>>716367310
1. No clue; I'm just an archaeologist. That said, most archaeology websites are abysmal dogshit stuck deeper in the past than the artifacts.
2. This is an interesting one that I have no idea about; I can only tell you that certain artifacts are protected from photography not out of copyright but for security reasons.
3. It's a massive impact. There's a lot of unpaid intern work for college credit, but the museum's enormous backlog of artifacts and reports means there's always something to do, even if it's not an exciting new project or dig. A lot of what went on when I was there was logisitics- organizing artifacts and reports, packing them, moving them around from place to place for exhibition, unwrapping and cataloging decades-old donations, and so on. A lot of the infrastructure was fairly old and clearly past its prime but INAH makes do. It helps thar everyone I worked with was incredibly passionate about their work, and able to get stuff done on next to no budget.
4. Attitudes may have changed because I was there several years ago, but if anything there was a strong desire to keep the copyright tight and controlled. I would not expect it to change- as u mentioned, there are certain artifacts I wasn't even allowed to photograph. The museum is extremely protective of its items. I can't speak for the staff, but they seemed to regard this as a good thing, although it definitely comes more from the admin side than the researcher side.
5. No clue but this is something I've always been annoyed by too. My guess is that INAH really values being independent.