holder gives up any of their rights, even temporary, it's considered gone for good (depending upon whatever court you're in). Seriously. The law requires copyright holders to hang on their copyright as tightly as they can, lest they use total control over it.

It sounds to me as if you are confusing copyright law with trademark law. Only trademarks have to be defended to prevent their loss - copyright is secure whether you defend it or not. If you think otherwise, then please provide an example of a case where someone lost their copyright for failure to defend it against a violation.

I agree that museums and other public institutions are often over zealous about preventing photography and anything else that might present a copyright issue. But this is due to the way the copyright wars have people living in fear of violation, worried that the copyright police might come knocking on their door. If the record companies can come after a 10-year-old child for downloading an mp3, it stands to reason that a public institution is not likely to be overlooked. The rule today is "Cover your backside."